|
DJExile posted:Fantastic thread title No, it would not get you a sharper capture in camera as you would still be using the same colour sensor element as when you shoot in colour. However, I think that aesthetically people accept grainy/noisy B&W images better than colour ones.
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2009 04:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 05:23 |
|
|
MANOWAR KILL posted:Has anyone here used a Boots KL-7 lightmeter? I bought one today for my zorki but its giving exposure settings I think are very optimistic. For example my palm facing away from the sun gets 1/30 at f8. I'e never used that particular model, but have you tried calibrating it? It might have a recessed screw on the reverse you can use.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2009 14:21
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:You have options. If you get the battery grip, you can do like I do, which is connect both ends of the strap to the right side, one to camera, one to grip. Keeps it out of the way. I had the really clever idea of attaching both ends of the strap to the loop on the left side of the camera. It was great - the strap always stayed out of the way of the grip, it hung nicely and the strap did not get wrapped around the lens. It was perfect....until the strap came undone...... (If I could work out a way of getting a secure fastening using a single loop, I would go back to using that method)
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2009 08:18
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Haha that's something I'd rather not think about Not to mention the joy you will get whenever someone emails you nice big RAW files of their holiday snaps.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2009 10:13
|
|
|
fronkpies posted:Somehow I've ended up with 32gb's worth of SD cards, why in the world I would ever need that much I have no idea, can never be to careful though I suppose. I have to stop myself from being drawn to the memory card display cabinet when I am out shopping. I have more than enough memory for my uses- even ignoring that I carry a laptop with my on serious trips, but I just cannot resist those shiny little cards. and of course, the prices today are half what they were last year (per Gb) and will half again next year. It's just so tempting!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2009 02:50
|
|
|
ConfusedUs posted:A-loving-men. Spot on. Frighteningly so
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2009 03:34
|
|
|
FidgetWidget posted:Speaking of this, what's an easy Windows solution to sync up folders across external HDDs? Is there any way to get Lightroom 2 to do this? I would love to have an automatic redundant copy made every time I make changes to my photo folders. I use Syncback. You'll have to run the job rather than have it do it automatically (I actually prefer it to be manual -it feels safer) Does the job very well, I find
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2009 04:43
|
|
|
Group photo sharing? What's a really simple way of making a collaborative photo album? I've just been to a conference and I'd like to organise some way for people to share all their photos with other delegates. The catch? I don't expect many of them to particularly web-savvy or into social networking- so I doubt that they will be using flickr already. So what is the simplest way to put together something where people can easily upload their photos into one big group? Ideally, it would not be something that gets pushed around the web a la flickr (ie if you go to a specific url, you can find it, but otherwise it doesn't get indexed and pushed around like flickr public albums) Do I have to set up a complicated flickr private group? Or is there something better/easier?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2009 05:20
|
|
|
Tziko posted:Picasa released collaboration features for their web albums: http://googlephotos.blogspot.com/2009/08/collaborate-on-picasa-web-albums.html Close - but requires a) each user to download and install Picasa and b) the administrator has to manually add each user to the group.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2009 12:20
|
|
|
Cyberbob posted:
Correct.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2009 06:10
|
|
|
TheAngryDrunk posted:I'm pretty much a complete newbie, so forgive the potentially really lame question that follows. Tripod.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2009 05:13
|
|
|
Ric posted:Is it possible to merge Lightroom catalogues? I've processed a few sets recently on a different computer and I'd like to add them with changes to my main catalogue. LR handles this kind of thing so easily, you worry that there must be a catch that you missed http://help.adobe.com/en_US/Lightroom/2.0/WS9616DD60-0C3A-484b-8413-053347F21456.html
