|
Howdy! I just returned from a 2 week family gathering in Italy with my 3 brothers, dad/mom and 2 uncles and families (20 people in total). Both myself and 2 of my brothers are quite fond of taking photos, so there were lots of pictures taken. Instead of every family taking their own pictures, we decided that we were primarily going to use just a few cameras, and rather share the pictures online once everyone has gotten back from the vacation. What is the best way of doing this? We discussed DropBox at first, i am not very familiar with it but that will just display a list of files right? Id say most of the participants at the gathering are at a PC proficiency level where DropBox would be a cumbersome solution, if not even scaring people away from grabbing the photos entirely. Is there a solution somewhere that lets us upload pictures to an "online album" of sorts, where we also have some control over who gets access to the pictures? And also allowing more than 1 person to upload to said solution?
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2013 00:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 08:55 |
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:Make a flickr account and share the username/password between the people who are uploading to it? Thanks! Does flickr allow me to make pictures only viewable by people that i share them with? And do they need a flickr account for that? Having to make an account on a webpage could be more than several of the participants at the gathering is interested in. Several of the participants are in their high 60s, and have never used computers much, and everyone is living all across the country so its not just a matter of dropping by one evening to show them how to do it. It needs to be as easy as possible for them to view and/or download the photos they want, while having the photos not viewable by the public. I hope i am not asking for a type of service/webpage that doesn't exist, but i realise i might have a bit too many requirements.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2013 16:38
|
|
|
Thanks everyone! I have done a few test albums and shared them with my wife, who has no google account, and it seems to work fine. She can see the photos through the link she gets in her email, and can't see them by manually going to my G+ account. Also it seems that if i create an "event" in G+, and invite people there, everyone can upload pictures to this event. If this works like i am led to believe then it is perfect for my needs! Now the job of sorting the 2000 photos i took down to about 50 or so good ones, then resizing them... I have never done much of anything like this before, and now i find myself having to sort thousands of photos, fix the ones that needs fixing (daytime pictures in bright sunlight is very hard for me to get correctly exposed for the moment), crop the ones that needs cropping to look better composed, then resize all of them. I find myself having to look up how to do every single one of these tasks, and i only have today and tomorrow to do it before i leave on a new vacation. Slightly stressed at the moment but it is quite fun. Is MultipleImageResizer.net any good? The other tasks i can use Paint.net for, and look into better alternatives later. Not sure yet if i will take the leap to buy Lightroom or even Photoshop, or if these programs are even needed unless i am a professional?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2013 16:25
|
|
|
mclifford82 posted:Before you go processing your brains out, upload a few of the trouble images to G+ and see how the Auto Enhancer does. It incorporates a fantastic algorithm, the same ones used in Nik Software which they acquired. You'll still have to crop/resize, but it does wonders and you can enable it for all G+ uploads. Yeah by processing i meant "cropping", i dont know how to do the other things yet, at least not manually. I agree about the G+ automatic processing being fantastic though! (and more than enough for our needs)
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2013 21:57
|
|
|
Been playing around with photo combination lately (ie panoramas, HDR, etc) and would like to read up on these 2 techniques, but i dont know what to google for: What do you call it when you combine several photos "on top" of each other and keep the differences between them, to for example show the same person several times in 1 photo? (without having moved the camera) What do you call it when you combine several photos to only keep the similarities between each photo? (for example taking several photos of a tourist attraction, then removing all the other tourists when you are back home) I know both of these techniques exists, and i have heard they can be fairly automated, but i cannot figure out what they are called so that i can google up on it. Is this something i can do in Hugin? "photo fusing techniques" or similar google searches just return unrelated results or results that only match 2 key words
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
Any point in getting one of the "[camera model] for dummies" types of books? (Specifically for the Canon 6D) I just got myself a Kindle (won it) and am looking for some books to put on it. I am not much of a book reader, when i read it has to be something nonfiction/factual. I already have "Understanding exposure" and "The Photographers Eye" (on paper) so theres not really any photography books i need; which made me think of a book to help me get more out of my camera. I consider myself past the beginner stage in using my camera and photography in general so i guess i am wondering how much new info i am going to get out of a book such as this?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
Remy Marathe posted:I can't imagine those books bringing anything to the table that you couldn't learn between your owner's manual, systematically walking through your menus to see what options you have, and google. Yeah this is mostly the impression i had. I didnt realise i could put PDFs onto the Kindle (though am not very surprised), i will have to look into that!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
Regarding dust in photo equipment, i noticed yesterday that my Canon 70-200 2.8 has a piece of dust that looks like it is right in the middle of the lens (as in, on the middle element) I dont use this lens a lot, and i am OCD-level careful when i swap my lenses, so i was wondering how this piece of dust got in there? Could this be something from manufacturing, and give me cause for getting the lens cleaned for free or replaced? I assume there is no way i can get a piece of dust stuck in the middle of the lens out of the lens by myself.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2014 08:28
|
|
|
1st AD posted:Wait what? I bought the 64gb 95 mb/s card from Best Buy website for $99, do the stores charge different pricing than the website? Isnt that the norm? At least here in Norway, few chains have the same price on their website as in the store, and then only on select products. You can however order the product online then go pick it up in the store and get it for the online price. I once bought a BluRay player for 800 NOK on a stores webpage, with my cell phone, WHILE IN THE STORE, instead of paying the 2000 NOK price for the same BluRay player in the store... After placing my order i saw an employee pick up the BluRay player from the shelf i was standing next to and deliver it to the online purchases counter, where i could pick it up.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
That 70s Shirt posted:Anyone know if it's still possible for previous owners of Nik software to get their plugins without buying the whole set from Google? I bought Silver Efex Pro 2 a couple years ago, but a few weeks ago I reformatted my computer and reinstalled my OS/other software/etc. I have need for Silver Efex Pro now, but looking at Google's site I don't see a way to re-download what I've already paid for. I've emailed their support about it but haven't heard back. Am I just up poo poo creek? Can't you just, ahem, "acquire" it, and activate it with your legit activation code?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 09:48
|
|
|
My wife brought home some Godox 250DI studio flashes from her recent trip to China. They were quite cheap (about USD 200 for 3 flashes, 3 softboxes, 3 tripods, remote trigger, general studio flash instruction DVD, a bunch of backdrops, a bag of extra light-bulbs) so i realize they aren't the best flashes, but it seems a bit odd that they can only fire at 1/160 shutter speed? If i use 1/200 theres a small black area at the bottom of the photos, at 1/250 about half the photo is black and at 1/320 the whole photo is black. The flash product page says "Flash duration: 1/2000s - 1/800s", so i don't really understand why they don't fire faster than 1/160?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
spog posted:Flash sync speed. evil_bunnY posted:Read up on flash sync. It's the body's shutter that limits flash sync speed. timrenzi574 posted:As the above posters said, it's your body's sync speed. You can get triggers that will allow you to adjust when the strobe fires, to take advantage of it's long duration and try to cover the whole travel of the curtain. Pocketwizard calls this hypersync, and Yongnuo has a ripoff of it called supersync on their 622 triggers. Yeah i know about curtain speed, i just thought my Canon 6d was quicker. I also thought that this was mostly a concept for on-camera speedlights and not studio flashes, i figured studio lights they would "beam" their light output for a longer time. It's also a bit weird that they fire at 1/2000 - 1/800 when the transmitter doesn't support that. Since they do have a range of speeds and not a fixed one, at least they can be controlled with the correct transmitter? 1/160 is way too slow, i need to stop down all the way to f/13 for the photos to not be completely blown to white, and thats at 1/8th of the flash output power. I need to be able to shoot faster. The wireless transmitter i got with the flashes isn't up to the task. Which transmitter/receiver could do this job, and be compatible with my Godox 250DI's? They don't have a hotshoe mount so that leaves Yongnuo 622 out at least. The input port on the flashes is "PC Port" i believe? I would prefer a 3rd party solution if possible, those pocketwizards and cybercommanders are very expensive. Ineptitude fucked around with this message at 21:09 on Nov 25, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:Your problem is not shutter speed though - they would be just as blown out if your sync speed was 1/500. Any shutter speed below x-sync is going to collect the same amount of light from the flash, whether that's a 1/60 xsync or a 1/500 xsync. Your main problem is that these cheap chinese flashes only go down to 1/8 or 1/16, whereas more expensive strobes can go much lower. Yeah, that makes sense. I am trying to come to terms with all this new terminology, i have a decent grasp on speedlights, for some reason i have thrown all that knowledge out the window trying to use these studio lights. 1/8 means 1/8th of the possible power output, right? (what on earth do people use full power for) Oh and I already have diffusers on  RangerScum posted:Shutter = Ambient light only Im shooting at ISO100 What do you mean by modifiers? I can try moving the flashes further away, but the room i am shooting in isnt very large to begin with, and the walls are all white. I bought these fairly small flashes because the room is small MrBlandAverage posted:First of all, great username/post combo. Secondly, that's flash duration, not sync speed *shrug* this is my first time using studio lights. For some reason i thought they were "plug and play" and that everything wouldd sort itself out. Im trying to wrap my head around all this new terminology. I didn't realise they were so drat powerful either, the flashes are fairly small. Wonder what people use those big rear end ones for...
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2014 21:59
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:Do you have anything between the bulb of the flash and your subject? Umbrella? Softbox? Those are modifiers, they modify the light from the flash. If you are shooting in a broom closet with bare white walls the light is bouncing everywhere and that would certainly account for your photos being really bright. I have softboxes on them, so a sheet of fabric between the flash and the subject. The room is 3x4 meters, the flashes are about 2m away from the subject so that could be increased an additional meter. There are 3 flashes. 2 of them directly at the subject at 90 degrees of each other, 1 pointing to the ceiling. Yes, the ISO is 100.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:You're shooting in full manual, right? And yeah, they're really bright, especially up close. In a similar setup I generally end up having to stop down to somewhere past 5.6 to use my WL5000 on even 1/3 power, and that's not even a particularly powerful strobe. Yup, full manual 8th-snype posted:Even tiny flashes put out a ton of light in a room that small. What exactly is it that you are trying to do? If it's shoot at f2.8 that ain't gonna happen. You should read up on how to use flash a little bit. The inverse square law is super important: http://www.portraitlighting.net/inversesquare_law.htm I didn't really have anything particular in mind, we just took the opportunity to buy a bunch of super cheap flashes while my wife was in China. I do spend a lot of time on photography but almost exclusively outdoors and without a flash, so these studio flashes aren't really filling a hole i have in my photography equipment. Now that i have them though, i would like to try some portrait photography, and also get some good looking shots of my Lego's. Particularly for Legos i guess having a very small aperture is actually pretty useful, and having light come in from 3 sides even more so. Thanks for the help everyone! I wasn't prepared for how much light the studio lights put out, seeing as my only frame of reference is a 430EX speedlight. Now i know this is to be expected, and going to heave to learn to work with/around this. Looking forward to practicing more with these things anyways!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2014 11:23
|
|
|
Aperture blades also affect the "light spikes" from light sources. An even number of blades give you an even number of spikes, an odd number of blades give you [twice the amount of blades] spikes.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2015 10:44
|
|
|
alkanphel posted:I usually recommend: I got "The Photographers Eye" recommended to me a while back and i bought The Photographers Eye (by Michael Freeman) Did i buy the wrong book? Are they the same book?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2015 10:10
|
|
|
I had my full frame and lenses long before i got my daughter, and intend to keep them after getting her, but those 5 best photos i have of her are alone worth the value of all my camera gear. (she is 6 months old) If the only photos i ever took with all my camera gear was those 5 photos it would still be worth it. There is no way i would be able to get those photos with a cell phone, for several reasons. Light, composition, unpredictability of babies (you need to take a ton of photos and hope you get a few where the baby is smiling, looking in the correct direction, not drooling, "holding a pose", etc all at the same time) You won't get the shutter speed, photos per second and reaction time needed with a cell phone. I wanted "studio quality photos". If you just want "photos" then a cell phone is good enough. I have plenty of such photos of my daughter as well, but none of them have been printed and hung on a wall.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2015 10:05
|
|
|
Yes, that remote is IR based Get the Hahnel Giga Pro II for a radio based remote with a bunch of features such as timelapse and bulb, or get one of the cheap knock off wired remotes based on the TC80-N3 Both of these will fire the camera instantly instead of having a 2 second wait after clicking the button.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2015 15:06
|
|
|
Or use the IR on your phone if your phone has IR  I have tried all the solutions above, IR on phone, the TC80-N3 remote, the RC6 remote, shooting with wifi and using the Hahnel Giga Pro II (which is radio based) and without a doubt the Hahnel is most convenient. The IR based solutions are very dependant on you being on the correct side of the camera and the lighting conditions if used outside. TC80-N3 is good but it tethers you to the camera so its more a studio or night photo kind of thing and not for participating in group photos etc. Wifi was a pain in the rear end to set up and not very responsive. It is the solution that lets you get away with bringing the least amount of gadgets though. I could never figure out how to use the wifi method without having the phone out of my pocket and very visible in the photos though. The radio based Hahnel is a dream to use. Its only drawback is that dongle that hangs 15cm down from your camera. That thing is going to get ripped out sooner or later and possibly break the remote socket on the camera.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
What exactly did Matt Granger do in this video to the example photos ? (e.g at 1:31). The light conditions where he is doesn't look particularly good for tack sharp photos that "pops" but his image certainly pops. (there is probably a better term for it) While i am fairly new to photography and have lots to learn i am surprised at how different my photos look. My compositions are fine and exposures correct but my photos don't pop like that. I can't imagine its my gear as it is "the best" (full frame and L-glass) so the problem is somewhere behind the camera. Ineptitude fucked around with this message at 21:59 on Nov 12, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
xzzy posted:He's messing with sliders in Lightroom to get that look. Thanks Im not THAT new though, and while i have been focusing on composition and choosing the correct camera settings so far i have been gradually doing more and more messing around with sliders in Lightroom, particularly the last few months. My manipulation of sliders doesn't create photos like that however which is why i am interested in knowing more specifically what it is he did to the photos to make them look like that, as it is a visual style that appeals to me. I am not even able to explain what it is about the photo that makes it "pop". I am tempted to say it has higher contrast but using the contrast slider in Lightroom doesn't make photos look like that at all. Its not separation of subject from background either as that little Pinocchio figurine isn't all that much in focus and the camera was at 45 degrees to the scene.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
Wild EEPROM posted:superzooms are superbad and for superidiots They are fine for document your experiences as a tourist, where photo quality is not the prime concern, if you don't want to drag around several lenses and/or not interested in spending the big bux on photography equipment. I would argue that you are better served with a smaller camera if image quality is of such small concern.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 12:19
|
|
|
Got myself a monitor calibrator for christmas (Spyder 5 Express) and calibrated both my monitors. There is a slight difference between the colors before and after calibration but it is quite subtle. I guess that is to be expected with most modern monitors (?). What surprises me though is that the difference between the 2 monitors is seemingly just as big as before. Isn't calibration supposed to make all monitors more or less display the same colors?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
Roger Clark deals with this in one of his articles: DoF Myth In fact the whole list of articles is well worth reading
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2016 14:58
|
|
|
Speaking of printing, i have been printing some of my own shots using web based print services and been happy with both the prices and results (~$70 USD for a 40x60 cm canvas) A little while back me and my wife bought this gift certificate for a family portrait session at a local photographer, mainly to learn how to do it ourselves. The photo shoot was so cheap [~$30 USD) we figured it would be worth it regardless. Once the photographer had selected the photos he wanted to show us we had a session where we got to view the photos on a big screen and look at printing options. We were absolutely blown away by the ludicrous prices the studio charged for prints. Literally 20 times more expensive [~$1500 USD for a 40x60 canvas) than the print service we have been using so far (which is one of the more expensive print services even) I realise part of the prices difference is the photographer recouping some of his costs from the photo shoot and i was prepared for a price difference but not for that extreme difference. Is this just how it is or are the prints done at studios like this better, somehow? Better print quality or something? Even with using our own photos the studio charges 10 times what the print service does.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2016 11:13
|
|
|
So you give your clients the digital files when you are done shooting? How does your business model work? If your income is entirely the shoot, wouldnt you look a lot more expensive than the "standby business" ? They are not upfront with their pricing in a sense so they look cheap. Once the client is sitting in their studio with the photos they took on a big screen and a price list for prints it is a lot easier to for them to open their wallet.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2016 10:58
|
|
|
I signed up for Lynda to watch some of their Photoshop tutorials as i figure its about time to make my photo editing a bit more advanced (Been using Lightroom for a couple years, and only that) The tutorial keeps harping on about Adobe Camera Raw and how i should use that, and even has a chapter mentioning the LR -> ACR -> PS workflow (so its not like the tutorial is saying to not use LR) but fails to mention what makes ACR different from LR. Apparently LR is used for organization, ACR for developing raws and applying histogram/color edits and PS for photo editing. What does ACR bring to raw development that LR does not? The guy hosting the tutorial literally said "Use ACR, i don't have time to explain why so just trust me on this" I don't feel i am experienced enough to debunk this and am inclined to use ACR but i would rather not as i already have LR and am used to using that.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2016 11:34
|
|
|
Not sure where else to post this The Google NIK collection is now FREE
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2016 09:56
|
|
|
A Saucy Bratwurst posted:Does any of it work with lightroom because thats all i have. The Nik Collections are plugins and only work with LR or PS (and ACR?) They are not standalone programs. VelociBacon posted:How is the sharpening compared to the in-software lightroom feature? A photographer friend of mine swears to the Nik sharpening module over any other sharpening software. The sharpening algorithms they use considers the final size and usage of the image and sharpens accordingly. This does require the user to know what an image is going to be used for beforehand (big canvas print, small aluminum print, thumbnail on webpage, etc) but the end result is much better. (These are his words, i haven't gotten around to using it yet) SMERSH Mouth posted:As far as I can tell, the full suite of plugins only works for PS. It looks like only the HDR plugin works with Lightroom. Maybe i am misunderstanding what you mean but when i right click an image in LR and "Edit in..." i get a long list of Nik Collection plugins (like 8?), not just the HDR one
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2016 10:58
|
|
|
NaDy posted:I honesty don't even know if the silent shutter mode on my 6D is actually quieter than the regular shutter mode. It just sounds longer really! The 6D has a fairly quiet normal shutter so you don't notice much difference between normal and silent. The difference between normal shots and silenced ones on e.g. the 5D3 is huge. The first time i shot with my 5D3 the loud shutter sound startled me so much i almost dropped the camera. I thought something was broken because the sound was so brutal. I definitely can see the use for the silent mode on the 5D3 when shooting wildlife, babies, in a church or when shooting near someone recording a video. My wife recorded our daugher playing on the piano and i photographed her and all you can hear on the video is CLACKA CLACKA CLACKA from the camera, not my daugher playing. Ineptitude fucked around with this message at 20:54 on Apr 7, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
I was moving a bunch of photos from 1 folder to another in Lightroom today and noticed during the move process that 2 separate folders were getting their photo count increased. Half'ish of the photos was being moved to the folder i specified and the other half to a random folder. A bunch of the photos ended up as missing after this. I managed to get the photos to their correct folders but now i have almost 100 photos missing. Lightroom built a preview for them so they did exist, but now they are nowhere to befound. What the hell happened here? I haven't gotten around to getting angry yet because i still really can't believe lightroom made a ton of my photos dissapear. They are no on other harddrives or in the recyclebin either. What are my options now?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
I am eagerly awaiting the Canon 600mm F4 DO announced at Canon Expo last september. Since then i haven't been able to find any more information. At the expo there was a working prototype of the lens, which is pretty unusual to my knowledge. When'ish can we expect this lens to be announced as a product version? Would anything be speculation at this point, and it can be anywhere from 2 months to 5 years or is the fact that they had a working prototype they let the public use an indication that the lens is fairly well developed?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2016 09:08
|
|
|
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2016 22:40
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Lightroom on iPhone is actually pretty cool, but I haven't cracked the process of getting raw files onto the phone while in the field. Once you get stuff into adobe's cloud it's available for editing, I just haven't researched how to get stuff off the camera into the cloud. Maybe some kind of wifi SD card would fit into the chain. Is there still some size/resoution restriction on Lightroom mobile? (Don't remember which) I read once that the photos in Lightroom mobile get resized somehow, which means you aren't working on the "real deal"? Caryna posted:My longest lens is my Sigma 70-200mm f2.8, but I've been toying with the idea of getting the 2x converter for it for a while now. Maybe this is a good reason to finally do it? The 70-200 lenses are generally not very good with teleconverters. Consider getting the Tamron or Sigma 150-600 lenses
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Not that it informs you, but exports are definitely not full resolution and neither are the local copies because the app usage is never big enough to be shipping raw files around. Couldn't tell you if that's a Lightroom restriction of a CC thing. While i have not yet had a need for printing a 10 feet by 6 feet photo (which is roughly the max size i can do with my 5d3 (?) ) and have never exported any photo at max resolution, i don't understand why there is a restriction like this. Why not let the user choose? To me this sounds like Lightroom Mobile is practically useless, as you don't have the whole range of tools available and the reason for that is because some software company took that option away, not for any techical reason. What else will they remove in the next version if users find this acceptable?
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2016 10:39
|
|
|
dakana posted:Just to add to this debate, I have close to 250,000 photos in my LR catalog. I store it on a local drive (it's about 4GB, and I purge previews every now and then), and all of my photos are on my NAS connected via gigabit ethernet. Everything runs pretty smoothly. This is on my main editing machine with 16gb ram and an i7, though it's not noticeably faster to use a new catalog vs loading up the gigantor one. How is your LR catalog so small with that many photos? I have about 10k photos and my catalog is 12gb
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
dakana posted:Are you including your previews in that size? I'm just including the .lrcat file, not the previews folder. Oh, that single file is 335mb 
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2016 09:27
|
|
|
Judging by the last ~20 posts it looks like he has succeeded in exactly what he is trying to accomplish; getting attention and getting people to speak about him.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2016 12:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 08:55 |
|
|
Xabi posted:How do you safely pack your photo gear for multi-day hikes? Most of the stuff I carry is the things I need for the hiking itself: tent, sleeping bag, gas burner, clothes, etc. I don't want a photo specific backpack, but I'd like to bring photo gear without having to worry about ruining it. I use an "Internal Camera Unit", e.g. one of these Its not a good solution for accessing your stuff quickly, but it gets it to your destination protected. A lot of people would probably say it is not necessary as camera gear is fairly sturdy. I mainly use it so that i have all my camera stuff bundled together instead of in whichever nook and cranny is available in the backpack after you pack all the other stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2016 21:58
|
|