Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
xzzy
Mar 5, 2009

Koken on a vps. :colbert:

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

thetzar
Apr 22, 2001
Fallen Rib

xzzy posted:

Koken on a vps. :colbert:

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.

Bloody Hedgehog
Dec 12, 2003

💥💥🤯💥💥
Gotta nuke something
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.

Geektox
Aug 1, 2012

Good people don't rip other people's arms off.

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?

vxsarin
Oct 29, 2004


ASK ME ABOUT MY AP WIRE PHOTOS

Geektox posted:

Is this pretty standard terms for a photo contest?

That's the whole point of them.

huhu
Feb 24, 2006
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

Morkfang
Dec 9, 2009

I'm awesome.
:smug:

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?

Edit: Just checked the 4 most recent people to follow me and they're following between 15,000 and 25,000 people. Ugh.

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.

Dren
Jan 5, 2001

Pillbug

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?

Edit: Just checked the 4 most recent people to follow me and they're following between 15,000 and 25,000 people. Ugh.

yep you figured it out

Rabbit Hill
Mar 11, 2009

God knows what lives in me in place of me.
Grimey Drawer
What's the best thread in which to post a general "n00b going on vacation wants a camera, help!!!" question?

HPL
Aug 28, 2002

Worst case scenario.

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.

8th-snype
Aug 28, 2005

My office is in the front room of a run-down 12 megapixel sensor but the rent suits me and the landlord doesn't ask many questions.

Dorkroom Short Fiction Champion 2012


Young Orc

HPL posted:

Get a Sony RX100.

Or a Fuji x30

Medieval Medic
Sep 8, 2011
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.

Chill Callahan
Nov 14, 2012

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

ExecuDork
Feb 25, 2007

We might be fucked, sir.
Fallen Rib

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.

SMERSH Mouth
Jun 25, 2005

Don't forget mirrorless! It's like DSLRs but smaller cheaper better not. Plus there are lots of different brands and models, and each one is deficient in a unique and exciting way.

(But really, you might want to check out mirrorless cameras too)

Pablo Bluth
Sep 7, 2007

I've made a huge mistake.

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.
I posted a link to the McCullin one not too long ago in the taintchat thread.

Mrfreezewarning
Feb 2, 2010

All these goddamn books need more descriptions of boobies in them!
So between a cannon t6i 750d and a Nikon 5300 or a Nikon 5500 which should I throw down for?

BANME.sh
Jan 23, 2008

What is this??
Are you some kind of hypnotist??
Grimey Drawer
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.

SMERSH Mouth
Jun 25, 2005

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?

Ninja PD
Jul 21, 2006
Hey dudes,
does anybody know what this contraption is called? https://instagram.com/p/7Op7JJpJSw/?taken-by=ufc
Awesome, thanks.
N.PD;)

TheGoatTrick
Aug 1, 2002

Semi-aquatic personification of unstoppable douchery

Ninja PD posted:

Hey dudes,
does anybody know what this contraption is called? https://instagram.com/p/7Op7JJpJSw/?taken-by=ufc
Awesome, thanks.
N.PD;)
Looks like an HTC Re.

Bloody Hedgehog
Dec 12, 2003

💥💥🤯💥💥
Gotta nuke something

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:



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?

I seems to recall some of my dads real old SLR film camera lenses did this.

Pivo
Aug 20, 2004


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.

8th-snype
Aug 28, 2005

My office is in the front room of a run-down 12 megapixel sensor but the rent suits me and the landlord doesn't ask many questions.

Dorkroom Short Fiction Champion 2012


Young Orc

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.

underage at the vape shop
May 11, 2011

by Cyrano4747
I originally intended this post to be in here so I think I should probably put it here too

A Saucy Bratwurst posted:

How do I make simple shots like these work better?

- by A Saucy Bratwurst, on Flickr



The first one works i guess because its an interesting thing that people probably haven't seen before (the inside of an abandoned one of these: http://www.riautonews.com/sites/default/files/sign-image.JPG) but the second one just kinda doesn't. I see heaps of photos of similar plain repeating stuff that works and I just don't get how to do it.

E: I meant to post this in the general questions thread but I guess it's kinda related to modern landscape stuff.

elgarbo
Mar 26, 2013

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.

SMERSH Mouth
Jun 25, 2005

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.

1st AD
Dec 3, 2004

Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu: sometimes passing just isn't an option.
8 bit dithering there, maybe you can add a touch of grain to get rid of it.

800peepee51doodoo
Mar 1, 2001

Volute the swarth, trawl betwixt phonotic
Scoff the festune

SMERSH Mouth posted:

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.

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.

alkanphel
Mar 24, 2004

Try to increase the JPG export quality to 80 and above. Sometimes if you're using the lower range it might cause banding.

Pivo
Aug 20, 2004


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.

JSW2
Apr 26, 2008

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

SMERSH Mouth
Jun 25, 2005

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.

SMERSH Mouth
Jun 25, 2005

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

KinkyJohn
Sep 19, 2002

Sony is making a 1000fps sensor for photographing tennis matches and ping pong tournaments

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qn5YQVvW-hQ

timrenzi574
Sep 11, 2001

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.

But whatever, the banding is gone now. Thanks.

EDIT: Sorry, meant to add this to the post above.

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.

SMERSH Mouth
Jun 25, 2005

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.

InternetJunky
May 25, 2002

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?

800peepee51doodoo
Mar 1, 2001

Volute the swarth, trawl betwixt phonotic
Scoff the festune

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.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

bellows lugosi
Aug 9, 2003

Is your monitor calibrated? Are you remembering that backlit images will inherently look brighter than printed versions of the same?

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply