|
xzzy posted:Maybe your installation is incomplete? Because LR has a mountain of profiles already built in: I downloaded the, uh, lens profile downloader and it curiously lacks a profile for my camera and lens, a Sony A380 digital SLR with a SAL1118 11-18mm wide-angle lens. Even if it had it, Sony calls the lens two different things, it's either SAL1118 or DT-whatever.
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 14:37 |
|
|
I see one in the profile downloader for the DT 11-18mm F4.5-5.6, on the A350. It looks like there's not any major differences between the A350 and A380, so that one should work fine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
life is killing me posted:I downloaded the, uh, lens profile downloader and it curiously lacks a profile for my camera and lens, a Sony A380 digital SLR with a SAL1118 11-18mm wide-angle lens. Even if it had it, Sony calls the lens two different things, it's either SAL1118 or DT-whatever. Your cameras profile is found here and is a custom job by a user. http://www.piraccini.net/2011/02/profili-colore-sony-a900-per-adobe-lr.html You are going to have to google more about the lens. I cant seem to even find custom made user lens profiles. Maybe Sony needs to take Adobe seriously, or Adobe needs to stop laughing at Sony products but dont feel so bad, the Samsung cameras are also mostly left out of Lightroom too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 17:49
|
|
|
Well, Lightroom has all of Sony's E-mount lenses (not saying much), so they're working together, just not on the A-mount side.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
Maybe I will just put that a350 lens in there along with that custom profile. The downloader should have found any profiles made but it didn't, apparently. I definitely will have to google the lens. I have before, but nothing useful really came up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
Elliotw2 posted:I see one in the profile downloader for the DT 11-18mm F4.5-5.6, on the A350. It looks like there's not any major differences between the A350 and A380, so that one should work fine. At least that is the same f-settings as my lens as well. I will see if it works. I have half a mind to try calibration but I have a feeling it will be time-consuming with the fifty-or-so charts available and that trial-and-error I am sure to encounter.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
The chart printout files are in the zip archive for the profile generator itself. There's a subfolder called "calibration charts" thats full of PDF's The instructions for it are kindof laffo though, because it tells you to do a set at MFD, and a set at 5x MFD. However, it also says the whole chart has to fit in the frame. The only non-profiled lens I own that can fit the whole chart in the frame at MFD is my 8mm fisheye. My samyang 16mm, nope. samyang 24mm t/s, nope. Arsat 80mm t/s, nope. When I did those I just did what seemed a reasonable distance vs frame filling. I basically tried to fit the chart just spilling a little over the center part of the 3x3 grid, and did other photos around the grid, one for each grid section.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:The chart printout files are in the zip archive for the profile generator itself. There's a subfolder called "calibration charts" thats full of PDF's Yeah I had found the charts, I just didn't know which to use. There's too many in the folder and I don't know if it matters which you use or why. The instructions for it ARE bad, but they at least mention to do it at different distances, it's just that nowhere can I find anything that says which chart is optimal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
life is killing me posted:Yeah I had found the charts, I just didn't know which to use. There's too many in the folder and I don't know if it matters which you use or why. If you're doing letter size paper, use the 54 point, 9x13 - don't try to tape together a big chart from smaller paper
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
I just realized that I shoot in .JPG because I do panoramas and usually end up taking hundreds of photos per job. I'm not sure if that has anything to do with whether or not the camera profile from that blog will show up in LR5, but it's not showing up now and I extracted it to where the blogger said to and to the LR5 directory.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 17:00
|
|
|
life is killing me posted:I just realized that I shoot in .JPG because I do panoramas and usually end up taking hundreds of photos per job. Pretty sure they are JPG/RAW specific, so that might be it
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 17:08
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:Pretty sure they are JPG/RAW specific, so that might be it Welp, I guess I'll have to do the calibration and create a .jpg profile.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
I like photography, I've always wanted to take cool photos of stuff I see and do, but I also know jack poo poo about photography. My girlfriend bought me an old DSLR (? maybe? How do you tell if it is?) recently as a surprise thing, because I've always made vague noises about wanting a camera that didn't suck/wasn't my cellphone. The camera in question is a Sony "Cyber-shot 5.0 mega pixel" model code DSC-F717. It came with a bag, all the various cords and such, what I think of as a 'normal' sized lens and a really wide lens roughly 4 inches across marked 'wide conversion lens', and a couple of machined alloy adaptors that look like they're meant to let you screw on other lenses. My question is, is this camera any good? Any critical flaws or quirks to watch out for? Where would be the best place to learn/ask about how to use this thing? I don't want to waste it just taking lovely photos on the auto setting like a chump. Slavvy fucked around with this message at 08:44 on Jan 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 08:38
