|
Corla Plankun posted:remember how y'all were complaining that the dork room was a toxic environment a few days ago before y'all started doing dogpiles every day instead of posting cool photos? i remember kinda agreeing with this take. like i'll still give echi a hard time for being the horniest man alive but please do not bring toxic ~serious art~ bullshit into the funy computer byob-lite serious artists are the wooooooorst
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2023 18:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 01:44 |
|
|
akadajet posted:my grandmother always would talk about these amazing sunset photos my grandfather took during his time in Korea. I found and scanned them for her. they were Kodachrome slides. really all they were ended up being a color gradient with a black tree line, but she really enjoyed them i have a bunch of those too. grandpa's old kodachromes from whenever. the ones of sunsets and beaches are broadly really boring. the ones with humans in them are where it's at
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2023 18:20
|
|
|
i watched the menu last night. it very much features food as Serious Art and it made me think about what somebody said upthread about advertisements for photography. i think i like advertisements in photography. i don't mean for stuff to buy, but photography that is "check out my cool _____." the blank can be poodle jones or little jones or ms jones or a neat bug i found or an animal at the zoo or the wildflowers exploding over the canyon in the nature preserve. but what i'm not doing is saying "i want to take a picture of 'wistful longing' or 'detached parental satisfaction' and then trying to convey that specific emotion to a viewer. i just want to share a well-composed and interesting photo of my son laying his head on the dog. the emotion that i feel looking at the picture comes through, but isn't my primary focus and sure that's an advertisement if you want to put a negative spin on it. but it's also snapshots, and it's also a process of elevating and bringing artistic considerations into the normal takin pictures thing that so many of us do anyway. as i type this PJ is looking out the window waiting for little and ms jones to return from dance class. it would be a good picture of patient loving if the background were pleasing. it could also be a good snapshot of my dog waiting for my family. "check out this cool poodle." i don't really think like there's much difference in what the two approaches actually create. which means it's just whichever mindset is most fun and most engaging for the photographer. i think there's probably room for both styles, but i don't really think it's correct to treat the photographer-focused style as more intellectual or better than the subject-focused style. there's pretty simple translations from one to the other. anyway that's a lot of words
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2023 19:03
|
|
|
i just tried to take the picture and couldn't manage to get the window and PJ's facing and the background to all line up nicely. if he would've turned his head 20° or so to the right it might've worked though
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2023 19:19
|
|
|
i did get this picture of the rare PJ dogball that i then transferred to my phone and hosed around with in the ios photos app
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2023 19:28
|
|
|
dogs are difficult subjects ime if you want to get them in a good pose they have to already be comfortable with you loving around with the camera in front of them. this is harder than it sounds because dogs are very curious about everything (at least mine are) and they pretty much always want to know what you're doing anyway this sounds kinda dumb but explaining to them what you're doing and what you want them to be doing actually seems to work. everyone is different obviously but i've found that having a sort of conversation with them either distracts them enough to just be complaint, or maybe they actually get it a lot of it is just luck with candids, too  
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2023 19:31
|
|
|
Achmed Jones posted:i did get this picture of the rare PJ dogball that i then transferred to my phone and hosed around with in the ios photos app i missed this while tapping that up and it's an improvement, keep experimenting 
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2023 19:32
|
|
|
I thought we were friends man. no need to laugh at me when I come at you with concerns
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2023 19:43
|
|
|
Beeftweeter posted:hmm like okay that is fair but man that's pretty funny lol i’ll try to put aside my feelings and take it like that
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2023 19:49
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:I thought we were friends man. no need to laugh at me when I come at you with concerns we definitely are, i didn't mean it in that way i think it's kind of funny though. i wasn't saying, like, "do this, it is definitively better", just "have you considered this?" i was playing around with it because i like the shot, and like i said i found the edit underwhelming but can't really articulate why. so i tried to show you instead. honestly i agree a couple people were being too harsh, but i don't really think what i was doing was part of that
