|
Jimlad posted:
There is a lot of people on the gearhead forums that say with the exmor sensors there's no penalty for shooting @ ISO 100 and pushing in post vs raising the ISO in camera (they call it ISOless) - someone with actual experience with this sensor can probably chime in regarding that.
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 07:12 |
|
|
Jimlad posted:ok, give me a few days I have to do all the post processing. No using the warp tool to make your dilz look large please.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
Shut up an take pictures. That is all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
I use the Zapruder method and always expose back and to the left.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
feigning interest posted:I use the Zapruder method and always expose back and to the left. I do the same but have a 2nd shooter on hand who will ETTR.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
Jimlad posted:Calm down, people. I already know that nobody cares about the technical aspects of photography when you show them a picture. I don't know at what point I've said "I don't care about or understand composition", or "This is how it should theoretically work but I never actually take photos," but honestly that's completely not the case - I go out and shoot most days and I strongly believe that the basic artistic elements of photography are far more important than whether you're using an iPhone or Hasselblad. Would anyone imagine that it's possible to simultaneously care about taking a pretty picture and care about how to technically get the most of my camera while doing it? The first sign of anyone trying to figure out what's actually going on in their camera and suddenly there are cries of "Sperg! Sperg!" You should do some testing of your camera to figure out what, if any, gains there are from ETTR vs. letting the camera do it's thing in Aperture Priority mode w/ Auto ISO. Personally, I'd use Aperture Priority and Auto ISO until I could prove that there was a noticeable loss of quality that could be fixed by doing ETTR rather than assuming ETTR is better and doing it. Just because ETTR is a pain compared to letting the camera do it's thing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 20:10
|
|
Thanks to the guys who've actually offered constructive advice though.
|
Jimlad posted:Also, does anyone know how find out if a camera has a raw histogram? I think the only cameras that can do it out of the box are the Leica digital M bodies. If you load Magic Lantern on a Canon I think you have the option to display a raw histogram as well though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
Pentax ME Super + Portra 400 + shoot Av = never give a gently caress about exposure again
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 22:18
|
|
|
Spedman posted:Pentax ME Super + Portra 400 + shoot Av = never give a gently caress about exposure again Seriously almost every picture I've taken with the ME Super has been exposed pretty drat well; I wish I could do as well with my DSLR because making prints is slow and I don't have a macro lens to capture my negatives.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
What the gently caress is going on here?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 23:01
|
|
|
spog posted:What the gently caress is going on here? Autism strikes again.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 23:24
|
|
|
In all the situations I've been concerned enough about losing detail where ETTR would have theoretically helped, ETTR would have also blown highlights. If you have crazy dynamic range just bracket exposure with digital. Maybe I'm alone in this, but if my digital camera mis-metered the scene by 1/2 a stop, I nudge a slider in Lightroom and move on without thinking about it too much.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
spog posted:What the gently caress is going on here? Just a guess, bad posting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 23:33
|
|
|
ETTR was invented probably for sensors like the 5D2 and older, when they did wan't all that data possible. But these days with modern sensors and the magic of Lightroom, it's really not necessary anymore. Just expose properly for what you want to see in your photo. If you really must have all that shadow detail and highlight recovery, maybe you should move into digital medium format.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 23:51
|
|
|
alkanphel posted:If you really must have all that shadow detail and highlight recovery, maybe you should move into
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 00:00
|
|
|
^ as long as it's not slide film...