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2009 16:15
|
|
|
Greybone posted:I have a large amount of raw files imported into lightroom2, organized in folders by shoot date. http://www.photographers-toolbox.com/products/lr2treeexporter.php Isn't LR awesome?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2009 16:43
|
|
|
Alctel posted:put a glass of water on the window sill and leave it there to check for vibrations. Its pretty amazing, especially if you live near a road. Also useful for checking for nearby T-Rexs
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2009 04:07
|
|
|
germskr posted:With the recent events in the news, if anyone finds themselves taking their camera/gear for a plane ride could you tell us what kind of new security measures you run into? I read that they're making people turn the cameras on (no big deal) but the carry on rules have gotten a lot stricter since Friday. [Perhaps] gone are are the days where we were allowed one carry on and a camera bag/laptop bag. You can bet that they will be both retarded and illogical: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6969073.ece posted:In the final hour before landing in the US, passengers are now banned from standing up, using toilets and holding blankets.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2009 05:35
|
|
|
psylent posted:I'm getting sick of waiting for Lightroom to render my RAW files. I'm running a 2.66Ghz Core 2 Duo with 4GB RAM, what should I be looking at upgrading to increase Lightroom's speed? Shoot JPEG? FAKEDIT: I usually queue up all the rendering and then do it as a big batch while I go for a dump, or have a meal or something
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2009 03:19
|
|
|
DJExile posted:Well I'll be damned. I cruised through DTW and Logan security without so much as a "can I look at your bag, sir?" in either case. Color me shocked. Perhaps they realised that if the bad guys were using exploding underpants, there's not much point in making a big deal about carried bags. Though, that sounds too sensible for the TSA. Haggins posted:I started out in Lightroom on windows and switched to Aperture when I got a mac last year. The big thing for me was at the time in LR, if I wanted use a filter like noise ninja or what ever, I'd have to go into photoshop. In Aperture, filters don't require Photoshop. I've heard they've made it less painless in LR now a days, but I think most filters require that you have Photoshop installed. Probably not a big deal if you already own it. I find that filters are easy to use in LR, without needing PS. The only one that I would need to load PS for was noise, and they have that in LR now - so I only really need PS for stitching panoramas. I am a big fan of LR now.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2010 03:21
|
|
|
Ringo R posted:I downloaded the codec but it seems to do nothing. Even uninstalled Irfanview to let Windows Picture viewer or whatever it's called take over again but it says it's an unknown format or something. I have restarted my computer too. Running Win7 Pro if that helps. Have you tried this page? http://www.microsoft.com/proPhoto/Resources/all-downloads.aspx There's a codec that should work really well with windows. There's also an image viewer All free!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2010 09:49
|
|
|
dunkman posted:Ok, so I was importing about 700 images from Spoonfed Tribe, and they finished importing, and I was doing 1:1 previews overnight, and I accidentally closed Lightroom after about 10 images. Library -> Previews -> Render..... You may have to select the folder - or possibly all the images in a folder, I forget.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2010 16:57
|
|
|
XTimmy posted:Question, what would be the formula for DOF on a 1.6x crop? Do you really want the formula? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field#Derivation_of_the_DOF_formulas Or an easy-to-use calculator? http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2010 12:00
|
|
|
DJExile posted:What kind of phone do you have? I think there are some DOF calculator apps available out there. Heck, I'm pretty certain you can access the one spog linked from any browser. The magic words to google for are 'depth of field calculator' and your phone name. That page I linked to as an iphone version. http://forums.crackberry.com/f134/app-request-dof-calculator-232296/ Has a java version that should (may) work on any phone Even Blackberry has one (if you don;t like the above java option) http://appworld.blackberry.com/webstore/content/5510 Hell, tou could probably find an excel chart with the formula built in as well http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=depth+of+field+calculator+excel&aq=f&aqi=&oq= And print out paper charts for your most common settings.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2010 17:38
