|
I was taking random snapshots in bed last night, and I thought I might try to get some neat low light shots of this turtle nightlight that illuminates the ceiling with LEDs (a gift for my newborn). The photos looked okay on the camera, but when I imported them to Lightroom the illuminated part was craaazy blown out: Comparing the preview on the camera, the turtle's back has way more detail and is way less saturated. Is this due to some kind of RAW vs JPG preview issue? I wish I could show you how they look on the camera's screen as a comparison.
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2013 21:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 20:07 |
|
|
That sucks, but why does it look unaffected on the camera? I wish I could show you. I took a cellphone picture of the camera's LCD screen  Even from this lovely cellphone picture you can see there's a lot more detail and it's way less saturated. The original photo I posted was straight from Lightroom with no modifications.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2013 23:16
|
|
|
Kazy posted:I think he's saying that the photo itself looks fine on the camera, but the RAW processing is blowing out the blue. Hot dang, that fixed it. Should I be importing all my photos as Camera Standard? It was set to Adobe Standard before.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2013 23:51
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:Pages and pages of autism will be written about this, but "what you think looks good" is generally a good thing to do. I basically just don't want to cause any kinds of conflicts with color profiles. These camera profiles are different than color profiles, right? I like it when the photo on my camera's LCD ends up looking the same once I look at it on my PC, so I might import all new photos with the Camera Standard calibration from now on. Thanks!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2013 00:04
|
|
|
Delete after import doesn't work for me in Lightroom when I connect the camera with a USB cable. I am assuming it only has read access that way (the 'move' option is also disabled). It's probably meant for when you use a card reader.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2013 03:22
|
|
|
I have an old Canon AE-1 and I want to buy some lenses for it. It's FD mount, does this mean I can use any old FD mount lens or are there any restrictions I should be aware of?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
It doesn't look like there's a way to transfer photos to the iPad from your camera out in the field, which makes it rather useless from a workflow perspective. Take a bunch of photos Go home Transfer them to Lightroom on your computer Hit Sync Wait for them on your iPad Edit them on your iPad Might as well just use your computer. Or transfer them to a laptop in the field. Or maybe I don't get the point of the app.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2014 06:37
|
|
|
Can we post videos/channels of who not to follow? I watched a few vids from this guy when I first got Lightroom but this was one that stood out the most https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsuyUx3Wrr8 The before/after is amazing. FYI all of his other "tutorial" videos involve cranking the saturation and sharpness/clarity sliders to 11, so that's something to keep in mind if you are looking for a laugh. He doesn't even straighten the horizon.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2014 23:57
|
|
|
Yeah I got a remote trigger for my Nikon from deal extreme for $2
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
This isn't a question but more so something I wanted to share. Just a reminder of how far digital cameras have come in less than 20 years, not that anybody needed a reminder. This is one of Sony's first consumer grade digital cameras, from 1997. It saved 640x480 images onto a  3.5" floppy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jPcYCcaHv0
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
It's almost always cheaper to DIY rather than pay for a service. You can get a 4 TB drive with a 2 year product replacement plan in the event of failure, for roughly $200 or less. Buy two of those and you got one backup, and another for redundancy. This would cover your rear end for most situations and would cost you only $400/year if you replaced the drives every year. Obviously way less if they last you longer, which they most likely will. Amazon Glacier costs 1 cent per GB per month, which comes to over $500/year for 4 TB. Backblaze published a list of hard drives that they found to be the most reliable: http://blog.backblaze.com/2014/01/21/what-hard-drive-should-i-buy/ tl;dr - buy WD. If they don't fail in the first few months, they'll likely last 3 years or longer BANME.sh fucked around with this message at 19:32 on Jun 6, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
Yeah, obviously fire or some other natural disaster would ruin you. You could always keep one of your redundant drives at a friends house, or work, or your parents place. Bring it back and forth to do monthly syncs. It's horribly inconvenient, but can save a lot of money.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
Splinter posted:Services like CrashPlan and Backblaze are only ~$5/month. Worth it IMO if your alternative for off-site backup is driving hard drives around town (or farther) and manually syncing every month. Yeah I didn't realize CrashPlan let you unplug your drives indefinitely. That's totally a way easier option.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2014 21:12
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:A good place to start is to google the sunny 16 rule. This. Or you can get a smartphone lightmeter app.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 07:04
|
|
|
William T. Hornaday posted:Anybody got any good tips for deciding on the right (i.e., completely neutral) white balance when processing? I don't know if my eyes just adjust and get used to it, but half the time when I come back to a photo it looks way off. And then I'll change it, but when I come back to it again it looks way off in another direction and I end up changing it again. Auto and the eyedropper have yet to routinely give me consistently satisfactory results. Do I need to make my desktop background 18% gray or something? It's driving me nuts. Take a photo of a grey card at the beginning of your shoot, then use that to get your white balance setting for the rest of your photos?  But yeah, I suffer from this all the time too. It helps if you can buy or borrow one of those monitor calibration thingies, and also make sure your room is lit the same way every time you process photos. My editing PC is in my basement with no windows, so I just have a single lamp that I keep on all the time for consistency.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
Focusing a lens like that manually would be done using a ring on the lens, yes. Did you look at the full line of Nikon AF-S lenses? The 55-200 mm lens is $190 new on amazon. If you can't afford the extra $70 you might be able to find it used for even less. Certainly worth the added convenience of autofocus. Yeah there is a EX condition one on KEH for $84 BANME.sh fucked around with this message at 15:39 on Aug 14, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2014 15:29
|
|
|
 #7 I think some cameras have the arrows indicating you are close in one direction or the other, others just have the dot that lights up.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2014 04:12
|
|
|
They were likely somewhere near 35mm and probably had a fairly tiny aperture to make sure that the depth of focus was quite large. Also, I'm not sure but they probably had some rudimentary auto-focus system as well.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2014 04:22
|
|
|
Does dust usually come and go from inside a lens? I got a couple specks inside my Nikon 35mm 1.8G lens, and on long exposures more than 5 seconds, they show up as blurry dark spots on my photos. Just wondering if eventually they'll work their way out.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2014 05:53
|
|
|
steel wool followed by a coat of brasso to bring the shine back
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
HPL posted:I looked into insurance for my camera gear but they wanted receipts for everything and an underwriter's assessment and all that. How the hell am I supposed to get a receipt for stuff like my 60's-era Rolleiflex? For collectibles or antiques, you usually get an appraisal by somebody who's licensed and use that. e: maybe licensed is the wrong word, I dunno how it works for appraisals that aren't properties. BANME.sh fucked around with this message at 20:10 on Nov 13, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
How can a program render raw files better? That sounds like some audiophile level poo poo right there.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
Yeah, red is actually hard for computers to figure out when it comes to compression believe it or not. There is not much you can do about it other than save your JPEG at really high quality. If you google "red jpeg artifacts" you'll see a million results.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2014 07:54
|
|
|
I downloaded the trial and imported a few of my raw NEF files, but didn't really prefer the automatic adjustments it made. Skin tones were really yellow and gross actually. I didn't try with any landscapes or anything though. All of their promo material seems to be geared towards studio photography it looks like. You guys should show us some of these amazing comparisons you are seeing!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
I wonder if they are being a bit smarter about it. It wouldn't surprise me if they had some kind of facial recognition thing that detected faces and tried to adjust for pleasing skin tones, and then maybe applied a dynamic mask for sharpening.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2014 07:26
|
|
|
I vaguely remember reading somewhere that somebody suggested that the center AF point is the most reliable for some reason, being at the center of the lens where the image is sharpest, so maybe it started there.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
How does film handle x-ray scanners?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2014 00:41
|
|
|
Defenestration posted:Cross posting here B&H has a really good youtube video for file management in Lightroom (pretty sure it's b&h anyway). As for editing, I've always just searched for what I wanted, like "Lightroom natural skin tones", etc, and watch a bunch. You can tell in the first few seconds of the video if it's worth watching because they usual show you the after photo immediately.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2014 03:49
|
|
|
I need to take advantage of the fact that my mom has her own framing shop
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2014 03:42
|
|
|
Beige posted:This is pretty comprehensive and good. Does in-camera noise reduction serve any purpose then? Is there a time to use it and a time to disable it? Many prefer to control the noise reduction manually in post rather than letting the camera decide for you. Shoot in RAW to capture more dynamic range, and you'll be able to tone down the highlights and increase the shadows in post a lot easier.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
make yourself a diy diffuser or better yet, a diy reflector and bounce it off the ceiling. you'll likely have to set the flash to manual mode and take a bunch of test shots to dial in the exposure, because the camera won't know you're screwing with it
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
Blurb is good and the print quality is nice for your average coffee table book but not for "high art" or anything. Maybe they have higher quality print options, I dunno, but you can see the CMYK halftone pattern pretty easily if you are being picky about it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
I know a guy who has done a 365 for 9 years straight. :|
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2015 05:58
|
|
|
A fast hard drive is essential for storing RAWs and navigating them quickly in Lightroom. I have a fairly beefy computer with 16GB of ram and my Lightroom is slow as poo poo, because all of my photos are on a 5200 RPM external hard drive (connected with eSATA, not even USB 2). It's brutal. I keep my Lightroom library file on an SSD, but it doesn't help much.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
huhu posted:This might be a bit vague but I'm wondering what's up with the colors in these pictures? How are such strong colors achieved? Is it some delicate balance of Lightroom sliders to get it just right? Film? Fancy lenses? You can make colors stronger by increasing the vibrance or saturation sliders in lightroom. If you want to target a specific color, you can increase the saturation of that color in the HSL panel. There is really no trick to it. Just don't go overboard. The red in that last photo looks unnatural. If your photos look faded out, you might get more pleasing color tones by simply increasing the contrast.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2015 06:04
|
|
|
For free, there's a million guides for just about anything on YouTube. I've never looked at any paid tutorials though.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
So since diffraction increases with smaller apertures, and f-stops are just a ratio of focal length and aperture size, that means that f22 on a 35mm lens has a way smaller opening than f22 on a 200mm lens, right? So would the 200mm lens have less diffraction at small apertures compared to a 35mm lens, because the hole is larger? Just something I've been wondering.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2015 05:24
|
|
|
That Ben Stiller Walter Mitty movie was heavily photography based and has awesome cinematography despite being kind of a sappy romcom at heart.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
The narrower your lens, the wider your depth of field The further away you focus, the wider your depth of field In this case, they were using both a narrow lens and focusing far away, meaning their depth of field was very wide even at f3.5. Even so, most of the subject matter in the photo is several tens to hundreds of feet away, so the wide depth of field would be mostly overkill anyway. Using a DOF app on my phone, it says that an 18mm lens at f3.5 on a crop sensor will give you a depth of field of roughly 5.5 feet to infinity when you focus at 11 feet. Stopping down to f16 increases your depth of field to roughly 1.9 feet to infinity. So unless you want to get extremely close and extremely far subjects in focus at the same time, aperture doesn't play a big part in getting everything in focus on a landscape. Edit: Even if they focused at infinity, the depth of field is still about 11 feet to infinity, and nothing in that photo is closer than 11 feet. BANME.sh fucked around with this message at 21:29 on Mar 11, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 20:07 |
|
|
Photos come out blurry because the shutter speed is too slow for handheld use. You need to increase your shutter speed - something around 1/60 of a second is probably fine. If there isn't enough light to use a fast shutter speed (photos come out dark), you need to increase the ISO, and/or lower the F stop. If that is not an option, use a tripod again but switch the camera to self timer mode. Your photos are likely coming out blurry on a tripod because the motion of pressing the shutter button is shaking the camera. Using the self timer mode means you can press the shutter button and then the camera will have time to stabilize before taking a photo. Edit: Are you certain it's motion blur? Another possibility could be that you are trying to focus too close on your subject and the camera isn't capable of focusing that close. BANME.sh fucked around with this message at 00:48 on Mar 13, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2015 00:43
|
|