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:I like photography, I've always wanted to take cool photos of stuff I see and do, but I also know jack poo poo about photography. It's not a DSLR, it is a bridge camera (lens cannot be changed) Great lens, small sensor = very good outdoors pics in good light, not so good in low light. Stick to ISO200 or slower and you will be happy with the results.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 09:48
|
|
|
Gotcha. Wasn't planning on taking any night-time pics anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 10:19
|
|
|
I'm sure it's an alright camera but holy poo poo does that look like a prop out of a lovely sci fi movie.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 02:51
|
|
|
Casu Marzu posted:I'm sure it's an alright camera but holy poo poo does that look like a prop out of a lovely sci fi movie. It looks like a borg's eye.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 03:28
|
|
|
I normally hang out around AI and CA so this is a real insight into how non-car/bike people think about cars/bikes. To me it just looks like one of those fancy long-lensed cameras and I can't tell the difference between different brands/styles. My mind is genuinely being blown, I had no idea the styling of this camera is any different/more unusual than any other similar camera.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:I normally hang out around AI and CA so this is a real insight into how non-car/bike people think about cars/bikes. To me it just looks like one of those fancy long-lensed cameras and I can't tell the difference between different brands/styles. It's like someone walking into ai and looking at a fiero in a lovely body kit and going "dude nice ferrari". 
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 03:51
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:I normally hang out around AI and CA so this is a real insight into how non-car/bike people think about cars/bikes. To me it just looks like one of those fancy long-lensed cameras and I can't tell the difference between different brands/styles. I don't know that there is a similar camera. Also hello fellow AI goon!
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 03:51
|
|
|
Casu Marzu posted:I'm sure it's an alright camera but holy poo poo does that look like a prop out of a lovely sci fi movie. That thing looks awesome.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 04:13
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:I normally hang out around AI and CA so this is a real insight into how non-car/bike people think about cars/bikes. To me it just looks like one of those fancy long-lensed cameras and I can't tell the difference between different brands/styles. To give you an idea of how goofy (but awesome) that thing looked at the time, this was one of its competitors.  This is what a long-lensed camera looks like  
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 05:04
|
|
|
I take it the lens being able to swivel on the vertical axis isn't usually A Thing then? What is actually the purpose of that feature? I can't figure out how it would ever be useful aside from taking a picture of something from ground level and not having to lie down to do it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 05:58
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:I take it the lens being able to swivel on the vertical axis isn't usually A Thing then? What is actually the purpose of that feature? I can't figure out how it would ever be useful aside from taking a picture of something from ground level and not having to lie down to do it. It's actually that the rest of the camera can swivel relative to the lens. So like you can hold the camera at waist-level and tilt the LCD so you can see it, or shoot overhead and tilt the LCD down so you can see it, etc. It's not really the lens moving. It's sorta the same idea as articulated screens on a lot of modern cameras.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 06:10
|
|
|
Some of you may remember advising me not to do my photo-a-day thing, back in the beginning of the year. Well, I went ahead with it anyway.  Going for a little walk during the workday helped immensely with finding stuff to shoot, but even so, I started to feel like I was reaching for stuff towards the end (but I never resorted to pictures of my lunch--or dick pics ). I ended up shooting everything with my humble little Galaxy Nexus, which I really pushed the limits of in some of my pictures. VSCO Cam's filters helped to hide the deficiencies a few times, but there are still a couple that could've been more impressive with my D7000, particularly the low-light ones.Speaking of VSCO, I've been uploading my pictures to both Flickr and my personal VSCO Grid. And, like a sign from above telling me that I had done enough, VSCO actually picked one of my pictures today (January 31) to feature on their hand-curated VSCO Grid. So I decided to cut it off at the end of January. The set is here, if anybody is curious, and below is the one that VSCO actually found good enough to present to the world, which I'm still kinda beaming about. It's not much, but it's probably the most recognition I've gotten since starting down this photography hole almost a year ago.  2 by khyrre, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 09:54
|
|
|
change my name posted:It looks like a borg's eye.  It seems like Sony's industrial designers watch too much anime.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
rcman50166 posted: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. Oh, I'm sure we could buy one. But I'm curious as to what is actually wrong with the lens, though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2014 00:02
|
|
|
I took a picture. Hooray! I've just been using the auto setting for now but I was wondering: what do I do if I'm trying to take a photo of something that's very brightly back-lit, like an object that has the sun right behind it? If I leave it on auto it makes the pic look 'wrong' in that either the object is too dark or the lighting looks strange. Also, what do I change if I want more 'depth' in focus (I don't know the terms so bear with me). For example, you can see the back of the car just on the verge of being blurry and out of focus. How do I set it so the entire car would be in focus but everything further or closer isn't?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2014 06:57
