|
William T. Hornaday posted:Eh, my eyes match up at 80mm - i.e., at 50mm on my 7D. Your eyes are normal. A 50mm lens on an SLR, whether that's crop or full-frame, will make objects appear the same size as they do to your eye--i.e. magnification, not FOV. When people say that 35mm is the "new normal" for a 1.5x crop body, they are talking about FOV, not magnification. A 35mm lens on a crop body will still make everything appear slightly smaller in terms of magnification. Fun, isn't it?
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2011 21:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 03:58 |
|
|
XTimmy posted:Regarding this, one thing I've noticed is that the focal length that "matches" my open eye to my view finder eye is actually 70mm (on a full frame), almost bang on, 50mm produces a slight desynchronization between the two. Do I have funky eyes or is it because the focal plane is actually a little bit more forward than that of the eye or what? I feel the same way. Time to start a league of mutants.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2011 22:52
|
|
|
King Hotpants posted:Your eyes are normal. Different bodies have different viewfinder magnification though. A normal lens just means a typical size print at a typical viewing distance will have "correct" looking perspective, which conveniently works out to a lens with focal length close to the diagonal of the recording medium.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2011 23:06
|
|
|
Cross_ posted:I feel the same way. Time to start a league of mutants. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_Sx-nGmMok This is the only Mutant League that matters 
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2011 10:27
|
|
|
I have to put together a portfolio if I want to be able to take any of the art classes here at school without waiting until way late in registration, and something that has me stumped is getting prints. Should I just go to Costco or wherever and be like "Here are some raws, make them physical"? I'd prefer at least a little bit of quality, what with me trying to impress people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2011 03:25
|
|
|
Crawford posted:I have to put together a portfolio if I want to be able to take any of the art classes here at school without waiting until way late in registration, and something that has me stumped is getting prints. Should I just go to Costco or wherever and be like "Here are some raws, make them physical"? I'd prefer at least a little bit of quality, what with me trying to impress people. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadihttp://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3194159d=3194159
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2011 05:26
|
|
|
Crawford posted:I have to put together a portfolio if I want to be able to take any of the art classes here at school without waiting until way late in registration, and something that has me stumped is getting prints. Should I just go to Costco or wherever and be like "Here are some raws, make them physical"? I'd prefer at least a little bit of quality, what with me trying to impress people. A good camera store will be able to print at 8x12, but this will cost significantly more than 8x10 (I've already ranted about this, I won't repeat it). So, you might want to crop your pictures on your computer to match that ratio. And set the pics to 300dpi or better.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2011 06:22
|
|
|
Crawford posted:Should I just go to Costco or wherever and be like "Here are some raws, make them physical"? I'd prefer at least a little bit of quality, what with me trying to impress people. Costco has a website for their photo centers. Convert your raws to jpeg, upload them full-res, pick your desired size, and then pick them up locally the next day. The quality at my local Costco has been hit & miss, but the nice thing is that you can preview them there and just return the ones you don't like.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2011 11:34
|
|
|
Costco is annoying. They have icc profiles available for their printers, but then they *sometimes* apply auto correction to the photos you upload (which probably depends on the employee working at the time). I've had some great results, and some pretty bad. The price is good, though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2011 14:24
|
|
|
Stupid newb question: If someone says 'you should have used a smaller apeture' Do they mean a larger number? (say f11 instead of f5.6) or a smaller number? (f4 instead of f11) Am i right in thinking that 'wide open' is the lowest number your lens will go (because it opens up to let light in) or would they mean it in a sense of actually smaller number The same with stepping down an apeture, that means to go from f5.6-f4 right? These seem like really stupid terminology questions that should be obvious
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2011 17:39
|
|
|
I consider "smaller aperture" to mean smaller in the physical sense, so f/11 would be a smaller aperture than f/2.8.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2011 17:45
|
|
|
It's also a fraction, so f/11 really does represent a smaller number than f/2.8.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2011 18:22
|
|
|
FasterThanLight posted:It's also a fraction, so f/11 really does represent a smaller number than f/2.8. Huh, I actually never thought about it as a fraction, but that's a good point.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2011 18:48
|
|
|
Skam posted:The same with stepping down an apeture, that means to go from f5.6-f4 right? I always heard it said as stop down rather than step down but it's going from a larger aperture to a smaller one. "I needed more DoF so I stopped down to f/8," that sort of thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2011 19:01
|
|
|
That reminds me. If I'm thinking in terms of "zones"... say I meter a shadow area - there's my zone V. If I want to put shadows in zone III, I would stop down twice, right? If I meter at 1/60sec f/11 or so, would that mean f/11 -> f/8 -> f/5.6 (still at 1/60sec) to put the shadows in zone III? I'm still straightening out how to properly "stop down"... it's probably way easier than I'm making it 
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2011 19:17
|
|
|
I suck really bad with the Zone system but that sounds backwards. You want the shadows darker, so you let in less light (f/11-->f/16-->f/22) while maintaining shutter speed.
King Hotpants fucked around with this message at 19:26 on Nov 18, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2011 19:23
|
|
|
King Hotpants posted:I suck really bad with the Zone system but that sounds backwards. You want the shadows darker, so you let in less light (f/11-->f/16-->f/22) while maintaining shutter speed. Wow, yeah, you're right, I don't know why I put it backwards. I meant it the other way around. Basically my question was that I would maintain shutter speed instead of reciprocating, so okay cool.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2011 19:29
|
|
|
FasterThanLight posted:Costco is annoying. They have icc profiles available for their printers, but then they *sometimes* apply auto correction to the photos you upload (which probably depends on the employee working at the time). I've had some great results, and some pretty bad. The price is good, though. This. I used them when I was just getting out of school because the quality great for the price (***when they don't gently caress it up). I've had the same issues as you, and the icing on the cake is the lighting in a costco is the last place you want to be checking over your prints.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2011 20:13
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:Wow, yeah, you're right, I don't know why I put it backwards. I meant it the other way around.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2011 02:17
|
|
|
Normally I just shoot my pictures in jpeg but the other day I decided to see how raw works, so I started shooting in the raw+jpeg format. They are .CR2 files but my computer won't open them. I tried opening them with Lightroom 2 and Elements 8 and neither of the programs recognized the file type, but I was able to view them using the Preview on my Mac. Any ideas what I need to do to open them? Also, are there any good (free) video tutorials on how to use Photoshop? I took a class in high school but have since forgotten most of what I learned. yoohoo fucked around with this message at 20:31 on Nov 19, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2011 20:13
|
|
|
yoohoo posted:Normally I just shoot my pictures in jpeg but the other day I decided to see how raw works, so I started shooting in the raw+jpeg format. They are .CR2 files but my computer won't open them. I tried opening them with Lightroom 2 and Elements 8 and neither of the programs recognized the file type, but I was able to view them using the Preview on my Mac. Any ideas what I need to do to open them? What camera? quote:Also, are there any good (free) video tutorials on how to use Photoshop? I took a class in high school but have since forgotten most of what I learned. You suck at photoshop (Youtube it. It's funny, not a proper tutorial)
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2011 21:50
|
|
|
Shooting with a t2i, and I did youtube it but all I could really find was a kid with a funny voice adding filters to pictures of Master Chief. I'll look a little harder I guess, I was just hoping there would at least be something a little more professional-ish not on youtube.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2011 22:18
|
|
|
yoohoo posted:Shooting with a t2i, and I did youtube it but all I could really find was a kid with a funny voice adding filters to pictures of Master Chief. I'll look a little harder I guess, I was just hoping there would at least be something a little more professional-ish not on youtube. http://www.macworld.com/article/150778/2010/04/lightoomrawupdates.html Possibly you haven't updated LR for a while, so it doesn't have the codec for the T2i RAW
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2011 22:40
|
|
|
spog posted:Possibly you haven't updated LR for a while, so it doesn't have the codec for the T2i RAW current LR version is 3.5, so I suspect this is the right answer. 3.5 will read any Canon cr2 file.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2011 23:21
|
|
|
yoohoo posted:Also, are there any good (free) video tutorials on how to use Photoshop? I took a class in high school but have since forgotten most of what I learned. Got a library card? Many libraries are collecting video training now, and even if yours aren't, some of the newer books are including a video component. If you're fast on the draw and want something specific, Kelby's giving away 24-hour passes each day.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2011 23:22
|
|
|
If you're enrolled at a university they might have a subscription which lets you access Lynda.com tutorials.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2011 01:06
|
|
|
Shmoogy posted:If you're enrolled at a university they might have a subscription which lets you access Lynda.com tutorials. Success! Thank you for reminding me, there is a website (not lynda.com) devoted to tutorials for computer programs through my university website and they have exactly what I was looking for.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2011 08:36
|
|
|
What's the recommended DPI for printing photos? 300? 240? Do I set that in LR when exporting the jpegs?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 05:23
|
|
|
Auditore posted:What's the recommended DPI for printing photos? 300? 240? Do I set that in LR when exporting the jpegs? Printers will tell you 300.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 14:03
|
|
|
Auditore posted:What's the recommended DPI for printing photos? 300? 240? Do I set that in LR when exporting the jpegs? Yep, I would export at 300dpi at whatever size in centimeters or inches you want your print to be.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 14:12
|
|
|
Edit: sorry nevermind
Ringo R fucked around with this message at 14:45 on Nov 30, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 14:42
|
|
|
240 is actually pretty decent to print at, it's just printers tend to deal with idiots so much that they're usually adamant about the hard 300 dpi cut off. You can uprez in photoshop with bicubic enlargement which tends to produce good results
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 15:10
|
|
|
If the resolution of the printer is known in advance, is it best to make the file exactly match the printer? What if the printer resolution is not uniform like 2400x600 dpi?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 15:15
|
|
|
Nilson posted:current LR version is 3.5, so I suspect this is the right answer. 3.5 will read any Canon cr2 file. Raw files from my 550D work fine with LR 3.0, the about box says Camera Raw is at 6.1.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 20:08
|
|
|
Apologies if this is the wrong place for this kind of question: I've been left about 100 photos that my grandfather took in WWII as well as a newspaper announcing the Japanese surrender. They've been stored in envelopes in a small box for decades and I want to scan/print them for display and keep the originals somewhere safe. Is there anything specific I need to know about scanning/storing them? I know practically nothing about film/photography and aside from using acid free paper/backing, searching through Google hasn't been very helpful.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 01:17
|
|
|
taqueso posted:If the resolution of the printer is known in advance, is it best to make the file exactly match the printer? What if the printer resolution is not uniform like 2400x600 dpi? Stuff like this is the cause of flamewars. Consensus (i.e. last photographer standing after the flamewar) from a different forum was this: - more than 300 dpi is pointless - less than 100 dpi is visible even to amateurs - do as little resizing as possible and trust the $$$ Kodak RIP to do it for you instead
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 02:38
|
|
|
I just use this thing: http://www.pointsinfocus.com/2010/09/minimum-resolution-calculator/ Hopefully it's accurate, but it's been okay for me so far.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 02:41
|
|
|
Can someone post the bar chart that shows there are way more photos on facebook than flickr, and similarly many more on flickr than picture libraries like Getty and Corbis?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 12:26
|
|
|
Ric posted:Can someone post the bar chart that shows there are way more photos on facebook than flickr, and similarly many more on flickr than picture libraries like Getty and Corbis? I assume this is what you're talking about (I googled "world's largest photo libraries") http://www.petapixel.com/2011/09/16/the-relative-sizes-of-the-worlds-largest-photo-libraries/
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 20:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 03:58 |
|
|
Gunt McBadpost posted:Apologies if this is the wrong place for this kind of question: A decent flatbed scanner will give you scans that will look fine on websites or printed at smaller sizes (up to about 8x10, I'd guess). The goon consensus (if there is one) is for an Epson V500 or V600 - less than $150, the Epson Scan software it comes with is clunky but useable, and you'll be able to use it for whatever else you feel like scanning (including film negatives, if you have any of those) or sell it for nearly what you paid when you're done. My bigger worries would be handling the originals. Pick up a pair of white cotton gloves, this will keep the oils from your skin off of them. A good crafting / scapbooking store will have plastic sleeves and storage boxes and so forth, and probably the gloves, too. My mom spent a couple of years after my grandparents (her parents) died going through thousands of photos from about 1930 onwards, scanning a few dozen when she had some spare time. They turned out great, now we've got these photos in a form we don't worry about damaging (just email them around!) and the originals are safely stored away somewhere. The bigger job was tracking down the people in the pictures, and working out when and where they were taken. Most consumer flatbed scanners come with software that will do an OK job at dealing with scratches and creases and the occassional bit of water damage.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2011 05:14
|
|