|
Atticus_1354 posted:I have an old Nikon 4004 that I am trying to get fixed and I also plan to purchase a decent beginner SLR. My question is how compatible are lenses from an old nikon film camera and a new Nikon? Are there any compatibility issues to look out for or will a Nikon lens usually fit most any Nikon body? A lot of old lenses fit (f-mount, right?) on the newer cameras, though the biggest problem is lack of autofocus and metering. I believe you can check something on ken rockwell's website that discusses some of the compatibilities.
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2009 22:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 08:26 |
|
|
William T. Hornaday posted:So, I guess the answer to my original question is 'Yes, I am using it as a crutch' and I need to devote a lot more time and effort to post-processing, both learning it and doing it. All the advice has been much appreciated. Thanks. I think the big question is, do you have Lightroom 2.0? If not, you need to have it. Both of those photos could probably be fixed in less than a minute in there.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2010 17:05
|
|
|
Quick question before I do this: I can clean my camera lens with the same lens solution that I use for my glasses.. right?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2010 03:41
|
|
|
flyboi posted:I have a rebel xsi do I have these features? Do you have an instruction book?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2010 20:05
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Do I need fresh rainfall? Is it a temperature thing? Air pressure? Combination of the three? I don't know where you live but in IL having a hot period of time followed by a cool morning causes light mist to rise over bodies of water. Large scale fog is most prevalent here during the winter when there is snow on the ground followed by a very sharp rise in temperature.. this isn't including your general run of the mill unpredictable fog.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2010 16:48
|
|
|
wins32767 posted:It seems that lately every single picture I take is terrible. I suspect it's an artifact of now knowing a little bit about what makes a good picture but not enough to be able to create one. It's really killing my desire to go out and shoot; the weather change has also added to that. How do you get over the hump of thinking everything you shoot is total poo poo? Go on a trip somewhere.. even just somewhere for a weekend can help.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2010 19:41
|
|
|
I always use Adoramapix.com. Once in a while I get a few prints that were printed on paper that is hosed up, it's usually very good quality... and their customer service is top notch. I always spring for Matte prints.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2010 15:18
|
|
|
I really would have liked to have seen the before version of the photos in this series. The final products are quite delightful. http://www.alaindelorme.com/?p=works&ga=totem Stolen from the Awesome Pictures thread. As far as knowing the things you can do with processing, a lot of practice builds that up over time (as stated already). I generally spend a lot more time editing my portraits than I do my landscapes, and looking at all the subtle differences that really add up when they come together is quite rewarding. Something to keep in mind is that most editing is going to be limited to a few categories: Exposure, Color, Sharpness, Contrast... obviously that can be broken down into a lot more but those are some things to think about when looking at a photo.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2010 23:40
|
|
|
A helpful tip: don't bring your camera to the office Christmas party.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2011 16:27
|
|
|
Cyberbob posted:Stupid flyaway hairs in a fashion headshot. Pic so we can see what you're dealing with? Can't say I've ever thought of using liquify to remove them, that sounds like a tremendous pain in the rear end... usually I just spot heal or clone.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2011 23:13
|
|
|
Cyberbob posted:Bleepbloop. Probably belongs more in the post processing thread, but after messing with it a few minutes, I think your best bet is to copy the left half of her chest, flip it, super-impose it on top of the right side and erase out all of the parts where you want to see the hair. This way you aren't dealing with any weird smudges from cloning/healing since there is detail in her skin. This isn't perfect and I messed up a spot or two, but using the method above I got this in about a minute. Should be an easy fix given a bit more time... though how much of the loose hair you cut is up to you. It might be best to get it real close and then just burn the small transition pieces into shadow for the most natural look.  Click here for the full 800x1176 image.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2011 18:58
|
|
|
I've never been asked to turn off my camera during takeoff and I've never been secretive about using it. I suppose it all depends on the flight attendants. I felt kinda guilty after the time my camera caused the plane to crash during takeoff and everyone on the plane died except for myself... the pics were "ok" though, so it wasn't a total waste.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2011 21:37
|
|
|
RizieN posted:I'm going to be completely honest about my lack of experience with this thing, I've always been a kind of 'under-promise over-perform' kind of guy anyway, but the stress involved with possibly ruining someones big day is a higher-than-normal level than I normally deal with on a regular basis. If they are idiots and you are more than competent with a camera then it will go fine. Just make a checklist of shots to get so you don't forget anything, make sure you know how the ceremony will go and when to be ready for those important moments (like the first kiss). Make sure you check out the location of the ceremony ahead of time, and figure out some good compositions that you'll likely utilize. As far as how intrusive to be, that is up to the couple and the person running the ceremony- check with them. Normally I would say don't risk loving up somoene's special day, but if they are already only willing to pay a minimal amount for photography then I figure it's open season for whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2011 17:34
|
|
|
Munkaboo posted:Empty quoting because nobody gave me any advice Judging by the size of that venue and how professional it all looks, I'd say $50 is probably the max you could expect. Does the sports league make money any way? If it's just a bunch of people playing for free I doubt they'd want to pay anything.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2011 14:15
|
|
|
It really should be called "The Guideline of Thirds" rather than the rule since it is by no means follows the definition of a rule. I think it just serves as a beginner's tool for working on their composition. Eventually once you have your eye for what looks good you can throw all the "rules" out the window.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2011 18:06
|
|
|
That's actually one of my favorite photo series ever. It's loving terrifying.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2011 18:26
|
|
|
A lot of that has to do with shutter speed. The general room of thumb is that 1/x is the minimum handheld shutter speed, where x = the mm you are shooting at. I.E. if shooting 30mm, the slowest shutter speed you can reliably shoot while handheld is 1/30s. It's a rule of thumb, plenty of people can go lower. If you are going to be using a flash, you are entering a lot more variables where I can't simply tell you a rule that will always work, since I don't know the strength of the flash you're using, what type of flash it is, distance to subject, etc. That will require practice, or a lightmeter and practice.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2011 22:45
|
|
|
What's wrong with opening photoshop? I open it once and keep it open until I'm done editing all my files. It takes about 10 seconds for it to load the first time and then the delay is gone. Furthermore you can open files in photoshop directly from Lightroom, so I don't see why there's an issue. If you can't keep it up all the time I suggest investing in some more RAM. Furthermore, how is there a file management issue with the way Lightroom imports and stores photos? I have a single folder for each year that keeps all the subfolders sorted by date. This was set up by Lightroom and I never have a reason to even touch these folders.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2011 15:04
|
|
|
Ahh, gotcha.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2011 15:40
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:SSD big enough that you can put your programs on it and have enough space left to import a month worth of shooting or so. This week I'm going to be putting together a new machine I bought and I'll have a 120GB SSD drive and two 2TB drives running in RAID1 for storage. It's going to be a pain to have to keep moving around my folders inside Lightroom (and on the drives) but I'm hoping the performance increase is such a huge leap that it's worth it. 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2011 13:06
|
|
|
I'm fairly certain that's a natural response to prevent blindness / eye damage. This is why we don't have people facing the sun when possible, and why we use a fill flash, reflector, etc.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2011 15:18
|
|
|
The reason you have to spin a CPL is because depending on what angle you are shooting to the sun, the angle of light coming into your lens changes and you need to be able to spin the filter to accommodate for that. As for the exposure compensation, I don't think it will really be necessary as your camera should be able to adjust its metering automatically.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2011 14:33
|
|
|
Just about all you can do is send it in and have them quote you on a new front element. There's no magical "wipe this to seal up cracked lenses" solution AFAIK. If you think it's too much to have replaced and would rather get a new lens, ebay the busted one. Also what's the tragic story behind the cracks? Comedy option: Click.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2011 14:59
|
|
|
Ringo R posted:I was going to write this in SAD but got lazy, but all the shots you posted could really use some perspective correction to make the buildings point straight up. I'd like to second this. Get in the habit of it and your photos will look leaps and bounds better than before. Nice lines are loving sexy.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2011 17:25
|
|
|
Phat_Albert posted:I dont understand why they still look weird, I applied the lens correction in lightroom. It's a distortion problem caused by a wide angle lens that can be fixed in photoshop with the "Lens Correction" filter.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2011 18:57
|
|
|