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:I took a picture. Hooray! More depth of field = smaller aperture hole, larger number (ie f8 has more in focus than f3). Check out youtube videos for exposure basics to really get the basics of exposure down, it's worth the time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2014 07:31
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:I took a picture. Hooray! The easiest way to fix that lighting issue is to come back at a different time when the light is pointed the right way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2014 08:17
|
|
|
Second what mr. despair said. Controlling light is one of the major aspects of photography. If you want, experiment casually by using the sun as the main light, and take photos of the object in multiple angles, at different times. Another approach is to study the lighting of photos you like, and attempting to recreate it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2014 14:10
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:I took a picture. Hooray! Buy the book Understanding Exposure. Gives very practical answers to these and other questions. Or get it at the library.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2014 15:03
|
|
|
Where you normally post your photos? I'm not looking to get paid, but I am looking for constructive feedback and for a reliable place to share my photos (with non-members). More important right now, is sharing the photos, I just got back from a safari and a lot of people are waiting on me. I thought about registering a domain and doing my own thing, but if there is already something out there that works well I'd rather use that. I tried flickr a couple years ago and wasn't terribly impressed. If a personal domain is the way to go, are there any particular hosting services and/or software I should look in to or avoid? Thanks in advance.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2014 17:29
|
|
|
Personal domain depends heavily on discoverability, which is fancy speak for whoring out the URL everywhere. Either that or trying to play the search engines. Photo sites are an issue. Flickr was too much traffic and things move down the page pretty quickly, same for 500px in addition to being a circle jerk. Any other viable free community has probably been overrun three times over, because everyone tries to get away from aforementioned big sites, to get more views. There's alternatives like smugmug that don't seem to be that trafficked, but IIRC they cost money. As far as getting views and feedback goes, I haven't used it yet, but whether you pay for hosting or subscribe to a service like this, it's probably the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2014 17:42
|
|
|
Kamakaze9 posted:Where you normally post your photos? That new Exposure site is pretty nice IMO. I only have a free account at the moment, which limits you to three image sets but the layout is gorgeous and the interface is super easy to use. You can check out my page here if you want an idea. I only have 2 things up at the moment. I think with a paid acc you can post unlimited sets and link to your own domain. Don't know about its user-base or anything, I've only been on it a month or two but if you're looking to link people specifically to stuff it might be handy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
Thanks for the heads up. I'm really liking exposure, at least for sharing with people. I really like that it's no nonsense, here's the pictures. And very clean looking as well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 05:52
|
|
|
It's fallen off to the second page now, but the my first DSLR thread's OP has a lot of good info for a beginner as well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 06:00
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:I've just been using the auto setting for now but I was wondering: what do I do if I'm trying to take a photo of something that's very brightly back-lit, like an object that has the sun right behind it? If I leave it on auto it makes the pic look 'wrong' in that either the object is too dark or the lighting looks strange. In approximate order of increasing pro-ness 1) backlight comp button 2) focus and recompose on dark area 3) exposure comp dial +3 4) spot metering off face 5) bracket +/- 3 stops and post process 5) off-camera flash
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 10:34
|
|
|
Ok, I recognise some of those terms. Don't think my camera has the first one; but since asking that question I've successfully taken a decent photo by autofocusing on a dark area then shifting the camera to the position I actually want. The problem was that it ended up focusing at the wrong distance so it wasn't ideal: You can see how the black bike is somewhat blurry; my autofocus point was the shadowy area between the two.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 14:37 |
|
|
Slavvy posted:Ok, I recognise some of those terms. Don't think my camera has the first one; but since asking that question I've successfully taken a decent photo by autofocusing on a dark area then shifting the camera to the position I actually want. The problem was that it ended up focusing at the wrong distance so it wasn't ideal: Don't focus and meter on the dark area and recompose, just meter off it - your camera should have an AEL (auto exposure lock) button? On Canon's its an asterisk * - not sure what you're shooting with Edit: Ah, it's that sony dong camera. There's a button marked "AE LOCK" on the side of the lens. That will lock your metering to the area you want for 5-10 seconds, then you can focus where you want and shoot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 20:27
|
|