|
Koken on a vps.
|
# ? Aug 26, 2015 14:53 |
|
|
# ? Apr 29, 2024 07:33 |
|
xzzy posted:Koken on a vps. The announcement that the dev team of Koken is attempting to sell it brings me great sadness. I like this software, and use it for my 'real' portfolio. But yeah, sounds like Flickr is what he's looking for.
|
# ? Aug 26, 2015 16:09 |
|
Yeah, I was thinking Flickr was probably the answer. I just wanted to make sure there wasn't some hidden gem out there I hadn't heard of.
|
# ? Aug 26, 2015 20:24 |
|
quote:By entering the Contest, all entrants grant an irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide non-exclusive license to the VIPF, to reproduce, distribute, display and create derivative works of the entries (along with a name credit) in connection with the Contest and promotion of the Contest, in any media now or hereafter known, including, but not limited to: Display at a potential exhibition of winners; publication of a book featuring select entries in the Contest; publication in the 2015 VIPF Event Programme Guide or online highlighting entries or winners of the Contest. Entrants consent to the Host doing or omitting to do any act that would otherwise infringe the entrant's "moral rights" in their entries. Is this pretty standard terms for a photo contest?
|
# ? Aug 27, 2015 05:08 |
|
Geektox posted:Is this pretty standard terms for a photo contest? That's the whole point of them.
|
# ? Aug 27, 2015 05:27 |
|
I feel like I'm averaging a new follower on Flickr every other day or so but when I checkout my followers list it seems like I always hover around the same number. What reason would people have to follow me and then unfollow me? Are the fishing for people to follow them back just to increase their numbers? Edit: Just checked the 4 most recent people to follow me and they're following between 15,000 and 25,000 people. Ugh. huhu fucked around with this message at 06:37 on Aug 28, 2015 |
# ? Aug 28, 2015 06:33 |
|
huhu posted:I feel like I'm averaging a new follower on Flickr every other day or so but when I checkout my followers list it seems like I always hover around the same number. What reason would people have to follow me and then unfollow me? Are the fishing for people to follow them back just to increase their numbers? Yeah, I guess it's the same as on Twitter. I sometimes have people follow/unfollow me repeatedly for a week until they (or their software) realise that I have no interest in following them back.
|
# ? Aug 28, 2015 10:37 |
|
huhu posted:I feel like I'm averaging a new follower on Flickr every other day or so but when I checkout my followers list it seems like I always hover around the same number. What reason would people have to follow me and then unfollow me? Are the fishing for people to follow them back just to increase their numbers? yep you figured it out
|
# ? Aug 28, 2015 12:10 |
|
What's the best thread in which to post a general "n00b going on vacation wants a camera, help!!!" question?
|
# ? Aug 28, 2015 16:55 |
|
Rabbit Hill posted:What's the best thread in which to post a general "n00b going on vacation wants a camera, help!!!" question? Get a Sony RX100.
|
# ? Aug 28, 2015 20:01 |
|
HPL posted:Get a Sony RX100. Or a Fuji x30
|
# ? Aug 28, 2015 20:06 |
|
Not sure if this if any thread was appropriate to post this but the british series Imagine has quite a few episodes about photographers(Parr, Leibovitz, Eggleston, Maier, Mccullin) for any interested.
|
# ? Aug 28, 2015 21:41 |
|
Medieval Medic posted:Not sure if this if any thread was appropriate to post this but the british series Imagine has quite a few episodes about photographers(Parr, Leibovitz, Eggleston, Maier, Mccullin) for any interested. Yes
|
# ? Aug 28, 2015 22:20 |
|
Rabbit Hill posted:What's the best thread in which to post a general "n00b going on vacation wants a camera, help!!!" question? "My first DSLR" or "Point and Shoots", depending on what you think you want - big honkin' exchangeable lenses-camera, or drop it in my pocket camera.
|
# ? Aug 29, 2015 00:23 |
|
Don't forget mirrorless! It's like DSLRs but (But really, you might want to check out mirrorless cameras too)
|
# ? Aug 29, 2015 01:13 |
|
Medieval Medic posted:Not sure if this if any thread was appropriate to post this but the british series Imagine has quite a few episodes about photographers(Parr, Leibovitz, Eggleston, Maier, Mccullin) for any interested.
