General Photography Questions Megathread v4 - Don't Listen to Any of These Freaks

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Creative Convention > The Dorkroom > General Photography Questions Megathread v4 - Don't Listen to Any of These Freaks

«‹›2 »

GWBBQ: Jan 2, 2005

Cross_ posted:

Tech question: how does a digital camera measure exposure ?
Does it read the values from the sensor for a sample window (say 100x100 pixel), then average the brightness and report it back as over/underexposure based on that average?

In an SLR, there's a separate meter down under the mirror with your AF sensor. depending on whether you set full frame, center weighted, or spot meter, it measures the intensity (luminance) of the light coming in independent of color, and references it against 18% grey. 18% is an exposure value of 0. The problem with this is that 18% grey, will look a bit darker to the human eye than 18% blue, which will look a bit darker than 18% red, which will look a lot darker than 18% green. This is why even Ken Rockwell knows to use the RGB histogram and not the luminance one, which is green channel.

# ¿ Apr 7, 2010 17:48

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 14, 2024 18:23

GWBBQ: Jan 2, 2005

AIIAZNSK8ER posted:

I was not aware of the 'that guy' label for people who turn up with SLRs. I started taking mine everywhere and taking photos of everything. But the secret sauce is when people see how awesome they look and I make the party seem 10x more crowded and lively, they can't wait to see more.

Yeah, I find that people are excited to see someone with a nice camera, and at parties or bars it's a great way to meet people because "take a picture of me" is the easiest imaginable icebreaker if someone wants to talk to you, and smiling at people and holding up the camera will get any group of people into a pose then crowding around you to see it (all women at bars who weren't dragged there by their friends are attention whores, doubly so for bachelorette parties.)

Worst case you just get a bunch of comical but slightly out of focus pictures of your friends.

http://i42.tinypic.com/2r5rksp.jpg

# ¿ Apr 22, 2010 21:22

GWBBQ: Jan 2, 2005

subx posted:

My issue is I find trying to use the viewfinder with glasses on a bit awkward, but if I take my glasses off and manually focus, that will actually make it out of focus (duh). Then again, I hate to have to take my glasses off every time I shoot a manual focus shot.

Focus on something with your glasses on, take your glasses off, and adjust the little wheel next to the eyepiece until it's in focus. This will be a pain if anyone else ever uses your camera, just like in high school and college bio lab it was a pain to share a microscope with a lab partner who had to take their glasses off to see anything through the eyepiece.

# ¿ Apr 25, 2010 16:26

GWBBQ: Jan 2, 2005

Fishstick posted:

I'm doing a macro photoshoot at a diamond dealer of some of his rocks later this week, but I have no experience with that kind of subject. One of the main things I'm thinking about is what kind of background would work best - a whitebox or plain black background doesn't seem like it'd do much to bring out diamonds.

Anyone have any suggestions?

Black background with white softboxes out of frame, put a black sheet behind you or shoot through a small gap in a black curtain . Move the softboxes around with a modeling light until you get the right reflections and refractions in the diamond.

# ¿ May 4, 2010 17:58

GWBBQ: Jan 2, 2005

ExecuDork posted:

What's going on here?

If you're not familiar with how circular polarizers work from a physics standpoint, read this section and whatever related stuff you need for background info until you understand it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarizer#Circular_Polarizers

What you're doing with the two polarizers is narrowing the "window" that light can pass through precisely enough that you're cutting off certain wavelengths. Looking through the circular alone, you're seeing how non-uniform the emission spectrum of those sources is.

# ¿ May 21, 2010 15:01

GWBBQ: Jan 2, 2005

ExecuDork posted:

Is that the emissions spectrum of the source, or a wavelength-dependency of the circular polarizer? Why would my monitor output more circularly-polarized blue light, relative to the total amount of blue light? Could it be outputting, say, all of the blue light polarized, but other colours unpolarized?

