|
You could also run a raid setup, so the disk with your catpix will always have a duplicate. And use backup software to sync on to an external. If you make a habit of syncing every day, it doesn't take as long.
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2014 08:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 18:21 |
|
|
For portable light, these new godox lights look pretty nifty: http://flashhavoc.com/godox-rs400p-rs600p-xenergizer-released/
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2014 09:28
|
|
|
On the flip side, I bought a grey import 6d from hong kong and the guy in the store forgot to take out the 16gb sd card that he tested it with. So now I have an extra card I guess.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2014 08:38
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:"My camera's all hosed up, everything comes out looking green, can't afford to fix it." Whoever suggested that the company will buy him a new camera if he says it's broken, that's not how companies work. They more likely will offer to pay to send it in to get fixed, and then you actually have to break your camera or the shop will report back that there was nothing wrong with your camera.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2014 06:49
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:https://fstoppers.com/originals/lightroom-or-capture-one-pro-which-raw-processor-best-24769 Is it just me, or does it look like the C1 and LR samples could easily be matched by simply increasing the vibrance/saturation/sharpness sliders in LR?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2014 07:11
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:having to adjust a picture in lightroom to the point where it's as good as as an unadjusted capture one picture sort of speaks to the quality of capture one. No what I mean is this: Lightroom will give you a neutral picture for a good start off point. C1 already makes the decision to saturate and sharpen the image without prior consent, which is also what some point and shoots, cellphone cameras and jpeg modes do. You could just as well set up LR to automatically bump the saturation and sharpness whenever you open a new raw. I don't want to poo poo on C1, I'm all for new software in the photo industry, but I'm just sceptical about the claims some people are making. It really does sound like audiophile bullshit.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2014 06:57
|
|
|
DaveSauce posted:I've been trying to take fast shutter pictures in a low-light environment, and I've been trying to take pictures of my dog. If you trade your dark dog in for a white dog, like a white poodle for instance, you will score at least 2 stops of extra light.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2014 08:32
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:So I'm asking for gift cards for Christmas, I want to treat myself to some photography gear. I would buy a new Godox Xenergizer light (either the 600w or 400w depending on your needs/budget) and a cheap beauty dish http://flashhavoc.com/godox-rs400p-rs600p-xenergizer-released/ I think it's 400 bux for the 400 and 550ish for the 600 KinkyJohn fucked around with this message at 08:17 on Dec 17, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2014 08:15
|
|
|
Subyng posted:I'm seeing it when I import the RAW into Lightroom 5. Shooting with an NEX-5N. The banding might also be a problem with your monitor. Are you calibrating it often? Is it a true 8bit IPS panel?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2015 06:38
|
|
|
You will have to paint light and shadows onto her. And if you don't have a good background in fine art, you will gently caress up the shapes when you modify the light that falls on them. An alternative would be to boost the contrast in the hopes of finding some direction of light and match the saturation/tone of the background. But I wouldn't hold my breath on that one. However I think you did a better job than the previous person simply because it now looks like she's standing in shade. Which means you don't have to have light hitting her directly. If you could find a way to show that she is standing in shade a bit more clearly I think it would help in selling the image. Maybe bring some shade in on the floor near her? KinkyJohn fucked around with this message at 07:54 on May 6, 2015 |
|
#
¿
May 6, 2015 07:46
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:I'm also amazed how bumping the exposure in Lightroom can rescue some photos that on first inspection look like nothing is there. Not if you're a canon shooter! right guys?
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2015 08:11
|
|
|
rawrr posted:My understanding is that sRGB is a smaller colourspace (more lossy?) Not more lossy, literally less colors. You will have more saturated colors (especially in the greens), just like an srgb photo appears more saturated than when converting it to CMYK. The problem is that very vew people will be able to see your amazing photo of a summer lawn as you intended, because most people (99.9%) have srgb monitors. And when you print, it will convert to CMYK which gives you even less saturation. Working in adobe rgb will give you some more headroom in the gradients etc before converting it down, just like doing gradients in 16bits/channel or 32bits/channel before dropping down to 8bits. (but like mentioned above you will need a very expensive monitor, have it calibrated and maintained properly and know how to work with color and printer profiles) Edit: I guess the advantages of taking pictures in srgb is that it's smaller in file size if you take jpeg shots, but you should be using RAW anyway which will contain all the color info. Another advantage is saving a little time by not having to convert to srgb when you output your jpegs. KinkyJohn fucked around with this message at 09:59 on Aug 6, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2015 07:15
|
|
|
Sony is making a 1000fps sensor for photographing tennis matches and ping pong tournaments https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qn5YQVvW-hQ
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
VendaGoat posted:Will it digitally split the souls that I capture with it into 16 different phylacteries? It's Lord Voldemort's preferred selfie camera
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2015 06:36
|
|
|
There wouldn't really be much of a difference if you know what you're doing in photoshop. I mean the pixels could be identical, but one method is totally morally corrupt and you will not feel the glorious sense of accomplishment by doing it all in camera.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2015 09:21
|
|
|
Or get underwater housing and spray it pink. It'll also help with photographing Die Antwoord at their shows because they like to splash cameras with water bottles.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2016 12:41
|
|
|
HookShot posted:Yeah, they're all focused on that wall in the background. I agree, it was probably in manual focus. Luckily they didn't chimp to check the outcome, otherwise they would have looked like an amateur who chimps like a real chimp!
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2016 06:58
|
|
|
Is Helicon Remote great for focus stacking without a rail or is it shite? And if it's great, is the android/ios version up to par? KinkyJohn fucked around with this message at 18:58 on Jun 22, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
My Canon 6d body is acting weird; every time I switch a lens out it becomes more difficult to rotate it in and out of place, like it's becoming tighter or "sticky". Having a quick glance, I can't see anything obviously wrong with the lens mount, but this is happening with multiple lenses and lens brands. It's starting to worry me now because the last lens switch was quite hard. I just hope the lens that ends up getting stuck in this daring game of russian lens roulette isn't an expensive one.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 18:21 |
|
|
Do we have a videography thread somewhere on these dead gay forums?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2018 09:02
|
|