I'll start with my own.
If I'm shooting with single point focus and I want everything in the frame to be in focus, use a smaller aperture, is that correct?
Open wide your F
>>2825491
Won't that create bokeh?
>>2825497
Oh, sorry. What i meant is that you should use a bigger F so you can have all in focus.
>>2825500
The bigger the number, the smaller the aperture. So that's all that needs to change, then? Shutter speed and ISO doesn't matter in this case (except for adjusting for light)?
>>2825500
Samefagging cause double dubs confirms
>>2825501
Use 5.6 or 8 instead of 1.8. There you go, thats what i meant. Sorry for the bad english
>>2825500
>>2825501
"bigger F" means bigger opening, means more bokeh.
you want "smaller F"
stopping down will increase your depth of field and get more in focus. This will happen more quickly with wider angle lenses, so at 20mm, at f/5.6, everything may be in focus (if your focus point is far enough away)
Look up hyperfocal distance, as well.
Where can I learn more about composition or "finding" "interesting" subject matter or making sure the light on my subject is "nice?"
I imagine I can use an interesting composition to make almost anything interesting, right?
Anyone have good material on that? I seem to really struggle with interesting compositions/subject matter.
>>2825802
Ignore photography specific stuff if you're wanting to get the best thoughts on this stuff and just go for general art theory. Good composition is fairly medium independent.
>>2825803
How/what do you mean?
>>2825804
Kinda busy now, so can't go in depth but basically read up on rules of design, artistic composition, and color theory. Ignore shit that is photography specific because usually that's all at really basic levels. Go find shit about composition for painting, illustration, and that kind of deal where there is more and more in depth treatments of the subject.
What is the histogram for? Like what information is that supposed to be displaying/telling me?
>>2825925
it's basically a really fine, detailed bar graph. The X-axis represents brightness, from 0% on the left to 100% on the right. The Y-axis is a measure of how many pixels in that image fall onto a given value for the X-axis. So if you have a dark image, you'll have a big spike on the left side with not so many bars on the right. A bright image will have a lot of pixels on the right side of the bar graph, but not so many on the left. A very contrasty image will have two spikes on either side of the graph with a valley in the middle (the midtones). A low contrast image will have a lot of pixels in the middle.
>>2825930
So you're essentially trying to get an even distribution for a "perfect" exposure?
Or anything that you're aiming to get, really.
>>2825932
Nah, the distribution isn't necessarily prescriptive, but rather descriptive. Sometimes you want a contrasty image, sometimes you want a low-contrast image.
Histograms are really useful for a few specific things:
1) Seeing if you've clipped highlights or shadows. Histograms that are all bunched up right up to the very edge of either side are likely clipped. Most photos will have a nice, gentle rolloff into the extremes of brightness and shadow, so they'll have very few pixels at either end of the histogram. If you see the bunching up, you've either overshot or undershot your target exposure depending on what end of the histogram has the most pixels, if that makes sense.
2) Assessing exposure in-camera. LCD's are misleading, especially in the dark or in bright sunlight. Often, you'll think you nailed the exposure, only to get home and find that everything was underexposed and gross. Histograms never lie. You should understand where you WANT the bulk of your pixels to be on the X-axis, and then adjust the exposure until it's there.
3) This is slightly more advanced, but sometimes you'll have individual color channels clip more quickly than the other channels. The image may look fine, but you'll actually have flat areas of a specific color. That's why I always go by a three-channel histogram, rather than a single combined RGB. If a single channel is clipping, you should adjust exposure until it's no longer doing so, and then adjust the entire image in post.
>>2825938
thanks for the info
>>2825941
Thanks. You got the cliffs notes version of the cliffs notes version of the full explanation, but then again this shit's really not all that complicated.
I think the big thing for me was understanding that histograms are a means to an end, rather than the end itself. Don't let it dictate what you do, but rather use it to help you achieve what you have in mind.
>>2825948
>but rather use it to help you achieve what you have in mind.
right on. i think i get it.
My stupid question.
I shoot a bunch of film over a few months and develop them all when i have enough to make it worth while. I recently bought a new point and shoot and how can i be sure it's working as it should short of developing the first roll i put through it?
Now mine. Hi!
recommend any places/settings for a beginner to shoot?
Also, articles/YT channels/books on photography? couldn`t find any on pseudosticky.
I started reading everything I could on Wikipedia regarding optics for a decent understanding of ISO, aperture, focal length etc. and I watched some B&H videos.
>tomorrow I`ll get my first camera ever (d3300), so hype is real
>>2825488
You pump up the iso to the highest and expose for about 10 seconds if its in good light conditions.
In low light you set iso to the lowest and shutter speed to the fastest.
Your shots will be perfectly focused.
>>2826093
There is no other way. Shoot a test roll of boring shit around you in different lighting conditions to test seals, speeds, and aperture blades, then send it off to a service to have it developed quickly and accurately.
>>2826142
Don't bother learning about optics. It's a rabbit hole with no benefits that will actually affect your shooting. read your manual a couple of times and shoot a LOT for a month to really get a feeling for your camera. Don't worry about what modes you SHOULD be shooting in according to some anons on the internet, learn what tools are available to you, and shoot the one that makes the most sense for the photo you're trying to take.
As for places/settings to shoot, if you don't already have that stuff in mind, then you really have no need for a camera... You don't look for photos to take in order to justify your purchase, you find that you want to take photos of things first, and then buy a camera to facilitate it. Shoot whatever makes you happy.
Most of the articles and books you'll read as a beginner will be verbose obnoxious versions of the camera's manual, teaching you the very basics. You don't need that. Things that AREN'T that become very specific to certain types of photography that may do you no good, if you have no interest in them.
If you really want to get into macro, for instance, google "How to macro photography" or "Macro photography tips" etc. But there is no video or book out there that will have anything useful to say along the lines of "how to make good photos of everything all the time"
>>2826168
cont.
First, work on learning what you need to learn. Photography isn't easy to be good at. Pressing a shutter button is easy, but any talented photographer will tell you that it's much more involved than that. You need to plan your intent, plan your subject, select a good background and environment, frame for your intent, strive for appropriate lighting, wait for the correct moment, have the bravery to be where you need to be to get the photos you want, expose correctly for the processing you want to achieve, and learn post processing tools to allow you to bring your photos to life. Every step of the way provides a decision, and in the next few years (yes, years) you'll be working on learning what choices you have along each step, and why you would make which choices to achieve your goals. Don't expect to just "get it".
Look at a lot of photos, critically. Slowly. Examine subject selection, and why you take interest in the photos you like. Look for coloring, mood, framing, composition, where the light is coming from, and what kind of light it is. Look for effort the photographer put in, to wardrobe, or travel, or perspective, or processing. Learn that it's not as easy as you thought it was, and that truly great photos will almost never just put themselves at your feet along your daily routine, and that you have to put effort and planning and priority into your work in order to get anything good back out of it.
Figure out the type of photos you want to take, and the equipment you'll need to do it, then get that gear, (most likely your D3300 will be fine) and learn to use it well. Then, stop thinking about gear altogether, and put all your energy into taking the photos. Where to do it, how to do it, how you can overcome challenges, etc.
Most importantly, make yourself proud and happy.
How much light can a camera sensor handle without being damaged? Like what wastage of laser is dangerous? Can I film or video a welding arc without worries? And the like...
>>2826361
If you're not pointing the laser or welder directly into the lens, you'll be fine. If you ARE pointing it into the lens, it's a very low intensity that will damage it. There are videos of sensors being fried by decorative lasers at concerts and such.
>>2826361
*wattage
The sky is often blown out in my photos instead of blue.
How can I expose for the sky to show off the pretty blue color while still capturing my subject?
>>2826484
shooting in RAW helps because you can bring down the highlights much easier
>>2826489
Even when I bring the highlights to -100 in Lightroom, it's still blown out.
I'm convinced it's an exposure problem while shooting.
How do I find a asian qt/p/ gf?
>>2826484
Wait for times of day when the sky is bright, and the ground is bright.
Or do composites, a shot for the ground, and a shot for the sky.
Shooting into a bright sunset hoping the shadowy ground is going to expose correctly isn't going to work.
>>2826492
If you're shooting something that isn't a Canon, over-expose the sky by a stop so it's blown out just slightly, and then in post, bring up the shadows. Digital sensors have about five stops of shadow fill potential, but only a stop or two of highlight recovery.
This may be a stupid question you deiced...
Will anyone ever produce something like this?
in B4 > use digital if you want digital.
I like the feel of the cameras I grew up with and I am invested`.
>>2826531
It'll take a lot more miniaturization before we can get there.
what is resolution on the lens?
>>2826537
...I think this is what you're asking about:
http://www.dxomark.com/About/In-depth-measurements/Measurements/Sharpness
Anyone got tips for the "best" places to read about and see examples of abstract photography?
Has anyone of you anons ever asked a random stranger like sitting on a train station if you could photographer him/her for your own portfolio? I have seeing lots of beautiful females that I want to photograph but I'm very anxious of asking because they might think I'm hitting on them and using photography as an excuse.
>>2826553
Yes, I have asked. Most say no, as it involves a lot of time on their part (getting to a location, doing hair and makeup, overcoming the fear of being murdered/raped) with no real benefit (Unless you're willing to pay them)
For the most part, shooting amateurs is hard work though. They have no idea how to look attractive on camera, have no posing knowledge, and are terrified of their first shoot. If you're excellent with people, you will be able to pull it off, but since you're here asking this question, I'm guessing that's not the case.
>>2826553
It helps if you have a "business" card and a website you can show them so you don't look like a creep.
If you have a website with no cards, just tell them what it is and show them on your phone or something so they know you're "legit."
>>2826553
>they might think I'm hitting on them and using photography as an excuse.
Odds are they will think that.
The question is, does it matter if they think that...the answer is no.
How would one work around using an older monitor when editing pictures?
I have my laptop but I bought it five years ago and I noticed that pictures will look different on my screen then on others. Is there something I can maybe download that will help compensate for that?
If not I'm thinking about just hooking up my laptop to the TV I have which is considerably new. Would that be a bad idea?
Hello, I hope you can help me out here.
I want to buy an entry-level dslr and I'm going for the D3300.
I saw two bundles on the BEST BUY website (Mexican)
1. D3300, 18-55mm and 50mm 1.8D for $466 US
2. D3300, 18-55mm, 70-300 4-5.6 G AF, 16 GB SD SanDisk for $611 US
Which one should I get?
Thank you.
>>2826568
>1. D3300, 18-55mm and 50mm 1.8D for $466 US
This. The 70-300 sucks so better save that Money for a nice 70-200 f2.8/f4 or invest in some other good glass.
>>2826568
What are you intending on shooting? If portraiture is involved, you'll want a 50mm 1.8 (gives you the field of view of a 75mm which is a pretty standard portrait FoV).
Having that 70-300mm will give you more flexibility and the ability to shoot longer ranges and generally experiment with focal lengths to see what suits your interests the most. Personally, I'd go for flexibility in the beginning...
>>2826579
In that case I might tell you to go with the 50mm because having a faster lens will be helpful for shooting at night.
The other anon is kinda right in that the 70-300mm isn't a great lens, but that doesn't make it unusable. If you're planning on shooting street, though, that's generally done with the field of view of 35mm or 50mm.
>>2826580
Thank you, mate.
I'm 80% sure of getting that one, maybe I'll get a zoom lens later on.
What is Active D Lighting and do the Fuji X series cameras have an equivalent? If so, what is it called?
I'm trying to figure out how to expose for silhouettes and this tutorial says to turn Active D Lighting off which is on Nikon cameras.
Alternatively, how the fuck do I expose for silhouettes?
>>2825491
>instant wrong answer
Oh, /p/...
>>2826685
It just lifts JPEG shadows, and pulls back highlights. It's akin to shooter a flatter curve for extra DR. Shoot RAW or shoot a custom profile.
>expose silhouettes
If you want black silhouettes, meter for highlights (eg. the sun), and let everything in your foreground fall to black. For everything in between, spot meter highlights and silhouette, and choose a point in between to shoot in manual mode.
>>2826570
The 70-300 AF sucks, yes, but $150 isn't going to be much towards a 70-200/4.
A 70-300 VR on the other hand...
>>2826549
>http://www.dxomark.com/About/In-depth-measurements/Measurements/Sharpness
Perfect, thanks anon
>>2826361
Get a neutral density filter and use it if you need to shoot something like that. I don't know how many stops you would need but just get a cokin style system and you can buy a set of ND filters and stack them if needed.
>>2826688
To be completely clear, Active D lighting does that by underexposing. It's not the same as using a flatter curve.
>>2826685
Fuji X-series lets you adjust the dynamic range of a photo and expand it by as much as 400%. I'm pretty sure it does so by underexposure as well. It's an option in the menus.
So I have access to the following lenses for my Olympus Pen e-p2:
Sigma 30mm f/2.8 DN
Sigma 60mm f/2.8 DN
Olympus Zuiko Digital 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 ED
The two Sigmas came with a ring that sort of covers the lens, does this alter the lighting in photos somehow?
Say I wanted to take a picture of someone, would there be any benefit of using the 60mm and just standing further back instead of say, the 30mm?
Also, do most people use zoom lenses for 'on the go' type photography? I'm assuming there's some quality traded off for this.
>>2826835
The PEN E-P2 has a crop factor of 2. 30mmx2=60mm equivalent on FF, 60mmx2=120mm equivalent on FF. This means the 30mm lens is more of a normal, slightly short tele lens, good for generic shooting, groups of people, whole body portraits with lots of environment and wider depth of field. The 60mm lens is good for upper body and head&shoulders portraits with thinner depth of field, more separation from the environment. The zoom lens is a usable for everything, not exactly good in most situations. The wider end (28mm equivalent) is good for street and landscapes/cityscapes, you will most likely be using f/8-f/11, even f/16 in the latter on a tripod.
>>2826838
Thanks mate!
Any tips for shooting outside at night with a bright light source like a projector?
>>2826843
Open aperture, up the ISO as much as the shutterspeed is managable but ISO is not high enough to destroy the image (1600 tops on MFT)
I'd probably use the 30/2.8, even if you have to take a few steps back. The zoom will probably be too narrow aperture (slow lens).
I feel I am cheating when I use a film preset on LR. I generally dont like the colour and tones of my picture before using a preset. Am I cheating ? And basically kidding myself ?
Opinion on shooting with different aspect ratios? Should it be a 'feel' thing or do you like to keep it consistent? Why do you use your selected aspect ratio?
>>2826875
Every photographer edits their photos in post. You're not cheating.
>>2826685
On a Fuji, turn your DR to 100%, and expose for a bright background, rather than a dark foreground. Have bright light coming from behind your subject.
>>2826835
>The two Sigmas came with a ring that sort of covers the lens, does this alter the lighting in photos somehow?
That's called a hood, and it keeps harsh light from hitting the front element at an angle that would cause flare and ghosting in your images. If there is no harsh light that would affect those things, then it does nothing, other than sort of protect the front of the lens from bumps.
>Say I wanted to take a picture of someone, would there be any benefit of using the 60mm and just standing further back instead of say, the 30mm?
For portraits, generally, standing close to someone and shooting them with a wide angle lens will give you distortion in the image (like when you take a selfie and think your forehead or nose looks big). That's from being up close. So standing back further gets rid of that, and then you need a longer lens to keep the subject large in the frame. Your 30mm is good for full body shots, and your 60mm will be better for up close stuff (as the other anon already told you)
Your zoom is nice and wide, and will be good for walking around. Generally, if you know exactly what you will be shooting, and how you like to shoot it, you can do well with a prime lens. If you are just leaving the house with the camera with no idea what will be thrown your way, a zoom is usually the way to go so you can get whatever photos strike you in the moment. The trade-off is that for the same price, primes are generally sharper, smaller, and have a wider possible aperture. To get those things, you sacrifice versatility.
>>2826843
If you have a bright light source in a dark environment, it's going to give you a LOT of contrast. You'll have either the projected image exposed correctly (Because it's bright, but everything else is dark), or the stuff outside of it (because exposing for the dark means the bright stuff is blown out), but generally not both. How to expose and approach it sort of depends on what you're doing, how far the projector is from the surface it's projecting on, etc.
>>2826875
You are only slightly "cheating" by using someone else's presets if you don't understand what they're doing, and are just clicking down the list until one looks good, but even then, it's not the most respected way of doing it, but the final photo is all that matters, regardless of what you do to get there.
If a photo has not been edited, it is not finished. That is a nearly universal truth. If you weren't doing any editing, your photos would not look good. Especially if you're shooting in raw. They're MEANT to be edited, and delivering an unprocessed photo from raw is like handing someone their dinner without cooking it first.
Please help! I imported to lightroom 4x 600mb pic files (scanned negatives in maximum res) and now when I open LR it crashes automatically because my PC cant handle it. How can I delete these files without having to open LR?
Thanks
>>2826916
Go to where the files are on your system, and delete them there. Might work, though when LR loads it'll still be trying to call to the images. Hopefully it will give up before getting bogged down.
Also, add ram.
>>2826922
cheers, it worked!
ok i have another stupid question.
how can calibrate my monitor?
the dark gamma look pretty nasty
So I film and publish lots of videos to web, part of my job. But today I got an android tablet (galaxy s 10.5) to start testing on something other than my Windows PC
But the videos when viewed in an app or in a browser have incredibly desaturated colours, especially reds, oranges, yellows etc. Pic related
The thumbnail's colours show up fine but the video whether it be h.264 or vp8 gets fucked up. I encode my videos in Adobe Media Encoder.
Whats going on here?
[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 2016:04:29 08:14:08 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 350 Image Height 464
>>2827408
It's because you touch yourself at night.
How do I take a photo where my subject is lit, but everything around it is blacked out or is this something mostly done in post?
Either way, how can I accomplish this look?
>>2827675
>You put your subject in an environment where they are lit, but the rest of the scene is not lit, and dark.
So there's no exposure trickery involved?
>>2826721
closeness to focused subject affects Depth of Field.
>>2826893
May as well shoot in the camera's native aspect ratio and crop it in post.
>>2827698
most portraits shot this way use a flash
How do i do this effect in Photoshop (specifically CS5)?
>>2827698
Nope not really. Post an example for more specific instructions, but 99% change, yeah, just lighting correctly
>>2828212
Duplicate background layer (Cmd/Ctrl + J)
Mirror copied layer on the horizontal axis
Circular mask with no feather on the copied layer.
>>2828227
I'm still new to this, so bear with me please. After i hit i duplicate the background layer, where do i go to mirror the copied layer then do the circular mask part?
>>2828212
>corrected using the expressed technique
[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 2016:04:30 13:22:27 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 128 Image Height 128
>>2828231
Boom
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Greenshot Image-Specific Properties:
>>2828231
To make a circular mask, you do a circular selection, using the ellyptical selection tool. You hold shift while dragging the selection which keeps it a perfect circle. Then, once you've selected the area you want, you go down to the bottom right and click the "add layer mask" button.
>>2828237
Alright thanks again.
>>2828231
For tips using the elliptical selector tool, check out the bottom half of this article too.
http://www.photoshopessentials.com/basics/selections/elliptical-marquee-tool/
Is there any way to turn a deep blue sky with fluffy white clouds into a black sky with stark white clouds in-camera, no post processing on a computer afterwards?
Any particular formula of settings or the addition of some kind of filter?
![CircularPolarizer[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/eoanAku.jpg "CircularPolarizer[1].jpg")
>>2828252
A CPL filter
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2005:10:22 18:11:03 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 2484 Image Height 946
What software does /p/ use to organize images? I'm not a photog, but I'm looking for good tagging software for Windows or Linux.
>>2825488
Are UV filters useful for digital?
>>2828554
>>2828252
Note that CPLs generally suck on wider angles (part of the sky will be deep blue, and then another part will be really light) because it's gathering light from such a wide field of view, the polarizer won't be lined up correctly for the entire scene.
>>2828575
I tend to only put one on if I'm shooting in really dusty environments or if there's likely some kind of liquid spray, and that's just because they tend to be easier to clean then the objective lens element. Otherwise, don't be an idiot with your lens and you're good.
They are entirely useless for filtering out UV on digital.
How do wifi on camera works?
I've heard that the camera create a wifi access point in order to connect something on it, but isn't that stupid? How can I tether the camera and browse internet at the same time, or tether the camera from a PC that don't have wifi?
Can the camera connect an existing WLAN and being controlled by PC/smartphone on the same network?
>>2828567
Adebis Photo Sorter
It sort files by folder according to EXIF. I use the good old /YYYY/MM/DD/ sheme.
1. Is it normal that like one out of 100 photos has the potential to be a good photo?
2. What's the best aperture for street photography when not knowing what will come towards me?
3. Why should one make photos in Raw AND Jpg?
4. Is this a good photo?
5. Is there a way to take long exposure photos at day without any external equipment?
Cheers
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D3200 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.5 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/5.7 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 828 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 157 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:05:03 01:34:22 Exposure Time 1/200 sec F-Number f/7.1 Exposure Program Not Defined ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/7.1 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 105.00 mm Comment MORITZ Color Space Information sRGB 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
>>2830038
1. Yes
2. http://erickimphotography.com/blog/the-ultimate-beginners-guide-for-street-photography/
3. RAW retains more information than JPEGs which allows you to alter more in post. JPEGs can sometimes look better. See: Fuji cameras.
4. Do you like it? If so, it's a good photo.
5. Set a slow shutter speed on your camera and press the shutter button? It depends what look/effect you're going for. If you want certain things to be in focus, not really. You're not going to get "in focus" anything with long exposures while hand holding your camera.
>>2828575
optically, they provide zero benefit. DSLR sensors ignore UV light already.
UV filters or just protection filters do have a use, it keeps your lens front in like-new condition (a $20-30 filter could net you $100-400 more resale value on the lens) provided no big accidents, or usable condition instead of destroyed in some accidents (again netting you hundreds of dollars of savings for very little expense)
Also, they provide short-term protection impossible to equal with plain lens for maximum shooting uptime.
It could take minutes (potentially many if you don't lug a huge cleaning kit with you) to clean off a lens that has been blasted with dog saliva, salt spray from the ocean, soda or other random shit if some idiot were to splash something around.
Pop the filter right off and suddenly you can keep shooting in 5 seconds with a totally pristine front lens instead of missing the next dozen shot opportunities doing cleaning.
>but my qualities!!!
imperceptible to the human eye with a modern filter unless you point it at a fucking bright light for some reason.
I can throw 40 images with filters and 40 images not-filtered and randomize them and have someone click the 40 they think are filtered and they wouldn't be able to score better than maybe 1-3% above random chance.
If it's an instant snapshit (oh I saw a celebrity better whip my camera out), then the subject matter is key and the 1% quality loss won't be noticed or commented on by anyone that's important.
If you have 30 minutes composing that landscape you plan to sell for a lot, then 5 seconds to unscrew the protective filter is immaterial and your image-quality will be better than the no-filters-ever idiot, because his lens has some minor scratches, stains and imperfections accumulated because he didn't protect the front.
Both camera will be just fine, it's funny how hypocritical idiots who're fine with 3% IQ loss from an unprotected lens but aghast at the idea of 3% loss from filter when attached
>>2830048
Thanks for the reply! For question 5: maybe I did something wrong, but always when taking photos at day with a shutter speed of 5secs+, the result was a completely white photo. I thought that is what UV filters were for
>>2830054
It's because your camera is letting in light for 5 seconds.
Try setting your aperture to something like 22 (if you can get it that low) and your ISO to 100.
This may produce a very dark image. Start adjusting your aperture from there to produce the results you want.
>>2830054
>>2830057
And read more about exposure.
This will cover the basics about ISO, aperture, shutter speeds, and how they interact together.
For example, if you set your aperture to 1.4 and your shutter speed to 5 seconds and your ISO to 100 out in broad day light, you're going to get a completely white, blown out image.
Here is a link for you:
http://photography.tutsplus.com/tutorials/the-ultimate-beginners-introduction-to-exposure--photo-3028
>>2830054
>when taking photos at day with a shutter speed of 5secs+, the result was a completely white photo. I thought that is what UV filters were for
NO, no no no.
That's what Neutral Density (ND) filters are for.
ND filters reduce the visible light (non-UV) which allows you to take a longer exposure without blinding the camera.
UV filters and Circular-Polarizer filters are used for completely different things than long-exposures.
>>2828252
Cokin style graduated or hard line ND filter
>>2830081
Sorry, that's what I actually meant. I sometimes mix them up by mistake
>>2830086
Okay then. If your current ND filter isn't enough to take the exposure time you want, even at minimum iso (100) and closed down aperture (~F22 etc) then you'd benefit from buying a more powerful ND filter.
For example, ND8 comes in the basic hoya 3 filter kit, which means 1/8 light gets through (12.5%)
This is usually enough, but for a really long shot you could get a ND16 filter (take twice as long shot as ND8 without overexposing) or a ND32 (twice as long as ND16)
I don't own any of those higher than ND8, but they do have uses.
They could be useful to get more DoF-blur from shallow DoF if that was desired by letting you open your aperture wider without overexposing for a long shot.
And if keeping a tight aperture, extra motion blur of clouds and water.
Example for $14 on amazon
Evershop-Neutral-Density-Filter-CANON/dp/B012R2J0VS
Might search for whatever filter size you need and ND16 or ND32 if that'll help.
I've wanted to be a professional photographer for a year now, but now I have a time limit: I need to make my first dollar in 4 months.
Here's why: my parents have saved money to fund my education. In 4 months I'm gonna be traveling abroad to study for ~6 months, and I need to justify my spending on photography as professional development expenses.
How did you guys started?
>>2830053
Do you have any idea just how much damage you'd have to do to the outer element of a lens to get "3% iq reduction"?
Here's a hint: it would take sandpaper and nontrivial effort.
Here's a stupid question.
Is there anyway to not be a kodawari?
OCD and photography do not mix well. But in the end it kind of helps still. I'm shoot almost every day too. I pick at a lot of stuff and I don't know if it actually is doing anything. At least I am experimenting.
>>2830213
I saved my own money, practiced a lot and got my name out there. After a couple of years of shooting everything that earned me a little money on the side I quit my job and started working as an assistant which I still do to this day.
Is a Galaxy S7's camera better than most I can buy from a 600 dollar range, I am egible for a upgrade for only like 100 dollars and the camera on this phone seems too good to be true, wondering if I should buy a compact for traveling (rx100 or g7x) or just upgrade my phone and use that for travel. Anyone have advice with how this phone's camera is.
>>2830393
>Anyone have advice with how this phone's camera is.
There are plenty of reviews about the camera on the internet.
A phone camera is sufficient for travel photography. I use my iPhone SE whenever I don't have anything else with me.
What are you planning to do with the pictures afterwards? I'm guessing that you aren't a professional, you'll upload them to Instagram, the RPT and show them to your friends on your phone, why would you need another camera than your phone?
>>2830123
Thank you, this really helped me! So I'll probably first buy the basic filter kit.
Is there any reason I should use program mode when I am confident in my ability to use manual mode?
>>2830461
for quicker shots.
P mode: composition and focus, take shot.
M mode: composition, aperture dialing, shutter speed dialing, focus, take shot.
World-famous pro photogs still use the P mode that's included on their pro-bodies for when they need quick photographs in non-controlled conditions, such as while moving around a wedding or event.
If you want a longer explanation, Joe Buissink talks about it for 10-20 minutes in two places in his amazing 2 hour wedding lesson.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00K7pBWOInk
>>2830461
Is there any reason to take a day off work and give up a day's wages to go out and hunt my own food when I can just go to the grocery store and buy the same or better quality food for less money than I lost by not working?
Yes, there's very good reason. When you're first starting off, you think that technical mastery of the camera is what makes a good photo, so you pride yourself on being able to select and aperture, or shutter speed, or work a meter, and you think that giving up absolute control of that process can harm your images (even though using a priority mode doesn't actually give up any control, when you're new, you don't understand that concept).
In reality, getting the correct exposure is the most basic aspect of photography, much like being able to run is one of the most basic aspects of playing football.
If you're taking time, energy, and brain power in working all your parameters to get the correct exposure, that means it's less time and energy put into selecting a subject, composition, perspective, background, the right moment, etc.
It's like a hammer versus a nail gun. Yes, you can take the time to pound in each nail yourself and feel proud of it, but the final product is not a lot of nails, it's a house. Get the house done, nobody cares how the nails were driven. And if you're taking too long to do all the nails by hand, and miss the completion date for the project because of it, you don't get any credit or allowances because of it, since nobody gives a shit.
Manual is made for times when you can't trust a priority mode. Mostly for flash work, where the light during the exposure won't be the same as the light during metering. The rest of the time, you're just wasting your time.
And no, you aren't faster at manual mode than your camera is in a priority mode. The camera adjusts things instantly. Worst case scenario when you need to adjust your controlled point and the EV comp, it's the same as manual.
so i want to get Canon 5D mk1 (("classic")
and use it with some old manual m42 lens (yeah i know some will touch mirror)
anybody have some experience with those lens adapters with chips?
how good are those? will camera get good exposure? and only thing i will have to worry about will be focus?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
>>2830503
I used to use a 5D with an M42 Helios without issue and liked it a lot. The chip helps for focus confirmation, but doesn't affect anything else. Metering and exposure all happen behind the lens, so the lens being "dumb" won't affect it.
Don't pay more than $30 for an adapter.
>>2830511
>Metering and exposure all happen behind the lens, so the lens being "dumb" won't affect it.
cool
i have 2 nikon dslrs and both disabled metering and exposure with dumb lens
m42-nikon adapter with chip also cost 3-5x more than canon one
>>2830388
Different guy, here. I want to do portraits and headshots to make a little bit of money. How can I "get my name" out there?
I ask my friends if I can do portraits of them to build a portfolio of work, but they always end up bailing on me or aren't interested.
Anyone have advice for this kind of thing?
>>2830522
To start your portfolio (once you've mastered your light and technique) hire models, and an MUA. Get great photos.
Then, spend time where your perspective clients hang out. Get on local message boards and facebook groups. Go around acting classes and theaters and put up flyers with samples of your work.
Hell, do something "clever" by posting a flyer with an actor doing a selfie in bad light for a shot, and then on the other half, your professional photo of them, showing the difference so they know what you can actually offer them and why they need you, etc.
Nobody's going to come to your door to ask you to do something you've never really done, but secretly want to do. You have to get good enough at it that your product is worth more to your demographic than their money, and then go tell them about it.
>>2830524
Well I've got get some studio lights first..hell...I've gotta get studio space, even. Right now I'm reliant on natural light.
I'll see what I can do, thanks for the advice.
>>2830529
Lights are more important than studio space. You can do amazing photography outdoors with a couple of off-camera flashes and rigs (umbrella with strobe or soft-box with strobe, either on stand or boom, cheap $20-30 reflector can be helpful for another source.)
Spending 1-2k on lighting gear you can do pro-level shots outdoors.
A studio space by itself without photography lights to use (no, a house-lamp or uv ceiling lights don't count) won't improve your shots at all.
Here's one I was wondering about for a while. So there are crop sensors and FF sensors, and say I have a 50mm lens. On the crop it will be 75mm. But the focal distance, beyond just how close or far it is, also has a sort of 'distortion', I don't know what else to call it, a certain look to it. an object would look different in a 35mm shot and a 50mm shot, even if you walked closer for the 35mm shot so that they would come out the same size in the photo.
So my question is, if I use a 35mm lens on a crop and a 50mm lens on a FF body, would the images actually be indentical? or will they have a different 'distortion'?
>>2831237
They will be identical so long as you don't move your feet.
Well, technically, no, the 35mm will be "52.5mm" so it will be very very slightly tighter, and the depth of field will be wider in the cropped shot assuming the same aperture on both lenses.
But as far as distortion and compression are concerned, yes, they'll be identical.
>>2831248
thanks anon!
>>2831237
unless it's a weird geometry like a fisheye or wide angle lens, then the main difference comes from being forced to stand closer to fill the frame with a 35mm instead of a 50mm.
If you're 10 inches from the corner of a car and the rear is 1000 inches back, the back of the car and front of a car are drastically different relative to the lens.
The rear of the car is 100x bigger than your shooting distance while the front is 1x your shooting distance, so distances will be exaggerated.
If you take a picture while you're 10,000 inches away from the car, now the front is at 1x your shooting distance and the rear of the car is at 1.1x your shooting distance. Nowhere near as severe a difference, right?
A lot of zoom lenses will have barrel distortion at certain zoom levels though. This could mean at the exact same distance your 18-135mm has barrel distortion at 18 or at 135, while it looks normal at 50mm. You can test each of your zoom lenses on straight bathroom tiles or any line to find out if their certain glass elements have this effect strongly or not at different zooms. This type of distortion can be fixed in photoshop. Whereas the distance between standing 10 inches from a car or 1000 inches cannot be photoshopped realistically. It'd have to Massively stretch areas without enough detail in some places and massively squish other areas.
I want to be able to take better pics than my current cell phone (Motorola Nexus 6) after seeing pics off some guy's BMW build thread.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/99554890@N04/26542932101/in/photostream/
Link related, but what's the best/cheapest way to do it? I'm not a photography guy to be honest, but fuck my pictures look like shit compared to this guy's.
>>2831372
That photo is not out of the realm of possibilities of a phone, by any means. Post one of your photos in similar lighting and conditions that doesn't meet your standards and we can point you in the right direction.
>>2831372
That guy really loves his car.
>>2831276
>>2831248
Thank you for your answers, I have another question. I have a film camera, a Nikon FG, and a 50mm prime. I also have a D7100.
When I look at the viewfinder in the FG with the 50mm lens, everything looks as it does, nice and big so I can focus. On the D7100, everything looks the same (as in proportions of whatever I'm looking at within the viewfinder), except smaller, since it's a crop-sensor camera. When I take my kit lens and zoom it out to 35, or ~33.5, which is the 50mm coverage equivalent, everything looks much smaller and focusing is much more of a hassle. I imagine it has something to do with the "magnification", but I'm not sure. The D7100 has a magnification of 0.94, while the FG has a magnification of 0.84.
My question is, is there a way to make the viewfinder of the D7100 at 35mm look the same as the one in the FG at 50mm? I hope I'm describing my situation well enough.
>>2831928
The viewfinder is smaller because the sensor (and therefore the mirror) is smaller. The mirror being smaller means the image being projected up into the prism is smaller, which means that the image you see will be smaller.
Some cameras can take viewfinder magnifiers, but I'm not sure about the D7100. This is one of the main reasons people still prefer the experience of shooting with a full frame camera, as the viewfinders are much bigger and brighter than they are on APS-C.
Focusing is also harder because of the focusing screen on the D7100. To combat the lack of light coming up through the viewfinder, manufacturers have changed out the type of focusing screens they use. High accuracy screens that would let you manually focus well cut out a lot of light. The newer ones are much brighter, but much less accurate in terms of where your focus point is. They assume you're using modern autofocus lenses, so you don't need to be manually focusing.
>>2831928
You just got jewed, they claim a different mag for crop sensors to sell more units.
Actual d7100 specs
Viewfinder Magnification (nominal/claimed): 0.94x
Viewfinder Magnification (35mm equivalent): 0.63x
Whereas, my full frame Canon D5
Magnification Approx. 0.71x
It's pretty normal for them to jew you with a tiny viewfinder in a crop body and then manipulate the numbers to lie and say it's a larger magnification somehow.
Ok here I go. I want to take some pictures at night. Not completely dark.
The issue is the following. Im using iso 400 because by bouncing the flash, it really gives me good lighting but the problem that I have is that the digital viewfinder is too dark and I can get the machine to auto focus and I cant even do the manual focus because I cant see shit. If I dial up the ISO I get to see images on the screen, but the final picture takes a quality drop and noise.
The result is great after taking a lot of time so the camera can auto focus but I cant afford said time for each picture.
Any idea?
>>2832105
Use the LED on your phone to shine at the focus spot.
>>2832049
ah sheit nigga
>>2831938
>>2832049
thanks fellas
so if I got a magnifier, for example the Nikon-made magnifier that magnifies the image by 1.17, and 0.63x1.17 = 0.73, would my viewfinder be at the very least somewhat more presentable in an FF sort of way?
It's amazing how far you can dig before making a purchase and still almost a year later you're discovering new ways you were getting bullshitted
I currently have a Cannon Rebel T5, and I just ordered the 80D. As far as image quality goes, how grand of a difference can I expect? Assuming I'm using a 50mm 1.8 lens.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Windows Photo Editor 6.3.9600.17418 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Image Created 2015:08:27 00:29:10 Color Space Information sRGB
>>2832105
my phone from 2011 has manual focus in the settings, you could set it to infinity or so and pretty much everything should be in focus
unless when you press the shutter it tries to autofocus again and fails to work, then as someone mentioned above, use a flashlight or something
The window in this shot is all just one color, overexposed.
What should I do next time to keep the inside and outside both exposed properly? I am a beginner.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP. Camera Model E-M10 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.5.1 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/3.5 Color Filter Array Pattern 802 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 34 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:05:05 22:08:44 Exposure Time 1/80 sec F-Number f/8.0 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 200 Lens Aperture f/8.0 Exposure Bias -0.7 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Auto Focal Length 17.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control Low Gain Up Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal
>>2832339
Don't expect too much, you still have the same size sensor... if you really want better images invest in some better lenses. Although the 80d has more settings and better auto focus so expect more in focus shots and more accurate exposure if using auto settings
>>2832357
you usually have to choose whether you want a window exposed or the interior of the room. a couple ways around it are getting a better camera with more dynamic range and then adjusting it in post (using RAW of course) or you can use a tripod and take two identical shots at different exposures and then combine them in photoshop
>>2832339
not a lot, bit better ISO performance but just a newer feel to the body mainly
>>2832357
Your camera might have a HDR (High Dynamic Range) mode which takes 3-5 images at different exposures and combines them into one HDR image.
This was designed specifically for that kind of thing. It allows you to keep details in the highlights (by retaining bright-area details from the most underexposed dark image), details from the shadows (by retaining shadow-area details from the overexposed image) and mid-tone details (from the normally-exposed image)
When any single exposure would lose either shadows or highlights (because the digital sensor can only handle a 5-stop spread from deepest to brightest), HDR allows you to compensate for this, with the drawback that as it takes multiple exposures (multiple pictures taken) to create the combined image, you'll want the camera steady to avoid blur (ideally on tripod and without a very long shutter speed)
"My camera doesn't have HDR mode" you say? Your RAW can do HDR either way, because it can be done in editors like photoshop. In-camera HDR is often just a way to save time instead of opening up photoshop (and some experts prefer the results from on-computer HDR generation more than the camera result anyway)
You still have to take 3-5 different exposure image copies (usually using exposure-bracketing so it does it automatically for you) on-camera if you want to do an on-computer HDR image, as you'll still need to combine the underexposed, normal and overexposed shots.
A lot of hipsters and my-first-camera art students use HDR to generate eye-bleeding overly colorful images because they don't understand why HDR was created.
Essentially, if the lighting isn't so extreme that your histogram is always losing a good chunk on the sides, then using HDR 3-5 exposures is a waste of time. In those situations just take 1 regular photo and raise the saturation and color settings in an editor later. Get the same eye-bleed without extra blur from compositing multiple shots and any movement of your hand or the subject.
>>2832373
Thank you very much! Also, thanks to the other person who replied to me. I'll make sure to give that a try without making it look garish.
>>2832334
>would my viewfinder be at the very least somewhat more presentable in an FF sort of way?
No, not really.
But it won't affect your photo taking. A larger viewfinder won't help you manually focus, because your focusing screen is still terrible for it, by design. A magnifier also doesn't add light, it merely magnifies, so you'll still be fairly dim.
Do you prefer transfering a shooting using a USB cable, or are you okay with sticking your memcard in and out everytime?
Maybe it has been asked before, I don't check this thread a lot. But I know some people are scared of overusing their card slot mechanism and pins if they transfer stuff everyday or so.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Apple Camera Model iPhone 5 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 33 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 1632 Image Height 1224 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 2016:05:06 18:45:37 Exposure Time 1/15 sec F-Number f/2.4 Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 500 Lens Aperture f/2.4 Brightness -0.2 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Spot Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 4.12 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1000 Image Height 750 Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2832530
Been using a card reader to download work stuff from my Canon 7d. Shot about two years worth of nightlife, which is horrible stress on the camera.
Camera has some slight issues due to all the use it went through, but the CF slot and door ain't one of them. It's still like new.
So do whatever you prefer. I'm more comfortable removing the card and downloading from there.
>>2832530
For 10 years, I have always used a card reader, rather than a USB. It lets me keep shooting on a different card, it's usually faster, and I don't have to worry about attaching a big trippy cable to my expensive computer and expensive camera.
I've never had a card slot fail.
Why are full frame cameras so expensive?
>>2832712
They cost more to produce, and they sell less bodies, so the margins have to be higher to justify production.
Hi /p/
I need your help.
I own a pentax MX, and two very good lenses (50mm f/1.7 & 28mm f/2).
I want to try digital photography.
Should I take a Pentax body so I can mount my lenses?
I'm hesitating between an old Pentax dslr and a Nikon D5500 with the 50mm.
I need your expertise on that matter.
>>2833075
Why not go mirrorless and get an A7 body or something? That would be the most flexible route to take in terms of current and future lens adaptability.
>>2833076
You're right but the I can't afford this body. I have a 500/550€ budget.
>>2833075
leave your 50mm and 28mm on you mx
get a d3300 with a 35mm f1.8 dx
stop trying to create some amalgamation of different things
keep thing compartmentalized
>>2833087
get a sone a7 and use your pentax lens.
>>2833099
This is an option if you want the worst of both worlds.
>>2833087
Ok anon, I see what you mean.
Why not the 50mm?
>>2833081
Second hand A7's go this cheap, for image quality and an experience most similar to your MX this would be the best route to go down.
If you go for a DSLR you will only be able to afford an aps-c body, with a TINY viewfinder, several stops worse low light performance and none of that glorious bokeh from your fast lenses.
>>2833102
This guy is salty
>>2833106
d3300 is a crop camera, so a 35mm will have the same field of vision as your 50 on your MX
>>2833081
Like the other anon said, second hand would fit in your budget. After shooting 35mm odds are you'll be disappointed with a non-fullframe camera. Keeping things compartmentalized by brand like >>2833087 suggested just makes your gear convoluted and redundant. It's awesome being having one set of lenses that work across all of your cameras.
Thanks for your replies anons.
I can't find the Sony A7 under 800/750e and it is way too much.
I know that APSC body crop the image, but will I really be disturb by that?
>>2833147
best crop body, once you go over 400 iso you will start to see noise really bad, I can get usable shots out of my A7 up to 3200 iso.
You also lose out on that bokeh, your 28mm f2 would look more like a 40mm f4 - f5.6 on a crop body, not an issue for everyone, but definitely for some.
If you're only shooting in daylight and always stop down then a crop body may be OK for you, bare in mind you will always be thinking "I could have spent 100Eu more and got exponentially better performance"
Keep your eye out for an A7, I frequently see them being sold for 400 GBP in my area.
>>2833160
I will need an adapter ring in order to mount my Pentax lenses on the A7, right?
How come when I set my X-Pro2 to take JPEGS and RAW and import to Lightroom, I'm only getting RAW files imported?
>>2833222
You sure you don't have all your jpegs going to your second card?
>>2833225
I don't know, they might be. Is there a way I can make it so it doesn't do that if that's the case?
>>2833230
Menu > Camera setup > Save Data Settings
>>2833233
Here's what I have under that menu:
Frame No. -- Cont.
Save Org Image -- Off
Edit File name -- it's blank
Card Slow Setting (Still Image) -- sequential
Switch Slot (Sequential) -- it's blank
>>2833236
I assume you're only using one card then?
Look at the card outside of Lightroom. Do you see RAFs and JPGs on the card in explorer/finder?
Could be a display setting in Lightroom. There's an option to display jpegs and raw as one thumbnail.
>>2833240
No I have two cards inside the camera. Lemme take a look at them.
Both the RAW and JPEG appear to be on the same card, but when I import to Lightroom, I'm only getting the .RAF file.
>>2833242
Could be import settings as well. Maybe lightroom is recognizing them as duplicate files, and only importing the raw.
Lots of options really, unfortunately.
What you can do to try to narrow it down is copy the files over manually into a folder, one raw and one jpeg, and then import from the folder on your computer and try to catch them both, and see what happens.
>>2833242
>>2833245
And also, just to clear away all the possibilities for a "are you sure it's plugged in" situation, you don't see
>pic related
Do you?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 528 Image Height 730 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 144 dpi Vertical Resolution 144 dpi Image Created 2016:05:07 12:12:42 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 528 Image Height 730
>>2833248
This is in Lightroom right? Nah when I click on the files in Lightroom it just shows the RAF file name.