Phat_Albert posted:Is this different than the one in Lightroom? Its enabled in lightroom, and takes a ton of barrel distortion out of that picture, but as evidenced, its not correct yet. Sorry, I should have added that it's not just due to barrel distortion- you probably also need to adjust vertical perspective.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2011 19:29
|
|
|
Ziir posted:I'm not sure if this belongs here, but does anyone know if Facebook changed the way they upload pictures recently? Because all of my pictures that I upload now look like total, complete, poo poo—everything is pixelated and grainy. They have changed the algorithm or something because yes, they look even worse now. It's kind of a bummer, now I can't show off pictures as well.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2011 00:25
|
|
|
William T. Hornaday posted:Why are 8x12 frames so hard to find? Or at least harder to find than one would expect. Because you should be matting your photos, you filthy swine!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2011 18:20
|
|
|
tarepanda posted:The irony is that the king od lad books, Playboy, tends to have really good writing. Having had a subscription to Playboy for 7 years, I can say with confidence that pretty much the only time any of the nude pictorials have interesting photography are when they have guest celebrity photographers. Otherwise it's uninspired though technically well-executed glamour photography. That said, I often like their portrait for their 20Q section and their fashion pictorials are usually decent at worst.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2011 05:40
|
|
|
Bring a gigantic flash or throw a graduated ND filter on your lens to darken the sky.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2011 07:03
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:Looks like second-curtain sync'd flash and a slow shutter speed to me. Yep it's this. You need a slow shutter speed and a flash to freeze the action.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2011 15:00
|
|
|
A better name for that effect is "light trails." Light painting is more like: Light painting by quiquinho, on Flickr or, perhaps:  Light Painting by Tiago Avelar, on Flickr
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2011 14:43
|
|
|
Ola posted:I'm going to try some outdoor time lapsing tomorrow and it will be a few degrees below freezing. I'm worried about condensation, would it be a good idea to leave the camera in the fridge overnight? Cold things attract moisture when introduced into a warmer, more moist atmosphere, not the other way around. Think a can of beer on a warm summer day. Your real concern is going to be battery life, keep a spare in your pocket for added warmth.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2012 14:25
|
|
|
More important is "Who the hell is Terry Richards?!"
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2012 16:24
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:How long can I keep a shutter open before anything happens to the camera? I've heard the CMOS can apparently overheat. An idea I had was to put a ND filter on the camera and use a small aperture, to get a long exposure of a sunset. If the sun is pretty close to setting then you probably wouldn't have to worry about it. Long exposures in the middle of the day can, however, damage the poo poo out of your sensor. A rule of thumb that I am making up right this second is "If it's comfortable to stare at the sun then you're ok with taking a long exposure shot of it. If it hurts to look at the sun, then don't slow your shutter speed tooooo much."
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2012 17:22
|
|
|
Mr. BT posted:So I just got a new lighting setup and shot 670 nudes of a friend who wants to model. Why aren't we making fun of this more?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2012 22:33
|
|
|
Tshirt Ninja posted:Can someone tell me what's going on here and how to achieve it? It looks like the trails are from a long exposure, but then the subject itself is exposed with a flash...? Get drunk and then press the shutter button with your dick.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2012 01:22
|
|
|
That 70s Shirt posted:So remember last week when a photo of mine was stolen and used multiple times on a news website? Well the client I shot the photo for is worried about potential negative publicity about my fighting for my intellectual property (I don't get it either), and they've offered to just outright buy the copyright to the image from me. I've never had this situation pop up before. How much should I charge? Lots, right? How did they find out that you're fighting for your intellectual property? It sounds to me like you are pretty much never going to get a job with this client again, which sucks.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2012 14:09
|
|
|
ZippySLC posted:Does that include bad lighting and out of focus shots? Do you live under a rock or something.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2013 15:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 08:26 |
|
|
HPL posted:Shot a show and processed it with DxO 9. Used PRIME on all the photos. It took about 15-20 times longer with PRIME than with the usual noise reduction. I wouldn't recommend PRIME for lower-ISO photos, but at high ISO, it's magic. Apparently the whole idea behind PRIME is that DxO Labs asked themselves: "How good a job of noise reduction could we do if time and speed wasn't a factor?" Nice job, Mike.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2013 00:05
|
|
