|
MrQueasy posted:The idea of street photography is weird to me outside of an event (or some context where people are expecting there to be phootographers). It just seems too invasive and creepy to take pictures of strangers. yeah! raw is great for white balance and i've had luck with stepping dowm/up the ev in auto and priority modes on my camera to fix blown out stuff. But it kinda feels like an additional skill that is just as finnicky as the other ways to change the exposure so it makes more sense to me to just shoot in manual all the time
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2022 21:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 14:39 |
|
|
I used to hate trying to nail exposure on my 7d, none of the eval modes really suited me for long. thank christ I’m now working with a modern sensor that has far more room for recovery and also being able to see the histogram while you shoot fixes all my incompetence problems
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2022 22:39
|
|
|
oh yeah the random shots of people is super creepy. i meant even cityscape / architecture / urban-??? whatever you’d call scenery in an urban area is not that exciting to me i’ve never managed to get into the raw processing flow, maybe i should give it a shot. i am considering buying pixelmator pro (even without raw), i used gimp a lot in the past and i don’t shoot enough to deal with adobe subscriptions, is there a general consensus on that vs other options around?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 00:49
|
|
|
i watched a youtube a while back of some well-known master street photographer and he was just carrying around a camera photographing people right in the face like point blank without asking and I would likely die of shame and embarrassment if i ever--even accidentally--took a photo of a stranger at that range.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 01:34
|
|
|
Destroyenator posted:i’ve never managed to get into the raw processing flow doesn’t feel to me like there’s a flow as such. all the photos are there on lightroom and then on every photo I think is worthwhile I pretty much only fiddle with exposure and temperature and crop and call it a day, it’s just usually not until it’s big on screen you can tell what’s going on and I usually just want to adjust exposure and with raw it’s almost just like retroactively changing exposure, if it was jpeg already you’d get banding or unrecoverable highlights or shadows idk for me it’s an important part of the process, something I enjoy too. i’d miss it if i didn’t do it
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 02:38
|
|
|
oh and yeah lol I wish I had the guts to go up to people in the street and get consent to shoot them and you’d pick people who looked extroverted anyway but yeah gently caress like most things consent is paramount
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 02:39
|
|
|
just did a shoot at the beach and gave both the 135mm f/1.8 and 85mm f/1.4 a run. the 85 is clearly easier to use but can’t wait to get the shots up on the screen and compare the 50mm feels like a toy now. lol the sigma 135mm gently caress it’s a thing of beauty. it’s heavy and satisfying as gently caress in the way nicely machined metal is, and the glass is massive, it’s the same size as the end of the lens and it looks incredible to look at from the subjects perspective. I love it echinopsis fucked around with this message at 07:03 on Feb 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 06:59
|
|
|
is there a rule-of-thumb/calculation for the approximate width of the focal plain given an f-stop and a focal length? I've been trying to develop an intuition about it but it is challenging, and I mostly just know that my 300mm-with-no-aperture-control is like 18 inches of depth* while my stepped down lenses seem to be so huge that it's practically infinite i'd like to be able to intuit whether a scene is going to be coherent enough (e.g. the subject and the background/noise are far enough apart), and also maybe start using the non-extreme ends of my aperture setting on lenses that have it. * actually this doesn't make sense because i think it varies based on what distance i'm focusing on. drat this poo poo is complicated
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 17:58
|
|
|
Corla Plankun posted:* actually this doesn't make sense because i think it varies based on what distance i'm focusing on. drat this poo poo is complicated it is! what you're looking for is a depth of field calculator. there's also what's called 'hyperfocal distance,' which is a combo of length + aperture + focal point that ensures every part of the image is well focused. old lenses have this marked out on their focus and aperture dials (eg. the coloured notches to the left/right of the focus dot on a Nikkor lens). you can often approximate it if the lens is wider.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 19:34
|
|
|
you are correct that the depth of field varies with focal length, aperture, and the distance to the focal point. when you focus more closely your depth of field is narrower, for a given lens configuration and aperture diameter. i don't know if there's a rule of thumb for it. you can certainly calculate it mathematically, though, and there are lookup tables, paper slide rule calculators, and i assume phone apps now to help. old manual lenses have a scale on them to help you figure it out:  the red diamond is the index mark. the lens is set to f/8 on the aperture ring, and focused on a point 2 meters / 6.5 feet away. the scale on either side of the diamond gives you the depth of field, so you can see that at f/8 and this focus distance, the depth of field is between about 1.2m and 7m. note that depth of field is perceptual. there is only ever one plane that is truly in perfect focus, and what we call the depth of field is the range that is acceptably sharp. the scale on this lens is based on what asahi engineers figured was about right given the scenario (i.e. shooting on film, handheld, and viewing prints at reasonable enlargements), so if you are using a 50-mp camera on a tripod and pixel peeping, that scale may be too loose for you. but it's a good starting point. there are two other neat things about this scale. first, the reason the 8, 10 and 3 are red is because those represent the hyperfocal settings. if you put the lens on f/8 and focus it to 3 meters, you'll see that one end of the 8 mark on the scale is at infinity -- so everything from infinity down to 1.5m will be in acceptable focus. the idea is that you can set it there, choose a shutter speed that fits your lighting, and forget about it. point and shoot at any subject more than 1.5 meters away. in the image above, the infinity symbol is over the 11, so you need to be at f/11 at this focal distance to have everything out to the horizon in focus. easy! second, the little R to the left of the scale is the infrared focus mark. all light is bent by lenses slightly differently depending on wavelength; this is how a prism separates light into a rainbow, and why you get chromatic aberration on edges. the red light bends less than the blue light, they end up in slightly different spots on the film or sensor, and sharp edges start to form a rainbow. some people like to do infrared photography, but we can't see IR, so if you look through the lens and focus it in visible light, the IR image will be defocused. instead, you focus in visible light, note where the index mark is, and turn it so the IR mark is at the same point before taking the picture. i regret that new lenses (other than super professional ones) don't have these scales. i know autofocus is better and faster for all practical purposes, but i just like the thoughtful mechanical nature of manual lenses.  goddammit beaten again for once again putting too much effort into my posts Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Feb 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 19:36
|
|
|
its a good post, always better with examples. all my lenses are old AI-S or AF so i thankfully have all the lovely scales i need. i only ever use it for my 20mm though, the AF on the d700 never fails me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 19:55
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:just did a shoot at the beach and gave both the 135mm f/1.8 and 85mm f/1.4 a run. the 85 is clearly easier to use but can’t wait to get the shots up on the screen and compare sigma balls
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 22:42
|
|
|
tamron swanson
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 23:38
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:you are correct that the depth of field varies with focal length, aperture, and the distance to the focal point. when you focus more closely your depth of field is narrower, for a given lens configuration and aperture diameter. that is WILD and a huge amount of info, thank you! I'm surprised that IR photography is common enough that they'd add a little icon for it but it looks like my old 300mm has it too so I guess its more popular than I know  if I understand correctly, this also has the depth info but its kinda irrelevant because the previous owner of this lens removed the aperture for some reason. Probably the 5.6 bands are accurate enough and they confirm that it is just the tiniest zone; I used a calculator and the hyperfocal distance for this thing is a half a mile lmao. It also gets super purple/cyan very easily if i photograph a bird with backlit branches behind it. Still, I've managed to take some pictures with it that I'm very happy with. I need to mess around with the calculator for my shorter lenses to figure out what they're technically capable of.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2022 04:39
|
|
|
i think IR photography was more popular back in the film days because all you had to do to screw around with it was buy a roll of IR film. a lot harder now that you need a specially modified camera. it makes neat photos. most plants reflect strongly in IR to stay cool, so their leaves all come out white:  it also makes skin lighter, turning caucasians ghostly pale and making them look anywhere from ethereal to terrifying:  you can get most of the blemish-removing effects of IR just by using a red filter. people still look paler and smoother but not like a banshee. people these days don't seem to use colored filters with black and white photography all that much. i guess because black and white is just "saturation = 0" in all these apps. but you can dramatically change the look of your work and boost your cred by shooting with a filter, or at least mixing the channels in post to simulate one. i keep an orange filter in my camera bag for when i am feeling particularly artsy and want to shoot black and white in-camera; orange gives you some skin-smoothing effects and also darkens blue skies for super dramatic ansel adams style clouds, as below. just remember to set your white balance to daylight so the camera doesn't autocorrect it away! 
Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 05:04 on Feb 7, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2022 04:56
|
|
|
oh and here's another fun effect, at the opposite end of the scale. blue filters tend to exaggerate differences in skin tones, making all your wrinkles and spots show up with high contrast. and if you go past the blue end and shoot in ultraviolet, every little tiny deposit of melanin -- which of course is there specifically to absorb UV -- becomes obvious. shooting in UV is even harder than IR, though, because glass lenses are opaque to it. you have to use special lenses made of fused quartz instead.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2022 05:01
|
|
|
would be cool and most of the time pointless if the second green in the bayer filter was IR instead or whatever would need to happen so we widened the range of wavelengths caught vaguely cool was a video I once watched where some dudes made a machine that scanned a scene in the range that wifi operates. the image had horrendous definition and was a mess but you could see where peoples wifi routers were
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2022 07:11
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:just remember to set your white balance to daylight so the camera doesn't autocorrect it away! can someone correct me if I am wrong but if you're shooting raw this won't matter because you can always change white balance in post? I struggle with white balance. I'll make it look good, flip to a new photo, back the old one and all of a sudden looks too warm. the eye adapts so well to different white balances that I find it a bit of a challenge to be as objective as possible in the beach shoot I did, it was overcast and in the evening, and out of camera the photos just look too cold, literally they give off a vibe of "it was cold as gently caress at the beach", so you want a touch of warmth in the colour but I really struggle to stay consistent across all the shots. oh well tbh most or everyone else that will see them won't notice or care if they're slightly too warm, but they'll probably unconsciously be aware if they're too cold need to get an orange filter for the flash, coz that white as gently caress flash gonna gently caress around with white balance even more when I start using it
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2022 19:42
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:can someone correct me if I am wrong but if you're shooting raw this won't matter because you can always change white balance in post? Carrying something you know to be a neutral grey helps me eyeball what "natural" looks like to the algorithm. It also helps identify when I've shot unknowingly with multiple colored light sources. (bleh)
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2022 20:04
|
|
|
yeah good idea although the "correct" white balance isn't always what's best, but suppose this is just another place where subjectivity and personal style is expressed
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2022 20:18
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:can someone correct me if I am wrong but if you're shooting raw this won't matter because you can always change white balance in post? that's correct, but i'm talking about shooting black and white in camera rather than processing it afterwards. idk. a lot of the time these days i just leave it on jpeg because i want to send the photos to someone on instagram later that day without doing all the raw workflow poo poo. if you do shoot raw, you still need to set your white balance to daylight, giving you a bright orange or red photograph where warm-toned areas (e.g. skin) become lighter and cool areas (skies) get darker. then you just desaturate that for the black and white image. you can also do this by taking the color image and playing with the channel mixer, but there is some loss of tone resolution in the conversion that you won't have if you filter it at the lens. and of course then you gotta have a computer and photoshop with you. but maybe that doesn't matter, and the channel mixer does let you fine-tune it more. decisions
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2022 20:58
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:yeah good idea there is no such thing as an objectively correct white balance. there isn't even such a thing as white light. it's all perceptual. even if you balance it to what most humans consider neutral under most circumstances, the photo is still going to look different under different external lighting, etc. older people will see it more orange than younger people, because as the lens of the eye ages it starts to turn slightly yellow. i generally like my photos a little on the warm side of "neutral" white.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2022 21:00
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:yeah good idea Precisely! For me, it's handy to have a known "zero" point to start from... and to look at while you're changing the balance to see what your changes are doing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2022 21:01
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:l I suspect most people feel this way too MrQueasy posted:Precisely! For me, it's handy to have a known "zero" point to start from... and to look at while you're changing the balance to see what your changes are doing. i’ve ordered a grey card thing just to play with
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2022 22:30
|
|
|
 is this a good photo? not really it's kinda dull it's a cool leaf though. and a very shallow depth of field.. but the real reason I posted it? gently caress just look at the state of that out of focus area.. it's glorious.. when people say something has a creamy bokeh they mean this
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2022 09:48
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:i’ve ordered a grey card thing just to play with the inside of lowepro bags are meant to be close the 18% grey so you can get away with that if you don't need it to be perfect
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2022 11:28
|
|
|
I was looking at some of my recent pics up big on the screen and I have to admit, I am extremely pleased with some of the results I am getting. Like, I remember a long time ago looking at pics and sort of just wishing I could ever make anything like that, but I am actually getting there
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2022 00:58
|
|
|
sup camera nerds. I barely know how to operate my mirrored Sony alpha and have no photography skills. also 99% of my photos are of junior management. since I won't be posting those, here are some car pics I took.   
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2022 06:22
|
|
|
sweet car. the colours are incredible
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2022 06:33
|
|
|
I want some colour filters for my flash and it’s just occurred to me that you can get some colour plastic file things for holding some paper. they’re a few bucks. just cut em up. need to ditch that boring white management : what kind of lens you using? kids photos are precious as heck. also videos.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2022 06:55
|
|
|
  a couple recent shots I liked
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2022 07:10
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:I want some colour filters for my flash and it’s just occurred to me that you can get some colour plastic file things for holding some paper. they’re a few bucks. just cut em up. need to ditch that boring white i think that's what film students did in undergrad when they couldn't afford gels we used them to color the hall lights in the dorms
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2022 07:16
|
|
|
my flash came with gels imo they look cheesy and you can just tint it in post. get a diffuser if you need a diffuser
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2022 07:22
|
|
|
i’m looking to avoid a white flash with a natural background. tbh I am aiming for subtle flash, but if it’s white and the background is lit by morning sun, white is gonna be bad. it’s a big experiment though qirex posted:get a diffuser if you need a diffuser yeah.. I am waiting on this to arrive. not in time for the shoot I have planned for the weekend. which hopefully doesn’t get rained off
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2022 07:27
|
|
|
I’m actually extremely happy with the portrait stuff I have done. the subjects have said they felt very comfortable and respected and had fun, and I know what I want to see so and am good at communicating it. and the lens and camera make my life so easy. so far they’ve been mega happy with the shots I’ve given and the more I do the better I get and the better my examples get and it’s just a matter of not much time before I make a gallery website and start offering shoots for moneys. imagine that. gotta be better than counting drugs
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2022 07:31
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:management : what kind of lens you using? kids photos are precious as heck. also videos. This was with the 35mm f1.8. It's the cheapest lens I own and also very easy. kid photos are great, they're just not for the internets
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2022 07:38
|
|
|
of course  keep it up
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2022 08:26
|
|
|
once again fuji supremacy because they have both auto white balance with “white priority” and another setting with “ambience priority” if you want to preserve the mood. you can also manually adjust the tint for every wb setting as well if you like it just a little warmer or cooler
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2022 16:13
|
|
|
Y O U G O T T H E R O C K E T L A U N C H E R https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005003321968684.html  also  at some of the related lenses on offer by the same seller.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2022 21:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 14:39 |
|
|
oh wow I am simply shocked they were illegally recording everything Americans do and say, what an unprecedented revelation e: misunderstood thread, disregard
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2022 18:54
|
|
