|
squidflakes posted:Also, if you look at the light trail there isn't any way it could be real. Motorcycles have to obey the laws of physics while they are breaking traffic laws and I doubt very much there is a motorcycle in existence that can instantly stop all forward momentum, move at a 90 degree angle from its previous vector while maintaining the original heading, then instantly regain all of its previous forward momentum. Which just makes me wonder what story the image is trying to tell. Motorbikes are nimble? They're faster? Traffic jams suck? What I'd guess happened is someone was photographing a traffic jam one night, noticed a motorcyle weaving between cars, but the resulting image or images didn't look right.. lights cut through cars or the line wasn't smooth enough. So they took an image with just cars and copied in streaks from other images to finish the look.
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2010 16:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 03:52 |
|
|
What are the best weather conditions to get those lovely misty mornings that always seem to make awesome photos? I've been forcing myself to get up at 5:30 the past few days so I can meet the sunrise, and haven't seen any mists. Do I need fresh rainfall? Is it a temperature thing? Air pressure? Combination of the three? There's no shortage of dew out there.. I come back with my pants soaked, but I'm not seeing any mist.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2010 14:20
|
|
|
If the camera can't achieve autofocus, it won't let you take a picture. The camera requires some contrast in the scene to do this, so if you're taking picture of a night sky.. the camera is probably going to make a token effort at finding focus, then quickly give up (which it does silently, giving no hint there's an issue). The lens should have a AF/M switch on it to put it in manual focus. The "M" setting on the mode dial just tells the camera you want to set shutter/aperture manually.. doesn't effect focus at all.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2010 05:17
|
|
|
Yeah.. if the moon is still out, you can use it to focus. We just passed a full moon so it should be a nice, easy target.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2010 05:36
|
|
|
A much cheaper solution is to take pictures of things you normally don't. Or just take a break. Pause for two weeks, when you pick the camera up again suddenly everything will seem interesting.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2010 19:27
|
|
|
You can do stereoscopic with careful camera control.. take a picture, move your body a few inches to the side, take a second picture. A slightly better way is two identical cameras with identical lenses, mount them on a bar (you can buy such rigs) and release the shutter at the same time. The expensive way is buying a stereoscopic camera.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2010 20:08
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:But really, who's got info on how to get started on stereo images? I'm particularly confused when it comes to viewing them. Look up software on making red/cyan anaglyphs. That's the crappiest and cheapest 3D. Or you can take two images, scale them down a bunch, and put them side by side. Then you do the cross-eyed thing to make a 3D illusion. Anything beyond that requires real money. Polarizing 3D needs a special display, and there's the old style where there's a special viewer that uses mirrors to direct a different image to each eye.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2010 16:01
|
|
|
I want to know why flickr forces me to switch to the black background slideshow view before I can get to the high resolution version. Which I click a magnifying glass, it should give me a bigger image, no questions asked. It seems to me the site only survives because it's popular.. the interface is lovely and the community is even worse. But it got that critical mass and has become too big to fail. VVV  I had no idea.
xzzy fucked around with this message at 16:28 on Nov 3, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2010 16:21
|
|
|
Picasa gives 1GB for free, bumping up to 20GB is $5 a year. Their maximum is 16TB, for $4,000 a year. I've been pretty content with it, their photo editing program isn't the coolest thing in the world but it works for managing your online folders.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2010 20:04
|
|
|
Fists Up posted:Will I be able to take a photo backpack and a small shoulder bag on an international flight as carry on? I've heard mixed responses about what they consider photo gear as. Officially, most airlines state you're allowed a single carry-on, they don't care about the contents. In practice they seem to not mind as long as your stuff fits under the seat in front of you. They get a little more pissy during the holidays because everyone is trying to bend the rules.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2010 01:58
|
|
|
That thing better shoot rockets too. If won the lottery, I'd probably be content with a mere 400mm.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2010 17:58
|
|
|
Pfft, bic pens are so passe. All the cool kids are checking luggage that can receive wireless signals! The only way they can achieve the assumed goal of "100% safety" is to force people to fly completely naked (following a cavity search) and with no luggage. I'd be surprised if there isn't some risk analysis report hidden in the depths of the TSA that admits this.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2010 18:19
|
|
|
Just do the same thing that musicians do with their instruments.. when bringing your guitar in from the cold, set the case down and don't open it. Let it sit for 40 minutes so it can gradually get up to room temperature. After 20 minutes you can crack the case to help it along. It's the sudden change from cold to warm that causes condensation (or cracking the finish, in the case of a guitar), so if you remove that, everything will be fine.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2010 20:52
|
|
|
brad industry posted:You can't create information out of what isn't there, this just looks like some kind of modified Smart Sharpen + contrast. The license plate test was pretty interesting though. If the program understands the path the camera took while the shutter was open (like if someone bumped the tripod), it seems within the realm of possibility that the program could figure out which pixels should go where.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2010 21:40
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:Isn't there a point where fixing failure might be better served in just going outside and taking better pictures? Of course, but the research is still interesting. It could be adapted for use on things more interesting than fixing a lovely snapshot.. restoring old photos, improving the quality of security footage, finding out who really killed JFK, whatever. I'm not saying they'll be doing Blade Runner style enhancement, but improving the quality of the data that is there is a pretty interesting topic.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2010 01:32
|
|
|
But if it's a cheap backup for your backup, it's probably fine. Very unlikely that you'll lose both backups at the same time.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2010 04:18
|
|
|
I've taken to hauling my camera bag everywhere I go. Too many times I've been out driving, come across a neat scene or some cool light, and not had the camera with me. I keep the bag pretty light so it's not too painful to lug around constantly. Can't say it's improved my pictures much but at least I can't blame not having a camera.. I can only blame my lack of skills.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2010 17:28
|
|
|
Exposure time is the number you're after. Half a second on a moving subject (or a bumped camera) could definitely create that kind of blur. edit - man I got beat by a whole bunch.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2011 05:31
|
|
|
It's not so much the filesystem that's at fault as it is the underlying mechanics that allow flash memory to work. It benefits greatly from occasional formatting to reset everything to a known state. I've heard dudes at camera stores lecturing customers on this several times.. confused lady wondering why the pictures of her kids came out garbled, he asks how often the SD card is formatted. When she answers "never", he tells her to format the card every time she copies pictures to the computer. Yes it's anecdotal but I've overhead this conversation enough to conclude that basically everyone "in the know" formats their cards regularly.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2011 17:27
|
|
|
LitigiousChimp posted:That looks like it might even be the same horse. I guess that doesn't help you figure out what it is, I just thought it was funny. Take the image Drunkboxer posted and flip it horizontal.. the details match up perfectly. So I guess he's the owner of one of the throwaways of whatever photo shoot this was.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2011 17:36
|
|
|
I took my camera out on a walk the other day.. it was a balmy 5 degreees (fahrenheit), and the camera was fine. Towards the end of the walk however, it sounded like the focus mechanism was straining a bit. When I switched to manual focus everything was rotating freely, so I think it was mostly the battery getting too cold to deliver enough juice to properly power the lens (IS and AF) as well as the camera. Maybe a battery grip would have fewer issues? Not sure. But I think in sub-zero temps, tucking the camera into a coat when not shooting will help its performance.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2011 20:17
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:you are right. they are wrong. They are wrong, but the downside is that being too stubborn about it can one's reputation around the workplace. Pissing off the wrong boss will result in otherwise minor slip-ups getting blown out of proportion as an excuse for termination. It happens all the loving time to otherwise great employees, once someone loses that "team player" status it's pretty much over. So the choice comes down to exerting his rights, or looking over his shoulder.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2011 01:43
|
|
|
For work like that, you really want graph paper. And rubber cement if you can glue the stuff you're working on down.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2011 22:20
|
|
|
If your post processing needs are basically just adjusting fill light and saturation and maybe adding a zany film grain effect, Picasa is pretty decent. (and is free)
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2011 22:53
|
|
|
macx posted:
Eh, it's two months. He can take pictures all morning and mutter sweet nothings in her ear all evening and she'll still have a solid 350 hours of pure honeymooning.. when most people get a couple days at most.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2011 22:38
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:Anyone have lens suggestions and/or advice for shooting rally car racing? Anything around F4 is fast enough. Faster is easier obviously. Length is a function of how much you want to risk getting hit with gravel and/or cars. Something in the 200-300mm range will let you stay a safe distance from the action. As for technique, practice your panning shots. Stand on the side of a busy road and be prepared to take thousands of pictures before you get decent at it. Google around for techniques.. cars look really, really boring when you freeze the action, so you're going to want a nice blurred background and spinning tires.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2011 02:50
|
|
|
BobTheCow posted:Yeah I don't know about Nikon, but on Canon, some of the newer L lenses not only have an option between IS on/off, but also a choice between two different types of IS, one of which is designed to assist only in the horizontal axis, so for panning. No clue how effective it is practically, as I'm terrible at panning regardless. It helps with vertical shakes. You really don't want horizontal IS when doing panning, because the lens will try to compensate for your panning motion, making your picture a horrible disaster. I question that vertical IS is necessary, it's pretty easy to get a smooth horizontal movement with some practice, but if you got the feature, there's no reason to not use it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2011 17:22
|
|
|
Squibbles posted:Some cheap lenses like the Canon 55-250mm can detect horizontal or vertical panning and only use one or the other for IS automatically. Any thoughts on how accurate that is? I've tried it briefly on mine and it seemed to work ok but I'm still very new. I took all of these shots on a 55-250mm with IS on (newbie mistake): https://picasaweb.google.com/mrxzzy/IndianapolisMotoGP2010 Problem is, my discard rate was close to 90%. I took a couple thousand pictures and threw the vast majority of them away due to blur. Even some of the ones I uploaded have a bit of blur on them. If you're really bored, compare to these pictures: https://picasaweb.google.com/mrxzzy/24HoursOfLemonsCarShots Same camera, same lens, but I had IS turned off. My discard rate was a little under 50%. There's a margin of error to this.. I also had more practice under my belt, but I attribute most of the improvement to having the camera properly configured. tl;dr: Using IS on the Canon 55-250 for panning is a huge mistake.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2011 20:59
|
|
|
Sevn posted:I don't use Canon, but have you thought it might be the autofocus? I had the most trouble focusing with certain color motorcycles. Also, in one set you are shooting MotoGP, which is insanely fast guys on motorcycles. The other set is car racing, hard to compare these two, I think. Focus mode was an issue for some shots.. I alternate between MF and AF quite a bit, just to get some practice with both. Results were generally the same, turning off IS gave me the best improvement overall. And yes, the MotoGP bikes are ridiculously fast. The corner I happened to be shooting from was the slowest portion of the track, they were well under 100mph when I had the shutter open. The car race was probably in the 50-80mph range. I took a lot of shots of the 250cc and 125cc guys too, with similar results. They're still fast, but not MotoGP fast. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2011 21:24
|
|
|
AF was definitely an issue, especially when shooting through the fence. But I was able to mitigate it somewhat by avoiding the center AF point.. going for one of the less sensitive outer points worked pretty well. I also toyed around by using single shot AF, focusing on one bike, and then releasing the shutter on the bike behind him. MF felt like it gave me the best success rate, but this is probably because I was only taking single exposures, trying to hit my focus point. With AF on, I tended to shoot machine gun style and this resulted in hundreds of lovely images. The biggest downside to MF is it limited any particular shot to the one point in the corner that I had focused on. If something interesting happened anywhere else in my field of view, it was impossible to catch it before it was over.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2011 22:10
|
|
|
A5H posted:Who has the gall to even do that. loving hell. It's part of the package in the wedding industry. Shady poo poo happens with all parts of planning a wedding, but photography is unique in that the cost of entry can be under $1000, all you need is a cheap DSLR, a website, and maybe an entry in the yellow pages. Two things I never want to deal with: weddings, and funerals. The people in either of those industries are goddamn vultures.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2011 14:47
|
|
|
Sign me the gently caress up then, if they're dead, they probably don't care if it's a kit lens!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2011 16:19
|
|
|
Definitely stay away from photographing family weddings, especially if it's your first outing. But on the other hand, if you're one of those people who are always "I'm not good enough!" when you might actually be good enough, it may be worth a shot to get involved in other weddings as an assistant. You won't be doing much shooting as an assistant, but it should be pretty educational and if you feel like you want to do it professionally, it'll help with that "could I do it?" question. Plus, you get a free dinner out of it!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2011 19:03
|
|
|
RizieN posted:It's a friend of family whom I don't know well, so I'd feel less bad about ruining the thing, but still bad. How would you suggest getting involved as an assistant? Just find some local companies and ask em? Yeah, most of them probably already have assistants but it's like any other job, there's a turnover, so it's a question of finding that one studio that recently had someone quit.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2011 19:16
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:Do you people live in houses comprised entirely of 10x10 rooms? I've used my 50 plenty indoors at parties, and yeah it won't be able to do everything, but it's still plenty serviceable. I've got a crop sensor, and find the 50mm almost useless indoors. It's okay in some cases, but for a social gathering where people are gonna want group photos, it's pretty bad.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2011 19:32
|
|
|
Is it a standard glacier cruise? How much time on land are you going to get, and which parts? As a one time resident of Alaska, I say take the whole kitchen sink. There will be mountains, and glaciers, and people, and wild animals you'll want pictures of. No single lens will be able to catch all that. Just keep in mind that sunset will be at 11:42 on June 21.. and twilight will last for a couple hours beyond that. So you may be able to get by without lugging flashes.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2011 17:40
|
|
|
The panhandle is "softcore Alaska," so on second thought you'll definitely want the flash on hand. You won't get 24 hours of sun until well north of Anchorage. It'll certanly be more sun than you're used to, though.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2011 18:16
|
|
|
Chappy posted:I've been looking through the EXIF info on flickr for various shots, just to try and learn some more, and I've noticed one thing that struck me as odd. Most everyone has the white balance set to auto. I was told by a friend of mine to change it depending on the conditions you are shooting. Should I just stick it on auto and shoot? They're probably shooting raw, in which case, it doesn't matter. They're all fixing their WB in post.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2011 03:20
|
|
|
Danoss posted:Lens Skirt is designed to do exactly what you're after in cutting reflections off the glass/perspex. It almost looks like you remake it using a crown royal bag and some blu-tack. 
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2011 14:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 03:52 |
|
|
Let me stress the extra batteries thing. You will burn through them absurdly fast sitting around for an hour with the shutter open. Especially because it's still winter temperatures in March, which sucks a lot of juice out of batteries to begin with.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2012 02:02
|
|