General Photography Questions Megathread v4 - Don't Listen to Any of These Freaks

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Creative Convention > The Dorkroom > General Photography Questions Megathread v4 - Don't Listen to Any of These Freaks

«‹›2 »

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

HPL posted:

And that, my friends, is why you get a camera with a tilting screen.

Or an angle finder.

# ¿ Jun 5, 2012 17:45

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 08:16

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

mclifford82 posted:

What is the best way to obtain focus when going for shots of stars or even star trails? I've tried it a few times, and the camera can't find enough contrast to autofocus. Going with manual focus just produced blurry results. Also, is there a certain focal length best suited for such shots?

Thanks all

Make a Bahtinov mask. These cleverly use diffraction to produce three spikes that only overlap when in focus. Far cleverer than the previously mentioned Hartmann mask.

# ¿ Mar 10, 2013 23:15

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

Darktable is an attempt at an opensource Lightroom clone. I haven't tried it myself...
http://www.darktable.org/

# ¿ May 16, 2013 22:10

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

Mr. Despair posted:

On the same note don't photograph bridges or mountains or other things that people have photographed before. What's the point! Might as well throw your camera away, really.

You jest, but I reckon there should be a moratorium on photographing the Bramante Staircase at the Vatican.

# ¿ May 17, 2013 23:56

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

If you've set shutter speed, aperture and ISO, then the exposure compensation display is just the camera giving you an idea how it compares to its assessment of the scene.

However on some brands, you can select a manual shutter speed and aperture, then set an exposure compensation in conjunction with auto-iso.

# ¿ Jun 22, 2013 11:15

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

Don't forget the Blue Hour!

# ¿ Oct 19, 2013 09:06

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

8th-snype posted:

I could never forget the time spent with your mother.

Well, she is a world renowned landscape photographer.

# ¿ Oct 19, 2013 09:27

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

8th-snype posted:

That explains why she is an expert at "using" a "tripod"

You're just bitter because you can't get yours up.

# ¿ Oct 19, 2013 10:37

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

I believe Yahoo are moving away from providing stats. If you had the relevant paid account before the revamp you'll still have them, but there's no way to now access them for anyone else.

# ¿ Dec 10, 2013 09:59

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

Quantum of Phallus posted:

G+ is a total waste of time. I've been on it for ages and I talk to maybe 2 people I know on it.

There are plenty of photography themed Communities, that see a lot of activity. G+ isn't the empty wasteland that people without talkative G+ friends think it is. For example, this Landscape Photography group has a quarter of a million members.

That said, I think Google haven't got the interface right on communities. My biggest gripe is that it's always sorted by 'newest first post' (not 'last reply' as is the usual convention), so potentially interesting discussions get lost under a sea of individual posts.

# ¿ Dec 14, 2013 10:17

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

Spedman posted:

The level of stupidity is dependant on the group I've found. A lot of the film based ones are pretty useful for getting processing tips, with only the odd dickhead sprinkled in.

The greatest warning flag is any group based on the concept of "post a photo, award three".

# ¿ Feb 12, 2014 22:52

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

Whirlwind Jones posted:

Any fun alternatives to Flickr? I'm looking at dumping some of my best shots into an online gallery, mostly just for posterity and archival, but a nice presentation of the shots would be neat to have if possible as well.

In terms of those also with a Flickr style social media element: 500px, ipernity, Google+/Picasa. (the only other one I can think of at the moment is Instagram and that doesn't really do 'nice presentation of the shots'.). If you're not interested in the community side, then there are countless sites offering something closer to a personal website (too many for me to list right now).

Pablo Bluth fucked around with this message at 08:16 on Apr 1, 2014

# ¿ Apr 1, 2014 07:54

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

800peepee51doodoo posted:

Unrelated: Does anyone have a suggestion for photohosting sites other than lovely rear end flickr? I'm pretty much fed up and over it after having to change my password 30 loving times just to log in. Every single time. Haha no you can't use the same password you've used before, someone might figure it out and ... upload some photos? I can't wait for Yahoo to die.

If you want the social aspect and/or free, ipernity.com (sort of sells itself on being like Flickr used to be.) or 500px (more about sharing the select best of your work.). Otherwise there people like Smugmug, Zenfolio, Squarespace, 4ormat who more like traditional webhosts that specialise in photography sites.

# ¿ Jun 13, 2014 09:26

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

Slavvy posted:

I just bought babby's first DSLR, a nikon D3100. It came with the usual 18-55mm lens. I like landscape photography so I want to get a more long-distance orientated lens on the cheap.

From what I understand, the lenses for nikon's full sized DSLR's will fit my camera just fine, but they won't auto-focus because they don't have an internal autofocusing mechanism.

No, the situation is more complex than that. Nikon lenses that have an internal focus mechanism are denoted by AF-S (or AF-I in some older lenses) and will focus on all bodies. All of Nikon's current line is AF-S. So a full frame AF-S lens will autofocus on your D3100 and would still work when you upgrade later to an FX body.

Lenses that don't have an internal autofocus motor, denoted by AF instead of AF-S, is a legacy thing. It's wrong to say that all of Nikon's DX bodies lack the motor for AF lenses. So Nikon keep prices down on their entry level cameras, such as your D3100, by not including the in-body motor but there are DX bodies that do have one. For example, the D7100 does.

You 18-55mm DX AF-S will work and autofocus on an FX body, although it will switch to crop mode (given that the image circle isn't wide enough to cover the whole sensor). By comparison, Canon crop-lenses (EF-S) won't work on Canon full-frame bodies (the mirror will crash in to the end of the lens)

(as understood by a Canon shooter)

Pablo Bluth fucked around with this message at 10:13 on Aug 14, 2014

# ¿ Aug 14, 2014 10:10

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

ExecuDork posted:

Pablo Bluth is assuming you will eventually upgrade to a "full-frame" DSLR with a sensor the same size as a frame of 35mm film (24x36mm - the 35mm refers to the total measurement across the width of the film strip covering the sprocket holes on both sides). You might or might not eventually make that upgrade, but in the meantime enjoy shooting your camera.

In my defence, I wasn't so much assuming as reflecting Slavvy's own comment that "I can't use on any full-sized camera I purchase in the future".

# ¿ Aug 14, 2014 21:22

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

MindSet posted:

I've been interested in trying out astrophotography for a long time, where's a good place to start reading up on technique and recommended glass?

The Amateur Astronomy thread over in DIY & Hobbies is full of knowledgeable people.

# ¿ Sep 16, 2014 21:36

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

MindSet posted:

OK, I misstated what I meant, although astrophotography looks really cool, and maybe I'll try it! I guess I meant more like night landscapes that include bright stars as a major element, and telescopeless starfields. Apologies if the same thread applies.

There's also the long expsoure thread.

# ¿ Sep 17, 2014 08:17

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

Slavvy posted:

Ok so I've signed up to 500px. Is there any way to embed the images in forum posts the way you can with flickr? I can't seem to find any bbcode link or anything.

There's no bbcode option, but the grey button (arrow in to a box) to the right of g+ will give you some html code from which you can copy some urls.

# ¿ Sep 22, 2014 19:58

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

Except video is always shot at 1/{24,25,30,50,60}s, putting limits on the usefulness of frame extraction.

# ¿ Nov 3, 2014 09:35

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

The bio on Don McCullin should be on everyone's list.

# ¿ Feb 21, 2015 19:40

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

KinkyJohn posted:

Not more lossy, literally less colors.

I think that should be 'less range of colours'. The number of distinct colours possible is a function of the bit-depth of the image; so 8bits per channel means you can represent 2^(8*3) or 16,777,216 colour variations. With sRGB the 16million colours are more closely packed together in the middle of the 'total colour spectrum', where-as for something like AdobeRGB those 16 million points are further spread-out. So while AdobeRGB offers the benefit of a wider gamut, you are in theory trading it for a slightly coarser gradients of colours within the gamut. Switch to 16bits/channel in Photoshop and you get to play with 68.7 billion colours within the same gamut bounds.

# ¿ Aug 6, 2015 22:44

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.

# ¿ Aug 29, 2015 10:43

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

Contact Sheets by Magnum.
Don McCullin by Don McCullin
Vietnam Inc by Philip Jones Griffiths

Pablo Bluth fucked around with this message at 12:06 on Dec 10, 2015

# ¿ Dec 10, 2015 10:25

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

pootiebigwang posted:

Thought there was an inkjet printing thread but I'm assuming it has been swallowed by the archives.

I started this one which hasn't fallen in to archives yet but it didn't exactly catch the popular imagination...

# ¿ Jan 11, 2016 23:25

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

MrBlandAverage posted:

I ordered a 24"x30" print from Bay Photo, with a 1.5" border because framing a large print that's exactly the size of the image sucks a lot. Instead I got a 21"x27" print with a 1.5" border

I totally understand how this happened - they took a 24"x30" piece of paper and put the image 1.5" inwards on each edge - but I've literally never had this problem with a lab before. All of the labs I've used in the past interpreted "borders" how I expected. I called them to ask what I could do now and in the future. They said it was their policy not to do partial refunds, and they didn't see this as their mistake, so my only option was to send back the print at my cost for a full refund The solution for the future was that I should choose the next paper size up and put in borders so the image would be the size I wanted. In this case, the next size up that has space on all edges compared to 24"x30" is 30"x40", which costs 36% more.

So, I'm never giving Bay Photo any of my money ever again and neither should you unless you really enjoy this kind of bullshit. Anybody got a place they can recommend that can do digital c-prints and won't gently caress me over for wanting a tiny bit of blank paper around my image?

Isn't that how all labs work? The price is based on the paper size including the border, and borders cause the image to be shrunk.

# ¿ Jan 22, 2016 22:55

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

Well I would expect them to get the aspect ratio right! But in my experience, whenever I've used a print lab, border requests have been specified after selecting paper size and have shrunk the image down.

I'm the wrong side of the pond, but WHCC always seems be mentioned when people ask.

# ¿ Jan 22, 2016 23:39

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

dakana posted:

I also think I get that, for example, a camera captures a scene in AdobeRGB

My understanding is that the raw camera data isn't in a form where colourspace is a relevant. It's only at the conversation stage (be it in-camera, Lightroom, other), when it's combined with known properties of the particular model of sensor, that it's interpreted in to a representation where colourspace is involved. For example, Lightroom internally works using a version of ProPhotoRGB.

One thing with colourspaces, they don't define the maximum number of colours within an image but the maximum spread of colours. The bit-depth of the file defines the number of colours; 8bit per channel gives 16,777,216 colours or 16bit/channel is 281 trillion. So a wider colorspace for the same bit-depth does mean the 'gaps' between neighbouring colours is wider., and a slightly higher risk of banding in some circumstances.

# ¿ Oct 29, 2016 10:13

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

I find Flickr is better for developing acquaintances where you mutually follow what each other is up to. 500px is much more a torrent of random people passing in the night, all posting "nice photo, will you like mine please?".

# ¿ Nov 16, 2016 01:59

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

One option is to install one of the android emulators and use that to run the official Instagram app.

# ¿ Nov 16, 2016 19:54

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

xzzy posted:

One that dumps an icon on my windows desktop every single loving time it updates itself.

At least yours updates. I have a 100% failure rate where it aborts with cryptic error codes. Adobe's suggestes fixes don't work so I have to completely uninstall and reinstall.

# ¿ Nov 23, 2016 10:52

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

no broccoli please posted:

I'm looking at upping my social media game a bit, and I'm just looking for a bit of advice on a good way to get photos from my computer to Instagram. I know I'm really late to the game here. Doesn't seem to be a way to upload from a folder on my PC, unless I'm totally missing something.

There's no official support for Instagram uploads from PCs. You can install an android emulator to run the official app on your pc, however the quickest way is to use the developer tools in your web browser to switch in the mobile-device emulation; this gives you access to the version of the web site that does allow uploads. In chrome, F12 to enter developer tools then ctrl-shift-M to show the mobile-compatibility bar. Switch from Responsive to one of the other options, and you should have access to the important functionality. (sometimes the bottom menu won't appear until you hit f5 to reload the page).

# ¿ Jan 28, 2018 23:03

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

InternetJunky posted:

I'm currently trying to transition into wildlife photography full time (last year my photos accounted for 20% of my income, so I have a long way to go).

What's been your route in to converting nature photos in to income?

# ¿ Feb 2, 2018 20:20

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

Not sure what you used but don't neglect the white balance. If it's in AWB, the camera will attempt to cancel out the golden glow of magic hour or the cool blue of dusk when they are in fact a key element of the scene.

# ¿ May 8, 2018 08:29

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

Schneider Heim posted:

What kind of WB should I be using? Should I just pick a color temp and go from there?

Whichever one pleases you aesthetically. As a starting point for Sunset/rise photos I'd use sun or shade presents. But really it's just a reminder that if the photo looks a bit flat compared to how the sky is looking to your eyes, experiment with WB.

# ¿ May 8, 2018 18:00

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

William T. Hornaday posted:

I guess the lesson of this is to just trust LR/PS and try and cope with the fact that things'll likely look like poo poo anywhere else.

Generally speaking, only use AdobeRGB or ProPhotoRGB if you know the images will be used exclusively in colour-managed programs (and always, always embed the profile when saving). Otherwise use sRGB and the photo should appear identical in managed and non-managed programs.

Not sure why you are seeing a difference when exporting as sRGB.

# ¿ May 12, 2018 09:38

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

Dudeabides posted:

I know it gets discussed a lot in various threads, but the time has come in my photography experience where I need to finally invest in a Speedlight flash for my Canon.

What's the general preference on third-party flashes here? I know GODOX is dropped as a name all the time.

Yungnuos were a common recommendation although it seems these days they've been surpassed by Godox. But they're still decent speedlites at not much cost.

# ¿ Aug 28, 2018 00:51

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

How does the Nikon scanner thing attach to the lens? Have they made it Nikon specific or couple you use it with other brands?

# ¿ Nov 5, 2018 21:13

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

There's also Darktable, Lightzone and RawTherapee if you want to try some open source software. Being free there's no downside to giving them a whirl.

# ¿ Nov 19, 2018 18:59

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

Ineptitude posted:

Been putting this off for far too long but i have reached the point where i am tired of culling my images in Lightroom.
What is a good software for quickly viewing RAW photos and marking/deleting the bad ones?

PhotoMechanic and FastRawViewer come up on google.

PhotoMechanic has a very flashy and uninformative webpage that makes it very difficult to see the price of the software (a whopping $150). They really want you to try the 30 day trial. The software also does a bunch of other things im not interested in, which has me worried its not going to be the most optimal RAW viewer.
FastRawViewer has less features and promises fast RAW viewing (duh) but the people recommending it are a bit too eager to recommend it.

Does anyone have any experience with these 2 or other software for culling RAW images?

Photomechanic has a strong fanboy following so it's almost certainly very good for fast culling. But that price...

# ¿ Jan 24, 2019 07:55

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 08:16

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

Babysitter Super Sleuth posted:

72DPI is standard for web.

DPI for the web doesn't make sense. It's this common misunderstanding that persists. Files (jpg/tiff/etc) have a DPI value stored but it's just a integer included in the metadata. DPI only becomes something when it's printed (in which case DPI = is image resolution divided by print size) or displayed (when it's DPI = image resolution divided by physical screen size).

On top of this, there's the dots per inch vs pixels per inch issue terminology issue.

# ¿ Feb 13, 2019 19:54

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Creative Convention > The Dorkroom > General Photography Questions Megathread v4 - Don't Listen to Any of These Freaks

«‹›2 »