|
# ? Aug 29, 2015 10:43 |
|
So between a cannon t6i 750d and a Nikon 5300 or a Nikon 5500 which should I throw down for?
|
# ? Sep 2, 2015 03:42 |
|
If you decide to go with Nikon, get a used D7100 for a bit less than the D5500. You lose some gimmicks but you gain better build quality, better viewfinder, better autofocus, weather sealing, compatibility with non motor drive lenses, and a more robust shutter. You'll care about those things more in the long run vs a flip out screen or built in HDR. Same sensor so same image quality. KEH.com has D7100 bodies for just under $700 and they have good warranty.
|
# ? Sep 2, 2015 04:12 |
|
Possible issue here? The viewfinder of my 5Dmkii displays a circular anomaly with my 400mm f/5.6 L lens attached. Here's my attempt at an illustration: It's like there's a difference in the opacity of the glass around the edges of the circle. It's actually much more subtle in real life; just a slightly perceptible decrease in apparent brightness, forming an interior halo. I want to say that this has been present ever since I purchased the lens, new in box. But... maybe at first it was only apparent at close focus distances? If it seems strange that I thought noting of it at the time, I had initially chalked it up to a funky focusing screen, as I had recently cleaned some smudges off of mine. It wasn't until I put another lens on the body recently that I realized that it only happened with the 400mm. There's seemingly no effect on the taken image. Also, I can't perceive a difference in apparent focus between the inside and outside of the circle. But it's not like I've been shooting brick walls (or other flat surfaces with regular patterns) straight-on. Does this kind of thing ring a bell for anyone here?
|
# ? Sep 6, 2015 06:11 |
|
Hey dudes, does anybody know what this contraption is called? https://instagram.com/p/7Op7JJpJSw/?taken-by=ufc Awesome, thanks. N.PD;)
|
# ? Sep 6, 2015 07:04 |
|
Ninja PD posted:Hey dudes,
|
# ? Sep 6, 2015 07:17 |
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:Possible issue here? The viewfinder of my 5Dmkii displays a circular anomaly with my 400mm f/5.6 L lens attached. Here's my attempt at an illustration: I seems to recall some of my dads real old SLR film camera lenses did this.
|
# ? Sep 6, 2015 07:40 |
|
It does really look like a focusing screen. Maybe it's only really visible on the 400 because wide-open is f5.6? Normally MF focusing screens are quite in-your-face, but I'm not familiar with the 5Dmkii. If it's not visible in the final image, it's not happening in the lens, SLRs being what they are.
|
# ? Sep 6, 2015 11:52 |
|
Pivo posted:It does really look like a focusing screen. Maybe it's only really visible on the 400 because wide-open is f5.6? Normally MF focusing screens are quite in-your-face, but I'm not familiar with the 5Dmkii. If it's not visible in the final image, it's not happening in the lens, SLRs being what they are. At a guess that's exactly what is happening. Your focus screen looks weird at f/5.6 because you have never seen it that dark before.
|
# ? Sep 6, 2015 12:04 |
|
I originally intended this post to be in here so I think I should probably put it here tooA Saucy Bratwurst posted:How do I make simple shots like these work better?
|
# ? Sep 6, 2015 12:35 |
|
Anyone ever run a Kickstarter and have some rad or practical advice? I'm attempting to raise a sum to print some zines and would like to avoid it all crashing down in a blaze of horror.
|
# ? Sep 7, 2015 06:04 |
|
Pivo posted:It does really look like a focusing screen. Maybe it's only really visible on the 400 because wide-open is f5.6? Normally MF focusing screens are quite in-your-face, but I'm not familiar with the 5Dmkii. If it's not visible in the final image, it's not happening in the lens, SLRs being what they are. Yeah, it's not visible in Live View, and it seems to match up with a circle on the focusing screen itself. Guess I need to test the lens on another DSLR and see what kind of results I get. Another question. What's up with the color banding in the sky, in this photo? It doesn't look like this when viewing the RAW in ACR. This was taken with a vintage lens that produces a strong magenta cast and gets a little soft around the edges.
|
# ? Sep 7, 2015 07:19 |
|
8 bit dithering there, maybe you can add a touch of grain to get rid of it.
|
# ? Sep 7, 2015 07:43 |
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:Another question. What's up with the color banding in the sky, in this photo? Check at the very bottom of the ACR window when you open the image in RAW and there's a line of text that looks like a URL that you can click. From there you can change the conversion settings from the default 8 bit to 16 bit. Should help with the banding in gradients like the sky in that picture.
|
# ? Sep 7, 2015 08:08 |
|
Try to increase the JPG export quality to 80 and above. Sometimes if you're using the lower range it might cause banding.
|
# ? Sep 7, 2015 08:51 |
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:Yeah, it's not visible in Live View, and it seems to match up with a circle on the focusing screen itself. Guess I need to test the lens on another DSLR and see what kind of results I get. Or just grab another lens, stop it down to 5.6 and hit the aperture preview button (you Canon types have that, right?). Betting you'll see the same thing.
|
# ? Sep 7, 2015 08:55 |
|
Pivo posted:Or just grab another lens, stop it down to 5.6 and hit the aperture preview button (you Canon types have that, right?). Betting you'll see the same thing. It's likely a sort of fresnel lens that every SLR maker has been attaching to their ground glass to brighten the corners and overall image for decades. http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Ground_glass JSW2 fucked around with this message at 15:17 on Sep 7, 2015 |
# ? Sep 7, 2015 15:12 |
|
Pivo posted:Or just grab another lens, stop it down to 5.6 and hit the aperture preview button (you Canon types have that, right?). Betting you'll see the same thing. Sure enough. Thanks. I have my answer.
|
# ? Sep 7, 2015 18:23 |
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:Check at the very bottom of the ACR window when you open the image in RAW and there's a line of text that looks like a URL that you can click. From there you can change the conversion settings from the default 8 bit to 16 bit. Should help with the banding in gradients like the sky in that picture. What's strange to me is that I can change to 16bit via the method you describe here, but when I actually go to the 'Save As..' dialog, those same options appear, but only 8-bit is selectable. Probably just something about the process that I don't understand. But whatever, the banding is gone now. Thanks. EDIT: Sorry, meant to add this to the post above. SMERSH Mouth fucked around with this message at 18:48 on Sep 7, 2015 |
# ? Sep 7, 2015 18:31 |
|
Sony is making a 1000fps sensor for photographing tennis matches and ping pong tournaments https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qn5YQVvW-hQ
|
# ? Sep 7, 2015 19:01 |
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:What's strange to me is that I can change to 16bit via the method you describe here, but when I actually go to the 'Save As..' dialog, those same options appear, but only 8-bit is selectable. Probably just something about the process that I don't understand. JPEG's are only 8-bit. But by doing your manipulation and edits on a 16 bit file you have less of a chance of introducing posterization , even if you have to output to 8-bit in the end.
|
# ? Sep 7, 2015 19:20 |
|
Thanks, I figured it was something like that. Image compression, color space, and especially the considerations that one needs to make when going from digital to printed media are all things that I need to brush up on some more.
|
# ? Sep 7, 2015 19:53 |
|
I thought we had a printing thread, but I don't see it so I'll put my question in here... I just had a series of photos printed at Costco and they all came back very dark. I sent them JPGs that I created using "save for web" in photoshop and specifying "convert to sRGB". On my calibrated monitor these photos look correct, and when I print them on my home printer they are coming out exactly as I see them on the monitor. Does this mean Costco hosed up? Should I be saving them differently to ensure they're printed accurately?
|
# ? Sep 8, 2015 18:53 |
|
InternetJunky posted:Does this mean Costco hosed up? Probably. I've had stuff printed at Costco that came back super dark and it was some setting on their end. Check your preview settings in Save For Web (sometimes it comes up as Monitor Color or Document Profile, not that that would make a huge difference) to be sure but I'd take them back and have them reprinted. Maybe bring your sample prints to make sure they understand what its supposed to look like.
|
# ? Sep 8, 2015 20:49 |
|
|
# ? Apr 29, 2024 07:33 |
|
Is your monitor calibrated? Are you remembering that backlit images will inherently look brighter than printed versions of the same?
|
# ? Sep 8, 2015 22:30 |