[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 2016:05:07 11:21:39 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 648 Image Height 414
>>2833252
That is in library, not import. Let's see your settings on the right side.
>>2833253
If I go to Library after importing and click on the photo and then I go to metadata, I see something here that says Sidecar Files JPG
[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 2016:05:07 11:30:08 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 683 Image Height 903
>>2833255
Try this:
Edit >> preferences >> general (tab)
The box “Treat JPEG files next to raw files as separate photos”
>>2833258
Yea I just found that on my own and it fixed it. Thanks for your help!
How do I quickly skim through my RAW photos and delete the ones I don't like? The process is simple with .jpgs, but photoshop won't let me open more than one or two RAW photos at a time.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 96 dpi Vertical Resolution 96 dpi Image Created 2009:06:24 21:23:32 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 500 Image Height 671
>>2833513
Lightroom and the x key
Or just in Explorer/Finder
do you correct lens distortion for particularly wide angles? or is that distortion part of the allure? thoughts and opinions
>>2833596
It depends on your goals.
>>2833596
If there are buildings in the photo I almost always correct. I also shoot wider than I want the final image to be to make sure nothing gets cut off once the distortion is corrected.
>>2833199
Yup, its only €10 off ebay though.
best point n shoot camera?
>>2833864
D750 in auto mode
>>2833864
That is a matter of opinion and mine is the Ricoh GR.
How do you make travel photos of famous tourist landmarks not look like shit? Main problem I've noticed in my photos is that the sky looks boring on a sunny day, parts of the sky looks over exposed. The lack of clouds also makes it look really bland. If your travel is time sensitive and you can't stay in an area you want to photograph for more than a few hours, are you pretty much fucked if the weather and time of day/lighting condition isn't optimal?
>>2834431
Be there at the right time of day, during the right time of year. Have patience to get the right shot from the right angle in the right light.
>>2833864
Fuji x10 if you want some zoom. Fuji x100s or t if you just need 35mm.
what's the best place to sell my camera at, /p/?
i usually use eBay to sell but with all the scams happening above $100, it's making me hesitate in doing so.
>>2834496
I use amazon most of the time.
>>2834497
what's your experience with it? any pointers for a newbie?
Do you guys suppose there's a part of photography that can't be learned? I just can't seem to figure out what makes a good interesting photo. I've been at it for a couple months and it's just made me feel dumb as shit.
>>2834550
The key is to shoot a lot. All the time. Get critique, all the time. Post regularly on a blog or instagram. Look at the photographs of others, photos you like. Figure out what you like about them and try to bring those characteristics to your photos. Have an idea when you go out to shoot.
Most importantly, make the photos for yourself. Set your standards high. Pick out your best photos and get them printed, nice prints. Put them on the wall or on a bulletin board, keep evolving your style and add to your wall, and when you look at them remember that you're trying to make a photo even better than that.
I want to get into stock video footage.
Currently I have a D7000 with a hacked firmware for hq video, and an external mic.
should i start with a GH2 instead? I hear it puts out exceptional video
>>2826531
I'd love something like that too, but we're not really at the point where it's doable in a practical way. We're getting pretty close to the point where it's technically possible to make the sensor work, but the real problem is how to interface it with the camera.
Most worthwhile mechanical cameras have interchangeable backs, and a replacement back makes for a much more elegant solution than some fake roll of film thingy. The hard part is setting it up so that it knows when you're firing the shutter, unless you want to deal with some stupid double cable release contraption.
>>2826361
Shooting around welding isn't a big deal, I just make sure the welder's body or something else is blocking the arc. An easy and probably available solution to filming the arc itself is to just pop the filter out of a welding mask and shoot through it, the image quality won't be the best but you can see everything clearly enough for doing instructional videos and stuff, and it has the side benefit of being auto-dimming so you can frame and stuff without removing the filter.
>>2832334
The problem with magnifiers is that they pretty much always crop your frame. They don't so much make your viewfinder larger as simply scale the center of the finder up. I haven't used every single one on the market, but this was certainly the case with the DK17 I used on my D3 when I had it.
>>2830393
Personally I'd buy the compact. The think about phone cameras is that, as good as they've gotten, you're still stuck with a single focal length and only the most rudimentary of focus and exposure controls.
>>2830053
I'm always hesitant when it comes to UV filters for protection. They're nice for dusty situations, but they use glass that's a lot less durable than most front elements, and if they break you've suddenly got sharp glass shards scratching the hell out of your lens.
What are drones like for photography? I was thinking of getting something like this http://myroam-e.com/ for a group project I'm working on
Most drones I've found have been more video focused, are there any for photography that are recommended? If not thoughts on the above
>>2834560
For your second comment, why not just stack grad NDs instead?
>>2834502
If you live in a good sized city that isn't a shit hole CL may be a good bet. I've sold $4,000 worth of gear over that in the past few years.
>>2832339
Should have bought a 5DSr
>>2834635
Why grad, and not plain ND filters? A lot cheaper and easier to use.
>>2834434
Why the x10 and not the x20, x30, or x70?
>>2834816
If you can afford it, the X30 is better than the X10 by two generations. The X70 is different. Prime lens, no viewfinder, etc.
How do i do this?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 450D Camera Software Microsoft Windows Photo Viewer 6.1.7600.16385 Photographer Picasa Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2012:09:13 22:31:45 Exposure Time 1/640 sec F-Number f/20.0 Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 800 Lens Aperture f/19.9 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 45.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 2835 Image Height 4039 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Unique Image ID 18b219c8d8da71c3f802f971c8b853d4
What sort of gigs are the filthy rich photographers doing?
>>2834550
Nah dude, you can learn it. for sure.
>>2834932
Take a photo of some marble or something?
How do i do this?
>>2834946
1) mist or foggy day with diffuse lighting
2) lake with calm surface
3) ND filter
>>2834635
Because good NDs are expensive, and somebody who's working around welding probably already has access to a welding mask.
Also, the auto-dimming glass means that you can focus and compose without removing the filters, and to some degree can actually continue filming when the arc is off, unlike with NDs where it'd be far too dark to shoot when the welder isn't actively welding. Like I say, it's not going to be the highest quality thing to shoot through, and a welding filter is about as dark as normal sunglasses when in "light" mode, but it's workable in a well-lit shop.
Here's a shot I took through a welding mask while fucking around a while back. I was shooting handheld and holding the camera in one hand and the filter in the other, so it's not the best example, but maybe it'll give some idea of what you'll get.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D610 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.4 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 802 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 35 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:05:09 18:12:41 Exposure Time 1/4 sec F-Number f/1.4 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 3200 Lens Aperture f/1.4 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 35.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control High Gain Up Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
Does ISO invariance go the other way too?
I know shooting at ISO 100 and pushing to 3200 in post will look the same as having shot at ISO 3200 on the scene
But if I shoot at ISO 3200 and pull back five stops, will it look exactly like it would have if I had shot it at ISO 100 on the scene? Pushing shadows is one thing, but I've always heard that pulling back highlights is where digital fails hard.
Some guy recommended me to buy old lenses and an adapter because they are better, is this true?
>>2835249
Not really. They are a little cheaper but are problematic. Often plenty of compatibility issues. Don't fall for it, spend your money on good current glass.
Hey /p/,
One of my coworkers asked me if I would give him a "friendly price" to take some pictures for him. I really don't have too many details of what it is/how long it will take, but let's assume it's around 2-3 hours of shooting + editing.
I have never done any kind payed gig or anything like that - could you guys recommend what the usual amount you would ask for this kind of job would be?
Thanks!
>>2826484
Expose for the sky and bring up the subjects in post processing.
