|
timeandtide posted:I was recommended Alien Bees as good but cheap general first time studio lights, and of course now that I'm ready to pick some up I can't seem to find them on Adorama, B&H, or Amazon (only accessories come up searching for "Alien Bees"): is there something else goons recommend in the $100-200 range? Used is fine. They're only sold directly through the website: http://www.paulcbuff.com/alienbees.php
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 14:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 03:14 |
|
|
timeandtide posted:I was recommended Alien Bees as good but cheap general first time studio lights, and of course now that I'm ready to pick some up I can't seem to find them on Adorama, B&H, or Amazon (only accessories come up searching for "Alien Bees"): is there something else goons recommend in the $100-200 range? Used is fine. Search the Google. Alien bees sell from paul buff, direct.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 14:08
|
|
|
^Goddamn you Dude, do you even google? http://www.paulcbuff.com/alienbees.php Two people posted before me? How did this even happen.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 14:26
|
|
|
All that said, check on KEH and whatnot for potentially a better deal, ideally something that you can still get replacement flashtubes for if you need to (I got a White Lightning 5000 for like $79, it's certainly old but it still works great).
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
I ordered up some prints from Costco, and some of the pictures are pretty far off from what I saw on my laptop, especially ones I messed around with. I'm using a lovely netbook, so it's not like I have a super accurate IPS monitor or anything. Is there some way to check the profile of the printers or something to see what you're going to get? These ones were not super important and still came out ok, but it would be nice to know what I'm gonna get.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 03:30
|
|
|
You're going to have to calibrate the screen you're using to get a decent idea of what you'll get back printed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 03:47
|
|
|
Dial M for MURDER posted:I ordered up some prints from Costco, and some of the pictures are pretty far off from what I saw on my laptop, especially ones I messed around with. I'm using a lovely netbook, so it's not like I have a super accurate IPS monitor or anything. Is there some way to check the profile of the printers or something to see what you're going to get? You may already know this, but if you're doing your own adjustments, make sure you specify no corrections when you order the prints. It's a couple clicks at Costco.com (and it doesn't always stick if you change your order) or a checkbox at the in-store terminals. Dry Creek provides ICC profiles for Costco stores.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 04:10
|
|
|
Can someone tell me what micro calibration is and how the hell I do it? I know it has to do with basically honing focus between a specific body and lens, but that's about it. I have a 60D and I want to try to get some more sharpness out of the 400mm I've just started to play with.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 04:25
|
|
|
rcman50166 posted:Can someone tell me what micro calibration is and how the hell I do it? I know it has to do with basically honing focus between a specific body and lens, but that's about it. I have a 60D and I want to try to get some more sharpness out of the 400mm I've just started to play with. No MFA on the 60D. Not nearly as necessary as the internet would like you to believe - if you have a super off lens, send it and your body to canon and they will calibrate together for you, in a professional manner which doesnt involve shooting a chart printed on letter sized paper taped to a wall in your basement from 10ft away. Edit: That sounds pretty snarky, sorry. I just think MFA is a super measurebator thing - I'm not going to quibble about focus locking on an eyelash instead of the iris of someones eye, and if it was doing something horrid like focusing an inch in front of that on the tip of their nose, I'd send it to Canon to have it done by people who know what they're doing and have proper equipment. YMMV. timrenzi574 fucked around with this message at 07:41 on Jan 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 05:03
|
|
|
I thought about putting this in the medium format thread, but that seems a bit, ah, digiphobic... It appears that both Hasselblad and Phase One are on the verge of announcing 50mp CMOS-based medium format sensor packages. The rumor articles allude to the Phase One coming as a back, and the Hasselblad being a new integrated body. Given the sudden and similar (rumored) announcements, what do you think of the possibility that they're both going to be using the same underlying chip tech? In any case, these will be beyond the pricepoints of anyone I know, but it's an interesting jump. The move to CMOS leaves open the interesting possibility of, withing a generation or two, medium-format digital video. Time to start hoarding old large-format cine lenses?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 05:25
|
|
|
thetzar posted:In any case, these will be beyond the pricepoints of anyone I know, but it's an interesting jump. The move to CMOS leaves open the interesting possibility of, withing a generation or two, medium-format digital video. Time to start hoarding old large-format cine lenses?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 10:41