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2023 19:49
|
|
|
i am much less happy with that photo looking at it on the computer than i was looking at it on my phone. oh well. and thanks for the kind words
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2023 19:52
|
|
|
Achmed Jones posted:i am much less happy with that photo looking at it on the computer than i was looking at it on my phone. oh well. if you're using an oled phone and then looking at it on a lcd this happens more often than you'd think. it might not look like it but oleds are much much much better at displaying gradations of contrast than lcds are, and as a result a lot of subtleties can crop up if you're dealing with contrast like that which is also why i try to avoid pushing contrast too high or too low (in my estimation anyway), you never know what kind of display it's going to be viewed on. we've been spoiled with, at a minimum, automatic white and tone balancing on phones (and now laptops) so sometimes it's jarring to see something on a dumb display, especially if it hasn't been calibrated properly. best to cast a wide net i think
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2023 20:03
|
|
|
i bought the 1.8 50mm canon lens. i saw a bunch of things talking about the 2.4 as being a good macro lens, i wanna try a macro thing, and the 1.8 is supposed to be the new version of the 2.4. it occurs to me that maybe the 1.8 isn't actually what i want because it doesn't have "macro" in the title. but i don't know lenses confuse me. i had amazon funbux and everybody's always talkin about how great 50mm lenses are idk
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2023 20:32
|
|
|
macro extension tubes are a good way to experiment with macro stuff and they're relatively cheap (definitely cheaper than a lens anyway) i haven't used one for EF in a really long time so i don't have a recommendation, but i'd look for one that has good reviews at least. ime the cheapest ones have absolutely garbage mounts and can damage the one on the body
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2023 20:35
|
|
|
some cool fog yesterday  I’ll straighten and crop for public posting qirex fucked around with this message at 20:40 on Jan 29, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2023 20:38
|
|
|
well - i'm only into cheap lenses. this one was $125 new (but like $15 after funbux). im not good enough or serious enough about this stuff to justify expensive lenses. but i do wanna take bugpics. thanks!
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2023 20:38
|
|
|
Achmed Jones posted:well - i'm only into cheap lenses. this one was $125 new (but like $15 after funbux). im not good enough or serious enough about this stuff to justify expensive lenses. but i do wanna take bugpics. thanks! oh to be clear i was talking about the extension tubes — they can stack to make them longer (which makes the magnification increase), but a lot of them are lovely abs plastic with sharp blades that get stuck a lot. it then takes a distressing amount of torque to free the lens
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2023 20:42
|
|
|
qirex posted:some cool fog yesterday these are great, i love fog
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2023 20:43
|
|
|
ahh gotcha. i just had a look at it seems like they range from like $15-$200 - ill see what i can do with the lens when it gets here and , if i can't make something happen, look into an extender that won't wreck my camera. thanks! i also read something about lens reversers, but then there was this weird procedure to change the aperture that i don't think i wanna gently caress with. is it reasonable to just nope out of that, or would i be doing myself a disservice?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2023 20:48
|
|
|
macro tubes: i've found that the very lowest end ones are trash, don't buy them. most of the ones i have were around $50 and they're merely okay, but the micro four thirds mount is simpler than EF. the last time i used canon gear extensively was probably around 2012, but i think the tubes were around that price too and i hated them. ymmv obviously reversers: i haven't tried myself, maybe someone here has but i don't think it's very common e: lol clarity Beeftweeter fucked around with this message at 20:58 on Jan 29, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2023 20:54
|
|
|
qirex posted:some cool fog yesterday foggy cities are such a good aesthetic
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2023 20:55
|
|
|
one thing that sucks when using macro tubes is that the focal plane is reduced to a couple mm at best - especially at a higher aperture (lower f-stop) i shot these hand-held with the panasonic g100 because its the lightest camera i have (for micro four thirds anyway) and i kinda wish i didn't   because it easily ends up like this 
