|
Thanks for all the advice guys. I'm at least feeling like I want to go shoot again.
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2010 17:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 15:41 |
|
|
For me, it was totally my equipment. I had all manual focus lenses and I was just frustrated when I got home and saw an awesome shot where I completely blew focus. That got me so demotivated and made me want to shoot less, and in turn when I did shoot I was constantly thinking "man I bet this is going to be all hosed up" which pretty much kille whatever motivation I had left. I picked up a 30 1.4 and a Nikon D200 and all of a sudden I love photography again. I don't have any amazing shots yet, but the entire process felt so seamless and I felt like I wasn't fighting my equipment anymore. I don't know how long this phase will last, but I'm going to enjoy it while I can.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2010 20:54
|
|
|
I have a question about libraries in Aperture 3. I'm trying to free up space on my computer so I have my library file copied to my external hard drive and switched the library in the app. However making adjustments is way slower now. My library contains both the versions and masters and I was thinking I could increase performance by having the masters referenced on the external and the library on the internal or figure out how to move completed projects from the internal library to the external library. How do you guys deal with this?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2010 03:35
|
|
|
Fiannaiocht posted:I have a question about libraries in Aperture 3. I'm trying to free up space on my computer so I have my library file copied to my external hard drive and switched the library in the app. However making adjustments is way slower now. My library contains both the versions and masters and I was thinking I could increase performance by having the masters referenced on the external and the library on the internal or figure out how to move completed projects from the internal library to the external library. How do you guys deal with this? I'm guessing it's slower because your library is on a USB external drive. Though I haven't tried it, I assume a firewire 800 drive might be fast enough to where you don't see a decrease in performance. Regardless, what I do and what I suggest you do, is break up your library into several libraries and throw your older images on the drive. I've been making separate libraries for each year of photos and throwing the past years (the ones I don't need to access often) on my external. Aside from saving space, you'll also get a performance boost as Aperture tends to slow down around when the library hits 10,000 images. To split libraries what you need to do is make a new library, then import your current library into the new library. Next, in the new library, delete whatever you want to keep in the working library then switch back to your working library. In the working library delete everything you added to the new library. Be sure to make a back up of the original library and keep it around till you're certain everything is still in tact.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2010 04:27
|
|
|
Haggins posted:I'm guessing it's slower because your library is on a USB external drive. Though I haven't tried it, I assume a firewire 800 drive might be fast enough to where you don't see a decrease in performance.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2010 04:30
|
|
|
wins32767 posted:It seems that lately every single picture I take is terrible. I suspect it's an artifact of now knowing a little bit about what makes a good picture but not enough to be able to create one. It's really killing my desire to go out and shoot; the weather change has also added to that. How do you get over the hump of thinking everything you shoot is total poo poo? Chuck motherfuckin Close posted:The advice I like to give young artists, or really anybody who’ll listen to me, is not to wait around for inspiration. Inspiration is for amateurs; the rest of us just show up and get to work. If you wait around for the clouds to part and a bolt of lightning to strike you in the brain, you are not going to make an awful lot of work. All the best ideas come out of the process; they come out of the work itself. Things occur to you. If you’re sitting around trying to dream up a great art idea, you can sit there a long time before anything happens. But if you just get to work, something will occur to you and something else will occur to you and somthing else that you reject will push you in another direction. Inspiration is absolutely unnecessary and somehow deceptive. You feel like you need this great idea before you can get down to work, and I find that’s almost never the case. Shoot more, read more.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2010 16:52
|
|
|
Has anyone here messed around with stereoscopic photography? Things always come in waves, people used to keep parlor books of photos to entertain with, and now there's facebook. Stereo images were super popular at the turn of the century, and now 3D is all the rage. I want to figure out the cheapest way to play with it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2010 20:04
|
|
|
You can do stereoscopic with careful camera control.. take a picture, move your body a few inches to the side, take a second picture. A slightly better way is two identical cameras with identical lenses, mount them on a bar (you can buy such rigs) and release the shutter at the same time. The expensive way is buying a stereoscopic camera.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2010 20:08
|
|
|
Depending on what SLR mount you have, beam splitter lens add-ons exist specifically for stereo photography. With some cursory googling there is a recently made Pentax one that'll screw onto a 50mm lens.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2010 20:28
|
|
|
3D photography is going to be the next HDR.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2010 20:34
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:3D photography is going to be the next HDR. I actually want to do 3D HDR animated gifs, its gunna b awsum.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2010 20:56
|
|
|
With selective color?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2010 21:02
|
|
|
wins32767 posted:With selective color? That adds just a touch of class
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2010 21:22
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:3D photography is going to be the next HDR. I'll be honest, I'm really intrigued with the idea of doing 3D concert photography.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2010 02:24
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:I actually want to do 3D HDR animated gifs, its gunna b awsum.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2010 03:03
|
|
|
spf3million posted:How about 3D, fake tilt shift, hdr timelapses? If by fake tilt shift you mean make big things look small, stoners across the world would eat that poo poo up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2010 03:56
|
|
|
But really, who's got info on how to get started on stereo images? I'm particularly confused when it comes to viewing them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2010 13:09
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:But really, who's got info on how to get started on stereo images? I'm particularly confused when it comes to viewing them. Look up software on making red/cyan anaglyphs. That's the crappiest and cheapest 3D. Or you can take two images, scale them down a bunch, and put them side by side. Then you do the cross-eyed thing to make a 3D illusion. Anything beyond that requires real money. Polarizing 3D needs a special display, and there's the old style where there's a special viewer that uses mirrors to direct a different image to each eye.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2010 16:01
|
|
|
The simplest way is to make a gif that wiggles, or "wigglegram".
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2010 16:12
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:But really, who's got info on how to get started on stereo images? I'm particularly confused when it comes to viewing them. Basically you just take two cameras sitting as close together as possible set at the same focal length and point them at a small temporary object. That object will become the focus point and will be used only to line up the cameras. Replace the small object for whatever you are photographing and go *click*. For viewing you can either merge them in a fast gif or print them on a stereographic card. If I'll have time tonight I'll see if I can make one. I figure ( Long shutter + dark room + flash ) should be a substitute for a trigger.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2010 00:18
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:But really, who's got info on how to get started on stereo images? I'm particularly confused when it comes to viewing them. Stereo photography has been around since the nineteenth century, it sort of lost steam in the early twentieth, although some people kept on with it on to the present day. You can always print them and view them with one of these: 
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2010 17:55
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Stereo photography has been around since the nineteenth century, it sort of lost steam in the early twentieth, although some people kept on with it on to the present day. Hopefully with sweet rodeo pics 
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2010 20:45
|
|
|
I have a few digital shots I would like to have printed. Can some one recommend an online service they have used? I am not entering a fine art competition, but I would like something better than what my old canon inkjet can produce, and hopefully on some nicer paper. Also, it is out of ink.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2010 22:41
|
|
Associate Christ
|
Kaluza-Klein posted:I have a few digital shots I would like to have printed. Can some one recommend an online service they have used? I am not entering a fine art competition, but I would like something better than what my old canon inkjet can produce, and hopefully on some nicer paper. Also, it is out of ink. Mpex is pretty good.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2010 22:48
|
|
|
Kaluza-Klein posted:I have a few digital shots I would like to have printed. Can some one recommend an online service they have used? I am not entering a fine art competition, but I would like something better than what my old canon inkjet can produce, and hopefully on some nicer paper. Also, it is out of ink. Not sure where you are but in the UK Photobox are good.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2010 23:25
|
|
|
I am in the US. I can't find any sort of photo printing service on mpex.com.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2010 23:57
|
|
|
Because it's actually mpix.com 
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2010 01:12