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
Can anyone recommend a place to get a film camera and lenses cleaned to send? I recently inherited my father's gear and figure it's a good chance to get my hands dirty with film.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 05:31
|
|
|
If you're in the USA, KEH offers a bunch of services. They might or might not do it if you're in Hawaii or Alaska, I can't remember. Otherwise, most camera service professionals are brand-specific. What camera did you get? Chances are good that, unless it's obviously grimy as hell, an old film SLR will be in good enough condition to just go shooting. Pick up some cheap C-41 film and burn a couple of rolls. EDIT: comedy option, if you have a Pentax ME, ME Super, or MX (or, I suppose, an MV), send it to Mr. Despair along with a bottle of mid-shelf liquor.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 06:31
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:If you're in the USA, KEH offers a bunch of services. They might or might not do it if you're in Hawaii or Alaska, I can't remember. I'm in Hanoi currently so I don't remember exactly, but when I'm back in Baltimore I'll check out what I have. A fairly good selection of lenses and 2 camera bodies. Thanks for the recommendation! The bodies and lenses are absolutely terrible dust wise. It wouldn't be pretty.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 06:34
|
|
|
People keep mentioning "modern" sensors. But what about those of us who shoot Canon??
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 06:51
|
|
|
Mightaswell posted:People keep mentioning "modern" sensors. But what about those of us who shoot Canon?? Switch to Sony.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 07:10
|
|
|
alkanphel posted:Switch to Sony. This is the new "kill u are self".
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 07:59
|
|
|
Pukestain Pal posted:I'm in Hanoi currently so I don't remember exactly, but when I'm back in Baltimore I'll check out what I have. A fairly good selection of lenses and 2 camera bodies. Thanks for the recommendation! Do it yourself. Unless the mechanism of the lenses/bodies is clogged with crap, there's no reason that you can't do it with a bottle of isopropyl alcohol and a toothbrush/cloth/lens brush.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 08:43
|
|
|
spog posted:Do it yourself. Unless the mechanism of the lenses/bodies is clogged with crap, there's no reason that you can't do it with a bottle of isopropyl alcohol and a toothbrush/cloth/lens brush. I guess it doesn't hurt to try! It's not like there is a sensor, so even a little dust won't hurt anything I guess.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 08:45
|
|
|
Pukestain Pal posted:I guess it doesn't hurt to try! It's not like there is a sensor, so even a little dust won't hurt anything I guess. Only touch the shutter with a gentle touch of the lens brush (no alcohol) and just avoid hamfistedly mashing any bits of thin metal inside the body with the toothbrush and it's hard to see what you could gently caress up. Plus, it will make you feel at one with the equipment and you'll acheive a zen-like bond with it. Oh and make you ETTR while cleaning.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 08:49
|
|
|
Taking apart my lens I learned that the switch between AF and manual isn't just an electronic button. It mechanically moves a tiny metal shift fork, which engages/disengages a tiny countergear on a little shaft. It is exactly, and I mean exactly like reverse gear in a car gearbox, just tiny. Was quite impressed. Not so impressed with how flimsy the construction of the lens really is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 09:21
|
|
|
Mightaswell posted:People keep mentioning "modern" sensors. But what about those of us who shoot Canon?? At least the newer ones don't band even though they're still pretty drat noisy (6D, 70D, 100D) - baby steps man. Baby steps.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 14:56
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:At least the newer ones don't band even though they're still pretty drat noisy (6D, 70D, 100D) - baby steps man. Baby steps. I don't understand the hate with noise. Not every photo needs to be perfectly clean.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 15:01
|
|
|
Pukestain Pal posted:I don't understand the hate with noise. Not every photo needs to be perfectly clean. I don't mind noise at all - I don't print anything huge (occasionally I'll do an 11x14, but that's rare) , so it's just not a concern for me - ACR gets rid of the chroma noise no problem, and the luminance noise doesn't bother me at all, especially at these small print sizes like 8x10. The banding you got in the shadows on everything but the newest canons if you pushed them much was horrible though - I can understand why that drives people nuts. For the people who want to shoot into the sun and make gallery sized single shot HDR prints, welp, sucks to be them 
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 15:09