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2023 21:08
|
|
|
oh dang, that might be a problem
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2023 21:18
|
|
|
  
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2023 21:20
|
|
|
Achmed Jones posted:oh dang, that might be a problem it's a pretty extreme example tbh, i was doing that in our bedroom using the available light from a 80W throw led lol if you have good enough lighting or stabilize it, it looks fine  if you don't  lol. neat effect though
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2023 21:24
|
|
|
excellent
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2023 21:29
|
|
|
how did you take this? just point at the sun and yolo? e: i thought pointing cameras at the sun could mess them up like it can mess up your eyes. is that wrong, or was the cloud cover sufficient to prevent it (that wont really save eyes, but maybe it does sensors), or something else? Achmed Jones fucked around with this message at 21:37 on Jan 29, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2023 21:30
|
|
|
This is just me playing around. I’ve pointed many cams at the sun and none have had problems with that, so maybe it’s an urban legend or it’s pointed at people that do time lapses pointed at the sun for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2023 22:14
|
|
|
don’t buy a reverser they are all bad dumb garbage
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2023 22:18
|
|
|
I mean, probably don't do it for a long time. People used to burn holes in their shutter curtains by leaving their camera on the table pointed into the sun, but a photo would be fine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2023 22:20
|
|
|
I know a guy who did that to his leica m, shockingly the repair was under a thousand dollars [this was 10 years ago, it’s definitely more than a grand now]
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2023 22:40
|
|
|
yeah, you have to remember that in bright sunlight you're talking about fractions of a second at most, it's not terrible but i wouldn't try a long exposureMegabound posted:I mean, probably don't do it for a long time. People used to burn holes in their shutter curtains by leaving their camera on the table pointed into the sun, but a photo would be fine. this is a good point too, i've pointed older bodies i don't really care too much straight at the sun before and there hasn't been any observable damage, but they were all mirrorless and using the electronic shutter afaik. this isn't an option on the older digital rebels so do be careful
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2023 22:40
|
|
|
i mean i wouldn't point a mirrorless body at the sun for too long either. it is absolutely possible to burn out an image sensor by overloading it or just through thermal damage
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2023 22:49
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:i mean i wouldn't point a mirrorless body at the sun for too long either. it is absolutely possible to burn out an image sensor by overloading it or just through thermal damage or by buying laser pointers off of AliExpress
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2023 22:51
|
|
|
also i was looking at some macro tube stuff i did, i think it'd be fine for bug pics (on a sunny day at least) this was with the om-d em-10 using the m.zuiko vario that kid dynamite hates — it's a really slow lens. the drebel t series isn't an excellent performer (i replaced a t1i with the om-d) but i think the performance should be fine, mostly. the biggest frustration imo would probably be the inability to do WYSIWYG, with macro tubes it's surprisingly useful because fuckups can be subtle
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2023 22:51
|
|
|
here is a fun fact: a lens cannot focus light to a spot that is hotter than the surface of the emitter. so no matter what kind of giant special magic lens you have, you cannot focus moonlight into a spot hot enough to burn paper, because the moon's surface is only about 250 degrees fahrenheit. but the sun's surface is 10,000 degrees so
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2023 22:51
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:here is a fun fact: a lens cannot focus light to a spot that is hotter than the surface of the emitter. so no matter what kind of giant special magic lens you have, you cannot focus moonlight into a spot hot enough to burn paper, because the moon's surface is only about 250 degrees fahrenheit. but the sun's surface is 10,000 degrees so I wouldn’t have thought the moon got that hot
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2023 22:55
|
|
|
some more macro tube stuff      i really wish i had a proper lens but they scratch the itch most of the time
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2023 23:25
|
|
|
v nice
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2023 23:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 01:44 |
|
|
tried stacking some pentax q raws, and, well, lol: i don't hate it but man thats kinda weird
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2023 23:37
|
|