|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 21:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 15:16 |
|
|
FreudianSlippers posted:Confirmed: Shhhhh  quote:This one makes me happy. I have to side-step so many kids riding these damned things.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 22:28
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2018 22:28
|
|
|
 Bookcase by Cacator, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 03:28
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2018 16:42
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2018 08:44
|
|
|
https://flic.kr/p/25WQmxs Edit: Does it show for anyone else? Doesn't seem to work for me? VVV I'm using the flickr app and can only find "copy url", but no bb-code. Edit 2: Changed to url. MadlabsRobot fucked around with this message at 00:44 on Jul 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2018 10:58
|
|
|
You need to use the share button at the bottom of the image and copy the bbcode.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2018 11:42
|
|
|
Megabound posted:You need to use the share button at the bottom of the image and copy the bbcode. There's no way to get an embeddable link from the app, you can only get that from the browser version.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2018 04:38
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2018 00:39
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2018 03:11
|
|
|
Nature photography with an LG G5.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2018 07:45
|
|
|
Cesky Krumlov on a Nokia 6
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2018 16:51
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2018 10:16
|
|
|
Red spider lily
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 00:31
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 17:05
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 17:46
|
|
|
 Paparazzo by Cacator, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2018 09:27
|
|
|
Are there any good iOS apps that will let me default to black & white and do quick exposure changes? The camera app forgets filter selections and camera+ doesn’t do black and white while shooting
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2018 02:03
|
|
|
qirex posted:Are there any good iOS apps that will let me default to black & white and do quick exposure changes? The camera app forgets filter selections and camera+ doesn’t do black and white while shooting In camera settings (general iOS preferences) you can set the camera to remember the last filter used, as well as preferred format (square, etc). Maybe that's close enough to what you want?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2018 12:08
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2018 20:38
|
|
|
This poo poo is dope: https://www.xda-developers.com/google-camera-night-sight-google-pixel-3-google-pixel-2-google-pixel/ My Pixel 2 XL kicks the crap out of my old Canon 30D DLSR at high ISO.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2018 01:30
|
|
|
E: wrong thread, sorry
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2018 01:39
|
|
|
HPL posted:This poo poo is dope: I’ll be curious to see some real examples that aren’t low res. Computational photography is really interesting and I’m always curious what they will be able to squeeze out of these tiny sensors next.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2018 03:51
|
|
|
HPL posted:This poo poo is dope: Shouldn't a cell phone/point and shoot almost always out perform at low light? My understanding is pretty much limited to a couple pages from Understanding Exposure and the old PnS thread, but I thought the tiny lens/small focal length (or something) basically guaranteed much better exposure times in low light. I know my cell phones have definitely performed better than my DSLR in night photography, though that may be because they've always been 5-10+ years newer than my DSLR. My knowledge is even further limited here, but some comments in the General Photography Thread just said that modern sensors are "ISO invariant". It sounds like, somehow(?), light sensitivity can be mostly done in software now; so I assume you couple that with some  artificial intelligence you can get an app that can boost cell phone exposure even more and keep it looking decent.Edit: I want to emphasize this: I have basically no idea what I'm talking about; take my input with a grain of salt. pseudorandom fucked around with this message at 04:47 on Oct 26, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2018 04:10
|
|
|
pseudorandom posted:Shouldn't a cell phone/point and shoot almost always out perform at low light? My understanding is pretty much limited to a couple pages from Understanding Exposure and the old PnS thread, but I thought the tiny lens/small focal length (or something) basically guaranteed much better exposure times in low light. I know my cell phones have definitely performed better than my DSLR in night photography, though that may be because they've always been 5-10+ years newer than my DSLR. The age of your gear is what’s giving you those results, not the sensor size. Smaller sensors pack closer pixels and inherently have more noise. Also cell phone images are heavily processed in the phone - a larger sensor will have better low light performance if they aren’t drastically different ages. Edit: I don’t believe any cell phones have iso-less sensors. The only ones I’m aware of are in actual camera bodies. I could be wrong though, just going off of experience since I don’t read as much about the technical side of phone sensors as I do about dedicated cameras. rio fucked around with this message at 04:19 on Oct 26, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2018 04:17
|
|
|
rio posted:The age of your gear is what’s giving you those results, not the sensor size. Smaller sensors pack closer pixels and inherently have more noise. Also cell phone images are heavily processed in the phone - a larger sensor will have better low light performance if they aren’t drastically different ages. That would make sense. I'm hoping to upgrade my DSLR because it is practically an antique at this point. I just skimmed the pages of Understanding Exposure that I had been remembering, and it seems it was mostly referring into f-stop of fixed lens cameras. I assume since there's no adjustable aperture that it is not applicable, but it seems like a cell phone would still have a vastly better "shutter" speed for the same reasons. This would make it much better in low light regardless of age, right? To be clear: I'm kind of ignoring sensor size here. I know, from what you said, that it makes a big difference, but, in these comparisons, is the sensor size more significant than the lens for low-light performance?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2018 05:04
|
|
|
pseudorandom posted:That would make sense. I'm hoping to upgrade my DSLR because it is practically an antique at this point. They are both important - aperture is aperture regardless of sensor size (i.e. f1.8 is f1.8 on a tiny sensor or on full frame) but a small sensor gathers a tiny fraction of the light of a larger sensor. This is why traditionally full frame sensors are better at low light than aps-c, which is better than m4/3, which is better then 1” sensors etc. This is just how it is but nowadays tech is good enough that the difference isn’t as drastic as it once was, at least between one size and the next down (like full frame and aps-c is somewhat comparable to the point that many people wouldn’t be noticing a difference even though there is one) but when you start talking about cell phones then you’re getting close to as small as it gets to camera sensors so any larger sensor camera is going to perform better then a cell phone if we are taking about comparable generations and not one being significantly older than the other. Even with a much older camera there will be higher image quality in some senses than a phone because of the larger sensor (if we were to look at unedited raw photos, because again cell phones are heavily processed automatically to reduce noise). So basically a large aperture will allow more light to enter but the sensor is what gathers the light and there’s no way around that. That also becomes irrelevant in some situations since you can have a smaller aperture and a longer exposure to let more light in - in many situations the larger aperture will let you shoot more stuff in low light (like, we wouldn’t be able to use a 1 second exposure of someone without it being blurry probably) but the image quality, noise and all that is related to how much light the sensor can gather and how densely packed the pixels are (which creates noise). rio fucked around with this message at 07:00 on Oct 26, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2018 06:58
|
|
|
To be fair, cell phone low lights results are usually at ISO800-3200 with slower shutter speeds like 1/5 or something similar. I can take similar quality photos with my Sony A7S at ISO 32000 at 1/200 or whatever. I would never use night mode on the Pixel for action photos, but for static scenery, given what it is, it's great.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2018 19:23
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2018 01:44
|
|
|
Cellphone photography. The QA bench at a studio I used to work at. Praktica FX-3. Praktika022.jpg by Iain Compton, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2018 05:23
|
|
|
 2018_Maine_002 by Esa Foto, on Flickr 2018_Maine_001 by Esa Foto, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2018 02:21
|
|
|
Managed to snap my cat watching a thunderstorm just as lightning struck.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 14:59
|
|
|
Anyone using or have experience with Moment lenses? Maybe a bit pricey, but reviews are good. The Pixel 3 camera is fantastic and I'd be very excited to finally got rid of my DSLR if the zoom / wide lens is decent. Content: 
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 01:30
|
|
|
  e: 
Peteyfoot fucked around with this message at 06:11 on Feb 20, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2019 07:24
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2019 23:22
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2019 05:11
|
|
|
always cool to see the trees respecting each others personal space
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2019 12:51
|
|
|
  
Megabound fucked around with this message at 09:02 on Apr 27, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2019 08:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 15:16 |
|
|
This guy was munching on my nuts. squrrrrrl by Lysandus, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 00:41
|
|