|
jackpot posted:But...this is not black and white, this is almost sepia. It's monochrome, but not black and white. However, when I export it as a jpg, this is what I get: Using Vista? I've had something similar happen, where Vista didn't load my monitor profile but Lightroom for some reason thought it had, and the colors got way hosed up.
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2009 20:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 08:51 |
|
|
torgeaux posted:Generally, just shoot raw. Unless you need a marginal frame increase (and only then in some cameras), shoot raw. There are some photojournalistic reasons for jpg (Tsaraleksi shoots in jpg sometimes), but really, raw isn't that much slower, and with card sizes where they are, there's not much of a down side. I guess it all depends (tm). I shoot a fair bit of jpeg, the reasons being not having to fuss with raw conversion, and the subject being exposed well enough and not needing the extra flexibility of a raw shot. And buffering when shooting fast can have an impact. My 50D will fill up the buffer with something like 15 raw files while it'll go seemingly endlessly when shooting in jpeg. Probably heresy around here, but my take is to shoot jpeg unless you need raw... then again, I've shot enough to know when the latter is the better. 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2009 02:04
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:For someone who is very likely to get the exposure and white balance they want on the first shot, I'd still say shoot raw, but there'd be a lot less rationale. Buffer fills up faster, but you don't get more shots per second, just more total shots, right? How do your xD and xxD compare in that regard, by the way? Yeah, FPS remains the same until the buffer is full. My 1Ds II buffers a fair bit less than my 50D: 11 raws or 32 jpegs. Never been an issue since I don't use it for fast action stuff, but in this one area you can definitely tell it's getting a little outdated. I'd still take it over just about any DSLR though.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2009 02:25
|
|
|
thumbsmcgraw posted:Can any of you seasoned veterans give tips on how to develop a "photographer's eye"? I've been shooting for about a month, and I'm continually surprised by how many of my good ideas end up making terrible pictures. I'm attributing alot of it to the difference between what my eye sees and what the camera actually records. Pay attention to the things in the picture *other* than the subject, for one. Not having seen any of your work I can't really say whether this is a problem, but it's something I frequently see plaguing new shooters. They tend to focus too much on the subject they have in mind, and fail to notice unappealing/distracting elements in the image that end up ruining it. E.g. nice shot of a cute girl but oops, there's a big plastic "Waste Pro" garbage bin to the left of and behind her. Also, a lot of people try and fail to convey something they think is grand. For instance, you might be out walking in the woods and get overwhelmed by all the large trees, the feeling of being so small in nature, yada yada... so you take a nice wide angle picture. You end up with a picture of a bunch of tree branches and ground littered with debris. Yay. Take some of your shots and look at them carefully. What were you TRYING to convey in them? How did you fail to? Did the light on a person's face not come out like you thought? Is the person not as "living" in the image as you hoped for? That sort of thing. And post and ask for honest critique, we have threads for that here.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2009 00:58
|
|
|
Frinkahedron posted:You definitely cannot do a panorama while holding down the shutter and panning. You'll get motion blur unless you're shooting at absurdly high shutter speeds. You have to shoot, recompose, shoot, recompose. Panning horizontal for a regular pano you can do 1 per second easily, but you'll really have to move if you want faster. If the idea is to limit DOF you will be shooting at or near wide open and therefore at "absurdly" high shutter speeds. Also, any softness in the image due to blur or focusing issues will be lessened the more pictures you take and stitch.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2009 03:17
|
|
|
brad industry posted:I think the camera shows clipped highlights at around 250ish (where 255 is truly blown out). Can't say I agree with you at all here. I know you're a pro and all, but here's my take on it. The "blinkies" on an LCD do not come from the RAW data but from the JPEG resulting from the current camera settings. As such, it tends to clip a fair bit earlier than the RAW does. When doing my bird shooting, I always keep the settings so that I get some blinkies in the highlight areas (you learn pretty quickly how much is "too much") and then pull it down a bit when processing the RAW. It's very, very rare that I get an exposure where the highlight data is truly lost. I often have to crop heavily and shoot at less than ideal ISOs so preserving the best possible RAW image is very, very important if I am going to get a decent print from it. What you get from doing that is a better signal/noise ratio. What you get from underexposing and compensating in post is worse signal/noise ratio. What do you prefer? edit: here's some more scientific reading on the topic... http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/noise-p3.html#ETTR In particular, here goes: quote:Bottom line: High exposure zones and/or high ISO, where photon noise and pre-amplification read noise dominate the noise, are rather insensitive to what ISO is chosen once a choice of exposure is selected and care is taken not to clip highlights. Underexposing by a stop, and doubling the raw values in post-processing (that is, applying exposure compensation), yields the same image quality as 'proper' exposure under these conditions. On the other hand, in lower exposure zones at low ISO, where post-amplification read noise becomes important, the read noise goes down by a bit less than a factor of two (in electrons) when the ISO doubles. In this situation, underexposing by a stop and doubling the raw values in post-processing, yields more noise than proper exposure, particularly in shadows. Clayton Bigsby fucked around with this message at 01:20 on Oct 10, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2009 01:07
|
|
|
brad industry posted:I understand the histogram on the camera isn't totally accurate, it just seems weird to blow highlight detail you can't get back because you want to avoid bumping up the exposure less than a quarter of a stop. I mean if you can't sacrifice that miniscule amount of noise then whatever works I guess. When I digital tech I set the exposure warning to 250 and never let anything get above that because otherwise the file is unusable. You gotta remember most of us shoot with regular DSLRs and can't set the exposure warning to a particular value. I'd say that on average I can get around 1-1.5 stops more highlight detail than the LCD will show; i.e. I will "blow" the highlights by at least a full stop before they really start going away. That's significant. You might wonder why I'd shoot say ISO 640 overexposed a stop instead of a "normal" ISO 320 exposure. While seemingly unintuitive, the overexposed 640 shot pulled back yields less shadow noise than the "normal" 320 one. You do deal with decreased dynamic range when increasing ISO, but as long as your scene will fit within that range you are better off pushing ISO and exposing higher. edit: here's an example (though I tossed the RAW after processing it so can't prove it, but I have no real reason to make poo poo up) This shot showed the entire breast of the bird flashing white on the LCD. I pulled it down around 1.3 stops when processing the RAW.  Pulled down -4 on the stored tiff just to show that there's plenty of detail left.  Clayton Bigsby fucked around with this message at 02:52 on Oct 10, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2009 02:47
|
|
|
dunno posted:Really? In my experience (caveat: I am talking about a beaten up old D50 here) I get less shadow noise in a ISO 200 NEF pushed two stops than in an 800 file with the same exposure . They'd both look pretty bad, which is why I don't try to shoot digital in the dark these days, but that's my experience. It IS counterintuitive! The breaking point is where the increase in noise from the amplification surpasses the increase in signal; normally this happens around ISO 1600 on most current sensors. But up to that point increasing ISO (gain) will actually increase the signal more than the noise...Now your D50 I can't comment on; it is pretty old gear by now. If you read that (very lengthy, but well researched and informative) link I posted above to Emil Martin's page you will learn all you ever wanted to know and then some about this topic. Clayton Bigsby fucked around with this message at 03:00 on Oct 10, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2009 02:58
|
|
|
brad industry posted:I was talking about in Capture One, I don't think there are any cameras that let you set it (are there? because that would be sweet). For you this would most likely not be a good application; you work at low ISO in a controlled environment. For many (most) others thought it would be highly beneficial to push the exposure as hard as possible to reduce noise. And the reason I am comfortable doing it is that the cameras I've used all are very conservative when it comes to exposure indication and I have yet to find one where I didn't at least have a stop of headroom above what the histogram indicated when shooting RAW. Would you underexpose every shot a stop knowing you didn't need to? I sure as hell would not, and not pushing the exposure when you can is doing just that. edit: as for setting alerts, don't some of the MF digital backs let you set alerts for highlight/shadow clipping where it'll actually beep at you?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2009 03:15
|
|
|
Hot Cops posted:if I'm shooting in anything but manual (which I don't do a lot but for weddings, event stuff, etc.) I underexpose just about everything to be safe. Like Brad said, it just isn't worth it, and I don't trust my meter even on the best of days. My "it isn't worth it" is noisy results with lovely shadows, but to each their own.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2009 03:35
|
|
|
germskr posted:You tossed the RAW?! Well, after I processed it and had a file that retained all the details I wanted, why bother keeping the RAW? Then again, I suppose I should be jerking off to ultimate theoretical detail rather than selling prints. Shame on me.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2009 04:56
|
|
|
brad industry posted:Yeah but if you were sending them to a stock agency or something they would be rejected. A lot of commercial printing poo poo has higher tolerances than what looks good coming off an inkjet or what a lab can work with. Yes, I am sure a 16 bit tiff with all the shadow and highlight detail you want would be rejected because the loving histogram of a JPEG created by in-camera processing of a RAW showed lost highlights. You are really not understanding, nor do I believe you are submitting RAW images to your agencies. But hey, what do I know, maybe getty would reject a nicely processed shot that showed blinkies on the in-camera LCD. Clayton Bigsby fucked around with this message at 05:01 on Oct 10, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2009 04:59
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:Okay, so help me resolve an argument... One of my friends asked me to submit some pictures for a show of pictures of life around the world one of her friends is putting up at a cafe. I've been talking to the organizer by email and he insists on my sending him the digital files because that's what all the other people have been doing and he's going to print them himself on glossy paper on "a regular printer" (his words, not mine) at home. Not weird at all. I have been asked to send files to people a few times, but have told them that I would be happy to send them a completed print at my cost instead. I am no famous photographer, but I would not want my name to be on some poorly done print of one of my shots.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2011 21:04
|
|
I'm also not going to be able to attend the show, since it's 800 miles away. Am I wrong or weird for not wanting to participate unless I can send actual prints? I realize the perspective of those posting here is probably going to be closer to mine than the other people involved.
|
Am I the only one who does not try to fit into standard print sizes? When I finish an image I just crop it to whatever I think looks best, and then order a custom mat/frame to fit. Don't really like the idea of trying to stuff something into a fixed ratio just because it makes it easier to find a frame. I can see that not being a stellar idea if you intend to make a lot of prints or sell them though.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2011 08:53
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Yes. Before you ask (most people do, I did) - those little dedicated 35mm negative scanners are garbage. Don't bother. Get a high-end flatbed with the light in the lid that lets it shine through negatives and other transparent media. Cheap 35mm dedicated scanner < good flatbed scanner < expensive 35mm dedicated scanner.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2011 21:56
|
|
|
the posted:That thing between the two lenses.... it says "B------I" and the switch goes between them. Any idea what it does? (The i might be an l) B is probably Bulb, I probably...Instant? Basically a switch to change between keeping the shutter open for as long as it is pressed, or a preset (usually 1/50 or so) speed. As for names, Zeiss is still using cool names. Distagon, Makro-Planar etc.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2011 20:09
|
|
|
Shmoogy posted:The Zeiss lens names designate the lens arrangement/type of lens. It's just a coincidence they generally sound pretty cool. Well, it is not like the other manufacturers just pulled words out of their butts to make their lenses sound neat. E.g. Apo-Grandagon meant apochromatic wide angle.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2011 21:55
|
|
|
There is a common misconception that the f-number is defined as focal length divided by physical aperture. It is actually focal length divided by the diameter of the entrance pupil.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2011 08:25
|
|
|
the posted:Two questions regarding this camera. Looks like you have an "I" shutter setting, meaning you are stuck with something along 1/50-1/100 shutter speeds. With aperture adjustments between f/8-f/16, you will need ISO 100 film to handle sunlight and cloudy outdoors. With ISO 400 you can deal with some shade.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2011 19:54
|
|
|
ThisQuietReverie posted:Video on DSLRs is attractive because you can spend $5000 to $7000 on a setup that previously required $15000+ as an entry point. A used Canon Rebel T2i with a EF-50 1.8mm would probably be the minimum setup you should consider and even then you will probably want an external microphone and dead cat. Also a tripod and that 50 is noisy when it focuses so she won't want to move around a lot. I will admit thatbI do not pay much attention to the Rebels, but does it AF during video? Doing video with a DSLR overall has the potential for superb results but put a lot more requirments on the operator than regular camcorders.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2012 17:44
|
|
|
the posted:So I shot some rolls with the Agfa Optima 1a that I bought here. They all came out well exposed enough, but blurry Isn't the Optima full on auto exposure? In that case, set the ISO to match the film, and that is it. If you get motion blur use a faster film or more light. Also, are you certain the shots were properly exposed? Most labs correct for over- and underexposure when printing so you have to look at the negs to judge.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2012 09:19
|
|
. It looks like I have to manually set the shutter speed via ISO? There's a dial that sets the ISO and apparently the "DIN" at the same time, and the shutter speeds look like they can go somewhere up to 1/500. That should be fast enough to reduce blur, right? (No idea if I had that set for the first roll I shot)
|
the posted:No it has a setting on the top, a dial that you turn between like 25 and 200 ISO. And the dial also changes, at the same time it looks like, the shutter speed. That is what I meant, full auto as in no control over shutter speed and aperture. So you just set the dial for the right ISO and hope for the best, essentially.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2012 18:38
|
|
|
the posted:should I push the ISO meter higher if I want a faster shutter? Sure, but if you are doing it by e.g. setting it to 400 while the film is 100 you end up underexposing. So use faster film and set the ISO dial appropriately.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2012 21:10
|
|
|
The entrance pupil is defined as viewed through the front of the lens, so the real question is the size of the physical aperture at the longer focal lengths, which may well be restrictive. Other than that, I would wager that the lens would simply sacrifice too much quality for it to be useful. Look for instance at Olympus' 35-100/2.0 which uses a telecompressor that would theoretically make a 35-100/1.4 but opted not to do so because of IQ and design constraints.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2012 22:15
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:
Don't forget the sensor size affects which magnification is required to get to a given output size.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2012 22:30
|
|
|
Casull posted:There was a picture a while back that showed a 100% crop between a point-and-shoot, a bridge camera, and a DSLR. The DSLR was noticeably less noisy than the bridge camera for only $100 more and expands your lens options considerably. In addition, a bridge camera is going to be roughly the same size of a DSLR, only it has the disadvantages of a P&S. Can't say I quite agree with you. With a bridge camera you can get an enormous focal length range in a package that is about the same size as an entry level DSLR with kit lens. 28-720mm (for instance) equivalent gives you a lot more flexibility than a Rebel with 18-55. Sure, the DSLR will give you better output, but you try pricing 400+ mm lenses lately?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2012 19:19
|
|
|
tijag posted:I have asked this before but never seen an answer, and now I'm expiereincing issues with Lightroom again. What are you using to view them?
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2012 21:40
|
|
|
tijag posted:Chrome/Firefox Got an example? Do they contain a color profile?
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2012 20:30
|
|
|
the posted:How do you properly meter when using a flash? Not sure what you are really asking here. If you are talking about just shooting a simple flash shot, then yeah, use Auto/TTL and go from there. If you are asking how to meter the REST of the scene, here is what I generally do to get decent results: Manual exposure mode. Set shutter speed and aperture roughly to proper exposure (use your in-camera meter). Keep your shutter speed at or below sync speed of the flash. Dial down the exposure a stop or so, effectively underexposing the scene a bit. Here I might for instance start with a 1/60 f/8 setting to properly expose the scene, and change that to 1/125 f/8. Then I add the flash. The flash does not care what your shutter speed is (for all practical purposes, the light is instant), so you just worry about matching it to your ISO and aperture. You could do this using an auto mode, or go all-manual setting it to 1/4, 1/8, 1/16 etc to achieve a reasonable flash exposure. The basic equation is guide number divided by subject distance equals aperture. OK, maybe this got too complicated. But basically, go manual, underexpose the scene a bit, add enough flash to get the subject properly exposed.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2012 20:44
|
|
|
TheLastManStanding posted:Or you could just use a flash meter A flash meter is good for determining the proper flash exposure, but you generally want your ambient light to fall nicely, unless you are shooting in a studio. Here is a good Strobist post that covers the thing in much more detail and with a better explanation than mine: http://strobist.blogspot.se/2006/03/lighting-101-balancing-flash-and.html
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2012 21:07
|
|
|
SnowWolf posted:Is there any noticeable image degradation or loss of editing flexibility going from RAW to SRAW1 or SRAW2? I normally shoot Raw, but I want to do some timelapses and 21 MB Raw files fill my card awfully quick. Depends on how big you print. SRaw1 should easily give you a solid 11x14 or so, so if that works for you go for it. (edit: it just creates a lower res raw file basically)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2012 20:07
|
|
|
spog posted:
At least some Phase One backs do (google "pixel binning").
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2012 21:11
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:You can pixel-bin in post on any camera, with better results than something done with a fixed 2x2 bin in hardware. Nope. There's a reason C1 are doing it in hardware, and it's not because they are dumb. http://www.starrywonders.com/binning.html http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...DGngwcDdDlveJ4g
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2012 22:16
|
|
|
HookShot posted:I wish my lens flares were cool like rainbows, all I get is spots of different coloured light that inevitably show up near people's butts. Could be swamp gas.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2012 20:14
|
|
|
"Nice photo, you must have a really good camera!"
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2012 06:47
|
|
|
There are cameras that offer TTL viewing but the metering is not TTL, chew on that. edit: I am allowed to comment on this since I was just out taking pictures, prancing around in the woods in a full ghillie suit, and accidentally scaring some cows to near-death. Clayton Bigsby fucked around with this message at 20:52 on Jul 8, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2012 20:49
|
|
|
Yeah, the X700 getting the mirror stuck is not all that uncommon, google it for some info and possible solutions.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2012 20:58
|
|
|
William T. Hornaday posted:American Frame usually seems to be among the recommendations whenever this question comes up. Can vouch for them as well as for Light Impressions. Good service, good products, and decent pricing.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2012 20:06
|
|
|
David Pratt posted:I just framed a bunch of stuff with the cheap-o frames from IKEA I have some IKEA frames here too and they are really nice for the money, but man they tend to be dirty on the inside.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2012 18:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 08:51 |
|
|
a foolish pianist posted:So it's basically a quick 'revert to auto' button? Not really, it sets the exposure to "auto" at that point and then leaves it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2012 21:33
|
|