|
I'm going to be shooting a mass hot air balloon launch near sunset today. Any recommendations? I'll have an 8-16 ultra wide, a 50 prime, and a 70-300.
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2011 17:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 20, 2024 05:29 |
|
|
If you use your 50, you'll have to get really far away from the group to get everybody in. I'd go with the zoom.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2011 02:09
|
|
|
I likewise just got the cheapest one from Amazon. 8 dollars, and it works just fine.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2011 21:53
|
|
|
That looks like a smeary green and yellow mask applied over a greyscale image. Convert the image to black and white, spatter some green and yellow on a mask, then overlay and adjust the transparency.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2011 18:32
|
|
|
Erwin posted:So last week I watched these guys spend like 20 minutes setting up this shot: Maybe they wanted to do some sort of panoramic time lapse? They'd need to sync the three cameras, take however many shots they want, then stitch each triad of photos together, then make a movie out of the stitched results.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2011 16:33
|
|
|
Cross_ posted:My understanding of f/4 is that it's a geometric ratio (aperture diameter over focal length) only. Yet the result I am seeing makes it look like an absolute measure of light transmission. Googling t-stops I came across some notes that found up to 1-stop difference between zooms and primes. That's why I am surprised not to see any here. Was your zoom set to 50mm in that test? I think the amount of light is related to the size of the opening, and in a 50mm lens, F/2 should mean you've got a light-entrance pupil 25mm in diameter. In a 20mm lens, F/2 means a 10mm entrance pupil. I'd expect that to make the biggest difference - or at least more than minor variation caused by imperfect transmission in lens elements.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2011 23:29
|
|
|
Keep two batteries on you, one in the camera, and then one in an internal pocket, inside your jacket. When the in-camera battery starts to falter, swap it out, and put the cold battery in the pocket, preferably near your skin. It'll suck, but warming up the battery will let you get some more shots out of it. When I was sleeping outside a lot in ~20 degree F weather, I'd sleep with my batteries inside my shirt, in my armpit.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2011 23:23
|
|
|
You're not going to do much better than your iPhone for under 200.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2011 06:49
|
|
|
Hu Fa Ted posted:I have a Nikon D40 with the stock lens on it, I just get the jibblies thinking about taking it in the shop. Why is that?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2011 16:55
|
|
|
Well, sure, but do you usually drop things in the shop? Particularly things with a strap that goes around your neck? I take my dSLR and spendy wide lenses on my kayak, up and down mountains, all kinds of places. What's the point of having the camera if you're too scared to take it anywhere interesting?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2011 19:50
|
|
|
INTJ Mastermind posted:The only rule is you can't be taking pictures of the security screening area. But everything else is fair game. Snap away! It's legal to be taking photos in the security area as well, but you might get harassed for it anyway. Carlos Miller's Photorights blog has a bunch of examples of such harassment.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2012 01:07
|
|
|
I try to keep my camera in a bag with one of those silica gel packets (DO NOT EAT) whenever I move from cold to hot. I'm not super-responsible about it, though, and I haven't seen any problems yet.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2012 20:07
|
|
|
the posted:Shooting on an Agfa Optima 1a. What speed film are you using?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2012 04:32
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:mutha fuckin' T-rich in da hooouse. This might not be the right thread for it, but I get really uncomfortable anytime people say good things about Terry Richards.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2012 15:52
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:Just by the type of people that work with Terry Richardson again and again I highly doubt that every shoot of his is a rape orgy. I could imagine he's a weird guy and to some people that might come off as creepy and weird and they probably don't know how to respond to that and end up feeling coerced to go along with the vibe of the room. Oh, I wouldn't make any claims as strong as 'rape orgy,' but the stories from some of his models make him sound like he uses his position to get vulnerable younger woman to perform various sex acts for him. He hasn't been arrested, sure, but there's enough stuff like this: quote:This is where I zoom out on the situation. I can remember doing this stuff, but even at the time, it was sort of like watching someone else do it, someone who couldn’t possibly be me because I would never touch a creepy photographer’s penis. The only explanation I can come up with is that he was so darn friendly and happy about it all, and his assistants were so stoked on it as well, that I didn’t want to be the killjoy in the room. My new fake friends would’ve been bummed if I’d said no. and this: quote:He first asked me to play with myself, and just made really creepy demands. to suggest that there are a lot more out there who won't come forward for fear of damaging their careers. Further, the defenses of his behavior to tend to look like this: http://streetbonersandtvcarnage.com/blog/terry-richardson-raped-me-too/ which is disgusting and dismissive in the worst sort of "I, an older white male didn't get raped, so these girls claiming to feel abused are just making poo poo up" way. I have to acknowledge that the defense isn't from Richardson, though, so it's not his fault. Anyway, not abusing your position to gain sexual favors from vulnerable young people is a characteristic that I value pretty highly, and Richardson pretty clearly fails that test.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2012 23:26
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:I don't really like Richardson as a person because of most of these allegations and it is frustrating that you are almost obligated to defend him as a person if you like his work which I do. I actually had a paragraph in my reply up there about Polanski, but I couldn't quite articulate why I think the situations are a bit different. I think I've got it now, though. Polanski's crimes are unrelated to the production of his art, while Richardson's bad behavior (again, I'm not accusing him of the same sorts of crimes that Polanski is guilty of) is tied directly to the way he takes his photographs. Of course, I also don't go see Polanski's films, and I'd be pretty uncomfortable hearing people praise him as well.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2012 03:51
|
|
|
I've got a general question about constant aperture zooms. Why the constant aperture? In a 70-200/2.8, at 200mm, to get f/2.8, the lens has an ~71.5mm entrance pupil. As you zoom out, though, to keep the aperture constant, the entrance pupil closes down to 25mm once you hit 70mm. Why the change in entrance pupil over the range? It seems like you would want to leave the entrance pupil as wide as possible, constant over the zoom range.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2012 21:29
|
|
|
I was thinking that myself, but the front element already has to be somewhat bigger than 72mm in diameter on a 70-200, so that doesn't seem like it'd be a problem.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2012 22:10
|
|
|
greatapoc posted:I recently purchased an SB-910 which comes with hard plastic color correction filters. Are these necessary to use all the time or is it something that can be corrected in post with white balance settings? If the flash is very different in temperature than the ambient light, you might have some problems.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2012 01:22
|
|
|
ShadeofBlue posted:It's worse, although I have taken my D60 (no sealing at all as far as I know) out in damp weather without any problems. Not a downpour, but it definitely got wet. Of course, with electronics everything works perfectly until one drop of water gets in the wrong crack and it shorts out something important. I've had the same experience with my D5000. I've taken out in light rain, shooting from a kayak, traipsing around in creeks, etc. etc., and even though it's been splashed a bit and gotten rained on, there've been no problems.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2012 18:34
|
|
|
adamarama posted:I've just got my first DSLR (Nikonn D3100), pretty new to photography. Would I get much benefit from using Photoshop? Is it a good skill to have? Elements looks good and it's not too expensive. Lightroom, another Adobe product, will probably be more useful to you than Elements. If you're a student, you can get it really cheap, as well.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2012 20:40
|
|
|
Much.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2012 17:44
|
|
|
The rolling shutter on your camera is too slow to catch the strobe pulse, is your problem. There's no fix for your camera, and it's functioning just fine. Your camera reads the image for a video frame line by line, and the strobe is fast enough that the scene is only lit for part of the time the frame is being scanned. There's no way to fix this. It happens with every CMOS camera, up to and including fancy RED gear. Just clip any errors out of your footage with whatever software you use.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2012 03:08
|
|
|
I went to B&H today and handled a Mamiya RB67, and now I'm jonesing for one. What should I know in order to not be an idiot while buying?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2012 05:01
|
|
|
All right, so I went and did it. A bargain-grade RB67 should be here Friday.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2012 20:14
|
|
|
slardel posted:I know that petal-style lens hoods are supposed to be positioned so that the longest bits are above and below the lens, but does it really matter that much? Yeah, the position of the petals will matter. That petal shape is what you get when you project a rectangle through a cone, which is what your sensor effectively does when you take a shot. If the petals aren't in the right places, they'll appear in your frame.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2012 00:12
|
|
|
You'll only need to worry about condensation when you take the camera back inside. Cold glass plus warm, damp air = condensation like crazy.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2012 20:26
|
|
|
SLIK has some decent budget options. I've got one that I spent about 75 dollars on, and it's held up like a champ. As an added bonus, since it's not heinously expensive, you won't feel bad dragging out where and doing weird things with it. I've hauled mine up mountains for landscapes and sunk it in lakes to get time lapses of nesting fish, which I'd have been loath to do if it had been more expensive.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2012 02:35
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:The ultra-wide-angle look is strongly related to the field of view, which is a short way of saying "all the stuff that's in frame". Smaller sensors are called "crop sensors" (smaller than a standard frame of 35mm film, which is a rectangle 24x36mm) because they effectively crop the centre of the image. So there are fewer things in frame. The "crazy exaggeration" is (to my eye) mostly based on the juxtaposition in the picture of two objects that are far apart in horizontal distance; they're close to the edges of the picture. Crop to the central 2/3 of the picture and you lose all those close-to-the-edges elements from the picture. This isn't true. The difference in appearance depending on focal length is called perspective distortion, and it's an artifact of the angles at which light comes through the lens, and thus the distance to the subject. Of course, if you shoot with two lenses at the same distance and then crop the resulting photos to the same field of view, you'll get the same perspective distortion. You can see the effect in portraits here: http://stepheneastwood.com/tutorials/lensdistortion/strippage.htm This dude took the same portrait, controlled for distance, with a bunch of different lenses. a foolish pianist fucked around with this message at 19:52 on Nov 20, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2012 19:38
|
|
|
The Tokina 11-16 opens up to f/2.8. That's about as wide as you'll get from really wide angle lenses.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2012 00:03
|
|
|
What does that do?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2012 22:19
|
|
|
So it's basically a quick 'revert to auto' button?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2012 05:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 20, 2024 05:29 |
|
|
Fog Tripper posted:Anyone have an idea why my bright magentas are looking like a computer chip? Do you still see it if you have the camera turn it into a jpg first?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2012 00:20
|
|
