|
echinopsis posted:
this owns. this is the best pic of yours that ive seen (not that my judgment here means much or anything at all)
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2023 20:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 24, 2024 19:19 |
|
|
i've seriously considered putting a colorblind filter on the photos i take. i use photoshop elements, so i dont have the built in stuff. i even paid $9 (!!!) for a set of actions that would do it, but they don't get my colorblindness quite right, which is crucial for me. i was gonna just edit the layers or whatever in the filters i bought to get it right, but then it turns out i cant do that with Elements if any of yall are aware of any configurable photoshop plugins/actions/whatever that'd do the needful, i'd appreciate it. this feature is not worth switching over to Photoshop CC for me, and afaik you cant really pirate photoshop any more, at least not on mac im also down to try other applications, so long as they work on macos
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2023 00:04
|
|
|
oh i mean for sharing, not just for applying to the screen. the right filter would be definitionally invisible to me - i just want to be able to show people "this is how i see sunsets, this is how i see red lights, this is how i see flowers" it might end up just dumb but it seems like it'd be kind of fun
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2023 00:17
|
|
|
ok maybe not invisible - i dont really know how it works on a cellular level, so something like "achmed has 15% of normal sensitivity for long-wavelength cones" would probably make it so that i can perceive the difference between filter + my hosed up eyes as opposed to just my hosed up eyes, even if the filter is equivalent to my hosed up eyes for someone with normal vision but i dont wanna use the filter i bought, it messes up yellows which is one of the few colors out there that's actually bright and vivid for me
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2023 00:19
|
|
|
it's the latter - a colorblind simulator doodad (which is what i want)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2023 00:27
|
|
|
Beeftweeter posted:pixelmator photo will do this, what specific form of colorblindness do you have? i could try to show an example from loving around with stuff online, it's pretty bad protanomaly/near-protanopia and maybe also some less-bad deuteranomaly. somewhere in that space at least
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2023 00:33
|
|
|
Beeftweeter posted:okay i think i got you. i tried to pick a pic that might be challenging for you based on the description (as i understand it anyway, my knowledge of colorblindness is pretty basic) oh cool thank you! it's kind of far off in the sky, like the original id call orange or so, and the altered version looks green almost. i actually meant to buy pixelmator on its most recent sale but forgot - i'll send em an email to see if they'll hit me with a coupon so i can play with it myself. of course i guess i could try playing with the curves myself, too. thanks for giving it a shot!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2023 06:15
|
|
|
that picture would be cool if she were your mom or grandma and you found it in a shoebox. knowing it was taken with modern equipment (even, like, a phone) just makes me just think that the photographer makes bad choices i got my replacement 50mm today. fun. it's so weird not being able to zoom out
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2023 21:48
|
|
|
i took a picture of a bee
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2023 00:33
|
|
|
using the lcd on my camera sucks really bad, i just use the viewfinder for everything. is that not the case for nicer cameras?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2023 00:39
|
|
|
thank you for the kind words, and for the information! sounds like i should just switch to using the lcd constantly, damage my sensor, and then unfortunately have to upgrade (i will not really do this, im too cheap)
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2023 01:30
|
|
|
Beeftweeter posted:i hit on this in pms before but honestly you should probably try out a micro four thirds system cam. they are dirt cheap these days. i think it'd be perfect for you, and you can rent one if you're unsure ooh yeah, a good reminder, thank you! i'm gonna set up a goodwill alert to see if i can get one for not-that-much-money one thing that is funny: autofocus turned out to be way more important to me than i thought it would, because it turns out that i cant always tell when something's in focus because my vision isn't keen enough. i say this cause you mentioned the good manual lens situation for mft systems. especially on the 50mm lens i just got, i can turn the focus ring pretty good and...not notice any change through the viewfinder. i suspect that's a me-problem though rather than a lens-problem or a camera-problem. luckily technology is there to compensate for my shortcomings
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2023 03:15
|
|
|
Beeftweeter posted:well, AF on mirrorless is faster and more accurate than any DSLR i've used. sagebrush's explanation about why is pretty good this is great info (again) and you're _really_ pushing me to try out an MFT system if anyone is curious, that lens was a lumix 25/1.7. i searched for it and figured i'd save others the trouble also: thanks for the rad explanation on mirrorless viewfinders and such, sagebrush! i think i'm gonna trawl ebay/goodwill/adorama-used/b&h-used for an olympus em10 or panasonic of some sort. as far as i can tell, every nerd and their mom that wants to get a "real" camera buys a canon - so the bodies are peanuts used - but MFT bodies seem to hold their value and make up for it with cheaper lenses. and it never hurt anyone to have two cameras. hell, i see my 50mm go for like $80+ used on ebay all the time (which is why i bought it new) so i am pretty sure i could flip all this stuff for only a minor loss. the only bad buy i've made was the big 70-210 FD lens + adapter that was a perfectly good buy until I found a 75-300 EF one. tbh ill almost certainly not sell it, though. re: the comet, i could barely see it last night. i havent figured out how to do photography with my telescope at all yet. apparently it can't do prime photography. the cheapo adapter stuff i got is just really fiddly and unpleasant (and it feels risky) to use, so im probably going to end up saving up for the much pricier baader adapters and such. which means i'll also need a baader zoom eyepiece. all that means i'll probably either need to find a screaming used deal or wait until the christmas/new years sale next year. it's kind of a bummer, because astrophotography was the primary motivator for me getting a dslr in the first place.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2023 17:51
|
|
|
to be clear when i say "pushing" i dont mean "being pushy" i mean "enticing" or whatever. MFT sounds awesome and i wanna play with one, is what i mean 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2023 18:04
|
|
|
the g100 is showing as >$500 for me o_O e: msrp is $749 Achmed Jones fucked around with this message at 21:11 on Feb 2, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2023 21:08
|
|
|
yeah, that's gonna be too rich for my blood right now. the next time i get an unexpected bonus, though,  e: or maybe ill go with a g95, just have to see what things are like if/when it happens. i have a lot to do with my current setup though so there's no huge hurry
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2023 21:19
|
|
|
what did canon do with respect to lenses for RF?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2023 22:42
|
|
|
Important question: would an MFT camera be satisfactory for astrophotography stuff and bugpics?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2023 04:01
|
|
|
  not sure which one i like better. i think the second one cause it makes my eyes feel funny. i think it might look better in b&w but im not sure - if love advice on that. "neither are worthwhile" is also an ok response Achmed Jones fucked around with this message at 03:41 on Feb 5, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2023 03:38
|
|
|
thanks for the advice yall! we went to the pier for lunch today and then little jones and i played on the beach for a while. i got a ton of pictures, almost none of which turned out due to the focus being wonky. i think i had the aperture set too low to get multiple depths in focus together. next time ill probabl just do auto instead of aperture priority, because i'm disappointed with how it all turned out it was a really good time, though, and the beer and shrimp were both good. so i mean, a very successful lunch date even if it was not photographically productive
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2023 22:57
|
|
|
im hopefully going to be buying a 25mm extension tube tonight, depending on how ebay goes. i am very excited to take more bug pics etc with my 50mm a guy at work is unloading a tripod i have agreed to buy too
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2023 03:09
|
|
|
update: got the extension tube. it's the canon one so i don't have to worry about it being a poo poo. at least, i hope i don't
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2023 05:32
|
|
|
unless the mechanism is hard to get on/off the body, or the same for the lens, or it wobbles, or the electrical connection bridging the pieces is faulty, or
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2023 06:32
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2023 23:50
|
|
|
i already have strong legs tyvm
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2023 23:57
|
|
|
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
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2023 23:59
|
|
|
PokeJoe posted:it's a very simple rule: just remember kent state what
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2023 01:05
|
|
|
oh! i learned something today, thanks!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2023 01:20
|
|
|
 it's cropped in pretty far. the original had a ton of noise (iso too high?), but noise reduction in photoshop seemed to do a pretty good job. feedback is welcome. maybe it's too soft? this is with that 20-40mm lens i got
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2023 22:53
|
|
|
i think it's cool
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2023 01:37
|
|
|
im a little confused by crop factor. when i reas about lenses, the photo sites say "you're using a canon crop sensor, so multiply the lens's focal length by 1.6 to get what it 'counts as.'" this means that if i want something that'd look like a 21mm on a full frame camera, i need a 21/1.6 = 13mm lens but isn't the "equivalent" thing just viewport size? it seems weird to me to consider viewport size too much when the thing that (it seems) should concern me most is the type of distortion involved. it seems to me that for FF vs aps-c vs mft i should just move. put the 50mm lens on my rebel and get farther away. wouldn't that give me the distortion characteristics of a 50 (almost none) as opposed to an 85 (which has uh some i guess?) im not looking to buy a bunch of lenses right now (i've bought enough recently - i just ordered an MFT "for hiking") but it seems to me that if i get a "proper" landscape lens for an aps-c or mft mount (that is, taking crop factor into account) it'd likely introduce almost fisheye type stuff
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2023 04:20
|
|
|
man i've made some not-wise purchases lately. the 20-40mm is so much bigger than i wanted; it seems to be a good lens but woof it's big. and the extension tube is, as beef predicted, incredibly hard to use as depth of field is so small. useless for bee pics, they move too much. i don't know what i was thinking there. as with the sigma lens, it was cheap enough that i could resell it and take a 10% haircut at worst but it feels bad. i know that both have uses, but it feels like they're outside my skill level and what's worse i don't know what i could do to get to the point to be able to really make use of them. cant wait to try out focus peaking though
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2023 19:26
|
|
|
on the subject of adapters, those that preserve AF and stuff run about $150. for about the same price, Viltrox offers two models: one with a 0.71x focal reducer and one without. i have no idea how to choose between the two. any suggestions? fwiw, i kind of lean to "without" because the idea of turning my 75-300 into a 600mm is hilarious to me
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2023 19:44
|
|
|
right on, thanks! my plan is to not buy anything for at least a month to see how the mft format and stuff sits with me. of course if i see an insane deal at work that might go right out the window, but i don't expect to see anything that'd cross my "spend even more money" threshold. ive bought enough probably for the quarter (though i will say bonuses out of nowhere have a habit of being open palm slammed into my/ms jones's hobbies)
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2023 20:01
|
|
|
i read bryan peterson's understanding exposure today. it was bad. i could have saved a lot of time if the bozo author would've just written the nuggets of useful information instead of torturing me with his lovely self-aggrandizing writing anyway here are the good parts. some of it i already knew, i imagine everyone here other than me already knows most or all of it. but this might save you a few bucks and an hour or so of your time. * f stop numbers are weird for what counts as "one stop." but a stop up lets in half the light, which is equivalent to halving ISO or shutter speed. * take your light readings from the sky. if there are a lot of reflections/water, meter off the sky's reflection. for silhouettes meter of the sky a bit to the side of the sun * if there's a lot of green, meter on the foliage but set it at -2/3 rather than 0 * < f/8 for subject work. >f/11 (better 16 or 22) for layered work, where there's a definite in-focus foreground against a sharp background. 8-11 when everything is in the same focal plane more or less to give you the best contrast and sharpness for the lens. * meter at +1 when there's a lot of white/snow or very light subjects. -1 for dark subjects * for auto modes, aperture priority for layered stuff or subject work. shutter priority when you need to care about shutter (fast for freezing action or slow for implied motion). this is very obvious but 🤷♀️ * take an extra shot at -2/3 exposure because it works better a lot of the time for contrast, not blowing out highlights, etc
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2023 03:55
|
|
|
anyway im all ears for more book recommendations
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2023 03:59
|
|
|
i like the first one a lot. the second one looks kind of muddy and flat to me, the subject doesn't really contrast with the background so it kinda feels weird to look at. this may be a function of my hosed up colorblind eyes, though. eg if the second one has bright pink that really pops in the foreground and not the background, i wont/dont see that. i know cherry blossoms range from white to a light pink; i only really pick up on the white.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2023 17:57
|
|
|
the g95 (and some polarization filters) got here. according to the instruction manual, the battery ships uncharged so i am charging it  e: gently caress it, hopefully there's enough juice to play around a little e2: it's cool. i don't much care for the electronic viewfinder. but the giant oled screen that is actually _functional_ is amazing. Achmed Jones fucked around with this message at 21:14 on Feb 13, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2023 21:04
|
|
|
lol im reading the manual rn because i can't figure out how to show the exposure meter. i see it in the manual, but i can't get it to show up. the zoomy thing on left-arrow seems to only work in manual focus mode which i get, but is kind of disappointing. maybe there's a setting to change that though. this thing has _so_ many more settings than my rebel. on-camera stacking, bracketing (which apparently is a fancy term for automatically hedging your bets), holy poo poo. i see why that author from the book i read yesterday was jumping up and down about using manual mode, homeboy (1) didn't want to learn all these settings and (2) probably doesn't like it that geeks off the street can get photos that required a lot of knowledge, technique, etc. twenty years ago. it's kind of the photography equivalent of AI-generated art (if it actually works, maybe it doesn't) i got a light meter to show, i think it just doesn't show up in auto-iso mode. that's annoying yeah confirmed, it was just showing the "everything's good" symbol (and not at all showing what's in the manual for some reason), but i guess it'll show the "something's bad" symbol if for whatever reason it _has to_ underexpose or overexpose. so i think that means that if i have auto iso, and the auto iso it selects is within the range i allow, it will just show as "perfect exposure" this thing is so complicated, it owns. e: i was misreading the manual Achmed Jones fucked around with this message at 22:49 on Feb 13, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2023 22:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 24, 2024 19:19 |
|
|
the "accessories kit" i got with it came with an sd card that is probably pretty bottom of the barrel, it's this one: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1692696-REG/sandisk_sdsdxxd_128g_ancin_128gb_extreme_pro_uhs_i.html i think the one in my canon is faster though; it's definitely larger and holy poo poo yes, i shot some bursts and _gat-damn_
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2023 23:12
|
|