It's a combination. For a screen or a light bulb, it doesn't matter if light is polarized or not, so certain wavelengths may be polarized more heavily than others by the glass, frosting on the bulb, the matrix of the screen, etc. As far as output overall, most screens have the blue cranked up from the factory along with high contrast and brightness because the human eye is more sensitive to blue and it looks brighter. CFL bulbs tend to be biased toward blue and green.

# ¿ May 25, 2010 17:09

GWBBQ: Jan 2, 2005

Paragon8 posted:

make them live view only.

No, just make them use one of these.
http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/14/red-dot-sight-for-hotshoes-makes-shooting-tangos-a-viewfinder-fr/

# ¿ May 26, 2010 15:36

GWBBQ: Jan 2, 2005

KennyG posted:

There's this cool thing called YouTube on the Interwebs...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lBxYtkh4ts
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uzJPpC4Wuk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pkRqbxDTcw

I was about to post two of those, plus this one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxC-AEC0ROk

# ¿ Jun 4, 2010 15:32

GWBBQ: Jan 2, 2005

I'm used to car shows rather than conventions, but with a 50mm prime you're probably going to have a hell of a time getting a shot without people walking through.

# ¿ Jul 17, 2010 01:37

GWBBQ: Jan 2, 2005

Abnegatus posted:

This is more of a CS5 PS & Lightroom question

With the amazon student prime discount in full effect, is it worth it to purchase both PS CS5 and Lightroom 3 for $290? I want a legitimate version of CS5, but I know nothing of Lightroom.

Frankly, other than being 80% off (fantastic on its own), is this a good deal?

Yes, it's worth it.

# ¿ Aug 25, 2010 20:38

GWBBQ: Jan 2, 2005

Heintron posted:

Yes. I believe it is. Is this significant? And what should I use/do?

As far as I know, Adobe RGB isn't supported by any web browsers. Save as sRGB for maximum compatibility.

# ¿ Sep 14, 2010 16:51

GWBBQ: Jan 2, 2005

One of these days we Chrome users will get color profile support :smith:

# ¿ Sep 15, 2010 23:28

GWBBQ: Jan 2, 2005

Augmented Dickey posted:

what the hell is going on with the bottom right corner of this image?

Looks like someone liquefied out a watermark

# ¿ Oct 7, 2010 21:05

GWBBQ: Jan 2, 2005

ExecuDork posted:

I have a stupid question.

How much of a total waste of $8 would it be for me to buy a cheapo IR filter? I've got a Pentax K10D, and I'm thinking of getting an IR filter for the kit lens, 18-55mm. Googling leads to some vague descriptions of IR-cutting glass in front of the sensor, and much talk of modifying cameras, which I do not wish to do. Will an IR filter just result in blackness and boredom, or is there a possibility I can get some interesting / fun pictures, even at 2 or 3 stops penalty?

The easiest way to test your hot mirror and see how much IR still passes through is to point a TV remote at your camera and hold a button down. You'll get a blueish white flare if a decent amount of IR passes through.

Tshirt Ninja posted:

I got assigned Annie Lebovitz to mimic as a photo project. On B&W film. No composites. I also can't light subjects individually due to my complete lack of studio lighting. Any ideas to what light I should try to take this in?

No lighting means outdoor shots.

http://www.npg.org.uk:8080/annieleibovitz/exhib.htm

You can also ghetto rig indoor lighting with a $8 few clamp-mount work lights from Home Depot, 150W bulbs, and silicone baking mats for diffusers. It gets really hot but it works.

# ¿ Nov 15, 2010 17:40

GWBBQ: Jan 2, 2005

subx posted:

mobby_6kl posted this awesome picture of the above lens (I don't know where he saw it):

You also have to read the Amazon reviews.
http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-200-500mm-Ultra-Telephoto-Canon-Cameras/dp/B0013D8VDQ/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1290458326&sr=1-1

mobby_6kl posted:

Regarding extenders, as I understand, while (say) doubling the focal length, they also halve the maximum aperture, so for this same lens 200-500 f/2.8 becomes 400-1000 f/5.6... which is as fast as my kit lens at 55mm

counterpoint: your kit lens doesn't retail for $28,999

# ¿ Nov 22, 2010 21:42

GWBBQ: Jan 2, 2005

unleash the unicorn posted:

Does photography equipment generally get cheaper

No, not really.

# ¿ Nov 27, 2010 03:09

GWBBQ: Jan 2, 2005

Tshirt Ninja posted:

In other news: Holy poo poo, why did no one tell me how much better it is to shoot in RAW until now. I've been shooting and editing jpg for ages. No one ever stressed how much easier it is to recover images in post when shooting RAW.

It might have been way back in this thread, but at some point, someone here said if you don't see the benefit, keep shooting jpeg until you lose a picture that you could have saved in RAW and learn the hard way.

# ¿ Dec 15, 2010 20:23

GWBBQ: Jan 2, 2005

Kiri koli posted:

I'm in the middle of acquiring a 50mm f1.8 from craigslist and the guy said that he has a UV filter on it. On the advice of everyone here I'll be removing the filter, but since I'll have it anyway, are there any situations were it might come in handy? I'm sure it's cheap as hell.

If you put it on a film camera.

Ola posted:

Wouldn't it be sealing the most sealed part of the lens anyway?

Most (all?) weather sealed lenses need a filter to complete the seal.

# ¿ Jan 4, 2011 02:12

GWBBQ: Jan 2, 2005

Focal length comparison.
http://stepheneastwood.com/tutorials/lensdistortion/strippage.htm

# ¿ Jan 7, 2011 00:05

GWBBQ: Jan 2, 2005

ExecuDork posted:

I'm worried that I'm becoming my family's go-to photographer when I'm around, and something similar is happening at work. At the department christmas party, it was announced early in the evening that since I clearly had the nicest / largest camera there, I was the event photog. On christmas day, similar story.

My friends bug the poo poo out of me to post pictures on Facebook (nobody understands it's not just plugging a camera in and clicking "upload all") and it's turned photography into enough of a chore that I just leave my camera at home the majority of the time.

Dr. Cogwerks posted:

A 900px * 600px file would be 150dpi at 4x6, might be enough. 1800px*1200px would be proper print quality for that size, so either way, you can still get away with quite a bit of shrinking and sharpening. Don't worry too much about the compositional merits and background junk if they're just 4x6 candid party shots that you're not selling, anything that looks better than a drugstore point-and-shoot print should hopefully satisfy 'em.

(unless they're paying you for that gig, of course)

People who bug you about family and office party photos are either going to email them or print them out on their $50 inkjet at home at 72dpi.

# ¿ Jan 12, 2011 00:18

GWBBQ: Jan 2, 2005

spog posted:

Kiss it.

Well, stick a corner in your mouth, top lip on one side, bottom lip on the reserve.

Your lip will stick to the photo-sensitive side.

Plus, for some of us, it may be the only bit of french kissing we get all week.

FYI if you use an inkjet the moisture will ruin that corner of the print.

# ¿ Jan 17, 2011 18:23

GWBBQ: Jan 2, 2005

If a lens doesn't work with certain settings and the manual doesn't say "this lens will not work with these settings," it's broken.

# ¿ Jan 21, 2011 17:56

GWBBQ: Jan 2, 2005

Kiri koli posted:

Didn't get a manual with it, unfortunately, but I've found references to this problem with other lenses online, so I'm going to go with it's broken and try to exchange it tomorrow.

I'm pretty sure it doesn't even come with a manual, just an insert informing you that you should line up the red dot on the lens with the red dot on the camera when you try to mount it. Zero sarcasm response: it's broken, get a new one.

# ¿ Jan 22, 2011 01:41

GWBBQ: Jan 2, 2005

xzzy posted:

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.

With a battery grip, you could pop in a battery in one slot and a hand warmer in the other. Hot Hands have a range of 126-144�F and batteries should be kept below 60C/140F, so with temperature cold enough to cause battery life issues it should be safe.

# ¿ Jan 25, 2011 03:59

GWBBQ: Jan 2, 2005

Dr. Cogwerks posted:

The flash unit provides its own power, and when the camera takes a picture, your camera completes the circuit between the flash batteries and the strobe. New cameras and flashes only pass a few volts through that triggering circuit, probably using that little charge to flip a relay. Oldschool flashes just passed the full charge straight through the camera's trigger, sometimes hundreds of volts through it. (I think)

This is right and here's a big chart of trigger voltages and whether they're safe for Canon EOS cameras. Nikon should have similar tolerances but look it up.

# ¿ Feb 10, 2011 17:44

GWBBQ: Jan 2, 2005

jackpot posted:

They're doing some big upgrades at work, so I'm going to have my laptop wiped and re-imaged. What's the best/easiest way to get my Lightroom 2 catalog over to the new computer?

Copy the pictures and catalog files to a portable hard drive, import them back into Lightroom

# ¿ Feb 17, 2011 20:03

GWBBQ: Jan 2, 2005

ChiTownEddie posted:

Hey guys. I'm looking for something besides the Sony software for RAW editing. I don't really want to buy PShop or Lightroom because of the cost also because I am pretty poor at pp and don't need the power. That said have any of you used/heard much about Bibble 5? It appears their lite version is 99$ which is more in my price range than $200+
Any other suggestions would be welcome too.

Considering your profile lists "ultimate frisbee" as an interest, I'm guessing you're a college student and therefore eligible for the $89 Lightroom student and teacher edition.

# ¿ Feb 17, 2011 22:31

GWBBQ: Jan 2, 2005

Casull posted:

I'm gonna help a friend's family take pictures of their backdrops in a couple days. Google suggests using the backdrop as an actual background, not as the subject. Anyone have any tips?

vvvv Exactly what it sounds like: My friend's mom makes backdrops to put on stages for Indian weddings and would like to show them off. I figure why the hell not, I always bum rides from them.

Get a young man and woman with a few traditional Indian outfits in colors that will look nice against the backdrops and have them pose in front of each one. Stop down and light well for maximum detail. It's just like anything wedding-related, you want the bride to look at the promo shots and wish she were the one in the picture.

# ¿ Mar 3, 2011 21:08

GWBBQ: Jan 2, 2005

Martytoof posted:

Can someone please explain defocus control on lenses for me? Every time someone tries to explain with a before/after example I literally can't see a difference, other than the lens moved because they had to change something on it.

You're going to have to explain this to me as if you were explaining to a child because it seems like the most useless thing to put on a lens.

They shift the depth of field forward and backward to provide maximum bokeh where you need it, and very slightly defocus the subject if set past current aperture by moving them slightly out of the acceptable sharpnes range.

# ¿ Mar 7, 2011 22:48

GWBBQ: Jan 2, 2005

Fists Up posted:

Surely where you state you could probably see if theres a highway patrol coming or something.

If they ask just say youve been driving for a while and needed to stretch your legs.

I do this often and I live in Sydney where its probably not always the best to stop on a busy road.

On limited access highways in the US, you can be ticketed for making a non-emergency stop because it's generally unsafe to do so. I doubt you would get that on a rural highway with a big shoulder since it's pretty safe, but check your local laws or call the highway patrol unit in the area and ask.

# ¿ Mar 8, 2011 03:27

GWBBQ: Jan 2, 2005

This doesn't matter at all, but do you guy think the little piece of glass in front of the flash bulb inside the assembly, behind the diffuser is just glass or a hot mirror?

# ¿ Apr 7, 2011 21:13

GWBBQ: Jan 2, 2005

evil_bunnY posted:

Fresnel?

nope, flat glass and maybe coated. I've ripped down one of those cheap blowout deal Quantaray flashes and am repurposing the innards as a modern (maybe) TTL compatible press camera style flash.

# ¿ Apr 8, 2011 04:20

GWBBQ: Jan 2, 2005

INTJ Mastermind posted:

Any advice for taking pictures at a pretty standard friends coming together for some food and drinks at someone's house party event get-together thing? It'll be my first time using my new fancy DSLR out in the "real world". Not trying for high art or anything, but I'd like something better than generic Facebook poo poo.

I have a Canon T2i and I was thinking of using the 50mm F/1.8 for this, unless the 18-55mm IS kit lens would be better? I might be able to borrow an external flash from my roommate too.

50 is too narrow inside, if you can borrow a flash, practice bouncing it and stop down to around f/9 where the kit lens is sharpest

# ¿ Apr 20, 2011 18:02

GWBBQ: Jan 2, 2005

Beerios posted:

Most tests I've seen show it peaking at f/5.6 like just about everything else does on a crop sensor

Looking into it, it seems like it doesn't make much of a difference either way unless you're really pixel peeping.
http://the-digital-picture.com/Revi...omp=0&APIComp=2

# ¿ Apr 20, 2011 18:15

GWBBQ: Jan 2, 2005

anabatica posted:

Anyone got some tips on shooting fireworks?

Point them away from yourself when you light them.

Stop down to f/8 or f/11, focus to infinity, set your camera to bulb exposure and use a remote to open the shutter when you see the launch, close it after everything burns out. Adjust aperture as necessary.

# ¿ Apr 29, 2011 15:39

GWBBQ: Jan 2, 2005

Definitely try to get something interesting other than just the fireworks, and make sure you take some test shots to figure out how long before launch you have to open the shutter to balance ambient light on anything else in the frame with the fireworks. Don't be surprised if it's a 3 or 4 stop difference just to make stuff visible.

# ¿ Apr 29, 2011 15:49

GWBBQ: Jan 2, 2005

Wide angles make cars look cooler. The 17-50 is a good car show lens.

# ¿ May 2, 2011 17:26

GWBBQ: Jan 2, 2005

Beerios posted:

Not all the FD mount lenses are terrible, in fact a few of the optical designs were carried over directly to EF mount. The problem is that FD lenses were meant for a slightly shorter flange focal length than EF, and an adapter moves the lens a little further out on top of that. So FD on an adapter either loses the ability to focus to infinity (although this makes it a decent macro), or the adapter has to have an additional lens inside to correct focus and that's certainly not helping image quality.

I have to wonder how hard it would be to make an EF-S adapter that would sink narrower old MF lenses into the camera since there's more clearance due to the smaller mirror. I don't have a machine shop, but I know for a fact that Minolta MC/MD lens bodies are narrower than the EF/EF-S opening, and there's no way the mirror would hit the rear element with only a .5mm setback.

big cheese posted:

Big Stopper by Lee

10 Stop ND filter

13 stops

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/387091-REG/Cokin_CZ156_Z_PRO156_Neutral_Density_NDX.html

I love how the description tries to sound like it's dangerous if misused.

"The Cokin Z-PRO156 Neutral Density NDX Resin Filter is a special ND filter used exclusively for solar and extreme outdoor photography. The 13 stops this filter offers should be used only certain conditions and with critical care. Light loss from its use is extensive."

# ¿ May 24, 2011 20:48

GWBBQ: Jan 2, 2005

jackpot posted:

I think it would be neat if you could do a daytime, long exposure (~10 seconds) shot of crowds walking down a busy street. If you could have a daytime look with ghostly-looking people drifting through (like nighttime traffic shots, but with people), that would be really cool.

http://www.alexeytitarenko.com/port_cityshadows.html

# ¿ May 25, 2011 18:10

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 14, 2024 18:23

GWBBQ: Jan 2, 2005

RangerScum posted:

That's actually one of my favorite photo series ever. It's loving terrifying.

A favorite of mine, too, hauntingly beautiful. Since I have Technical Pan good for ISO25, I can get some nice long shots stopped down a bit with a Neutral Density filter.

# ¿ May 26, 2011 04:03

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Creative Convention > The Dorkroom > General Photography Questions Megathread v4 - Don't Listen to Any of These Freaks

«‹›2 »