|
jackpot posted:Ha, I've finally made it, I have arrived: I got that last week too!  Even though I thought the pics turned out pretty badly and deleted them off flickr. I put nearly everything on flickr, so that's saying something 
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2009 01:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 00:58 |
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:If you haven't seen https://www.whattheduck.net its the worlds niche-iest webcomic. I am going through the archive, and I love it. Thanks for this, adding it to my daily webcomic folder.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2009 15:15
|
|
|
DeusVult posted:She already has a sony, albeit a very old one and is familiar with the layout and stuff. Also, stuck with the sony memory card, I know sdhc's are cheap as all hell now but seems like a waste of the stick duo. I will listen to suggestions of other cameras though and if they're that much better than the sony I'll get that one. I dunno, if she has an old one, the memory card is probably very small (and also has a fairly slow write speed) I was actually pretty happy with the old sony P&S I used, but having an old memory card isn't a reason to not try something new (and possibly better)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2009 22:19
|
|
|
pwn posted:Could someone post a link to whatever this is that's being discussed? http://www.gadling.com/2009/12/26/b...ontent=Netvibes Flights are going to be far more strict now after this attempted terrorist thing that happened.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2009 07:11
|
|
|
The tablet will have Wifi (and possibly, but not likely a GSM radio for 3g~ connection). The WiFi SD cards don't work with RAW images, so it would only send the JPGs to the tablet*. *I don't think it works like that though, it looks as if it uploads it into a website for you to browse. Another step, but it doesn't quite work like NAS or something.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2010 19:57
|
|
|
What kind of tethering and adjustments? If you have a laptop and iphone you can tether the camera to the laptop and control: aperture, shutter, iso, etc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giMu77-ldEw You can also use live view through it. Or you can just VNC into your laptop and use the actual windows software which lets you control the shooting, like so: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hf5egbFHhTs&feature=related
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2010 21:20
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:i dont have an iphone, but it would be sweet to just hold something thin and about 8 or 9 inches of screen that controls the camera without having to tie it to a laptop first. I want a tablet to just wirelessly connected to the camera. I just thought of this, but how sick would it be if it could do augmented reality too and you use your finger or stylus to create exposure masks in real time! Or adjust colors in real time in live view mode. The iPad is close to what you're looking for. Technically, since it uses iPhone apps, you can use the one I linked earlier to make it pretty much your perfect device. quote:Apple's finally unveiled the iPad. It's a half-inch thick and weighs just 1.5 pounds, with a 9.7-inch capacitive touchscreen IPS LCD display e: Will still require laptop tethered to a laptop or something, but you can tether it to laptop, close laptop and keep it attached to your tripod or something, as long as wifi doesn't turn off when screen is closed.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2010 21:06
|
|
|
Bob Socko posted:Regarding the iPad and photos - it's buried somewhere in the giant SHSC thread, but there are going to be two official photo-related dongles that appear to plug into the charging port. The first will let you attach a camera through a USB port. The other adds an SD card reader. Hopefully, the iPad will let you download RAW as well as JPEG, but who knows. Each of those adapters is between $30-50, I don't remember quite how much it's supposed to go for. I'm sure it will work for jpegs, but I'm not certain if it will possibly work with RAWs. I think RAW needs like codec support from each camera maker, so it can probably be added/hacked in but probably wont come upon release. e:v Ah, I don't really work with any software from them, if they have great support for it, then I would expect it (if not upon release then by the first major software update) Shmoogy fucked around with this message at 18:59 on Jan 29, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2010 18:56
|
|
|
To you guys who do the back button focus, do you have a grip and use those, or do you find the placement on camera fine? I tried doing the separate back button focus and found it very awkward to use when the camera was up to my face. Maybe I have small hands?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2010 20:32
|
|
|
I use my right eye into the viewfinder. I'm right handed and use microscopes and other things with my right eye as well.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2010 20:39
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Me too. I just got curious and looked it up: Wikipedia article on ocular dominance. Haha thanks for that link, it's pretty interesting. quote:The Miles test. The observer extends both arms, brings both hands together to create a small opening, then with both eyes open views a distant object through the opening. The observer then alternates closing the eyes or slowly draws opening back to the head to determine which eye is viewing the object (i.e. the dominant eye)[ Gah I said it wrong, apparantly I am left eye dominant but I've been using my right eye for everything that requires a single eye for years. It feels so awkward to look through the viewfinder with my left eye though. e: Wait so which do you guys use AE lock/AF, or AE/AF, no AE lock? Or rather which is preferred. I'm going to try to swap to using this method for a week or two and see if I can get used to it. Shmoogy fucked around with this message at 23:25 on Feb 2, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2010 23:17
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:I'm sure it's not for everyone, but once you get used to the slight difference, it seems more intuitive. I don't think intuitive is the proper word for it, I don't think I've really ever heard of people using a dedicated autofocus button instead of priming the shutter button, and I'm sure most people would probably back me on that. Although, I am very new to dSLRs, so maybe it's something that I just haven't really read about. I wont have a chance to go out and shoot due to exams coming up, but I was playing around with it (and using my left eye with the viewfinder!) and I think I might end up preferring it once it becomes a little more second nature to do so.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2010 15:27
|
|
|
DJCobol posted:Forgive me if this is the wrong thread to be asking this in, but how does everyone manage their photos? Before when I just had my Canon SD1000 powershot it was easy enough to hook it up to my Mac, let iphoto import everything, and click on the flikr button to upload. I think most people use Bridge, but I only use Lightroom because I do 90% of my editing (WB, crop, very light sharpening, etc) in it. Is there a reason you're shooting Jpeg and raw?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2010 04:50
|
|
|
DJCobol posted:I'm downloading a trial version of Aperture from apple's website now. With this it looks like I can: Yeah that sounds about right, there aren't very many reasons to shoot jpeg, or jpeg+raw because raw gives you much more flexibility in editing things later. I admit I did it at first as well because I didn't think I would be doing very much editing, so I had no reason for raw, but I wanted to maintain the ability to learn to edit. Best of both worlds! Then you find out you're nearly always going to nudge the exposure or some fill light or something (At least in my stage of photography, I'm sure there are plenty of people who take amazing pictures and barely have to edit stuff) Probably +85% of your pictures will be able to be fully edited in lightroom/aperture, with photoshop for the rest that will be heavily edited.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2010 05:29
|
|
|
JaundiceDave posted:...Or you could just multiply by 1.5 because it matters so little holy poo poo. I prefer 1.5 rather than 2.0 because, obviously, it's a lot closer to the difference.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2010 19:52
|
|
|
SynVisions posted:As far as I can remember, basically any video I have seen out of a Canon/Nikon DSLR has either been choppy, or has an occasional skip. I've yet to see a continuous video without cuts that doesn't at least skip occasionally. I mean it's not that disruptive in video from high end cameras such as the 5dmk2, but I notice it. Even looking at promo video that Nikon and Canon puts out can have some heavy choppiness to it. Not sure what you're talking about, if the computer which handles the video is powerful enough to process it, there shouldn't be any problems. That being said, the T2i, for example, can do 720p @ 60 FPS which is silky smooth. e: and the HD video only requires a card capable of doing like 8MB/s throughput, so that shouldn't be an issue either.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2010 21:54
|
|
|
Do any of you guys sell images to stock/microstock websites? Which one(s) are the best? I created an account on shutterstock and istock because it looks like most people have good luck with things there. I'm not exactly sure what I'm planning to try, but I figure I may as well make a few attempts at making extra cash through those types of sites.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2010 20:32
|
|
|
Cyberbob posted:Playing around with tonemapping on an old throwaway shot of mine. It's a little far gone without a larger image/raw but I tried to clean the noise a bit, I like practicing workflow but for the first one, just a pass through NN with auto.  Click here for the full 1000x669 image. This one I did a little extra noise reduction but it came out way too soft, so I threw some USM on it but it didn't do much good:  Click here for the full 1000x669 image. It does kind of work for the image, a bit, because it's so over the top with the wide angle and colouration. e: Wow not sure what happened to the second image, it didn't look that lovely before I uploaded it... e:v Listen to dread, blending exposures to get amazing images is sort of his expertise. Shmoogy fucked around with this message at 04:48 on Mar 9, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2010 04:45
|
|
|
Is that donut bokeh? I've never seen anything like that before, but they look kind of donut-ish.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2010 20:02
|
|
|
orange lime posted:The dark lines at the edges of those shapes are diffraction fringes from the edge of the diaphragm. Donut bokeh looks like...a donut. It's a very obvious ring shape. Oh, after looking up donut bokeh, it's not just little 'donuts' inside of a hexagonal/whatever normal bokeh, it's just that they are rings. Interesting
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2010 20:17
|
|
|
Fists Up posted:I have a friend who shoots with a lot of manual cameras/old film stuff and if he doesn't any kind of light meter he says on a sunny day you set the camera to f/16 and shoot at 1/ISO speed. Does this sound right? That's called Sunny 16 rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunny_16_rule It's a good approximation if you don't have a lightmeter.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2010 06:21
|
|
|
I wanted to take one of my universities photography courses on lighting, but it has like three pre-requisites, and one of them requires you're in the fine arts college, and passed your portfolio review. Oh well, I was kind of hoping on taking a few classes while I finish up.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2010 19:50
|
|
|
Is there a program similar to ExposurePlot that can analyze my lightroom catalog(or lightroom feature) and give me the same sort of information? It only works with Jpegs, and I don't really export jpegs of most of my stuff. I want to see if I can get rid of my 17-50 and make due with a 30mm and maybe an ultrawide if I really need something more wide.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2010 22:48
|
|
|
VermiciousKnid84 posted:Forgive me if I'm being stupid, but can't you do that with Lightroom's library filter metadata option? Interesting. It didn't quite do what I was looking for, but it did allow me to just browse shots with my 18-55 and 17-50. I was able to find out that 90% of my landscape orientated shots are in the 28-35mm range, and 50% of my portrait orientation shots are 17-30mm~range. That's going to be good to know, thanks! Thanks!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2010 14:15
|
|
|
You'd be surprised how far back you can restore things using a restoration program. It's worth a shot.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2010 15:51
|
|
|
bazaar apparatus posted:Sorry if this has already been asked but I just came across this thread the other day and haven't even come close to catching up yet and I need to know before this evening: It's a capable camera, albeit a bit slow, and the screen size is very small. Depending on how much you're willing to spend, it may be worthwhile to hold out for a 30D, or if you can go a lot more, 40D. The 30D is the same as the 20D, but I believe it's a little bit faster, and the screen is larger (but still fairly small)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2010 16:43
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:It's never random people...it's your friends, family, co-workers who see you with your camera everywhere that will sometimes roll their eyes that you have it with you again... And the one time you don't have it because you're sick of people commenting on it, or you just forget it, everyone complains.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2010 22:57
|
|
|
I don't really understand why the mount has to change if there is no risk of hitting a mirror box or anything. I would love to be able to grab a nex size camera with a 30/50 for a party where I won't need a zoom and my primes would do me well enough, and it would be the same size, or even smaller than a bridge camera.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2010 16:45
|
|
|
Nausea posted:I don't know if this thread is the place to ask, but i couldn't figure out a better place. My camera is hosed up and i'm curious about a few things. You have to send it in to Canon for the mirror reinforcement, it's an issue with the 5d ones. http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=715155 http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/840032 http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2699/4047679861_115cda0b16_o.jpg Picture of what it looks like^ e: God drat you guys are fast.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2010 17:19
|
|
|
spog posted:This is very funny.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2010 15:02
|
|
|
For shipping USPS, make certain it's express, otherwise it can sit in customs for like 2+ weeks.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2010 17:40
|
|
|
I tried the local CVS due to them offering 50 free prints for signing up. I didn't bring in my memory card, I uploaded the photos through their website. The pictures were cropped differently than the website would have indicated, and the colours aren't quite what I was expecting (but this may be due to my uncalibrated monitor moreso than their prints) So I'm going to say stay away from them, but it's probably YMMV if your local one is any good. Costco always gets recommended because of their ICC color profile support, and I'm not certain if you have to be a member to actually use them. (Costco membership is definitely worth the money though) Can't complain about the (very limited) amount of pictures I've had printed there. Just thought I'd toss in my $0.02 on the two places I'm familiar with.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2010 19:03
|
|
|
wins32767 posted:It seems that lately every single picture I take is terrible. I suspect it's an artifact of now knowing a little bit about what makes a good picture but not enough to be able to create one. It's really killing my desire to go out and shoot; the weather change has also added to that. How do you get over the hump of thinking everything you shoot is total poo poo? I'm going through that again, I usually buy new gear, the desire to play around with it and test it out takes away the feeling of lovely results. ex: Oh, new lenses always have a learning curve!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2010 19:25
|
|
|
Depending on how old your dad is, and how willing he would be to purchase additional lenses, you might want to consider getting him a high end point and shoot. I'm sure he enjoyed his days as a photographer, but he might not be willing to shoot in raw, and learn digital processing to play around with modern photography. e: My dad is almost 60 and told me he would rather have a compact camera that doesn't need any processing. Although my dad was a hobbyist, and loves shopping, so accessories/lenses were almost his favourite part of photography. Shmoogy fucked around with this message at 06:08 on Nov 4, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2010 06:04
|
|
|
HPL posted:Parents can be that way sometimes after they've spent all their working lives slaving away for the sake of the family. quote:One route you may want to look at is refurbished camera bodies. They come in a box and everything, just a white box instead of a proper Canon box. But the manuals and cables all come wrapped in plastic, so it's pretty much like getting a new camera. Absolutely take a look at the Canon Loyalty Program, current prices are here: What is the cost? Prices were reduced in Mid October 2010 to the current levels of: Canon XS - $319.99 Canon XS with 18-55 Kit Lens - $399.99 Canon T1i - $415.99 Canon T1i with 18-55 Kit Lens - $479.99 Canon 40D - $559.20 Canon 40D with 28-135 Kit Lens - $719.20 Canon 50D - $719.20 Canon 50D with 28-135 Kit Lens - $839.20 Canon 7D - $1,087.20 Canon 5D Mark II - $1,599.20 (Removed from Program November 1, 2010) You will be charged state sales tax for the state your credit card is issued. The T1i is within your price range, and a big step up from the Xs (ISO wise, screen , it's just awesome, and there is pretty much no difference between refurb/new) Details available here: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=948785 It doesn't sound like you can really push the budget any more, but if you have any brothers/sisters/other relatives that would kick in a few bucks, the 40D with the 28-135 would probably be something that would last your dad a lot longer/forever if he's not too much of a pixel peeper.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2010 20:27
|
|
|
caberham posted:Hong Kong is a city of gear fags quote:I'm also planning on taking some black modeling paint and cover the red rings (except the white one zooms, not much you can do about that can you?) http://cgi.ebay.com/Touch-Up-Paint-Canon-Zoom-Telephoto-EF-70-200mm-/200373361895?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2ea72edce7 I am going to put gaffers tape on the bottom of my camera so the quick release plate doesn't scuff it too badly, other than that, I don't think I would cover my camera up with tape. If you're so scared of being mugged, rent/buy a soundblimp to cover your shame.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2010 18:36
|
|
|
benisntfunny posted:Stop defending your poor test. While I agree that it's a pretty bad test overall, I do think that testing noise removal in a (slightly) underexposed image can indeed be a real world test. I know that I have found myself in situations where I have had no choice other than to underexpose slightly, otherwise there would be subject blur in the shot. e: bad test is a little harsh-- I think it might be more fair to say that it's not a super useful test. Noise in a web size 800x600 is negligible most of the time, there is no comparison against a properly exposed 1600ISO shot/overexposed 1600ISO shot pulled down, no sharpening done to the image (which would exacerbate the noise, but in a real shot, generous sharpening is usually done before posting/printing), etc. Shmoogy fucked around with this message at 21:12 on Dec 5, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2010 21:07
|
|
|
benisntfunny posted:I don't think poor test is really that inaccurate of a statement though; I did not say bad test - though I guess those words are almost interchangeable. Apologies, I was the one who said 'bad test' and I felt it was a bit harsh. quote:And while the initial image might be underexposed in real life the noise would likely occur from a person trying to bring it to the correct exposure. quote:I guess moral of the story is... no one would ever use that image as is so it's not entirely useful. I appreciate the fact that someone is willing to do some real world testing but if they're going to do it wrong it's going to waste everyone's time and possibly give less knowledgeable people misconceptions.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2010 21:48
|
|
|
DreadCthulhu posted:So when you're doing continuous focus, would you basically hold the secondary button down the entire time and then press the shutter-release button whenever ready? That might take either lots of practice or huge hands. It becomes second nature after a day or two of using it, honestly. I don't have huge hands and have used it with no discomfort on even the 1D series of cameras.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2010 00:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 00:58 |
|
|
asteroceras posted:Secondly, how much difference would I notice by upgrading my processor from a dual core 2.8GHz to quad core ~3.0GHz, given the following setup, and bearing in mind that my biggest annoyance is the time it takes to save large images, not slowness in general operations? : quote:Would I notice much difference going all the way to the newest motherboard and processor? I went with an i5 2500k (the i7 2600k has 4 cores but hyper threading makes it the same as an octa-core processor) because the $150 difference isn't worth it to me. If you're working with loads of video encoding as well as photos, then get the i7 (Or if photography is your main income generator-- Don't skimp on something that will cut down minutes from your workflow for the next 2+ years)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2011 00:24
|
|