|
Here's one from FredMiranda of all places: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/845190 There's his 1DII, taken by his 5D that stopped working a few minutes after he took this shot because all of the controls were frozen solid. After this photo, he says he kept taking pictures with the 1DII for about 15 more minutes.
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2009 01:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 17:46 |
|
|
Ringo R posted:Please excuse my silly n00b question. I want to view RAW files just like any other image files without having to open up heavy image editing software. I use Irfanview (which I quite like) and it can open RAW files fine but it is waaay to slow. Any other good image viewers? I just want it to be fast, not bloated and preferably free. Well, if you're not going to edit the photos, why are you shooting in RAW? The point of RAW is to give more flexibility when you edit. If you just want to see them how they came out of the camera, you should consider shooting JPG. Or, if I have this all wrong and you just want a fast way to browse through your RAW files for other reasons, you may want to consider shooting RAW + small JPG. The small JPGs are, well, small -- in file size and in dimensions -- so they don't take up much disk space and load pretty quick. Then, when you want to actually edit the image, you just match file names to pull in the RAW.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2010 20:23
|
|
|
Eutheria posted:The shutter on my camera (Canon Rebel XT) has been acting up lately. Whenever I try to take a picture, it makes kind of a half shutter-click noise, 'Error 99' pops up on the LCD, and the image through the viewfinder gets dim, as if I had pressed the DOF button, and stays that way. If I remove the lens (Tamron 70-300) and put it back on again, I can hear something click back into place and everything is appears to be normal again. If I instead press the DOF button the screen stays dimmed (and gets successively darker each time I press the button) until I do the little lens trick again. echoing Rhombus, I think you need to try a different lens on it. It sounds like the aperture blades could be sticking on the Tamron.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2010 06:41
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:Why would you want to emulate that? It looks like horrible face masks flattened out on a scanner. because, like, dave hill, man
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2010 19:37
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:What kind of metering should I use for a scene like this: Well, you just described an incidence when you would change exposure compensation -- you know that the bison was super dark, and the spot meter read it and so the exposure was too high. Thus, if you were going to spot meter in a situation like that, you would (ideally) dial in exposure compensation to compensate for the fact that you know the thing you're metering off of if is darker than 18% gray -- meaning you'd decrease the exposure with compensation of, say, -1 stop.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2010 05:49
|
|
|
Pickman posted:I've got a question about DSLR sensor damage. I cleaned the sensor a couple of weeks ago, and I tested it to find there were still specks of dirt in the picture. So I cleaned it a second time, and now I've got U-shaped streaks in the centre of my pictures. How did you clean it?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2010 19:50
|
|
|
Brozekiel posted:Does anyone know of a place to buy replacement parts for lenses? I'd call them at 631.858.8400 (http://www.tamron.com/contact/default.asp) and ask about it. I know Nikon has a parts department that'll sell you various little bits and pieces.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2010 07:28
|
|
|
spf3million posted:
You know, I probably should have remembered this when I went taking pictures outside to walking into a goddamn greenhouse (which was only ~15 degrees warmer, but super humid.) I ended up composing --> wiping --> snap the picture really fast
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2010 05:13
|
|
Depends entirely on the humidity of the warmer environment. Assuming you keep your house at 70F and the indoor relative humidity is 30% (probably lower in the winter but let's be conservative) then any surface below 37.5F will cause dew to form in the presence of air. So if you bring your camera in from outside and it was 35F, then theoretically you would have some condensation. Indoor humidities in the winter are usually lower, so if it were 20% humidity inside, you could be fine with anything above 27.5F. At least that's how I understand it.
|
I downloaded the free trial and dicked around with it. I used the ruler tool to find the angle of the blur.  was what I got from  Kinda cool I guess, but the result will always look shittacular.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2010 09:01
|
|
|
Dr. Cogwerks posted:Say, do any of you know of a good but cheap bulk-printing service? I'd like to print off like 500 of my early digital shots to put in silly albums, starting to find some weird file corruption in there. 4x6 drugstore-style prints are all I've got in mind for that. I'm guessing that Walmart is probably the cheapest option? Adoramapix is really cheap, and they do a decent job. You can order them for $0.19 per 4x6, or you can buy a pack of 1000 4x6 prints for $170.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2010 01:56
|
|
|
You can tell by all of the surroundings that the camera was moved a lot during the exposure. By a ghost.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2011 07:02
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:Focal length comparison. It bothers me that the model looks down at the camera and half-closes her eyes at the wide end. Kinda distorts the comparison.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2011 17:16
|
|
|
It's not anything on the sensor; that's something on the lens. Usually, a drop of liquid or or dust particle will do that. It's shaped like that because that's the shape of the lens' aperture blades. Honestly all I can offer for advice is clean the lens better, but I know point and shoot lenses, being small and recessed, are tough to clean.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2011 00:15
|
|
|
XTimmy posted:I feel like a real amateur asking this but will a tele converter increase minimum focusing distance? I'm asking because I do a fair amount of cinematography on my camera and, being full frame, occasionally I'm asked for an extreme close up that I can't get with my regular lenses because the minimum focusing distance is too large. If I want to shoot just an actors eye I can't currently because none of my lenses can get that close in and still focus. Sadly I don't have the money for a macro lens so I'm looking for a cheaper solution. The TC won't increase your MFD, but it won't decrease it either. It magnifies the image, so if you use a 2x on a 200mm lens, you'll get a 400mm FoV from the same spot. So if your 200mm is filling the frame with the actor's head, you might be able to fill the frame with the actor's eye with a 2x TC. Keep in mind it'll degrade image quality and take away 1 stop of light for a 1.4x and 2 stops of light for a 2x (which means you lose autofocus if your lens is originally f/4 and you use a 2x, or if it's originally f/5.6 and you use either). I'm not sure how those will affect video... I guess video is a bit more forgiving than still photos.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2011 08:25
|
|
|
change my name posted:Okay, this Epson v300 is kicking my rear end. Trying to scan in some slide film, and it just won't turn out right. Case in point: It might be dirty.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2012 21:35
|
|
|
Photography "rules" are stupid. That said, I sometimes do like to mount a speedlight on-camera to give eyes a little more "sparkle", especially with kids. Example:
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2012 16:40
|
|
|
HPL posted:But be careful. Focusing screens are made of really soft plastic. Yeah. I wouldn't touch it, to be honest. Just use a rocket blower.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2012 21:14
|
|
|
lllllllllllllllllll posted:1. How do I get rid of shots like this, where everything close to the sky is overexposed? I hate to say it, but honestly that's a shot that's going to happen in those circumstances without either serious post work (and bracketed exposures). You'd need to come back at a time when the sun cooperates so that the sky isn't so much brighter than the foreground. As you keep shooting, you'll learn the dynamic range limitations of camera sensors, and you'll be able to tell when the light is right for the scene, when to come back at another time, when to use lighting modifiers (usually for portraits), and when you'd be able to bracket and combine exposures. In short, there's no easy way. And the physics of camera lenses are such that zooms with less ranges are going to outperform (in many ways -- sharpness, color, contrast, aperture, aberration, etc) lenses with greater zoom ranges (materials, production quality, and design characteristics being comparable.) It's why the best zooms in the Canon system are like 16-35, 24-70, and 70-200. And even then, prime lenses like the 24, 35, 50, 85, etc will outperform and have better low-light capabilities than the zooms. It's just optical physics. In short, that sort of lens will indeed cover the range you want, but it'll probably autofocus slower, be much softer, have a lot of color fringing, f/6.3 is not fun.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2012 03:40
|
|
|
ghableska posted:Alright, so I took several shots with a GX1, all in RAW, using the miniature post-processing effect in-camera. But when I open my RAW files in Lightroom or Picasa, the touched-up photo appears briefly before reverting back to a normal photo without any effects added. I'm a little confused on how to recover the in-camera processing version to edit further. Not positive, but my guess would be that it's just pulling up the JPEG preview embedded in the RAW file because it's quick to render, then it renders the RAW file with default processing. The in-camera processing is all doable in Lightroom -- take a look at your camera's JPEG settings to see what all its doing. It's probably just contrast and saturation.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2013 02:59
|
|
|
Ya'll are crazy. You can take my RAW from my cold dead hands. Unless I'm shooting sports on deadline. Then JPEG all the way.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2013 03:09
|
|
|
I typically go through every frame and mark anything with merit a 1 star. Then, I usually do a pass through the 1-starred photos and cull down a little harder, also trying to select the best out of similar shots. I also notate with a flag stuff that will definitely need Photoshop work -- cloning, compositing, fine masking, warping etc.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2013 18:05
|
|
|
Side topic: how do you guys handle keywording? I've tried to implement it in the past but I never found a satisfying middleground between overly vague and stupidy specific, and having tags that actually encompass a lot of photos. I've been reasonably happy with just my folder system to find specific shoots / events, but I feel like I could be keywording. How are yours set up?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2013 23:48
|
|
|
the posted:If I know the distance of an object that was filmed by a cellphone, can I figure out how large it was? Yeah, if you can find the focal length and sensor size of your cell phone camera. code:code:
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2013 02:54
|
|
|
The cat picture looks better to you because when you view the photo large, the discriminating details are larger in the frame and thus look sharper to you.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2013 22:01
|
|
|
The water and the sky aren't perfect reflections. The water is darker and has greater color/tone variation than the sky. That's why you're getting it in the water but not the sky.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2013 00:45
|
|
|
I've been shooting seriously for about 6 years now, and last night I got the biggest compliment and validation of what I've been doing I've ever had. We just got back from our honeymoon about two weeks ago, and my wife after looking through some of the photos I took on the trip said: "I want you to make me a collection of the photos you take of me in the moments you've caught me after I've relaxed or aren't paying attention and have stopped trying to look good for a photo. Because these photos you've taken of me are beautiful. You make me look like I have a story; like I'm alluring; like I'm someone somebody could be attracted to; I've never had photos of me like this. Sometimes it's hard for me to believe that it's me in these photos. I could put them on my phone and whenever I'm feeling down on myself for whatever reason, I could look at them and feel beautiful." It really got to me and made me feel the best I've ever felt about my photography.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2014 15:18
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:OK thanks! I'll start using it more often then. I have the default sharpening and noise reduction turned off, and do NR as needed and sharpening as a Photoshop action depending on the use.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:I'm with Combat Pretzel on this one, I don't have Lens Autocorrect on as a default preset in LR for this reason. I'll put the correction on images like 99% of the time but I always like to see it before correction first. Oh yeah, usually what I do is enable lens correction and then go into the Manual tab and drag the vignetting slider to the left to put that back to its uncorrected state while keeping the distortion correction.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:
I don't have access to a computer, but make sure you're in the manual part of the profile correction and not the post-crop vignetting slider under effects. There should be a distortion slider and then a vignetting slider in the lens correction section.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2014 02:05
|
|
|
Tricerapowerbottom posted:Sort of along the same lines, but on a smaller scale, I'm interested in taking shots of my Zippo lighter being struck. I'd like to capture the flint and steel sparks, and the development of the combustion of the naphtha or whatever the fluid is off the wick. I'd like to really get a lot of detail of the sparks, smoke, and flame, and would want to take burst shots to capture as much of each lighting as possible, as each one would be unique. Light it from behind or the side
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2014 23:27
|
|
|
ArcMage posted:While we're apparently on the subject of older DSLRs, KEH has bargain-grade 1Dmk2 bodies for an actually affordable price. I owned a 1D3 for a while. I think they're phenomenally built cameras, but generally you buy them to take advantage of their speed in autofocus and burst rate, or otherwise need the durability (extreme conditions or constant daily use and travel). If you're not using those features, you're really not getting your money's worth out of them. For an everyday camera, you're more likely to take advantage of a better sensor (in terms of low light and dynamic range), a bit less bulk, more affordable batteries, etc. If you like birding, sports, action, or do anything like that, though, where you'd use the speed, they're great cameras.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2014 03:28
|
|
|
rorty posted:I work in and around contemporary art and I'm interested in interior photography, specifically the interiors of exhibitions. As an academic pursuit (my research and specialties on the academic side are about exhibition design and history), an excuse to spend more time in galleries that will have me and maybe a professional sideline at some point. I've been taking camera phone photos in and around the exhibition I've been working on lately with the intent of doing a little photo and I'm really pleased with how they turned out, I'd like to start looking into how to do it properly. Super wide lenses, tilt shift / perspective control lenses, gelling lights, adding flashes to the scene to supplement or override the existing light, panoramic stitching, and, if you're feeling crazy, masking out and adjusting individual parts of the scene in Photoshop to have control over every aspect of the image.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2014 14:42
|
|
|
ZippySLC posted:Yes, and then that turns into a whole trip to Staples to buy rigid paper & glue & whatnot when, if I'm already making a special trip somewhere, I could go visit someone local who has a Lensalign and has experience using it. You really don't have like, a roll of scotch tape and a piece of cardboard?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
Does anyone have Canon Professional Services Gold or Platinum? How are they with their equipment evaluation loans? If I'm able to give them the at least 2 week lead time, is it pretty consistent to expect something within a few days? I'd like to evaluate stuff when I actually have shoots planned, like weddings. Also, do they get mad if you request stuff often?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2014 01:10
|
|
|
Pukestain Pal posted:You basically get put next in line to when that particular piece of equipment is available. You don't get to pick, and it won't be in a couple days. In your email to them, it wouldn't hurt to tell them exactly when you need it though, maybe they will make it happen. Also be specific which generation of the equipment you want (Mark 2, etc) or you may end up with an older generation eval. Oh, where'd you see the twice a year thing? Just looked through the terms and conditions and didn't see anything about that. Maybe it's changed? Or is it an unspoken rule?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2014 18:12
|
|
|
Pukestain Pal posted:Yeah, it's not a hard rule and to their discretion. Right on. I emailed them yesterday saying I wanted to evaluate a 24 tilt shift for an outdoor wedding I have scheduled on the 25th of October, and asked if they could ship it to me for that weekend. They replied today and said they'd ship it October 22nd. Sweet!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2014 15:59
|
|
|
 so what wanna fight about it
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2014 21:18
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:The right solution depends on volume and other factors, of course. I typically mark bad expressions, bad exposures, OOF, test shots, etc with a reject flag during my initial run through and delete those. Then, I keep my RAWs in DNG format.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:Edit: I may be thinking in the wrong direction entirely... maybe what I should be looking for is a compact light stand + softbox/umbrella and a backpack I can fit that & my camera gear in? Yes. Though bear in mind if you're concerned about bounce an umbrella is going to poo poo light out everywhere -- forward, behind, to the sides, it gives no fucks. A gridded softbox might be more your speed if you don't want light on your background or bouncing all over the place. To a certain extent, though, a small reflective area is going to limit you unless you go nuts with flagging and shielding poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 17:46 |
|
|
The point of DNG is that it's an open, standardized format. CR2, NEF, etc are proprietary, so there is a possibility that down the road if you've got old CR2 files, for instance, you won't be able to open them with modern software. Adobe Camera RAW continually updates to support different camera models' RAW formats because each format encodes its data in different manners. The idea of DNG is that the format is public, so every DNG file has been encoded the same way and is easily readable and decodable. You can take an Olympus RAW file, a Canon RAW file, a Nikon RAW file, etc, and once it's in DNG format, anyone can easily write a DNG decoder for it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2014 12:37
|
|