|
|
|
slearch posted:I am sure this has been touched on before so I apologize that I couldn't find it. I just got a new computer and want to transfer my lightroom catalog over. What's the best way to do this? http://www.lightroomqueen.com/blog/2009/02/28/how-do-i-move-lightroom-to-a-new-computer/ http://digital-photography-school.com/moving-a-lightroom-catalog Do not worry. LR is spectacularly easy-going when it comes to moving stuff around.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2010 08:26
|
|
|
EvilRic posted:Quick question about crop factor on Digital SLRs. Shake is as 320mm So, you want a minimum shutter speed of 1/320 to avoid shake (ignoring IS and Parkinsons) (And this is the reason why I dislike crop bodies as I don't know my 1.6 times table)
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2010 10:06
|
|
|
Phat_Albert posted:I shot some stars tonight, and they came out blurry. The focus ring was all the way counterclockwise when looking through the viewfinder, which I assume is focused all the way out to infinity. That assumption is probably incorrect. Most (all?) lenses have focus just before the focus ring is all the way round. I'm not completely sure of the true reason (I've heard a few - allowance for IR, lets lens work in extreme temperatures, etc) but you usually need to back off a little to get the right infintiy focus. The right way to check is to try it in daylight at a distant location.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2010 03:35
|
|
|
Bahama.Llama posted:I think this has been brought up before, but I apparently suck at searching or search doesn't search this sub-forum. Yes...and I really ought to put up a thread sometime. If the device lets you grab the raw GPS log data, then you have the freedom to use better software (I think MS has a freebie bit that will do that)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2010 08:26
|
|
|
jackpot posted:Lightroom 2 question: Move the files from within LR. It will move the files and update the catalog with the new file location.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2010 06:14
|
|
|
Ringo R posted:I got a message on flickr from a guy running a "Czech news service" asking for permission to use some of my riot pics. Of course he can't offer any money so I'm thinking whatever, just let him use them, crediting me and a link to my flickr. Should I go ahead or is this a bad decision? His mail was very copy&pasty so I'm sure a bunch of other guys got the same message. gently caress no. Of course he can offer you money. He's just trying to get something for nothing. If he works for a news service, he's going to be earning money off your work for sure. Ask him for 'standard rates' and see what he offers you.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2010 10:40
|
|
|
SquallStrife posted:Hmm. That sounds like it could be true, might try some other surfaces, see if it happens on anything else. It is because laser light is a cohesive light. So, when it hits the rough surface of the case (where the rough patches are larger than the wavelength of the light), it is reflected out in a tight ray of light. Basically, each area in the texture acts as a little mirror. Because laser light doesn't diffuse (in these conditions), the reflections are bright areas when you look at them because they consist of little beams of laser light. (Specular reflection) Compare this to normal light where it all blends together (diffuse reflection) Think of the difference between firing a bunch of arrows at a wall and a stream of water at the wall. With the water, it will all bounce back in a big spray. The arrows will come back as sharp arrows, not a soft pile of sawdust. Does that explain it? Oh, and be careful with lasers. It is quite easy to draw patterns onto your retina without noticing it - so be careful what you bounce it off.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2010 10:59
|
|
|
Wooten posted:I made a dumbass mistake. I shot a wedding with two 5DIIs but one of them had a clock that was set back 12 hours (its a 24 hour clock and I'm rather slow). Is there any way to change the file data so lightroom will put them in order? All the minutes line up pretty well its just the wrong hour. Am I going to have to manually place 800 photos in order? There are a shedload of free apps available that will do this before you import into LR. I did try one, but I forget which, maybe this one: http://jpgtime.learsy.com/ But if they are already imported into LR, then 8th-samurai suggestion is best
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2010 07:33
|
|
|
notlodar posted:Someone please tell me how to edit raw files, CR2s from a Canon 5D specifically. I don't think you -a RAW is a raw data dump from the sensor, not an editable format. You can edit the .cr2 and save as a TIF Unless anyone knows otherwise?
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2010 10:27
|
|
|
notlodar posted:I need it to be in the raw somehow. I want to be able to create a color profile from a color negative, but I can't because all the drat programs* out there go after the raw data... You cannot alter a RAW file. Simply because it is not an image file - it is the raw data from the sensor - so there is no way for you to create one, apart from physically using a sensor. I can't understand what you are trying to do, but there must be an alternative method of doing it.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2010 08:50
|
|
|
HPL posted:You wouldn't be saying that if you've seen how flat they squash boobies for mammograms. That seems like a good photo-tutorial to write.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2010 08:21
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Thanks for ruining boobs for me for a while. Yeah, but pancakes are now awesome.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2010 04:07
|
|
|
Fists Up posted:Get understanding exposure which does a very good job of explaining things like ISO and Aperture. Then just read your manual! You beat me to it. Reading the manual is great, because while it doesn't tell you everything, it at least puts some good questions in your mind (usually along the lines of 'why don't you explain this better?' or 'where the hell is the rest of the information about this feature?') and you can search for the answers elsewhere.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2010 07:49
|
|
|
LR is much faster for editing a lot of images, you can blast your way through an entire day's shoot in a single sitting. Plus, non-destructive editing
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2010 11:45
|
|
|
aliencowboy posted:How feasible is taking a panorama handheld? I have a tripod, but it's pretty terrible at keeping a consistent horizontal level. Absolutely possible. I do it all the time. With the minimum of practise, you can get a good one. The trick is to try and make sure that you stay level and consistent. The lowest boundary of the entire pano is determined by the lower frame edge of the highest frame - so if you move the camera vertically up at the end of the sweep, you'll have to crop off a lot of the base line from all the other images to match To do this, it makes sense to do a dry run and sweep across, keeping an eye on the landmarks along the baseline. Or, if you use P&S or liveview, turn on the 3x3 grid and line one of them with the horizon
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2010 10:57
|
|
|
aliencowboy posted:While on the subject, I imagine it's better to shoot panaromas from a longer focal length to minimize barrel distortion? Yes. And a skyline panorama will really show up any vignetting problems with your lens.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2010 14:25
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:That's correct. Also, it's not silent like the video might lead you to believe; the shutter fires for each shot. Ah, that is interesting to know. I saw a preview of this from a photoshow and it looked (sounded) like it was silent, so I wondered if it were somehow taking a stream of video and then extracting an image from it (and so, lower quality). This sounds much better. What happens if you take a 720 degree sprial around your body?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2010 06:56
|
|
|
Abnegatus posted:My main questions are: No, they are a way of getting around the fact that photographs have a dynamic range that is noticeably smaller than the human eye. A corectly tone-mapped image will give the appearance of a wider dynamic range than it actually has and so be more aesthetically pleasing to the viewer. Ideally, the viewer would not be aware that it was tone-mapped - just that it appears 'more natural'. Or you can make one of those 'HDR' images that infest Flickr that look like the 'saturation' and 'intensity' sliders have been cranked up beyond breaking point. You can get a simialr effect by being punched in the face before viewing an image. quote:2. I typically do three exposures with a 1 exposure difference. The problem lies in the fact that when I combine pictures to begin post-processing, everything... well, looks like poo poo. It may be due to me not knowing where to begin (in regards to question 1), but even through dodging and burning I cannot seem to make a picture "pop" or stand out to any degree (I can't even get it to look artificially terrible, it just doesn't mesh well). Do I need get to increase the differences between exposures? 3 exposures with 1 stop difference seems pretty small. With autobracking, you should be able to take 6-7 shots with +/- 3Ev Stick this in PS and then play with the various options to see what looks okay. Trial and error will work surprisingly well. Try for something over the top and dramatic (like big, looming clouds over a cityscape), then, as you get more confident, try to be more subtle. orange lime posted:The best technique is that developed by forums poster woot fatigue, where you take like 20 exposures from solid black to completely blown, make a separate layer for every single leaf, screw head and strand of hair, then go through and individually choose the most properly-exposed version of each piece. It only takes an obsessive-compulsive man about 10 to 12 concentrated hours without rest to finish an image that way. This is very funny.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2010 10:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 05:23 |
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Who can tell me about shooting/stitching panoramas and panoramic heads? I've done some handheld ones (five shot, usually) while traveling and they've come out okay, but I'm wondering if buying the specialized equipment would be a worthwhile investment. I'm not super-serious about it, but I'm wondering what sort of limitations I'm running up against freehanding it. I've got a 14 shot pano waiting for final tweaking on my PC right now that was handheld. I am not convinced that any other equipment was required to improve it/make it easier. If I were shooting a low light pano, I'd use a tripod - but as long as I could keep the head level (spirit level), then a simple ballhead would be fine. Thought, I must admit that a gigapan http://www.gigapan.org/ does look like a fun toy.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2010 17:58
|
|