But it'll be noisy you say. It won't be that bad unless your subject is literally between you and the sun. It will be better in raw than jpeg.
Do multiple exposures and combine them.
Use flash or lights on your subject.
>>2836178
Hey anon, some guy wants my car, but wants a friend discount. What should I charge him for it?
$300.
>>2826553
Just take the picture without asking. You don't need their permission unless your country has fucked up laws. You don't need a release unless you plan to sell the photos.
It's "creepy"? It's only creepy if you're already creepy acting or creepy looking anyway.
Name me a camera that looks like this but has a digital screen on the back, i dont think i'd be good enough to shoot straight through the lense without double checking the image afterwards
>>2836186
Nikon DF
OR if the size, ergonomics and form are more important to you, Sony's A7 range.
>>2836183
This is the first offer I've ever had to any work related to photography, so I'm pretty clueless.
Thanks though!
>>2828252
A red filter and shooting black-and-white is the old school film way.
>>2836188
Thanks anon, but. Those both cost an arm, a leg, and a nut. Are there any that are pretty old that cost a lot less?
>>2836212
2nd hand A7 can go for as little as 400 quid.
There's the Nex 6 and 7 that go for a fair bit less but have a crop sensor as opposed to full frame.
What else is nice about these bodies is you can buy an adapter and keep using the lenses you have.
>>2836235
Thanks for all the help man, I'm going to do more research on the Nex 6 and 7, they look great.
>>2836186
Graphite X-T1
>>2836190
We need to know what the shoot will entail, how much work it will be for you, whether you'll be processing the images, what the photos will be used for, etc.
If all the details we have are "2-3 hours of time" then all we can do is look at what humans make for an hour of work and suggest... what, $40?
But that doesn't take into account how much you've spent on your specialist equipment, how long you've spent learning to use it and gaining experience, etc. Maybe you're worth more than $40? Maybe your uncle got you the camera four days ago and you're worth a lot less than $40.
How much do you like your friend? Do you want to help him out, or is he helping you out by giving you a job?
So on and so forth.
Does a crop sensor with a 35mm lens really give the equivalent picture as full frame with a 50mm lens? I mean, I get its a similar angle of view but doesn't the 35mm lens still have the depth of field (and probably other stuff too) characteristic of its focal length?
>>2836294
Full frame camera - 50mm lens - f/1.8
will have the same photo as:
APS-C camera - 35mm lens - f/1.4
At the exact same aperture, you get about a stop difference in terms of depth of field (wider depth of field on the crop) but everything else will be the same.
I've read that b&w film is often used with a yellow filter.
When converting digital photos to b&w, do you need to do anything in particular to emulate this filtering?
>>2836380
What's happening when you use a colored filter to adjust contrast in a scene for B&W work is that the filter is lightening colors that are in the same spectrum as the filter, and darkening the others.
So if you use a red filter, for instance, a blue sky will look darker, and red-ish skin will look lighter.
Depending on your method of conversion, you may be able to select a profile that automatically handles colors in the way that would have happened had you shot with a filter on the scene.
If not, you can go in manually and lighten colors near to yellow on the color wheel, and darken the colors opposite it.
>>2836294
It's an easy to prove fact that if you want comparable DoF you gotta multiply the aperture by the crop factor.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5zN6NVx-hY
A F1.8 lens on the canon crop body will give worse blur than a F2.8 lens on the full frame body (as after crop factor the first lens is at 2.88)
Do i need an ND filter for very long exposures (ex. 250 seconds)
>>2836565
It depends.
I have a Fuji X-Pro 2 with less than 500 shots on it. Extra battery, 3 lenses, and a bag. If I sold all this together, is $2000 too high of a price?
>>2836587
What are the three lenses?
>>2836590
18mm f2
35mm 1.4
55-200mm 3.5-4.8 with image stabilization
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/839138-REG/Fujifilm_16240743_18mm_f_2_0_XF_R.html
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/839139-REG/Fujifilm_16240755_35mm_f_1_4_XF_R.html
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/966855-REG/fujifilm_55_200mm_f_3_5_4_8_xf_r.html
Does canon even make a relatively new full frame DSLR that is under 2k and not shit? Their site is only coming up with the 6d and that doesn't make me erect.
[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 20:48:02 Exposure Time 1/100 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
>>2836598
Only the 6D. It has the same stills image quality as the 5D-iii for $1400 instead of $2500.
But you get what you pay for. It's the "entry level" full frame.
For the extra grand the 5d3 gets you 10x better autofocusing, much better video (look at youtube, 6D has weird effects on line grids in video), software, secondary card slot for dual-saving for actual $$ photography events, I think better sound recording during movie options with headphones and external mic, better processor which can capture I think 6 shots per second instead of 4 or 4.5. Some other tidbits.
So yeah... canon honestly loses in body to non-canon companies, you gotta pay several hundred more to get equal quality body... but then you pay several hundred more to get a nikon set of lenses so it evens out.
Or if you go with a shitty sony mirrorless you pay those several hundred extra on an adapter because there aren't enough native lenses, again evening out the total cost.
It's an inconvenient choice. The 6D feels like eating at mcdonalds. Whereas 5diii feels like eating at some place that charges $60 for a steak.
The steak is "better" but at that price, you might enjoy it less because you're busy obsessing over the wasted dosh.
While the mcdonalds camera leaves you feeling a little bit handicapped, like most mcdonalds customers.
What we really need is a $1800-1900 camera that's halfway between the 6D and the 5d mk iii.
Great image quality, focusing, pro-ish features, 2 slots, most of the other benefits, but not at luxury price.
It exists as the 7d mkii for crop, but not for a full frame camera.
>>2836592
Then $2000 is a steal.
>>2836587
Who'd you steal it from?
>>2836685
No one. I bought them all about two weeks ago and spent literally all my money on it. Now I just need money, lol.
>>2836662
I was just looking at 5d mkIIIs on ebay used. Unless something in that particular market range that you mentioned comes out in the next year or so i'll probably end up getting one.
>>2827735
ok, so there's that
>>2836716
uh, pick which lens you like the most and keep it. Sell the other 2
Can I use my newer digital lenses with older film bodies?
I want to see the kind of results I can get on film with say, a Canon 50e (or whatever, I don't even care about the body as long as it's film) and my Sigma 50mm 1.4 ART. Or even my Canon lenses, as long as they're EF mount. Will this work without too many hurdles?
>>2836864
So long as you have an EF mount body, no issues.
My nikon d3200 is stuck, when in manual mode, i cant move the aperture ir shutter speed, is on 80 and f/22, I dial one way and the other and nothing moves, in auto and ither mides is ok and everything works and the aperture and shutter speed moves, but when I put it back in manual, is the same. Is it fucked? This happened after putting a new refurbished lens, i put other lenses and is the same, I reseted the camera and still no change. Any help?
>>2825802
the most obvious way is to decide for yourself what specific property of a certain scene or object it is that grabs you enough to think about pushing that goddamn shutter-button.
Once you know what it is that you actually want to capture, move around and see if you can get an angle on it that resonates with that emotion the strongest. If you find more than one angle, eliminate the one(s) with more clutter than the other(s) and go from there..
Then it is time to figure out how to set your camera to allow for it to capture the essence.
This is my version of what Ken R. calls "f.a.r.t"
Yet photography can and will venture beyond that and into the abstract, once you get bored with the basics. Just saying.
And yes, timing and lighting are also variables that are closely connected to the process above.
>>2825504
troll
>>2837388
In what way? Looks dead-on accurate to me.
I'm planning on getting a Canon Elan IIe. It's an older camera, but what's the cut-off age for a camera that's too old to work with modern flashes? I have a Yongnuo 565ex II if that matters.
