|
unprofessional posted:An acquaintance of mine takes waterlily photos with very dark backgrounds, but there's a language barrier there, so it's hard to get a good answer when I asked her how she does it. The challenge is that waterlilies open up in the sun and close before the sun sets, so it's hard to get anything but direct sunlight on them, making for harsh light. The book Understanding Exposure goes through something very similar to this. He basically underexposes the background and uses flash to light the flower. I don't think you can get that effect without using flash. The example you posted though does just look underexposed in general.
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 19:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 20:43 |
|
|
Got an answer out of her - "I use spot metering." Time to look up spot metering!
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 21:30
|
|
|
William T. Hornaday posted:Panosaurus is around $100. Or you could take a shot at making your own for a fraction of that. Any good plans for making one? Something I could disassemble and throw in a backpack would be nice.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 23:48
|
|
|
Dren posted:You don't look up the measurements you calibrate it yourself. I just callibrated it, well I think... for the 50, 85 and 24mm lenses. Although I am not sure how accurate I have to be... it's pretty tricky, and seeing as I have the worst nerves in history and I shake like a bitch I found doing it really hard. I callibrated the lenses but couldn't seem to tell much difference with measurements up to about 5mm in difference... quite harder than I thought it would be. tried with the ballpoint tube and line of sight with a couple of nails through a piece of cardboard and lining up the point with the DOF preview button, seeemed to be ok but my newves are shot possibly leaving me out by a few mm :P edit: I found this tutorial to be a lot easier to follow https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0HaRZi-FWs Sludge Tank fucked around with this message at 07:25 on May 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 06:52
|
|
|
Two questions about manual lenses on my XSi; I bought a cheap set of macro extension tubes to experiment with, and I noticed that (this may be flipped) when using live view the pictures came out fine, but if I was shooting using the viewfinder they were overexposed; I ended up setting the exposure comp. to ~ -1.3 stops when using the view finder and it seemed to work fine. What's the reason behind this? Also, and I don't know if this would be explained by question 1, if I were to buy one of the Samyang/Rokinon manual focus lenses that don't communicate the aperture to the camera, are there special steps I'll need to take in order to compose the image properly with the right exposure?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 17:09
|
|
|
GobiasIndustries posted:Two questions about manual lenses on my XSi; I bought a cheap set of macro extension tubes to experiment with, and I noticed that (this may be flipped) when using live view the pictures came out fine, but if I was shooting using the viewfinder they were overexposed; I ended up setting the exposure comp. to ~ -1.3 stops when using the view finder and it seemed to work fine. What's the reason behind this? e: obviously you won't be able to set aperture on the camera in manual mode, it'll just show up as 00.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 21:21
|
|
|
Is this a case of the photo just being overexposed? The rest of the roll turned out fine. I used a Canon A-1 on full program mode and Fuji 200 film.  2521471-R1-044-20A.jpg by Tenbux, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 22:16
|
|
|
Maybe check your scanner settings? Looks a little over exposed but the saturation on those reds is completely blown. I can't really tell if that's also the case in this picture which was the only other I could see with significant red, if you have a higher res scan I'd check to see whether the same problem occurs: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tenbux/8871107526/sizes/h/in/photostream/ As an aside, that shot of the hawk sat on a gravestone is awesome. e: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tenbux/8871090628/
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 22:44
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:Maybe check your scanner settings? Looks a little over exposed but the saturation on those reds is completely blown. I can't really tell if that's also the case in this picture which was the only other I could see with significant red, if you have a higher res scan I'd check to see whether the same problem occurs: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tenbux/8871107526/sizes/h/in/photostream/ Thanks! That photo you linked is actually the same flowers but from far away. I had them scanned at a local photo place so I will have to go back and ask them. It was confusing me because the green leaves in the picture seem to be fine. I didn't even consider that it might be their scanner. I appreciate your help!
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 22:59
|
|
|
I work for an educational institution and got this email today:quote:[a company that sells software] notified us this morning that Adobe is making changes to our option for faculty, staff and students to purchase “personal use” software effective June 6th. Has anyone else gotten something similar? I can't imagine that Adobe is going to discontinue educational pricing, but it is a concern. My copy of CS5 and LR4 have been treating me well but if this is my last chance to get CS6 with the newer version of ACR I may dip into my savings to avoid having to deal with the creative cloud later.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 23:14
|
|
|
I would assume it's because of the upcoming rollout of Adobe Creative Cloud, and that pretty much none of those programs will be available for purchase, educational or otherwise, once the switch is made. Though I do believe that there is an educational discount on the subscription for ACC.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 23:31
|
|
|
I thought Lightroom was not going to the cloud? If it isn't, why would it be included in the list?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 02:11
|
|
|
jsmith114 posted:I thought Lightroom was not going to the cloud? If it isn't, why would it be included in the list? Lightroom 5 is coming out in june, isn't it? That email only says LR4 and LR3.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 02:20
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:Lightroom 5 is coming out in june, isn't it? That email only says LR4 and LR3. Well, you can't stop selling something that isn't out yet so it wouldn't think it would be on that list. I guess my question is - Does anyone know if one will be able to get student pricing on photoshop or lightroom after the 6th from anywhere other than my institutions software licensing center.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 02:34
|
|
|
jsmith114 posted:Well, you can't stop selling something that isn't out yet so it wouldn't think it would be on that list. I guess my question is - Does anyone know if one will be able to get student pricing on photoshop or lightroom after the 6th from anywhere other than my institutions software licensing center. You should be able to get student pricing direct from adobe, or from places like amazon. They just verify that you have a .edu email address. like http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Photosh...lightroom+adobe
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 02:45
|
|
|
Does this panoramic tripod head look like a terrible idea, and/or would it work on a Cannon T3i?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 05:33
|
|
|
Drunk Badger posted:Does this panoramic tripod head look like a terrible idea, and/or would it work on a Cannon T3i? It looks useless because there’s no way to properly align the camera for no‐parallax shooting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 06:02
|
|
|
jsmith114 posted:Well, you can't stop selling something that isn't out yet so it wouldn't think it would be on that list. I guess my question is - Does anyone know if one will be able to get student pricing on photoshop or lightroom after the 6th from anywhere other than my institutions software licensing center. Photoshop CS6 has ceased to be a product, hence the being unable to buy it. You'll still be able to get a discount on Photoshop CC but it'll be in the form of a Creative Cloud Edu subscription. Lightroom 5 should conceivably still have student pricing. The way Adobe's going, though, it's anyone's guess.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 08:39
|
|
|
Does it even have a benefit over using a pan/tilt tripod head?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 17:36
|
|
|
I want to take a picture of a person using a slow shutter speed for the background, slow enough that motion blur from the person is almost guaranteed (say, over one second). Is there a way I can somehow eliminate the movement of the subject while still using a slow shutter speed? I've thought (and tried) using strobes, having the person quickly run into the frame before firing the strobe on them, but the problem is that the area behind the person still gets "filled in" by the ambient light. I can't think of a way to get this to work physically. Do any of you have any ideas? The effect I'm thinking of in my head is to use a slow shutter speed to have lots of motion blur in the background while having a still subject in the foreground.
Subyng fucked around with this message at 05:16 on Jun 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 05:12
|
|
|
What are you trying to accomplish with the slow shutter speed? Is it too dark? Do you want a motion-blurred background?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 05:24
|
|
|
Subyng posted:The effect I'm thinking of in my head is to use a slow shutter speed to have lots of motion blur in the background while having a still subject in the foreground.  Look up tutorials on rear curtain sync.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 05:32
|
|
|
Subyng posted:I want to take a picture of a person using a slow shutter speed for the background, slow enough that motion blur from the person is almost guaranteed (say, over one second). Is there a way I can somehow eliminate the movement of the subject while still using a slow shutter speed? I've thought (and tried) using strobes, having the person quickly run into the frame before firing the strobe on them, but the problem is that the area behind the person still gets "filled in" by the ambient light. I can't think of a way to get this to work physically. Do any of you have any ideas? The effect I'm thinking of in my head is to use a slow shutter speed to have lots of motion blur in the background while having a still subject in the foreground. What the parrot said, and also, stop down more and use stronger flash.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 05:44
|
|
|
Subyng posted:I want to take a picture of a person using a slow shutter speed for the background, slow enough that motion blur from the person is almost guaranteed (say, over one second). Is there a way I can somehow eliminate the movement of the subject while still using a slow shutter speed? I've thought (and tried) using strobes, having the person quickly run into the frame before firing the strobe on them, but the problem is that the area behind the person still gets "filled in" by the ambient light. I can't think of a way to get this to work physically. Do any of you have any ideas? The effect I'm thinking of in my head is to use a slow shutter speed to have lots of motion blur in the background while having a still subject in the foreground. Have the subject hit the deck after the flash fires. I’m only semi‐joking. If the exposure time is long enough, they can walk out of the frame without leaving a mark.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 05:46
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:Something like this? No, not like that. I'm familiar with rear curtain sync, and the problem with that is that the ambient light will still reveal any movement by the person. SoundMonkey posted:What the parrot said, and also, stop down more and use stronger flash. How will stopping down help? Platystemon posted:Have the subject hit the deck after the flash fi I tried that as I explained, only, with the person walking in at the end of the exposure rather than walking out at the beginning. Either way, what happens is that during the time the person is not in the frame, the ambient light will fill in that area, making the person appear semi-transparent even though they were properly exposed by the flash.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 05:50
|
|
|
Subyng posted:I tried that as I explained, only, with the person walking in at the end of the exposure rather than walking out at the beginning. Either way, what happens is that during the time the person is not in the frame, the ambient light will fill in that area, making the person appear semi-transparent even though they were properly exposed by the flash. Sorry, I misunderstood the problem. You’d have to do a composite image to avoid that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 05:53
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Sorry, I misunderstood the problem. You’d have to do a composite image to avoid that. No worries, I found it difficult to explain myself.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 06:05
|
|
|
Subyng posted:How will stopping down help? So you can still let the ambient burn in for a while then hit them with an absurdly bright flash that doesn't contribute to the lighting of the background. Also yeah having them duck out of frame is a totally valid thing. I've walked through 10 minute exposures with a lit cigarette and there was absolutely no trace of it on the picture.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 06:21
|
|
|
I was comparing the picture quality from the native camera app in my Lumia 920 with a HDR app on a desktop monitor when I noticed something. There's a small faint reddish band in the sky that looks like lens flare and then there's a much bigger red-green band that's visible in the reflection of the sky in the water but not in the sky itself. What's this red-green band in the water? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 13:29
|
|
|
Subyng posted:I want to take a picture of a person using a slow shutter speed for the background, slow enough that motion blur from the person is almost guaranteed (say, over one second). Is there a way I can somehow eliminate the movement of the subject while still using a slow shutter speed? I've thought (and tried) using strobes, having the person quickly run into the frame before firing the strobe on them, but the problem is that the area behind the person still gets "filled in" by the ambient light. I can't think of a way to get this to work physically. Do any of you have any ideas? The effect I'm thinking of in my head is to use a slow shutter speed to have lots of motion blur in the background while having a still subject in the foreground. Attempting to freeze a person in a long exposure using a flash will not work well inside a single exposure. If the area where the person ends up being is exposed as well or nearly as well as the flashed subject is, you will get the effect of a double exposure where the person and background overlap. The only way you'll get a clean exposure of the subject using this technique is if the area where the person will be is dark/unexposed before the flash. Perhaps you can approximate the effect you're after by shooting a long exposure that intentionally underexposes the background by a stop or two then exposing your subject with a strobe strength that overexposes them by a stop or two. 3-4 stops of difference between the subject and background should be enough that the background is not noticeably visible through the subject. When working with flash it is important to remember that only two of the factors of exposure, ISO and aperture, actually affect flash exposure. So set your flash power and subject distance to expose for ƒ/16 ISO 200, use a long shutter and underexpose, then see what you get.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 19:41
|
|
|
Max Facetime posted:I was comparing the picture quality from the native camera app in my Lumia 920 with a HDR app on a desktop monitor when I noticed something. There's a small faint reddish band in the sky that looks like lens flare and then there's a much bigger red-green band that's visible in the reflection of the sky in the water but not in the sky itself. At work with lovely monitors but from what I can tell its banding from the jpeg. Basically there are not enough colours in the gamut of 8-bit jpegs to accurately render such a graduation of colour so it ends up in bands.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 03:59
|
|
|
XTimmy posted:At work with lovely monitors but from what I can tell its banding from the jpeg. Basically there are not enough colours in the gamut of 8-bit jpegs to accurately render such a graduation of colour so it ends up in bands.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 04:10
|
|
|
casa de mi padre posted:Oh, is that what does it? Is there a way to eliminate this? I like to shoot with fabrics that tend to give the banding when I save as jpgs. Don't save as JPEG and instead use PNG or something. It'll result in a bigger (filesize) file though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 05:00
|
|
|
XTimmy posted:At work with lovely monitors but from what I can tell its banding from the jpeg. Basically there are not enough colours in the gamut of 8-bit jpegs to accurately render such a graduation of colour so it ends up in bands. I'm a bit skeptical of this explanation. Shouldn't there be banding in the sky too? Here's a portion of the original image which is a 3552x2000 JPG, as a PNG for a closer look:  Could this be a physical effect, some sort of prism-like refraction from layers of colder and warmer water?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 19:05
|
|
|
Max Facetime posted:Could this be a physical effect, some sort of prism-like refraction from layers of colder and warmer water? Refraction is certainly within the realm of possibility but I'm not enough of an optics nerd to be able to make any conclusions. Water temperature is unlikely to be a factor. I will say the reflection in the water looks an awful lot like the belt of venus to me, so it could be a quirk of the angle of the sun relative to your viewpoint. The clouds and vapor in the air probably help it along.. it sort of looks to me like the sky would have the same pattern if it weren't for the flaring.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 19:23
|
|
|
Could be the JPEG encoder using up most of the colours in the first half of the picture.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 20:09
|
|
|
Yeah, jpeg runs out of color all the time. You can buy refills on amazon for pretty cheap, don't bother with the OEM stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 20:14
|
|
|
Should I be worried about cheap Chinese refills? I've heard they put in counterfeit colors.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 20:23
|
|
|
Hey guys, my newspaper is sending me up in a helicopter Saturday to take photos of the city during the annual festival. I'll have maybe five minutes of air time. I'm working with a Canon 5D MK I and a Sigma standard lens. I'm a little worried about settings, thinking of shooting RAW for sure even though my editor tells me not to and going Aperture priority. ISO at around 100 if I go about 2:30 in the afternoon. Any advice? I only have one shot at this, I've never been in a helicopter before.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 20:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 20:43 |
|
|
Helicopters are fun. They are also noisy as hell and vibrate like crazy. My advice is go shutter priority, and pick a very high shutter speed as a minimum - like 1/1000 to start with. As for RAW vs. JPG, why would your editor want you to shoot JPG? For quicker turn-around for publication? If that's the case, there's not a big downside to JPG. In my experience and understanding the major benefit of RAW is much better control and more options during post-processing; if PP is going to be superfast anyways that benefit isn't a big deal. Especially since you'll probably be shooting in direct sunlight at around midday, so lots and lots of available light and no need to worry about high-ISO sensor noise. Most of your shots will be focused at infinity (camera-to-subject distance will likely be some large multiple of whatever your "Sigma standard lens'" infinity point is), and really with that much light (bright! it will be bright!) you won't be shooting wide open. I'm willing to bet you'll get more than 5 minutes. Pretty much every seat in a helicopter has a great view, so even if you're sharing shooting opportunities with several other photographers you'll have plenty of chances. Bring Gravol or something if you think there's a risk you'll get airsick - if you do, it will come on very quickly, so maybe don't eat shortly before getting on the chopper, too. Have an early (and light) lunch. tl;dr - Tv mode, 1/1000 or faster, enjoy yourself.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 20:52
|
|