|
|
|
Sorry that's my bad. I got the two confused.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2010 01:24
|
|
|
I always use Adoramapix.com. Once in a while I get a few prints that were printed on paper that is hosed up, it's usually very good quality... and their customer service is top notch. I always spring for Matte prints.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2010 15:18
|
|
|
I do all of my printing through smug mug now, and I chose the Bay Photo option. The stuff looks great and is packaged really well. http://www.bayphoto.com/
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2010 15:30
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:I do all of my printing through smug mug now, and I chose the Bay Photo option. The stuff looks great and is packaged really well. http://www.bayphoto.com/ Yep, same. Quality is great and they seem to be the only ones that can correctly reproduce red in certain shades.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2010 18:15
|
|
|
Hey, thank you very much guys! Bayphoto seems to be more expensive. $3.50 for an 8x10 vs $1.99 at mpix and $1.28 at adorama. I am happy to pay a bit more for a nicer print, but I guess I have to admit to myself I don't really know how nice I want or need. The lady friend has an idea that for xmas we make nice prints of my photography (I am baffled and nervous and not excited about it!) and have them framed. One for each family member. Luckily it is just her family, as mine couldn't care less about this sort of thing! Anyway, I don't usually do prints of anything. I just scan negatives when I do film and that is that. Can some one offer suggestions of where I might start? Matte vs. gloss, etc. What is this metallic stuff these places are all pimping? All the photos are either going to be landscapes or portraits. I am sort of thinking that having bayphoto colour correct them would be a good idea. I will probably have them all print the same photo on the same stock and see which one I like?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2010 01:46
|
|
|
I keep flip flopping between matte and gloss. I see it as a personal preference. And I haven't tried the metallic prints because of the price.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2010 02:16
|
|
|
Kaluza-Klein posted:Hey, thank you very much guys! From what I've heard and followed - get matte if you're going to frame it, gloss if you aren't. Don't get a metallic print of a picture of white people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2010 02:36
|
|
|
I'm pretty much starting out again after a long break from photography, and was wondering what recommendations you guys have for somewhere online to display my work. Right now, under consideration are blogger, tumblr, wordpress, smugmug, flickr. I guess I'd like to be able to have different sections eg "food", "portraits", "landscapes"... and have the images look as good as possible (I notice blogger can make images look crappy somehow).
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2010 07:36
|
|
|
Well, what I'm looking at doing is creating a wordpess blog, but hosting the images on Flickr so I can still manage them in one place. There are any number of ways to display your photos on a wordpress blog, you just have to pick or create the theme you like most.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2010 07:58
|
|
|
I find Flickr's interface to be unfriendly for visitors. It's very cluttered and confusing and not very good for navigating between photos. I found that when I used to host my photos on Flickr, people would see one photo but rarely check out the rest of the set because of the wacky navigation. It's slightly better now, but still bad from that standpoint, so keep that in mind if you're using it to show off photos to the general public.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2010 16:00
|
|
|
I want to know why flickr forces me to switch to the black background slideshow view before I can get to the high resolution version. Which I click a magnifying glass, it should give me a bigger image, no questions asked. It seems to me the site only survives because it's popular.. the interface is lovely and the community is even worse. But it got that critical mass and has become too big to fail. VVV  I had no idea.
xzzy fucked around with this message at 16:28 on Nov 3, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2010 16:21
|
|
|
Right click for a sizes popup menu 
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2010 16:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 15:41 |
|
|
xzzy posted:I want to know why flickr forces me to switch to the black background slideshow view before I can get to the high resolution version. Which I click a magnifying glass, it should give me a bigger image, no questions asked. I've been on Flickr since early 05 and I found that the community isn't bad on the local level and I've met a few really good photographers locally through it. But where the community does fail is that there are too many "Me too! / Great Shot!" offering praise just so they can attract others to their photos instead of offering solid criticism. I think Flickr's organizational capabilities are pretty good for administrating one's photos. I'm not sure how others fare in that regard. I almost quit Flickr when we were forced to register a yahoo email to use it, but found myself too invested in the number of photos and links I had shared over time to switch.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2010 16:40
|
|