|
|
|
Hey, here's a question. I've ben shooting a Nex3 for a while, which auto ISOs up to 3200 but can manually be pushed to 16k. I just got a 30D because I'd never shot with a full-sized DSLR and wanted to try it out. You can manually push the ISO up to 1600, but you can also toggle a function to let it go to "H", which most places say is relative to 3200. So why did they feel like they need to hide 3200 behind a menu function? Is 3200 that much worse on an 8-year-old body? Did they want to hide the camera would even do it from the types of folks who wouldn't read the manual anyway, and might end up there and think their camera is broken because all their outdoor pictures look like poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 16:21
|
|
|
"H" is just adding a stop of exposure digitally from a 1600 exposure or the same as if you added a stop in post. It's not a real 3200 ISO on the 30D.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 16:39
|
|
|
Huxley posted:Hey, here's a question. I've ben shooting a Nex3 for a while, which auto ISOs up to 3200 but can manually be pushed to 16k. Honestly, on an 8 year old body even 1600 is probably risking it a bit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 16:45
|
|
|
Also, those "high" and "low" ISO values only apply to the JPG.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 16:46
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:Honestly, on an 8 year old body even 1600 is probably risking it a bit. Yeah, it's not amazing. But I'm just experimenting with things cheaply, trying to decide if I like the full body/lens system of Canon better than the small body/limited lenses of the Sony. Basically I love the Canon has better AF and tons of lens options in the $200-400 range, where I love the old lenses and smaller size of the Sony, but mirrorless seems to be intently focused on <100mm, and I know I'll want to shoot sports and stuff eventually. But I've bought everything used, so it's not like I can't turn all my lenses into even money if I decide it's time to go one way or the other.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 16:56
|
|
|
3200 on a 30D/40D era camera is pretty painful unless you know how to work with it, which your average user wouldn't. I'd throw the kitchen sink at it for processing and noise reduction and there were still lots of times I had to just give up on the image because it was so noisy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 17:46
|
|
|
Can I get a little feedback from people who have bought open box items from Adorama? Is the item clearly used, or mint? The rx100 is $80 less than everywhere else I'm looking and it seems like that is enough money to take a chance...
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 08:58
|
|
|
Does anyone here have their photos printed on metallic paper? I want to print and frame a B&W photo at 20"x30". I've heard metallic paper looked great in B&W but I also saw a few comments that metallic leaves you with light grey whites instead of white whites. Proofs are so cheap through WHCC, I'll probably just order a few so I can see for myself but it can never hurt to ask the DR for thoughts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
I've made some metallic prints and I'd agree that it looks great in b/w, but none of the ones I printed had really white whites to begin with. I've printed some color pics that had lots of white that came out looking good though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 22:35
|
|
|
Metallic prints on vehicles look fantastic, by the way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
Saint Fu posted:Does anyone here have their photos printed on metallic paper? I want to print and frame a B&W photo at 20"x30". I've heard metallic paper looked great in B&W but I also saw a few comments that metallic leaves you with light grey whites instead of white whites. Proofs are so cheap through WHCC, I'll probably just order a few so I can see for myself but it can never hurt to ask the DR for thoughts. I use WHCC and while I've only gotten color prints, the metallic paper they offer looks amazing and is well worth the slight bit more they cost.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
Cool, I'll probably go for it then. Any issue with framing them? I saw someone post somewhere that it lost the wow factor when behind glass/acrylic, not sure what that would happen. Here's the one I want to print for refernce:  _MG_0380-247-257 by spf3million, on Flickr No cars or chrome in there. Actually not really a ton of full white now that I look at it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
I've both sent and received metallic prints in print exchanges. The glass of a frame does dull the effect a little, but not very much at all and the effect on clouds, ice, water, and vehicles still comes through very nicely.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 01:45
|
|
|
A photo magazine has contacted me and wants to use some of my shots for a feature. They say there is a fee depending on how my shots are used. Is that normal? They want me to pay them to use my shots? I thought it was the other way around :/
Ringo R fucked around with this message at 14:53 on Jan 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 14:48
|
|
|
LOL of course it should be. You might be misunderstanding though, and indeed usage fee is normally dependent on usage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 14:54
|
|
|
Ringo R posted:A photo magazine has contacted me and wants to use some of my shots for a feature. They say there is a fee depending on how my shots are used. Is that normal? They want me to pay them to use my shots? I thought it was the other way around :/ I design magazines for a living, and I have never ever gotten a photographer to pay me to use their images haha. You are correct that payment should go the other way. Sounds like a scam to me. What's the name of the magazine, if you don't mind my asking?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 15:54
|
|
|
This is what they wrote: "There is a small fee, but this will depend on how we use your images on the page." Am I misunderstanding the word fee? English is not my mother tongue. Edit: Should probably not name the mag but looks pretty legit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 16:37
|
|
|
Ringo R posted:A photo magazine has contacted me and wants to use some of my shots for a feature. They say there is a fee depending on how my shots are used. Is that normal? They want me to pay them to use my shots? I thought it was the other way around :/ That is hilarious. Do not pay them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
Ringo R posted:This is what they wrote: "There is a small fee, but this will depend on how we use your images on the page." Am I misunderstanding the word fee? English is not my mother tongue.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 17:11
|
|
|
Ringo R posted:This is what they wrote: "There is a small fee, but this will depend on how we use your images on the page." Am I misunderstanding the word fee? English is not my mother tongue. I'm 99% you understood them wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
I want to print out all of your photos. What's your address so I can send you my invoice?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
ZippySLC posted:I want to print out all of your photos. What's your address so I can send you my invoice? And then sell those printouts to other people, don't forget that part.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
ZippySLC posted:I want to print out all of your photos. What's your address so I can send you my invoice? You'll have to pay me more if I want to blow them up though, I have costs to cover here sheesh
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
Ringo R posted:This is what they wrote: "There is a small fee, but this will depend on how we use your images on the page." Am I misunderstanding the word fee? English is not my mother tongue. "Fee" is generally shorthand for "photographer's fee", which is itself a weird backwards corruption of "photographer's fee" where the client, not the photographer, decides what's paid. It's relatively safe to replace "fee" with honorarium or payment or royalty. To translate from what is most likely lazy industry English: "We pay some money, but it's not great. The amount will depend on how we use your images, for example how large we print them, where in the story we use them, etcetera."
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 00:44
|
|
|
My wife's kit lens for her Nikon D5100 seems to be malfunctioning. It can't zoom fully, only from 18mm to around 24mm, and any photos taken with it are severely out of focus? Any suggestions for what I can try to rectify this?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 03:30
|
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:My wife's kit lens for her Nikon D5100 seems to be malfunctioning. It can't zoom fully, only from 18mm to around 24mm, and any photos taken with it are severely out of focus? Any suggestions for what I can try to rectify this? Get a kit lens on the cheap. You can find Canon's are $50 on ebay. I personally wouldn't pay more than 20 though. edit: I said Canon because I know jack poo poo about Nikon stuff rcman50166 fucked around with this message at 04:26 on Jan 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 03:41
|
|
|
If it's new enough you could try sending it back to Nikon, but kit lenses go for like $30-60 on eBay or KEH.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 04:09
|
|
|
Anyone know anything about lens calibration with Adobe's lens profile creator? I'm getting a lot of distortion in my stills and panoramas (with panoramic head) and a lens profile in LightRoom 5 (it only has one Sony lens by default which is ridiculous) would do a lot to help, I think. I want to create one but I have to photograph a chart for the program to calculate the distortion, and though I have read instructions I still don't understand. Mostly I don't understand which chart I have to use, if I have to print one at full size, what size I need to begin with, etc. The instructions I've read show a large chart like half the size of a poster and I don't know how I would print one out unless I do it with a few sheets of paper and tape them together, which seems like I'd have to be 100% precise so as not to mess up the calibration. Am I missing something here? Does it matter what size chart I use?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 16:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 03:14 |
|
|
Maybe your installation is incomplete? Because LR has a mountain of profiles already built in: http://helpx.adobe.com/x-productkb/multi/lens-profile-support-lightroom-4.html I think if you do some googling you can find people putting up profiles they've generated up for download as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 17:17
|
|