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:I don't mind noise at all - I don't print anything huge (occasionally I'll do an 11x14, but that's rare) , so it's just not a concern for me - ACR gets rid of the chroma noise no problem, and the luminance noise doesn't bother me at all, especially at these small print sizes like 8x10. The banding you got in the shadows on everything but the newest canons if you pushed them much was horrible though - I can understand why that drives people nuts. That's the exact reason I went with the 6D over the 5D3 (money wasn't a factor). The banding is actually BETTER on the 6D than the 5D3 in the shadows.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 15:10
|
|
|
Pukestain Pal posted:That's the exact reason I went with the 6D over the 5D3 (money wasn't a factor). The banding is actually BETTER on the 6D than the 5D3 in the shadows. Yeah, the 6, 70 and sl1 are the only ones that have it mostly fixed - anything older (5d3, 7d, t4i/t5i, 60d) are a big mess in the shadows
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 15:11
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:Yeah, the 6, 70 and sl1 are the only ones that have it mostly fixed - anything older (5d3, 7d, t4i/t5i, 60d) are a big mess in the shadows No, this is nuts. I've shot with digital Canons for 10 years and not once have I chucked out a shot because of shadow banding. This has been gearnerd fantasy since 2004 at least, with people posting underexposed 100% crops from their living room before returning a succession of bodies before finally switching to some other system in impotent rage.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 15:46
|
|
|
TsarAleksi posted:No, this is nuts. I've shot with digital Canons for 10 years and not once have I chucked out a shot because of shadow banding. This has been gearnerd fantasy since 2004 at least, with people posting underexposed 100% crops from their living room before returning a succession of bodies before finally switching to some other system in impotent rage. WIth wildlife photography, or some others that you you might aggressively have to crop it can be an issue. But yes, generally who cares. When making a choice between sensors, you might as well go for the better one though. You never know if you might end up with a photo where the banding will be an issue resulting in a poor photo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 15:51
|
|
|
TsarAleksi posted:No, this is nuts. I've shot with digital Canons for 10 years and not once have I chucked out a shot because of shadow banding. This has been gearnerd fantasy since 2004 at least, with people posting underexposed 100% crops from their living room before returning a succession of bodies before finally switching to some other system in impotent rage. Haha - yes, the 5 stop underexposed and pushed sample of a totally black frame  I just meant that for people who want to shoot directly into the sun without a grad, it's an issue I guess? I kept my 10D for a decade, so it obviously never bothered me that much. I sometimes wonder how many of the people who rage about it on gear forums actually make giant prints of ultra high contrast landscapes (it seems there is more ragers than fine art photographers in the world)I think the worst shadows I've had to deal with in the past year was the rock wall behind a white tiger at the zoo, who was sitting right in direct sunlight. They are messy at 100%, but even down to 50% on my monitor they look fine, and at 8x10 they are "who the hell cares"
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 16:05
|
|
|
You guys need to learn to obsess over composition and content instead of all this poo poo. Christ.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 16:05
|
|
|
Whitezombi posted:You guys need to learn to obsess over composition and content instead of all this poo poo. Instead of circlejerking, that just turns into aggressiveness and hurt feelings.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 16:07
|
|
|
take more photographs
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 16:15
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Taking apart my lens I learned that the switch between AF and manual isn't just an electronic button. It mechanically moves a tiny metal shift fork, which engages/disengages a tiny countergear on a little shaft. It is exactly, and I mean exactly like reverse gear in a car gearbox, just tiny. Was quite impressed. This is one thing I absolutely adore about SomethingAwful - a professional mechanic wanders into the Dorkroom with his new camera, and ends up discovering his lens has a gearbox, and is otherwise extremely similar to a late-90's Hyundai. That's just the kit lens. Don't worry, based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever, I am convinced the "professional" grade lenses are much less flimsy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 16:16
|
|
|
Pukestain Pal posted:Instead of circlejerking, that just turns into aggressiveness and hurt feelings. Really sad to see you posting again. MrBlandAverage posted:take more photographs
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 16:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 07:12 |
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:take more photographs yes
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 16:19
|
|
