Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
superior choices only
yoshotography
yosotography
yostography
yosography
yosgraphy
yosraphy
View Results
 
  • Post
  • Reply
echinopsis
Apr 13, 2004

by Fluffdaddy

Bloody posted:

I just shoot wide open all the time for better or worse. not so much “aperture priority” as it is “automatic for shutter speed and iso”
I didn’t buy a 135mm at f/1.8 so I could see much

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

KidDynamite
Feb 11, 2005

messed around a bit with darkroom and this shot from halide. i like it.


echinopsis
Apr 13, 2004

by Fluffdaddy



taken on my phone camera

not pictured : me being appropriately hosed up

echinopsis
Apr 13, 2004

by Fluffdaddy

echinopsis posted:




taken on my phone camera

not pictured : me being appropriately hosed up

Beeftweeter
Jun 28, 2005

a medium-format picture of beeftweeter staring silently at the camera, a quizzical expression on his face

KidDynamite posted:

messed around a bit with darkroom and this shot from halide. i like it.




looks cool indeed, but the perspective is loving with me a bit lol

i can't tell if it's just the way it is or if rotating it slightly would help. i can see that hurting it also since the beams in the background are appropriately straight

its a good photo, but lol, weird perspective man

Achmed Jones
Oct 16, 2004



lol so i bought this lens and a tripod from a guy at work and it's insanely huge. it's a sigma 20-40 with an 82mm filter size. i kinda feel dumb, im not sure why i bought it but i guess i got excited and made a dumb decision. i took some bee pics with it, though, and it seemed to do ok - we'll see how it turns out when i load 'em on the computer in the next couple of days. i had originally thought that i'd take this lens hiking with me - was thinking "oh short focal length, that means small lens" without thinking about the filter markings that were _right there_. i...don't think it'll be comfortably usable for that. but hey, i can always sell it if it collects dust for too long

the tripod seems very nice though and i'm glad to have it.

HAIL eSATA-n
Apr 7, 2007

hiking with thicc lenses makes for thicc legs

HAIL eSATA-n
Apr 7, 2007

i've agreed to take pictures of a friend's wedding

dutifully informed them that i'm a talentless idiot and will probably drink too much and drop my camera

Beeftweeter
Jun 28, 2005

a medium-format picture of beeftweeter staring silently at the camera, a quizzical expression on his face
a lot of third party lenses are xbox huge, probably sagebrush can actually say why but i'm guessing it's just easier to manufacture something that performs well

luckily for MFT it's not that much of a problem. i posted it before but the 85mm rokinon is loving massive, way bigger than the bodies, and its heavier too

i think lens manufacturers picked up on this being a problem though because its by far the largest lens i have for the system, lol. its bigger than my 300 mm panasonic ffs

Beeftweeter
Jun 28, 2005

a medium-format picture of beeftweeter staring silently at the camera, a quizzical expression on his face

HAIL eSATA-n posted:

i've agreed to take pictures of a friend's wedding

dutifully informed them that i'm a talentless idiot and will probably drink too much and drop my camera

i've done this too and they always start out fine and get progressively worse to the point of being unusable. if you're not gonna stay sober i'd make sure they have a couple people doing it lol

personally i can't stand weddings sober

Achmed Jones
Oct 16, 2004



i already have strong legs tyvm

nurrwick
Jul 5, 2007

third party lenses are big partly because the same optical formula needs to work across whatever mounts they sell the lenses for, and that’s tied to registration distance and flange diameter… but i also understand that recent third party stuff and increasingly first party designs are beefing up because of contemporary use trends. i think someone in this thread said it as “we aren’t shooting tmax through spherical-ground lenses anymore.” it tracks that making good images on a high density digital sensor will require more glass, i guess

also though, lens designers probably have been optimizing for the performance characteristics highlighted by test charts, for better or for worse, and working for mtf and corner aberrations are going to require a lot more glass in the barrel.

HAIL eSATA-n posted:

i've agreed to take pictures of a friend's wedding

dutifully informed them that i'm a talentless idiot and will probably drink too much and drop my camera

this is the way.



i did two weddings for friends, might get talked into a third this year. i charged a fair rate so it wasn’t abusive toward either them or me, and i did it like i meant it. the work isn’t my favorite, but it is wild to see prints of my portraiture work in other people’s houses

KidDynamite
Feb 11, 2005

Beeftweeter posted:

looks cool indeed, but the perspective is loving with me a bit lol

i can't tell if it's just the way it is or if rotating it slightly would help. i can see that hurting it also since the beams in the background are appropriately straight

its a good photo, but lol, weird perspective man

there was a barrier in the way so this was the only shot i could get without the barrier that appealed to me. i know it would have been better a bit more head on with the left casks or more in-between the rows of casks. so i was basically in the corner of the casks to get that shot. i didn't want to reach over the barrier to get a better angle. also this was during a tour so time was limited.

Beeftweeter
Jun 28, 2005

a medium-format picture of beeftweeter staring silently at the camera, a quizzical expression on his face
yeah it's understandable. sometimes just gotta go with what you got

i like the second one also! the reflections give it sort of an ethereal aesthetic. keep it up

KidDynamite
Feb 11, 2005

here's a perspective shot that i like.





missed a shot of mt. fuji from the shinkansen.

Megabound
Oct 20, 2012

Why is it so cyan?

PokeJoe
Aug 24, 2004

hail cgatan


your monitor is just running low on magenta pixels OP

echinopsis
Apr 13, 2004

by Fluffdaddy

Megabound posted:

Why is it so cyan?

sorry u can’t grasp the artists vision

Megabound
Oct 20, 2012

If that vision is "My cameras red channel stopped working" then I understand

KidDynamite
Feb 11, 2005

Megabound posted:

Why is it so cyan?

i had the white balance set to incandescent.... i don't mind it but.


KidDynamite
Feb 11, 2005

these were taken from the shinkansen while stopped at nagoya.



echinopsis
Apr 13, 2004

by Fluffdaddy
spotted this on instagram

now this person has some deep understanding or contrast

Beeftweeter
Jun 28, 2005

a medium-format picture of beeftweeter staring silently at the camera, a quizzical expression on his face

KidDynamite posted:

i had the white balance set to incandescent.... i don't mind it but.




for situations like this applying a photo filter is probably a better idea than just adjusting the white balance



that's a warming filter (81) at 50%. you can see that it's not perfect though, there is a slight green cast

after applying it, shifting the tint and temperature works much better

KidDynamite
Feb 11, 2005

Beeftweeter posted:

for situations like this applying a photo filter is probably a better idea than just adjusting the white balance



that's a warming filter (81) at 50%. you can see that it's not perfect though, there is a slight green cast

after applying it, shifting the tint and temperature works much better



good stuff! i'm still figuring out darkroom for on the go photoediting. not sure if i'm going to drop the 75 bucks for lifetime.

Beeftweeter
Jun 28, 2005

a medium-format picture of beeftweeter staring silently at the camera, a quizzical expression on his face
i used pixelmator photo to do that, it took about a minute tops lol

it's subscription afaik, i got grandfathered in to a lifetime license but it's a pretty good app

Achmed Jones
Oct 16, 2004



On my iphone, there's an option for a lifetime subscription for $55. idk if that also is available on ipads (i dont even know if it's a separate purchase for iphone vs ipad). i know that the macos version can be bought as a one-and-done thing, too

right now im wating for a sale on em

e: oh wait, there isn't a macos version of pixelmator photo yet. it's just pixelmator pro

computers are hard

Beeftweeter
Jun 28, 2005

a medium-format picture of beeftweeter staring silently at the camera, a quizzical expression on his face
nah it's just an awful naming convention

i also have pixelmator on ipad, which has ceased being updated in favor of pixelmator pro (which i do not have), and they are both separate from pixelmator photo

i got grandfathered into lifetime subs for both so i might be a bit biased, but pixelmator photo is really useful. pixelmator itself, not so much, especially if you already have creative clod

Beeftweeter
Jun 28, 2005

a medium-format picture of beeftweeter staring silently at the camera, a quizzical expression on his face
lol it was bothering me that was still slightly off (i guess)

this is an orange filter at 35%



i think it looks better. the highlights don't seem like they were put through a warming filter now, at least. its also less magenta

e: i used the original cyan-tinted one as a source for all of these btw

Beeftweeter fucked around with this message at 00:34 on Feb 10, 2023

Megabound
Oct 20, 2012

There's a video posted on r/Analog and the objectification of women in photography that is worth a watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqS1NNDgyoY

I agree broadly with her points other than r/Analog being a valuable community

Beeftweeter
Jun 28, 2005

a medium-format picture of beeftweeter staring silently at the camera, a quizzical expression on his face
lol yikes its 27 minutes long

i scrubbed through a bit and she made some decent points from what i could tell. i broadly agree that women are horribly objectified as a matter of course though. this isn't even an egregious one but it still bothers me (sorry echi):


like, what is the point of this? it's not a great pose, it looks like a plant is growing out of her head. the contrast and color suck; it looks like when you try to look through glasses that are all smudged with fingerprints. she's in a bra, for fucks sake — why? and if it isn't intended to objectify, why not crop at the shoulders instead?

i realize most people don't even think about this and just think "pretty lady = good photo", and, well, no. that's not even a good photo

e: the more i look at it the more i find to dislike about it lol

Beeftweeter fucked around with this message at 00:51 on Feb 10, 2023

polyester concept
Mar 29, 2017

she also has background poo poo poking out of her head which is another big basic portrait no-no

Beeftweeter
Jun 28, 2005

a medium-format picture of beeftweeter staring silently at the camera, a quizzical expression on his face

polyester concept posted:

she also has background poo poo poking out of her head which is another big basic portrait no-no

yeah i realized that some people might not pick up on that (re: pose) so i edited

i mean, it's not even a sexy photo. i realize that it's counterintuitive to talk about objectification on one hand and also say "it's not even sexy" on the other, but it's true. if that were the intent i could at least see it working for that specific purpose

but no, it's just all-around bad and flattening the contrast doesn't make it good. i'd go as far as saying it makes it actively worse even

PokeJoe
Aug 24, 2004

hail cgatan


it's a very simple rule: just remember kent state

Achmed Jones
Oct 16, 2004



PokeJoe posted:

it's a very simple rule: just remember kent state

what

PokeJoe
Aug 24, 2004

hail cgatan


The widely circulated pic was edited to remove this fence post javelening the lady's head

Achmed Jones
Oct 16, 2004



oh! i learned something today, thanks!

big scary monsters
Sep 2, 2011

-~Skullwave~-

Beeftweeter posted:

lol yikes its 27 minutes long

i scrubbed through a bit and she made some decent points from what i could tell. i broadly agree that women are horribly objectified as a matter of course though. this isn't even an egregious one but it still bothers me (sorry echi):

like, what is the point of this? it's not a great pose, it looks like a plant is growing out of her head. the contrast and color suck; it looks like when you try to look through glasses that are all smudged with fingerprints. she's in a bra, for fucks sake — why? and if it isn't intended to objectify, why not crop at the shoulders instead?

i realize most people don't even think about this and just think "pretty lady = good photo", and, well, no. that's not even a good photo

e: the more i look at it the more i find to dislike about it lol

the point is that she forgot to test her smoke alarm and now the house is filling up with smoke. when did you last check your smoke alarms? if you don't know do it now and avoid house fires causing low contrast photos in your home

PokeJoe
Aug 24, 2004

hail cgatan


Achmed Jones posted:

oh! i learned something today, thanks!

NP it's a weird thing to reference but the weirdness is why I remember to look out for this sorta thing when taking pics :shrug:

Bloody
Mar 3, 2013

the Pulitzer winning version has the fence post!

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

HAIL eSATA-n
Apr 7, 2007

Megabound posted:

There's a video posted on r/Analog and the objectification of women in photography that is worth a watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqS1NNDgyoY

I agree broadly with her points other than r/Analog being a valuable community

she's right

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply