Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
superior choices only
yoshotography
yosotography
yostography
yosography
yosgraphy
yosraphy
View Results
 
  • Post
  • Reply
MrQueasy
Nov 15, 2005

Quit shakin' me, kid!



Man... has it been over two years since I took serious pictures?

Even my lovely Rebel T3I with a dead ant permanently stuck inside the viewfinder takes good pictures on the back of a rented EF/24-70mm f/2.8L II USM.

Sigh... I have too many hobbies.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

MrQueasy
Nov 15, 2005

Quit shakin' me, kid!

God drat, I've got to break away from Adobe... but I'm so used to my LR workflow at this point.

Took me too long to find this one that I put in my hallway.



Again from my REBEL T3i with my "walkaround" EF50mm f/1.8 II

This thread is making me lust after an R system... but maybe I'll just jump ship to Fuji since I rent all but 1 of my lenses anyway.

MrQueasy
Nov 15, 2005

Quit shakin' me, kid!

echinopsis posted:

photog is one of the best hobbies. often encourages me to get out and do something different and also provides me with a record of some of the best times in my life

Yeah, I need to get back to it. I had just pushed through a big cloud of self-doubt that kept cropping up when friends and family would say "wow, what great photos" and was finally taking pictures I was fond of.

All my battery packs died over the pandemic somehow... I should hunt down some replacements.


EF24-70mm f/2.8L II USM


EF24-70mm f/2.8L II USM


EF-S10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM

Renting glass is so much fun.

MrQueasy
Nov 15, 2005

Quit shakin' me, kid!

Echi I am holding you personally responsible for me sitting here avoiding doing work considering spending $1900 on a silver X-T3 and an XF35mm f1.4 in one tab and $1550 for the used equivalent in another...

I ordered some replacement spicy pillows for my t3i though.

MrQueasy
Nov 15, 2005

Quit shakin' me, kid!

echinopsis posted:

is this your first dive into mirrorless?

Vaguely! I've borrowed my buddy's XT-2 and Sony a7 a few times. But at this point, it's been 2 years since I held a camera that wasn't my ridiculously large iphone.

I've been using a t3i forever, and while I have the kit lens somewhere, the $125 50mm canon prime is just too sharp and awesome to really take off unless I'm renting L glass.

I remember the X-T2 having a weird like... diagonal grid pattern deep in the distance where it would distort things I knew were unbroken straight lines... It may have been the midrange zoom he had on it, but I was kinda disappointed at the difference in the way the sensor interpreted things that were out of focus.

I don't remember as much about the a7 other than I hated the interface. The X-T2 was weird but "interesting".

Unrelated, I'm trying to figure out a new raw workflow because Adobe just keeps making it more and more difficult to batch render and upload images to 3d party services. I'm actually vaguely happy with the new Lightroom's interface and the online image library... but I'm strange. Each release seems to push the mobile-first aspect of it more and more.

MrQueasy fucked around with this message at 17:36 on Dec 9, 2021

MrQueasy
Nov 15, 2005

Quit shakin' me, kid!

echinopsis posted:

wonder what that weird pattern is youíre talking about

are you using new lightroom or lightroom classic?

I was taking some pics of my son last night. face detection, especially eye detection? gently caress they are game changers. I used to lose so many pics on the 7d for being slightly out of focus, but this thing nails picture after picture, and having such large and decent iso means this older 55-200 f/4.5-5.6 can even work in low light, because at 200 it takes some nice portrait.

a lot of the criticisms thrown at a camera like mine are from camera reviewers and the like, because for me, coming from a camera released in 2009, everything is either better or miles better. i love the feel of this thing in my hand

also thereís this new move Fv which is flexible priority and itís a bit like manual mode except you can put any thing into auto or manual, i often leave the iso and shutter speed on auto, set the aperture myself and use the exposure to adjust, and in that sense itís simply aperture priority, except if i want to all of a sudden control shutter speed im not switching to a new mode and losing my aperture settings. iíve read so many people, including myself, have just switched over to it for everything




and small little bit of fun : it films at 120 frames and having a lot of fun with the kids filming and then reversing. reversed slow mo is some great wholesome entertainment

new lightroom...

the distortion it was probably something bad (2+ years ago, so I think I was still in LR:Classic) in adobe camera raw. I felt it might be similar to (but WAAAAY more subtle than) the IOS "watercolor" distortion where the raw reader makes some really bad decisions when doing noise-reduction.

As far as newer cameras being magic... yeah... that's why I have the gear lust! The focus-detection fringe thing that the X-T2 did (Is this a standard mirrorless feature?) in the eyepiece was really cool and helpful.

Moving to Fuji from Canon (body + a decent lens) seems similarly expensive to either buying a Canon6D or the CanonR+EF adapter

I'm absolutely Garbage with video for some reason.... something about the framing + motion doesn't click with me.

MrQueasy
Nov 15, 2005

Quit shakin' me, kid!

Whoops, forgot to talk about what you said about your 7d!

It's all about the camera you have in your hand! I've loved my t3i through thick and thin! It's been bashed and slammed an dropped and still works like a champ.

But it would be nice to not have to spot-removal the upper left-hand corner where there's an everpresent slightly dark spot in the raw.

It would be nice to have more than 9 autofocus points.

It would be nice to not have to see a dead ant every time I look through the long-shoeless viewfinder.

And while I'm here... (gear lust activates) full frame would be nice too... And maybe some new glass while you're out? Oh, the new MBPs have built-in sd card readers?



I've been mostly idly shooting on my phone. The iphone is cool, but it's starting too do too much between capture and writing to raw for my taste.


IPhone 11pro max (OVERPROCESSED, I KNOW, I'M SORRY)


iPhone 11pro max

Haven't taken anything I'm happy enough to show non-family yet on my Iphone 13pro max

MrQueasy
Nov 15, 2005

Quit shakin' me, kid!

echinopsis posted:

can I ask why in particular this is the way youíd go?
I like the silver rangefinder look. Reminds me of my dad's minolta 35mm I used to use.

Also, my Serious Photographer friends won't shut up about Fuji X-Ts (though to be fair, when out on assignment they dual-wield 5d or something AND the fujifilm)

Except the people with the Sony a7s, who won't shut up about how they're always taking f4 telephoto pictures by candlelight and it's so cool.

I just don't own much glass, so I don't feel tied to any camera line in particular.

I'm also ADHD, so I want new... shiny... different... a move to a micro4/3ds would be a "sensible" amateur photographer choice, whereas the "Full Frame Baybeeee" wolf inside me I see more as a "maybe I should push myself more because I spent more moneys". (I keep trying to tell myself that this is a Lie, but that matters little to my terrible brain)

MrQueasy
Nov 15, 2005

Quit shakin' me, kid!

echinopsis posted:

a bunch of photos I've taken are kind of good but what is really good is how it got me off my rear end to get the pic

I took my kids up the hill to see the sunrise to get that pic. was a nice time. probably wouldnt have done it if it wasnt to also take the pic

Precisely! I let COVID steal that from me because going out in public became exhausting... even if it was to head out into the middle of nowhere.

If you have an EF mount... this is a pro rent if you don't know what you're going to end up shooting.

EF24-70mm f/2.8L II USM


At $1600 I'm not getting one of my own anytime soon... but god drat is it versatile.

MrQueasy
Nov 15, 2005

Quit shakin' me, kid!

In the DSLR space, I don't think I've seen more than incremental changes since the 5D mIV... another 10 megapixels, another 10k ISO... etc...

Canon got off their rear end and finally released a full-frame mirrorless.

Speaking of the 70-200 2.8L, I used that lens to grab this absolute Tourist Snap in Yellowstone on my t3i.



I love the shot, but it's identical to every postcard you've ever seen of the falls in the Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone.

MrQueasy
Nov 15, 2005

Quit shakin' me, kid!


Aw yeah... slow water... that's the good stuff. mm.

MrQueasy
Nov 15, 2005

Quit shakin' me, kid!

echinopsis posted:

heh I found a waterfall, and used a tripod and remote to take this embarrassingw photo of myself. got wet to do this



and a photo with a 24mm that is actually ok. I have concluded I am incapable of a good picture with this lens UNLESS its just like landscape



also

square crop - obv for instagram reasons, but I actually really love the end result. it the best.

pics plz

I like wide crops of ultrawide myself, but I also had a higher than normal miss rate when using the 10-15mm in Yellowstone. It was like 1 in 25 shots instead of 1 in 10 for my 50mm prime or the 70-200mm. So imagine like 50 shots to just end up with these two different angles on Excelsior Geyser. (admittedly the reflection one was luck on our timing around getting 6 people in three different campsites out the flaps in the morning)


This one is from Lake Yellowstone, shots of the lake were kinder, so this only took like 8 shots to figure out what was interesting.


The best advice I can give after wincing at a bunch of 10-15mm shots that I still have saved from Yellowstone is that the best ones are where you're trying to make something seem bigger, or you're trying to see around something while still maintaining a sense of depth/distance? I dunno, I need to experiment more.

I find my personal sweet spot for landscapes is 50mm-70mm because it flattens and squishes so much detail into a small area.

I think it's harder because the fisheye distortion is harder for our brains to do the automatic calculus on or something.

MrQueasy
Nov 15, 2005

Quit shakin' me, kid!

echinopsis posted:

yeah thatís kinda how I feel. I once read something that said with wide you are putting the viewer IN the photo so get right up in there. it works but i donít want many pics that are in your face in that manner lol.

yeah wide crop of wide lens does make sense and iíll recant what i said for those


those first two shots are amazing dude

Thanks, I recommend Western National Parks. Lots of strange natural beauty make for a target rich environment. Yellowstone in 2018 was awesome, but like Sequoia and Yosemite, it feels like it's fading. There were hardly any animals, and doing anything in the "popular" sections of the park was almost impossible between 10am and 4pm. However, as a photographer, that meant I could appeal to the rest of the group's exhaustion to say "why don't we just go out at sunrise (5am) or near sunset (9pm) to avoid the tour buses?" and then end up with better shadows even if we were too slow/early for golden hours.

EDIT: for your road picture, I think if you framed it with more road and less sky it might pop more? Like draw your bottom third line at the horizon rather than the top of the mountains?

MrQueasy fucked around with this message at 00:43 on Dec 10, 2021

MrQueasy
Nov 15, 2005

Quit shakin' me, kid!

zombienietzsche posted:



I enjoyed this one of how smoggy it has been here lately. Something to counteract all the natural beauty and remind us why we stay inside on the internet.

I donít care how smoggy it is. itís still pretty.

echinopsis posted:

interesting suggestion. I suppose in my mind I thought of it like, the road is boring so only want enough of it to let you know itís a road, with the rest being the more interesting mountains and sky. so my porportions are based in reason not aesthetic 🤔 I have more from the set so I would be curious if I have one thatís more like what you said

the road IS boring! but so is the sky! (even though I refuse to stop shooting self indulgent pictures of clouds without context)

I really like the hazy blues on the mountains in that picture, so I was a little disappointed when my eye kept sliding off them into the sky.

MrQueasy
Nov 15, 2005

Quit shakin' me, kid!

echinopsis posted:

for xmas iíve gotten my son a 550d

it was $250 and itís come with a tripod and that 18-something lens which is poo poo but he can borrow some of mine

what I love about this day and age is the low barrier of entry. like bloody says, can still take a great photo. biggest bummer is the lack of low light ability but still, heís only 12, heís so fortunate to have this kind of thing to play with





yps: at a beautiful cottage with gf for weekend but I have zero ability to take interesting photos lol. i would love a decent photographer to show me their workflow because it depresses me a bit how I canít do something with this as beautiful as it is 😒

i need to think, how can I somehow put the viewer there and make them feel idk something

I don't have a good workflow... but I haven't really needed much beyond

Take SD card,
import raws into LightRoom
create a new folder/album
go through each picture 1 by 1 and flag anything interesting looking... probably 1 in 5? toss it in the album
go back to the album, look at each one... apply some presets, hit the auto button... aggressively fiddle with crop... white balance...
if I still like it, it stays, otherwise it's booted... I'm usually left with 1 : 10

This takes too long, maybe 10-15m per raw on average... but I'm not happy unless the picture has that Je ne sais quois? that I felt when I clicked the shutter or when I flagged it as a potential keeper.

Once I have the good ones settled, I go back and try "crazier" edits on the ones that didn't quite make it with my "normal" aesthetic.

As far as what I want the pictures to say... I tend to want them to evoke in ME the moments I was taking the picture. I don't give a gently caress if you have a spiritual experience. I just know that you probably won't if I can't either.

Anyway, what I think I'm saying about your cottage situation is just shoot through it.

MrQueasy
Nov 15, 2005

Quit shakin' me, kid!

Ok, finally, new batteries. Heading out to a touristy trap area to get the boy santa pictures done by an outfit that takes themselves seriously so maybe I'll snap some stuff while I'm there.

In the meantime, here's what I run with most of the time.



Here's the best picture I could get of the dead ant in the viewfinder. If I find the missing piece of my tripod I'll take a better one.



All pictures I've posted above (aside from the two I said were from my iphone, and these two, which are from my newer iphone) were done with this poor battered t3i.

MrQueasy
Nov 15, 2005

Quit shakin' me, kid!

fart simpson posted:

yah. i have the gear but not the skill to take good photos

Just post take pictures!

The theory that helped/helps me the most is the rule of thirds... Once it becomes second nature it becomes easier to see in your minds eye. But you can't get to that point unless you take thousands of lovely photos and say "I don't think this is good enough because X" and consciously seeing what happens when you change that element.

Also, just out and out copy the setup/content pictures that make you say "I like this picture."

MrQueasy
Nov 15, 2005

Quit shakin' me, kid!

Hangin' out at the tourist trap with my new batteries.

MrQueasy
Nov 15, 2005

Quit shakin' me, kid!

lol at the description of a kererū: "a large, conspicuous pigeon"

The ISO is only distracting if I open it on my 4k monitor. I wouldn't worry about it unless you wanted to print a poster of it.

That reminds me: a lot of stuff I've read over the years want you to practice taking high-iso shots in "inappropriate" lighting. I think the intention is getting you used to dealing with ultra-narrow apertures and fast shutter speeds. As well as learning how to "correct" or deal with iso noise in your postprocess flow.

Since I hate my t3i's sensor at above 1200 ISO, I usually lock myself down to 200 unless the shutter speed increases to above 1/30s or so.

I like the town video because of the aforementioned dreamy vibes... and I just love honeysuckle flowers in general.

MrQueasy
Nov 15, 2005

Quit shakin' me, kid!

so kindof like a fujifilm XT-4 but with an aperture knob as well?

MrQueasy
Nov 15, 2005

Quit shakin' me, kid!

echinopsis posted:

lol just bought a new body, not quite ready for another body from a different system yet


iím actually super pleased with the eos r, it produces some extremely excellent results. i canít put my finger on it but I just love using it. sure itís not perfect and if it had those knobs it almost would be but 🤷‍♂️

The R is a good camera, Echi.

MrQueasy
Nov 15, 2005

Quit shakin' me, kid!

echinopsis posted:




indeed it is my friend. the end result of this glorious sensor is very nice





on a different note, iíve been using the 100mm to take some pics of my kids and then used the 50mm. i never used to get why longer lenses are better for portraits but drat, it almost feels like my 50mm f1.8 has been poisoned by iphones portrait mode because pics taken with it just remind me now of portrait mode and drat do i hate that. when I have both now to compare, itís just so clear that longer lenses are far more aesthetically pleasing and the face compression is far more desirable

The difference in how that 50-1.8f looks when you move from an APS-C to a full-frame sensor is pretty stunning. From my limited experience, I'd say the 85mm might give you that same "feel" for framing the 50mm had on your 7d. It's still going to squash everything differently...

That being said, the 50mm on my APS-C is still the best I can find without dropping $2k on glass. I encourage everyone who wants to dabble in photography to grab a "cheap" used crop-sensor canon body (EF-S mount) and then drop $125 for that 50mm 1.8f. It's just REALLY versatile once your mind's eye can kinda do the conversion from what you see to what the camera will produce.

MrQueasy
Nov 15, 2005

Quit shakin' me, kid!

echinopsis posted:

absolutely . Iíve got some portraits from when used on crop and it didnít have that effect and was happy with it

you really do need to get further away than you think, at least thatís how it was for me, discovering you had to get further than expected.


I really want to work with people. once me and another dude and this chick went photo shooting and it was clear immediately his technical knowledge surpassed mine and his gear was better too, but his personality was flat. when I first actually started shooting, coz it was her first time too, it was clear how much work Iíd need to do to get the shots I wanted. not just saying ďdo this or thatĒ, but really communicating with the model, asking them about this or that, trying to coax out a look or pose etc requires a certain level of interpersonal communication ability. which is why I am so keen to do so because in person Iím actually very good with people (yes, impossible to imagine for people here lol)

Giving directions is tough, and doing it with family/close friends is like 10x harder. Strangers tend to just trust you know what you're doing when you say "lean your face towards the camera... bend your elbows... put your foot there... chin back a teense... no no rotate your head like (arcane gesture)... exactly, but that was too far... back a bit"

My family just gives me endless poo poo.

MrQueasy
Nov 15, 2005

Quit shakin' me, kid!

polyester concept posted:

I absolutely do not need medium format, youíre right. I donít even need full frame. itís just fuckin cool.

amen.

MrQueasy
Nov 15, 2005

Quit shakin' me, kid!

echinopsis posted:

thatíd ruin the entire effect that you can barely see poo poo coz youíve got the sun reflecting in your eyes

I think the lighting's fine. My inner aggressive cropper says to place your subject farther to the left to add more "mystery" as your eyes follow their sight line out off the edge. Also, I love the low angle of the shot... maybe if her eyes were looking more up there'd be more kind of a "heavenly" feel, while more down would be more "step on me, ma'am". As it is... it reads "enigmatic".

MrQueasy
Nov 15, 2005

Quit shakin' me, kid!

echinopsis posted:

curious to me how you get so much out of it. does all of that just come to you or is it after a bit or analysis?

itís a combination of looking at lots of pictures to figure out how they work and my adhd brain working in free association mode.

MrQueasy
Nov 15, 2005

Quit shakin' me, kid!

HURP DURP IM BIRB. (Love it.)

MrQueasy
Nov 15, 2005

Quit shakin' me, kid!

Sagebrush posted:

i wonder what would happen if you combined these techniques with a full-frame sensor and a big lens?

LOL, the purists would absolutely catch fire and begin the holy war.

I think you underestimate the rift between the camera grognards and the "common people who just want to take pictures". After Canon and Nikon slept too long through the 2000s, there's a dwindling amount of people who are willing to embrace more automation in their "big cameras". The market that's left is focused on glass and sensor quality and shooting in Manual Mode Only.

MrQueasy
Nov 15, 2005

Quit shakin' me, kid!

echinopsis posted:

citation needed

I admit that it's anecdotal, but the only reason I still have my dslr is because I enjoy knowing that I put my own spin on the limitations inherent to my kit. Whether that's managing reds so they don't swamp my sensor, or deciding on an aperture/speed combo for a scene, or whatever.

If I wanted to focus on composition and processing, I can do that on my phone for the majority of things... :shrug: I dunno, it just feels like camera innovation has moved to phones for now, and the big camera creators (Canon, Sony, Nikon) are all too conservative to risk losing the Loyalists.

MrQueasy
Nov 15, 2005

Quit shakin' me, kid!

gently caress "truth", I want to start from as close to what the camera saw in its own idiosyncratic way and choose each "fix" manually. I don't want some deep dream thing adding detail that was never there unless I told it to, or it's some un-fixable artifact generated by them mechanics of the camera itself.

MrQueasy
Nov 15, 2005

Quit shakin' me, kid!

Progressive JPEG posted:

when it comes to what you get from a camera, are "raw" formats actually "heres the pixel charges/photon counts" or is it just "skipped the compression step"

IIRC it's closer to the second but with more values per pixel than a standard bitmap, though every camera company and sensor combination has its own quirks.

MrQueasy
Nov 15, 2005

Quit shakin' me, kid!

echinopsis posted:

Iím curious how effective this is when talking about the huge out of focus effects you get with really wide apertures. Iíd love to play around with it to see what it could do .

Iíve heard of the idea of using multiple small cameras in the same way multiple radio telescopes are used to form space images that would otherwise require telescopes kilometres (i may be exaggerating) in width

ie generate the image from many images spatially distributed and construct something similar again

You mean "Focus Stacking"?

MrQueasy
Nov 15, 2005

Quit shakin' me, kid!

echinopsis posted:

idk? guess so, i donít know what that means

Taking a bunch of pictures of the same thing with different focus levels, and then using software to smush them together into an image with hypersharp focus at all DOF.

MrQueasy
Nov 15, 2005

Quit shakin' me, kid!

echinopsis posted:

are they taken from the same location?

Usually? there are some techniques for merging non-identical framing though... they always seem like more work than what I would get out of them.

MrQueasy
Nov 15, 2005

Quit shakin' me, kid!

for messing with skew I prefer lightroom mobile's geometry tool that allows you to define arbitrary lines as being vertical or horizontal and it warps the whole image to make that come true.

MrQueasy
Nov 15, 2005

Quit shakin' me, kid!

echinopsis posted:

half hour shoot, 504 photos, battery icon still on full :smugmrgw:

not bad for mirrorless

Share your keep rate once you're done! I average between 1:10 and 1:20 for my mostly handheld quasi-landscape stuff.

MrQueasy
Nov 15, 2005

Quit shakin' me, kid!

NoneMoreNegative posted:

I mentioned picking up a cheap monopod for light-stand duties earlier, if you're planning on wielding a 5kg lens at all you absolutely want a monopod screwed in to the support arm there.

Heh, I didn't realize the two lenses I had rented weighed as much as a quart of water each until I was halfway back up the rim of the Grand Canyon.

MrQueasy
Nov 15, 2005

Quit shakin' me, kid!

Destroyenator posted:

this thread inspired me to pull our my 10 y/o dslr a couple of weekends ago and try to take some shots. immediately remembered that i don't really care for street photography and i want to get out to some scenery or wilderness again

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.

Destroyenator posted:

one area that my 4 y/o phone outperforms is auto white-balance. i guess they have so much data and can do tuning in updates but it's embarrassing how flat and sad any landscape shot with clouds appears on my dslr defaults to on auto. if i mess around with manually calibrating the white balance and make a conscious effort to watch for the clouds blowing out it turns out okay but it's very fiddly when i just want a/s priority and awb and the phone consistently gets it right and the dlsr struggles

That's why I shoot raw and do color balance in post. My camera is really bad at guessing, especially when there's multiple light colors in play.

MrQueasy
Nov 15, 2005

Quit shakin' me, kid!

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?


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

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)

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

MrQueasy
Nov 15, 2005

Quit shakin' me, kid!

echinopsis posted:

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

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.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply