[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/p/ - Photography

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 127 posters in this thread.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]


Janitor acceptance emails will be sent out over the coming weeks Make sure to check your spam box!



File: cam.jpg (39 KB, 700x633)
39 KB
39 KB JPG
Previous: >>3450995

Post stupid questions that need no extra thread. Use /gear/ for gear related stupid questions.
>>
What are some good books on learning to use aperture and shutter speed?
>>
>>3460492
every basic book for amateur photographers has that but you don't really need a whole book just for that. search the internet, it isn't too hard to understand.
>>
File: 7088751[1].jpg (32 KB, 318x359)
32 KB
32 KB JPG
>>3460492
the concepts themselves are fairly straightforward and i think you would learn more just through experimentation with a digital slr or mirrorless, assuming you have one.

having said that, i have a used book i bought from 1977 called the photographers handbook which is full of great info and interesting photos. it was written in a time when all cameras were manual (for the most part) so there is an emphasis on technique. you can probably find a copy on ebay for a couple bucks and is definitely worth a read
>>
File: 1550556020106.jpg (78 KB, 640x625)
78 KB
78 KB JPG
So I got my Blackmagic Pocket Cinema 4K today, but no matter what I do, nothing will focus. I bought a cheap K&F lens adapter and some basic Canon lenses. I bought cheap stuff first before committing to an expensive lens, but I'm not sure how I can test if it's the adapter, the lenses, or something else that won't allow me to focus anything.
>>
>>3460523
That dog cant be that big.
>>
>>3460523
Are you trying to fit auto focus lenses to it? Pretty sure most of them don't work.
>>
>>3460610
Hm... Maybe that was only for original bmpc.


>Do you get continuous autofocus for video?
>No. Not with any lenses. You only get Single-point autofocus. To be honest I would just stick to manual focus.

You should have S-AF. Though, you should be buying bmpc4k for MF anyway.
>>
File: DSC05736-01.jpg (927 KB, 1920x1079)
927 KB
927 KB JPG
>>3460492
Do what I've done. Lurk a lot and ask the few questions; build your own theory of knowledge; amalgamate what you learn in practice, and finally when you feel you can explain something to others and noone refutes you, *then* you can consider yourself as well versed.

>Tldr:
Aperture:
>This value is unitless, goes from 1.0 to 32.0 (usually). The higher it is, the less light you camera takes in, but the higher the distance two objects can be from each other while staying in focus. The opposite applies the closer the value to 1.0
Shutter Speed:
>This value is measured in seconds, and ranges generally from 30s to 1/4000th (although these ranges extend further). The longer the shutter speed, the more light the camera takes in, but blur becomes more apparent. Blur comes from subjects moving and also the camera holder if not on a static surface like a tripod. Shorter shutter speed, less blur, less light.

Remember, there is no obvious all around "best setting" for anything. Photography is an artform, and a photo of a brutalist communist bloc depressive apartment with just the right random combinations of settings together in logical ways will yields new and exciting aesthetically pleasing results.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-6000
Camera SoftwareSnapseed 2.0
Maximum Lens Aperturef/5.6
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)63 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution350 dpi
Vertical Resolution350 dpi
Image Created2018:12:24 18:59:25
Exposure Time5 sec
F-Numberf/6.3
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating100
Brightness-2.1 EV
Exposure Bias0.7 EV
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
Light SourceDaylight
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length42.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1920
Image Height1079
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
I have a shoot I am doing this coming week. She will be wearing activewear and we will be going around the city and down by the river. I was thinking about bringing a spray bottle of water to mist into her hair so it looks like she is sweating.

What other ideas or things I could add to the shoot?
>>
Redpill me on 3rd party batteries
I bought pic related because it was like a third of the genuine one's price, but it turns out this one is supposed to be 7V 2500 mAh while the real one is 7V 1900 mAh. How does that work? Surely it can't have more battery life than the original while costing less. Are they allowed to sell batteries with fake specs printed on them? I'm pretty sure batteries are heavily regulated. This was australian stock, didn't order from china.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width767
Image Height628
Image OrientationBottom, Right-Hand
>>
File: ef_70-300mm_is_II_usm.jpg (604 KB, 2000x1724)
604 KB
604 KB JPG
Do newer Canon IS lenses all have IS tripod detection including the non L versions like the EF 70-300mm IS II USM

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeRICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.
Camera ModelPENTAX K-3 II
Camera Softwarepaint.net 4.1.6
PhotographerJOHN_RILEY
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)90 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width6016
Image Height4000
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2017:06:12 10:06:38
Exposure Time1.3 sec
F-Numberf/16.0
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating400
Lens Aperturef/16.0
Exposure Bias-0.7 EV
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length60.00 mm
Image Width4288
Image Height3696
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeMacro
>>
>>3460728
The trick is that the third-party battery you bought is going to stop holding a charge at all after a few months.
>>
>>3460728
No one tests that shit so they get away with it, just expect to get what you pay for.
I bought two cheapos for half the price the price of my legit ones and they last half as long which is fine because I only wanted backups for if my original dies which almost never happens.

I assume it all depends on the camera model too, popular models someone may very well make a higher capacity battery and it will cost more or the same as the oem

>>3460734
mine still work fine over a year later and I use them all the time instead of putting cycles on my oem
>>
>>3460492
>>3460647
To add to this guy's explanation of aperture and shutter speed:

All of your exposure values are usually measured in "stops", which represents a doubling or halving of the exposure. So if you want to maintain one exposure and go down a stop in one variable, you need to go up a stop in another.

Shutter speed stops are easy. Keep the shutter open twice as long, it lets in twice as much light. So the difference between 1 second, 1/2s, 1/4s, 1/8s, 1/16th of a second etc is all 1 stop.

Aperture is a little more confusing because the stops, for reasons of Math and Geometry and Optics, go up and down by a factor of the square root of two (which we usually just around down to 1.4). So the progression of aperture values in full stops is
1.0, 1.4, 2.0, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11, 16, 22, 32
(Since sqrt(2) * sqrt(2) = 2, you can just remember these by remembering 1 and 1.4 and then alternately doubling them up the sequence)

There are also lenses with a maximum f/stop lower than 1.0 (i.e., even larger apertures) and lenses with a minimum f/stop higher than 32 (smaller apertures).

There's also a third exposure variable you didn't mention, ISO, which is the sensitivity of your sensor/film (more or less; it's a bit fuzzy), and those also don't have a unit associated with them and you also just double/halve it to go up and down the stops. So ISO 100 to ISO 200 is one stop, and ISO 400 is one stop more, and ISO 800 is one stop more, etc.

Beyond that basic information, the best way to learn how they really work is to learn by doing. Get out there with your camera and put it in Aperture-Priority mode and pay attention to how the changing aperture changes your depth of field and changes the shutter speed you need. Put it in Shutter-priority mode and pay attention to how slow you can get the shutter speed before everything's a blurry mess. Or put it in full manual and try controlling everything by hand.
>>
>>3460607
Not with that attitude.
>>
>>3460523
>K&F lens adapter and some basic Canon lenses
It's the adapter. The K&F adapters suck. They kiiiiiinda work, but not reliably, and definitely not quickly.

An easy way to test to make sure it's not an issue with the lenses would be to pick up something like an old film-era Canon Rebel. You can get those for under ten bucks, and they work with all modern EF lenses (though not EF-S, if you got any of those).

But I'd bet a nickel it's the cheap-shit adapter. Just buy some Micro Four Thirds lenses to put on there, or get some old manual-focus lenses and focus manually.
>>
>>3460736
>mine still work fine over a year later and I use them all the time instead of putting cycles on my oem
Fair enough. Your mileage may vary, certainly, but all of my third-party batteries have always crapped out on me after a very short amount of time while all of my OEM batteries have lasted forever. I've experienced this with multiple battery styles, multiple brands, multiple cameras, etc. They all just suck.
>>
>>3460607
>>
>>3460740
That's awesome I didnt understand the technical and mathematical aspects of aperture. That explains why I dont normally see people shooting f6 lol.
>>
>>3460734
>>3460736
>>3460744
I've actually never used a genuine battery in my cam since I bought it second hand and it came with a chink one. It's been alright but recently it stopped charging and I didn't know if it was the charger's or the battery's fault so I ordered two chink ones. I checked and two of them were half the price of a genuine one. Turns out the charger is fucked.
Can I get my money back if I measure it and it's not actually 2499 mAh?
>>
What does /p/ recommend for an online photo platform
I dont really use social media or care about getting likes or whatever I just want something simple that I can use to show people the pictures when they ask.
Mostly wildlife and astro shit if that matters.
>>
>>3461039
/p/
just get a tripcode and give your friends your trip in the archive
>>
>>3461039
Imgur and Instagram are normie friendly.
>>
I like flickr because it allows me to sperg out over metadata. Also offers a nice selection of embedding and geotagging options.
>>
File: 000092280016.jpg (1.09 MB, 1545x1024)
1.09 MB
1.09 MB JPG
why are old telephoto lenses so cheap?

should I go out and take pictures with a 200mm tele even though I don't have a matching viewfinder yet? (film camera)

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNORITSU KOKI
Camera ModelEZ Controller
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2018 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width1545
Image Height1024
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2018:11:05 18:09:52
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1545
Image Height1024
>>
>>3461080
>why are old telephoto lenses so cheap?
Because they aren't very good. Modern telephotos are some of the best lenses around, but that's because it just so happens that the flaws that the telephoto design is prone to are exactly those that modern technology is best placed to compensate for. Telephotos from the era before low-dispersion glass tend to have really horrible chromatic aberration, among other things. I had a Super Takumar 300/4 and I could see the CA with my eye in the viewfinder, and it was even worse in the actual photo. That's just how it goes when you make a telephoto with only five elements.
>>
Can anyone can help me out is there an free app on android that has better tools than vsco since vsco won't stop jewing you?
>>
>>3460654
Maybe you could get her fatass to actually sweat? Also tell her to roll around in dirt or something, dirty and sweaty makes good photo. After you're done post her sweaty dirty feet in this thread because I'm a degenerate and I wanna see that.
>>
Why the fuck can't canon make a lens that's 10mm-200mm? That's all I want. I wanna vlog, I wanna take pictures, I wanna take timelapses. And I want it under $200 Explain canon.
>>
>>3461136
Basically it's really, really fucking hard to make a superzoom that isn't shit through most of its range. The only way you can get good quality with what we know and have now is to make it huge.

And point of fact, they do make a 6.5mm to 180mm...it just costs damn near $100k and is for video.

https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/professional-video-solutions/broadcast-lenses
>>
>>3460482
Just got my first mirrorless, a Fuji tx100 and went out shooting today and have a question about my exposure. The one that’s more underexposed I like a bit more because the shadows are more pronounced and the reds are much deeper but I’m wondering if the one that’s a bit more exposed is more...correct? Would love some feedback on the 2

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeFUJIFILM
Camera ModelX-T100
Camera SoftwareDigital Camera X-T100 Ver1.00
Maximum Lens Aperturef/3.5
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)23 mm
Maker Note Version0130
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created0000:00:00 00:00:00
Exposure Time1/100 sec
F-Numberf/14.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/13.5
Brightness9.1 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashFlash, Compulsory
Focal Length15.20 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1776
Image Height1184
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
SharpnessNormal
White BalanceDaylight
Chroma SaturationNormal
Flash ModeOn
Macro ModeOff
Focus ModeAuto
Slow Synchro ModeOff
Picture ModeManual Exposure
Continuous/Bracketing ModeOff
Blur StatusBlur Warning
Focus StatusOK
Auto Exposure StatusOK
>>
>>3461150
This is the “underexposed?” one I like a bit more

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeFUJIFILM
Camera ModelX-T100
Camera SoftwareDigital Camera X-T100 Ver1.00
Maximum Lens Aperturef/3.5
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)23 mm
Maker Note Version0130
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created0000:00:00 00:00:00
Exposure Time1/100 sec
F-Numberf/16.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/16.0
Brightness9.6 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashFlash, Compulsory
Focal Length15.20 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1776
Image Height1184
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
SharpnessNormal
White BalanceDaylight
Chroma SaturationNormal
Flash ModeOn
Macro ModeOff
Focus ModeAuto
Slow Synchro ModeOff
Picture ModeManual Exposure
Continuous/Bracketing ModeOff
Blur StatusBlur Warning
Focus StatusOK
Auto Exposure StatusOK
>>
>>3461139
Wow fuck that shit lol, thanks for the info though. Damn man that's crazy.
>>
>>3461152
I like the "underexposed" one better, I'm sure it looks much better at full scale. That being said it's a shit picture and boring.
>>
>>3461193
Yeah, basically the limit is around 2x for WA and UWA and around 3x zoom for normals and longer to keep good, consistent image quality through the entire zoom range, and even then, they'll have parts of that zoom range that are more sharp than other parts.

I suspect that we could get better for a wider range with diffractive optics (like Canon green ring lenses), but that shit is still expensive.
>>
>>3461202
How far are we willing to go? How much money to spend for a hobby?
>be me
>not that fucking far at all
>>
dumb noob here, how the fuck do I stop shaking? Half of my shit is blurred as fuck..
>>
>>3461274
Use a higher iso and/or wider aperture so you can use a faster shutter speed. Use a tripod/brace if you can't do that.

Drop shit like caffeine, get exercise.
>>
>>3461274
Breathe out, tense up and press shutter as you reach apex of no breath, then resume normal breathing.
>>
>>3461274
shoot a lot of pictures, seriously
also learn how to hold your camera (4 points of pressure and tension)
>>
>spend two days keytagging 6k pictures in catalogue
>can't force myself transferring the last 1k that I've on camera
>>
>>3461295
>Breathe out, tense up and press shutter as you reach apex of no breath, then resume normal breathing.
Don't tense up. That's exactly the reason you breathe OUT and instead of holding your breath. Tensing up your muscles is a thing that causes camera shake.

>>3461274
>dumb noob here, how the fuck do I stop shaking? Half of my shit is blurred as fuck..
First off, make sure you're using a sufficiently fast shutter speed. The general rule of thumb is you can handhold a shutter 1/(35mm-equivalent focal length). So if you're trying to shoot at 1/5th of a second with a 50mm lens, you're going to have a bad time no matter how controlled your breathing is. If you're really a noob, that's most likely the issue. It also might just be that you're not focusing correctly and you're misinterpreting the blur you're seeing--we'd need to see one of your blurry photos (WITH EXIF DATA) to know for sure.

If your shutter speed is sufficiently fast:
1. Make sure your camera or lens has shake reduction turned on, if your camera or lens has shake reduction.
2. Use your viewfinder, not the back of the camera, if possible. That brings everything in to one more-stable center of mass instead of having the camera dangling out in front of you.
3. Keep your arms close to your sides. Again, this helps keep your center of mass compact and stable.
4. Like the other guy said, click the shutter at the bottom of your exhale.
5. Press the shutter button firmly but don't jab at it. Don't jerk your finger back off of it, either, since your muscle memory might get so good at that that you actually pull off the shutter before the exposure's done.
6. If there's a wall or pillar or something to lean against, do so.

All of the above can get you stable shots below that 1/focal shutter speed, but the main thing is to just use a fast-enough shutter speed that you don't have to go through all of that.
>>
>>3461300
Can you post some? 6k gotta have at least a few the strict /p/ would like
>>
>>3461474

>>3457108
>>3457122
>>3457123
>>3457126
>>3457127
>>3457108
>>3457122
>>3457123
>>3457126
>>3457127

A lot comes on docushots, hdr panorama brackets, and I like to edit even what is fit for this site, so my end output isn't high. I should have some bumblebees for macro thread on the cam.
>>
>>3461498
Jesus amazing.
>>
File: DSC_01302.jpg (560 KB, 2250x1500)
560 KB
560 KB JPG
>>3461281
Crap, I'm addicted to caffeine. I exercise though.

>>3461295
>>3461310
I'll keep this in mind, I'm an actual noob, like I got a camera a week ago to take pictures of my PC part collection and Toys but it never hurts to actually use it for something else.

Here's a picture I just took with all your advice but I still think its kind of blurry, I was focusing on the Mouse's logo. Also I have bad eyesight and I heard that's terrible as a beginner.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON D3400
Camera SoftwareVer.1.13
Maximum Lens Aperturef/5.1
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)67 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2019-04-09T14:15:08+09:00
Exposure Time0.6 sec
F-Numberf/5.6
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/5.6
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeSpot
Light SourceCool White Fluorescent
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length45.00 mm
Image Width2250
Image Height1500
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlNone
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
>>3461133
Unfortunately she is 4'11 and about 90lbs
>>
>>3461847
So, get out of manual mode for now. You don't know enough about the settings to be doing anything but spinning wheels to match the arrow.

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials.htm

Spend a little bit of time for now just getting a feel for what each of the triangle settings do. Don't get hung up on the numbers side just yet, just understand what a longer versus a shorter shutter speed does, a wider/more narrow aperture, and a higher/lower aperture.

Personally, I'm a fan of experimenting at first with the priority modes (aperture priority and shutter priority). These let you change just that one setting while it automatically will adjust the other (or both of the others if you have auto ISO on) to keep the "correct" exposure. So like throw it in aperture priority, then take a few pictures with it at its widest setting, then a few at its most narrow (take some inside, some outside, in pretty bright areas, in pretty dark, up close, far away, something moving, somethiing still and take one of the most narrow and one of the widest of each shot), then go look at them and try to pay attention to what's different. Do the same thing with shutter priority. Then raise up your ISO really high, then drop it as far down as it'll go taking a bunch of different shots. Again, with each of these, you're looking at them trying to identify what's different so you start internalizing how they affect your images.

Around now (probably a couple-three hours of dedicated effort), you'll have an ok idea of what does what, so it's a good time for you to go into more depth and start figuring out what all this stop nonsense and numbers are.
>>
>>3461847
>>3461861
Oh, since I didn't explicitly state what they were your triangle settings are the three settings that make up exposure:
-shutter speed
-aperture
-ISO
>>
>>3461150
>>3461152
shoot raw and edit
>>
File: _DSC0001.jpg (145 KB, 2000x1333)
145 KB
145 KB JPG
>buy secondhand camera
>very happy with it so far
>notice some spots on pictures with lots of negative space
>google tells me it might be dust on sensor
>take test-picture as per the explanation, pic related
>Fug.
Do I order a cleaning kit from china and try it myself, or should I drive half an hour and pay a dude €30 to do it for me?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON D3400
Camera SoftwareVer.1.10
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern1116
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)157 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2019:04:09 15:16:43
White Point Chromaticity0.3
Exposure Time1/3 sec
F-Numberf/22.0
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating100
Exposure Bias-0.7 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length105.00 mm
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width2000
Image Height1333
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlNone
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
What are the best learning materials to git gud?
I can controll camera pretty well I know my ways around. But I can't make my photos look great. They are mediocre at best.
>>
>>3461988
Watch some videos on how to clean a sensor while waiting on some sensor cleaning swabs to arrive, then do it. Just be gentle with it and it'll be fine.

Also, those spots could be dust in the lens... Clean the back lens as good as you can too (front doesn't really matter unless it's really bad--look up "lens repair India ink"). If it's dust in the internal elements of the lens then you might need to send it off for cleaning.
>>
>>3461995
The photographer's eye.

Generally, books on composition and color theory combined with looking at (and trying to figure out how they made) pictures you really like.
>>
>>3461988
use swabs and learn how to use swabs so it won't be expensive in the future since getting dust on your sensor is really normal.
don't be afraid to use pressure when cleaning your sensor, it can handle way more than that and not putting pressure on it will leave shitton of residue.
>>
>>3462005
>>3462000
Thanks!
>>
>>3462002
Thank you Anon, much appreciated.
>>
>>3462005
Avoiding unnecessary pressure isn't about breaking stuff because it can't handle pressure, it's because there's a good chance that dust particle is some harder material than the sensor panel. Rubbing harder into softer makes scratches, and the harder you push down, the deeper the scratch. Only enough force as necessary to maintain contact should be used to press down the sensor swab.
>>
>>3462018
the swabs are designed to suck up those particles so they won't do that, I'll agree though but the way I see it is that it's safer to swab a single time over your sensor instead of having to use many swabs to be done, learning the correct amount of pressure is easy after your second swab attempt.
>>
Would pic related work with soft-boxes? I was thinking about buying LimoStudio 700W Photo and a pair of Singled color adjustable lights.

Would this work or would the lights not be bright enough?
>>
>>3462106
With enough of them it will work.
>>
>>3461988
Blower first swab next use very little liquid on the swab and apply even pressure.
You need a dust free room to work in such as a bathroom with no ventilation after a shower, wait till most of the humidity has cleared otherwise damp dust will stick.
Use a bright light like the ones on smartphones to see how much dust is blowing around.

30€ isn't bad tho especially if they have a clean room.
I paid 80$ US to have my camera cleaned when I was a noob and they did a worse job than I did with just a blower after going back twice.
>>
>>3462020
I find doing wet then dry yields best results.
wet swab will actually pull micro dust out of the groves in focusing screens which amazed me because I literally removed and washed mine in soapy water trying to get micro dust out with no success
>>
>>3462265
Enough as in i'd need like more than 2?
>>
>>3462269
I'm not a fan of blowers. They can move dust into other recesses you can't get to.

Also like dry first then if for some reason I need to use wet, use wet, then dry again.

It's kinda like dusting, wetting whatever is on the sensor can make it adhere, making it harder to get off. Get the stuff that'll come off dry, use solution for whatever didn't come up (which what the hell are you doing with your camera that you need to use solution?)
>>
>>3462334
Enough as in whatever bulb fitting you have, get a tetrahedral-shaped multiplier/adapter to 3 per light stand, don't worry about power draw, these are LED based so any fitting worth its salt shouldn't have a problem. You would were they conventional filament bulbs.

These are lights, not floodlamps, and made for passive soft lighting, not intense flashes. Which ia why I'm recommending using more than 1 per light stand. You can also individually them off/different colours so you could theoretically have a 2/3 orange glow and 1/3 white/blue per stand or whatever.

Put an additional diffuser screen in front of the reflector umbrella to scatter the light, and you should have a pretty kickass setup.

>ignore shittiness of drawing, but it gets my point across.
>>
File: female athlete.jpg (149 KB, 577x1024)
149 KB
149 KB JPG
>>3461851
>she is 4'11

Caitlin?
>>
>>3461847
>Here's a picture I just took with all your advice but I still think its kind of blurry, I was focusing on the Mouse's logo. Also I have bad eyesight and I heard that's terrible as a beginner.
From your exif:
>Exposure Time: 0.6 sec

That's not generally a speed you can do off a tripod. Every once in a while you'll get lucky, but it'll be really rare.

You've got a 67mm-equivalent focal length there, so the minimum speed you should be going for is around 1/60th of a second, but you're at about 1/1.5th of a second. Bump your ISO up to 3200 or 6400 and choose a shutter speed around 1/50th or 1/100th and you should have a lot less camera shake. You'll have a lot more noise because of the high ISO, but the only way to help that is to light up the scene more or get a tripod.

And I agree with >>3461861--you should probably stay out of manual until you really understand what each exposure setting does.
>>
>>3461847
Along with the stuff everyone said already in terms of shutter speed, make sure you're far enough from the object to actually focus in properly.

That's a mistake I was doing quite a bit, I'd focus in and it looked fairly sharp on my viewfinder, but later on my laptop it looked blurry and soft because I was just a tiny tad too close

Figure out your minimum focus distance if you havent already
>>
>>3461847
>>3462456
> make sure you're far enough from the object to actually focus in properly.
Also, if you're not using autofocus, use autofocus. Especially if, as you say, your eyesight isn't great, it's going to be really hit-or-miss to try to focus manually with a crop-sensor DSLR like that.

(Exif doesn't say whether or not you're using manual focus, but I thought it might be a possibility since you're using manual exposure)
>>
>>3461150
>>3461152
Update your firmware and learn how to expose properly.
https://www.fujifilm.com/support/digital_cameras/software/firmware/x/xt100/
>>
>>3462401
Thanks for the input. I did not think of the tri-light adapter. I guess if I go with this, then I would rather go with a budget tier wifi bulb instead of something like Sengled. $49 for the starter kit and then $20 per bulb.
>>
>>3461150
>>3461152
There is no "correct" answer to this. It's your own artistic vision and what you want to do with your pictures.

For example I like my photos to be about 0.5-0.7 stops overexposed from what my meter says since I shoot mostly portraits and I found that overexposing them slightly gives them a much nicer look.
>>
>>3460728
I have a chink dual charger, my chink battery also has "twice" the capacity written on it and is half the price of the genuine one. But when I charge both empty batteries at the same time (genuine and chink) the chink one always gets fully charged first.
>>
>>3461131
Snapseed
>>
>>3462702
and snapfeed
>>
>>3461131
I second the vote for SNAPSEED. It's simple to jump into with a few preset looks AND offers several tools for more precise individual tweaking. You can also set up and save your own preset styles for later use. Pretty decent selection overall.
>>
File: city-338654_1280.jpg (268 KB, 1280x960)
268 KB
268 KB JPG
What's the word for this kind of photos? Where the objects in the foreground are silhouettes?
>>
>>3462772
cliché
>>
>>3462700
How long does the chink charger take to charge the chink one? And how long does the chink one last?
>>
>>3462774
I use my phones fast charger connected to the chink dual charger so it might have an effect and the genuine battery has a 1050 mAh capacity. But from how I see it, the chink battery has around 50-55% capacity compared to the genuine battery. I rarely use my camera so the chink batteries I have are still working good. Tho if need a new battery to replace the chink ones, I'd buy a genuine one instead so less batteries to carry especially when travelling light.
>>
How do I take a shot where the person stands still in the center and other people walking around them appear with a bit of motion blur? I want to do this in thr day time. Is an ND filter needed to help? I ask because I tried before to shoot moving water and it was a pain in the ass fiddling with iso and exposure comp in bright light everything seemed so blown out
>>
Why aren't camera companies today use AA or AAA rechargeable batteries for their camera bodies and not only for the battery grip? An AA battery is already 2500-2800 mAh these days.
>>
Hi guys. Is there a workaround to set S&Q mode to less than 1fps? I'd like to figure out if I can make it at least a half second so I can get a more aesthetic timelapse.

I don't have an intervalometer or other remote for my cam so S&Q is the way I'm getting my timelapses shot. A7m3 btw
>>
>>3462820
I'm not familiar with S&Q mode but Sony have released a new firmware today with intervalometer.
https://photorumors.com/2019/04/11/firmware-update-version-3-0-for-sony-a7r-iii-and-a7-iii-cameras-released-real-time-eye-af-for-animals-interval-shooting/
>>
File: cat.jpg (152 KB, 1223x689)
152 KB
152 KB JPG
A question about video-

I've shot on three different types of cameras (that are supposedly 1080p) and the footage is always grainy. How do I prevent this? Is it just a matter of having better lighting?
>>
>>3462981
Lighting will help. You're getting grains from high iso. Camera in most shooting modes will up the iso when sensor isn't getting enough light. High iso means grain. Better sensor, and better camera will perform better in low light situations.
>>
Hai /p/, I have a nikon coolpix s9700 that I carry with me daily. After years of carrying it around in my pocket, dust has gotten inside and is making my pictures look like garbage. How hard are these cameras to take apart and clean? Should I attempt myself, or would I be better off taking it to a local shop, or maybe sending off to nikon for a cleaning? I'm having a hard time trying to find videos or written tutorials on out to take these things apart. Plz help, and thx.
>>
>>3463026
Go to a pawn shop and buy another for like $20
>>
Can I expect a 5D mkIII to lower in price (used) by the end of summer?
>>
Do i take off my glasses when focusing a DSLR through the viewfinder

or leave them on

if I adjust the diopter I can make either way appear focused
>>
>>3463043
>if I adjust the diopter I can make either way appear focused
Whichever you're more comfortable with.

Depending on what you shoot, it might really suck to constantly have to take off and put on your glasses
>>
what free programs do you guys recommend for raw editing?
>>
>>3463035
You can expect it to slowly go down in price over time. There’s probably not something big between now and the end of summer that’s going to make it go down sharply—the Mark V is probably not due for another year, if at all, and there have already been two RF-Mount full frame canon cameras released recently, so any price drop from them would already be in progress.
>>
>>3462525
Firmware was updated when I took the photo. I guess that’s why I asked about the exposure, they both look presentable to me, I guess it was just a question of what looks better. Not sure why it came out so HDR-ey, its the only one that came out like that. Still a beginner tho so I’ve got a lot to learn, thanks for the link!
>>
>>3462847
Oh thanks for the heads up. They announced it so long ago I didn't expect to see they'd actually release the firmware now. I'll get right on it but from what I read it should do exactly what I need for timelapse without having to spend on external remotes.
I almost bought a miops trigger.
>>
>>3462702
>>3462768
>>3462764
Thanks a lot fàms
>>
Is it disrespectful to take photos in a cemetery?
>>
>>3463601
You'd have to ask the residents to be sure, and they're all dead, so I've always worked on the assumption that they don't mind.

Personally, I'm having it written in my will that I want a super photogenic grave with a note explicitly written on the headstone that I want big titty goth girls to come and do photoshoots there.
>>
>>3463602
>You'd have to ask the residents to be sure, and they're all dead, so I've always worked on the assumption that they don't mind.

This. Also, if someone makes a stink, pack up as if you're leaving and apologize. It's often better to ask forgiveness than to ask permission in these instances where asking permission will likely be instantly met with a "no pictures here" reply.
Also, anon look like you blend in perhaps behave as though you're shooting a gravestone of a relative or asked to do so by someone related to a deceased.
>>
>>3463089
darktable, ufraw
>>
>>3462794
you'll need somewhat around 1/25th second exposure. In softer daylight iso 100 with 1/25 and f16 aperture could work. otherwise nd filter, yes.
>>
>>3463089
>>3463680
RawTherapee as well
>>
File: tamron 24-70.jpg (33 KB, 421x606)
33 KB
33 KB JPG
Does anyone know if the Nikon version of the original tamron 24-70/2.8 VC has the electromagnetic or the mechanical aperture control? I want to get a 24-70 to use with an fm2 and also a d800.
>>
>>3462794
An ND will just make it easier, without one you can average multiple exposures

http://www.verdantvista.scot/tut9
>>
How do you get used to tracking stuff?
Personally I have a really hard time actually zeroing in onto the object I want to take a photo of if I'm fully zoomed in, so I end up having to back off into a wider view, center the subject and zoom back in

I just seem to get lost a lot
>>
>>3463901
I have the same problem. Practice? Hell if I know...
>>
>>3463901
>>3463903
Like am I holding it wrong or what?

I also don't particularly enjoy using the EVF because on my ancient bridge camera it's super shitty quality making telling things apart even harder
>>
>>3463739
it is mechanical.
but does not have an aperture ring.

If you can live without the VC the 28-75mm f2.8 with the aperture ring is pretty good actually..

I shot with one from 2012-2014.
>>
>>3463901
Stability is the first thing. If your subject is bouncing a lot, it's hard to see how it's actually moving to keep it in the viewfinder.

Being familiar with how your subject moves is helpful as well.

Finally, something I do that some people can't get the hang of is shoot with both eyes open. It's a bit weird getting used to having a magnified view in one eye and a "normal" in the other, but it can be done and helps a ton
>>
>>3463925
I know it doesn't have an aperture ring, but it should still work in A mode right? Or am I getting this wrong? Does it have to be shutter priority mode? I don't actually have an fm2n, I was thinking of buying one but I confused it with the FE2. Or I might get an FA if that works without an aperture ring. I really want the VC and if it doesn't work with the FE2/FA I'll just get a nikon 24-70/2.8 VR and two Ai-s primes.
>>
very stupid question

but what's this style of photo? like, it appears soft and almost like a disposable camera, but what's the correct terminology and how would you achieve this?
>>
>>3463963
It's called diggyshitting. Old ccd compact camera, then some light editing in photoshop.
>>
>>3463951
Off the top of my head based off of nikon bodies I have owned and used.
FM2 Doesn't have an A mode.
You can shoot "G" lenses on the FE, FE2, FG20, F3, but only wide open.
The FA, FG, N2000 have "P" mode as well that works pretty good but you don't have much control with a "G" lens.
The FA, and N2000 also have "S" mode where you can chose your shutter speed and the camera will choose the aperture. This works remarkably well even with the latest "G" lenses.

I don't shoot much film anymore since my local film place closed.
>>
>>3463963
wish this had exif.
>>
>>3460482
Do yall niggas use your actual view fiinder or the a display?
>>
>>3463995
Yeah I'll just get an FA then. I was kind of eyeing an FM3A on my local marketplace because I find it cool that it does 1/4000 in mechanical mode and it has a much cleaner design than the FA, but the FA is cheaper and I'd prefer getting the Tamron for both systems over getting primes specifically for the film body.
>even with latest "G" lenses
Aren't G lenses all equipped with the E aperture control though?
>>
>>3464116
>Aren't G lenses all equipped with the E aperture control though?
Only E lenses have electronic aperture.
Some examples would be;
24-70 2.8E
70-200 2.8E
200-500 5.6E
105 1.4E
there might be 1 or 2 more but I can't remember.

FA does everything the FM3a does except be able to do manual mode with no batteries.
>>
>>3464025
Viewfinder, unless I'm shooting at a weird angle.
>>
>>3464116
>Aren't G lenses all equipped with the E aperture control though?
There's two "aperture control" thingies which you might be confusing.

The G lenses don't have an aperture ring on the lens, so you have to control their aperture with the camera. However, there's still a little mechanical lever in the lens that couples to the camera which is how the camera sets your chosen aperture setting on the lens.

The E lenses are newer. They also don't have a mechanical ring to let you control aperture on the lens, but they also drop that little mechanical lever, which means the only way the camera can control the aperture is by electronically telling the lens what aperture it should be at, and even most fully-electronic digital cameras that Nikon's made don't know how to do that so film-era cameras definitely can't.
>>
When should I use no profile and when should I use the color matrix options in UFraw?
>>
>>3464130
>>3464135
Thanks anons, I knew they were two different things I just didn't know there were G lenses which weren't also E lenses. Kind of how all G lenses are actually D lenses too since they have distance information, but the D designation is dropped because it's made redundant.
It looks like Nikon doesn't have a 24-70/2.8 that has VR and isn't an E lens though, so I'll still get the Tamron one and an FA.
Thanks for the help
>>
>>3464139
https://www.nikonians.org/reviews/nikon-slr-camera-and-lens-compatibility
>>
>>3464025
Mostly viewfinder especially under the bright sun or lots of strong reflections. I find it easier when composing shots handheld. Monitor display when taking high or low angle, tilted shots. It's just me tho.
>>
>>3460482
I've got a very stupid question. I have a DSLR and when I have movie settings set to manual, live view will show how a picture will come out based on my settings but is limited by shutter speed because it's ready for video. So when I turn off manual movie settings, live view just shows me exactly what I'm seeing and not how the image would look based on my settings.

What else can I do to preview how my image will look?
>>
>>3463996
fortunately for me it's not mine, but can you help me with my question buddy?
>>
I'm getting a used full frame camera with a 50mm and a 85mm prime. The plan is to get great portrait quality until I can afford more lenses. Is this a good combination, and how much will I regret not having a zoom?
>>
>>3464230

That's a pretty good standard combination of lenses. If you're shooting mostly headshots and portraits in a studio, you won't regret not having a zoom, because you shouldn't have to move mutch at all
>>
>>3464169
Not sure what your camera is, but on my Canon in the Live View menu you can enable/disable Exposure Simulation
>>
>>3464230
That's the combination I use for portraits 90% of the time. If you're anything like me, you won't regret not having a zoom at all--I have a 28-70/2.8 and I almost never use it for portraiture.
>>
who's that one photographer that did photos from behind a foggy bus stop window?
>>
>>3464136
never use no profile. use srgb or the profile your camera shot in. argb most likely. you can play with the matrix. absolute colormetric can be fun sometimes. in doubt go with perceptual.
>>
>>3464274
oh its Peter Hoffman i found it

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeFUJIFILM
Camera ModelX-Pro1
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.8 (Macintosh)
PhotographerPeter Hoffman
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)41 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2017:03:18 16:29:06
Exposure Time1/30 sec
F-Numberf/2.8
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating800
Lens Aperturef/2.8
Brightness-1.4 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceDaylight
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length27.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
I don't know how to edit color/levels in pictures and want best software with an "auto" and nice color profiles.
I currently use rawtherapee and the colors from raws in it look literally worse than camera colors. If I dare to hit "auto levels" button in it, it overexposes everything.
Should I just buy lightroom?
>>
>>3464432
Lightroom and CaptureOne have free trials.

Best bet though is to take the time to learn color theory
>>
>>3464432
It's not that difficult to learn
Just make a thread and post some examples of your work (or post them here if you've only got one) and we'll try and give you some pointers
Editing should be fun
>>
>>3464136
>ufraw
Just move to rawtherapee or darktable.
>>
>>3464432
>>3464437
Also imho, RawTherapee is good to learn on because when you turn on the modules they're most often cranked up too high so you're usually lowering them
Helps you from falling in the traps of Hmmm clarity? *pulls it to the max*

Generally if you increase something it's going to look better because you're gradually overediting it. If you start with a middle value and drop down slowly you'll do better
>>
>>3464444
Key about 3rd party raw converters that don't use manufacturer data, is that they don't throw usual lens corrections over them before showing your the picture. That's both a benefit and a shortcoming. With them you actually play with the real picture as captured, at the same time you need to put effort into correcting aberrations and lens distortions yourself. Can be automated, but casual user will immediately see that pic as imported looks better in capt one or lr, and move a way from them.
>>
>>3464461
You can use adobe profiles with rawtherapee cant you?
Still though, OP sounds like he'd struggle regardless of software
>>
>>3460482
Do I absolutely need a wide angle lens for Europe travel? No portraits just buildings, landscapes, and architecture.
>>
>>3464230
I would personally either get a 24-70/2.8 with shake reduction, or a 35mm and a 85/1.4. If you want to shoot portraits you'll almost always pick the 85mm over the 50mm, and 35mm gives you a wider field of view in case you need it. On full frame you can easily crop a bit if you need to, but you can't do wider angle in post production.
>>
>>3464461
>they don't throw usual lens corrections over them before showing your the picture.
Canon DPP4 don't do that either
>>
>>3460482
Alright guys. No bullshit.
Is ProPhoto RGB the color space I should be saving all of my scanned images and photos in?

I know to convert to sRGB when finishing up a final image for web/sharing, I'm just looking for maximum flexibility in editing.

I'm aiming for archival quality more so than usability/simplicity, so I can make mistakes and have my files be there for me when I want to come back and reprocess/fix things better as my knowledge and skill improves.

For example, say I scan some film in VueScan. I should output everything in ProPhoto RGB for flexible post processing right? Because scanning to sRGB before doing color work limits things yeah?

My monitor is IPS with 99% sRGB with a delta under 3. I understand that is relatively good, but is factory calibration reliable?
>>
>>3464570
>>3464570
If you edit in a gamut that's wider than your display can handle, you're not actually seeing the true color. Stick to gamuts your display can handle.

Also, calibration is mostly a meme, especially if you're doing it in a room where you don't have full control of the light, and only really matters if you're displaying on screens that are calibrated as well. If you're going to set your shit up and you are printing, it's best to get it as close to how they come out as prints as you can (which also means using the same printer over time).

If you're mainly displaying digitally, look at your stuff on multiple devices and you'll get a feel for how well your setup generally works.
>>
>>3464583
>If you edit in a gamut that's wider than your display can handle, you're not actually seeing the true color. Stick to gamuts your display can handle.

But if the editing software renders it for the display in a simulated sRGB, there won't be any downsides right? I know the colors look off with color management disabled but with it on, it's simply more data to work with, and helpful for pulling colors and detail from discolored/faded film right? or is there a reason to actually do all this processing in the more limited color space?
>>
File: color-wheel_hazsbk.jpg (110 KB, 1298x836)
110 KB
110 KB JPG
>>3464583
Dumb advice.
>>3464570
Save and edit in as high gamut as you'll get them off the scanner. More colours mean larger editing windows. Digishitters convert argb into prophoto before editing for miniscule gains. There's no reason for you to downscale and loose potential colour info.
>>
>>3464230
Shooting only with primes can be a very nice experience. You might have to think a little more about your shots and put more work into your composition. It’s rewarding.
>>
Is there a lossless or near-lossless way of stitching DNG images? Ideally using Photoshop’s photomerge as it’s by far the best I’ve come across.
>>
>>3464486
A small wide angle prime or if zoom something like a 16-35mm fares well. You can blend in easier with a small wide prime and are less likely to have it stolen by gypsy scum or some other euro scammer
>>
File: promoh61617.png (27 KB, 600x389)
27 KB
27 KB PNG
How do I use the histogram? What's the ideal shape of it when shooting?
>>
>>3464684
The "ideal" would be to have it extend from the left to the right but not clip on any side.
But it depends entirely on what you're shooting.
Bright things are bright and should be bright in your shot.
As long as you're not clipping you've still got detail
>>
>dishwashing soap as wetting agent
Is this retarded? I read it on a boomer forum. Apparently you just drop a tiny amount of dishwashing soap into your dev tank, agitate it and then get the excess foam off with a squeegee. Will this fuck up my film?
>>
Is it just me or is Canon extremely predatory when limiting their own gear? The lack of basic features in mid-high end bodies is mind-boggling, they are clearly forcing you towards higher priced products. I totally get that as a company they have to control their market but jesus man, no dual sds in recent models, clumped AF, no joysticks, slow shutters, no profile modes... All literally comparable to old Nikons you get for a 1/3 of the price on ebay.
>>
>>3464716
>Will this fuck up my film?
Even if it's legit and works, test it yourself on a dummy roll you don't care about.

For all you know the specific kind of soap you use might cuck you it's chemicals man, it's science. Don't trust 4chan with mixing things lol.
>>
>>3464717
Canon bodies are a meme. I get that "a good photographer could take good photos with any 10 year old dslr so it's no biggie that they're generations behind", but why would you pay the same amount of money for something clearly inferior to nikon/sony bodies? Canon glass is usually superior to the nikon/tamron/sigma/sony equivalents though, so that's how they trap you into the system.
>>
>>3464684
left side are shadows, right side are light tones. spike means how much of those there is. There are no hard set rules ragarding them. Generally the first thing to do before editing is set the shadows so they're starting to clip, and light so they're nearly clipping, but there are many exceptions where you don't do that.
>>
>>3464722
>why would you pay the same amount of money for something clearly inferior to nikon/sony bodies?
>Canon glass is usually superior to the nikon/tamron/sigma/sony equivalents though

You just answered yourself there. For the record. Lens > Body
>>
>>3464717
> Is it just me
It's just you. You've bought into the "Canon cameras are shitty" meme, probably without ever having owned or used one. You're comparing Canon's budget, entry-level, low-end bodies to higher-end cameras from other manufacturers. E.g.,

> All literally comparable to old Nikons you get for a 1/3 of the price on ebay.
>comparable to old Nikons
>old Nikons
When you say that, you're not talking "old Nikons" like the D60 or D3000. You're talking old Nikons like the D7000, which was a midrange body in its day, and comparing it to things like a modern Rebel.

By the same token, you could say that the D5600 has shitty features compared to a used 70D that goes for the same price or less (than a new d5600).

>>3464722
> why would you pay the same amount of money for something clearly inferior to nikon/sony bodies?
Because they're not "clearly inferior" unless you're looking at them through fanboy goggles.

Hell, you even say
> Canon glass is usually superior to the nikon/tamron/sigma/sony equivalents though, so that's how they trap you into the system.
which is a weird statement to make while claiming that Canon is shitty--lenses generally have a more significant effect on image quality than camera bodies, after all. "They trap you in the system by giving you a system that can get better images" is a weird anti-Canon argument.

For me, as someone who has used and owned camera bodies from all of the major manufacturers, I always come back to Canon because their shit just works better for me. A big part of that is just that I'm used to them, but in my experience, Canon gets the interface right more than anyone else.
>>
>canon is shit
>Nikon needs a chart to figure out what lenses and features work on what bodies
>>
>>3464722
Nikon and Sony aren't better enough than Canon at the things they're better enough at to outweigh the things that they are for many, especially professional, shooters. Like the big thing of you're drawing the line there is high ISO performance. Being able to shoot at over ISO 3200 is nice, but it just isn't necessary for most pros and the pros that do need something like that don't typically need full resolution images (i.e. they can downsample). Being able to increase a raw files exposure 5 stops is likewise just not necessary. Know what is necessary? Good IQ. Nailing focus. Having PS that has your back basically anywhere in the world as fast as is humanly possible. (Nikon's is pretty good, Sony's is hot garbage).

There's a reason why people to know what they're talking about talk more about the full ecosystem when talking about selecting between manufacturers.
>>
>>3464908
>Having PS that has your back basically anywhere in the world as fast as is humanly possible.

This is something almost no one mentions here and one of the main reasons I buy Canon over Nikon and Sony.
Their support is top notch I dont have to harass and argue with people over the phone for weeks to get my shit repaired. The care pak plans are worth it just for the free shipping and cleaning/calibration.
>>
>>3464887
>You've bought into the "Canon cameras are shitty" meme
Wasn't even aware that's a meme, just made an observation based on hours of comparing models.
>probably without ever having owned or used one
My 70D disagrees.
>and comparing it to things like a modern Rebel
And no, I'm not talking about Rebels (I specifically said mid-high end), look at the 6D Mark II and tell me those features aren't just dumb at that price tag, or even the RP. They absolutely want you to go with the big boys by deliberately removing stuff, which sucks if you want an upgrade without breaking the bank.
>inb4 buy used
That defeats the whole point.
>>
>>3464911
>They absolutely want you to go with the big boys by deliberately removing stuff, which sucks if you want an upgrade without breaking the bank.

I have to agree that canon is just stupid about some things
like comparing the 77d and the 80d, put better sensor/processor in shit body (77d) yet remove things like AFMA for no reason, meanwhile the 80d gets worse sensor with AFMA with faster shutter and a bunch of other shit.
Why bundle your best crop sensor in a shit body less than a year after the 80d then nerf it with software limitations segmenting the crop sensor line in 5 different ways.
The RP not having 1080 24p is a laughable omission they should be consistently ridiculed for
>>
>>3464886
>lens > body
Maybe so, but wouldn't a good body + good lens combo be even better? Also like I said I get that a bit less noise and more dr is not going to suddenly make your crappy photos look amazing, but it still feels bad that you're paying premium price for something with outdated sensor tech and missing features.
>>3464908
I get all of this, anon. The thing keeping me from switching to Canon despite being a bit tempted by their glass is just that feeling that I'd still be paying top dollar for something that cuts corners. I have no problem with having to make little concessions and being a bit limited in my settings and whatnot. I have a d800 and I'm not planning on upgrading any time soon. But if I was going to spend upwards of 3k on a new body I'd want it to have it all.
>good PS
I can't speak for this one since I bought all my shit used and I've never actually dealt with Nikon directly.
I don't actually have anything against Canon, if anything I'm just pissed that they don't license Sony's sensors like Nikon does. If the R mark ii had a Sony sensor and and the power switch fused with the shutter button I'd probably get it even if it didn't have IBIS.
>>
>>3464922
>The thing keeping me from switching to Canon despite being a bit tempted by their glass is just that feeling that I'd still be paying top dollar for something that cuts corners.
All consumer products cut corners. All of them.

I suspect again that you're talking about the sensors themselves and what you miss in that conversation is that Canon uses their own sensors. Canon still developing their own sensors is a very good thing. We don't want a world where only Sony makes sensors. Plus, this isn't a decade or so ago where they were badly behind. The massive gap that fanboys yell about basically doesn't exist.

And I'm not saying you're wrong for deciding to go with Sony or Nikon. If their stuff does what you need the way you need it, awesome. I'm also not saying that Canon does things perfectly or is there greatest. All I'm saying is that it's a mistake to assume that all other customers value the same qualities you do, or to assume that there's some big secret that you managed to figure out that a few million others who have been doing this stuff for far longer just keep missing.
>>
This debate is making my first proper DSLR purchase intimidating.
>>
If you really want to learn the craft quickly, purchase the great courses fundamentals of photography by Joel Sartore. He takes you through everything in half hour segments. You can buy it used on eBay and it’s worth it’s weight in gold

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeApple
Camera ModeliPhone SE
Camera Software11.4.1
Image-Specific Properties:
Exposure Time1/30 sec
F-Numberf/2.4
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating50
Lens Aperturef/2.4
Brightness4.1 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length2.15 mm
Image Width960
Image Height1280
>>
Are there restrictions on maximum size SD cards can be that a camera can write to? Obv I want to go big, but not if I can't write to fill it.
>>
>>3465025
Does anyone know if it's possible to copy camera matching profiles from lighroom or camera raw to other images than just raw files themselves?
>>
File: DSF30.jpg (127 KB, 846x879)
127 KB
127 KB JPG
>>3465045
Talking about this thing.
>>
>>3464716
That’s what I use. Zero issues so far. Just make sure there’s no weird dyes or shit in it, I guess.
>>
File: eosm50.jpg (79 KB, 1280x720)
79 KB
79 KB JPG
I'm going to buy to buy my first mirrorless and pic related will be my choice. Can anon who owns the M50 post some photos and tell me what he likes/dislikes?
>>
I've been strong armed into doing a friend's actor headshots. Anyone have an experience with this sort of thing? Any tips?
>>
>be me (I)
>take 400 shots a day
>how do i choose what to keep
Is this normal
Should I shoot less
How do you guys do it
>>
>>3465193
Is it like, 400 "good" shots or like 10 takes of one shot each?

What kind of stuff are you shooting (show thumbnails maybe?)

Don't really have any advice, just curious. Still a beginner so I mostly tend to go out on dedicated camera hikes rather than carry it with me all the time
>>
>>3461131
Like others said, snapseed is probably way to go if you want ease of use. Also would try photoshop express
>>
File: film-look.png (16 KB, 184x171)
16 KB
16 KB PNG
>>3463963
I'm affraid there is no terminology or technique except using old film or trying to recreate the look with digital.

As for the photo:
Shoot during blue hour, focus on finding some good light source to illuminate your scene and compose so it's central point of interest in your shot. In postproduction raise blacks and whites on your tone curve for softer look (see picture for reference). Lower contrast and clarity can also help, just make sure you don't overdo it. Use split toning to get closer to overall orange-teal look. But it's kinda cliché these days.
>>
>>3465193
My first step is to cull everything that doesn't look interesting as a thumbnail. If it doesn't stand out as a thumbnail then the composition is probably weak. That'll get rid of most of them.
>>
>>3465045
>>3465046
Some update. I found some of them, though I don't know how to export them since they're in .dcp format.
They're in ProgramData\Adobe\CameraRaw\CameraProfiles\Camera\ folder. What's weird is that there are no Fuji profiles present. All the new cams are there z7, eos r, and the rest, but for some reason no Fuji. Only one that I want to copy...
>>
File: blurryaf.jpg (186 KB, 711x474)
186 KB
186 KB JPG
Alright, so I have a Canon SL2 and I mainly use my Tamron 85mm 1.8 VC.

This is a crop of a photo at 100% that was shot with:
ISO - 100
Aperture - 2.8
Shutter Speed - 800

The focus was set right on her glasses. She wasn't moving and I wasn't moving. How the fuck are the glasses not even in focus or even sharp at all? I was looking at my previous photos too and even at F4, they all look like a blurry mess at 1:1. My Chinese Yongnuo 50 1.8 is 100x sharper at F4 than this lens is.

Could this be a lens issue? The only thing I can really think of is that I changed a setting in the camera or the sorta cheap Polarizer I used on this specific day. But my older pictures were without the Polarizer look like shit. Judging by the reviews I have watched on this lens, it should be pretty damn sharp but my results beg to differ.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2017 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2019:04:16 13:57:10
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width711
Image Height474
>>
>>3465339
If the focus was on the reflection in the glasses, then it's focusing at the distance between you and her plus the distance from the glasses to what they were reflecting. Get focus from like the top of the rims where it can see the contrast between them and her skin.
>>
File: why.jpg (113 KB, 567x366)
113 KB
113 KB JPG
>>3465341
It isn't just the glasses though. The photos without the glasses are just as bad as that one.

This one is at
ISO - 400
Aperture - 4.0
Shutter Speed - 125

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2017 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2019:04:16 14:46:24
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width567
Image Height366
>>
>>3465341
Wrong picture
>>
File: f4.jpg (572 KB, 1200x720)
572 KB
572 KB JPG
>>3465357
Wow, just post.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2017 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2019:04:16 14:49:35
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width1200
Image Height720
>>
>>3465360
Were you too close? Lenses do have a minimum focal distance?
>>
>>3465365
Oh shit, just noticed your lens.

You're probably a combination of too close plus seeing some camera shake. Your shutter speed is a bit too slow. 85mm on a Canon crop has a field of view like a 136mm, so you want speeds faster than 1/125 to make sure that there's no camera shake while hand holding (the rule of thumb is faster than 1/(equivalent focal length))
>>
>>3465365
No, at least 6+ feet away due to APS-C cropping.
>>
>>3465366
Yeah, I understand that I technically need a faster speed but the Tamron does have a pretty damn good Vibration Compensation.

>>3465355
This photo is

ISO - 100
Aperture - 2.8
Shutter Speed - 800
>>
>>3465368
You could just have really Shakey hands...

That's all I can think of man other than maybe it was hunting for focus because of the wide aperture... I'd go shoot some more and actually test it. Try different AF modes, different AF points trying to keep the shutter speed over 1/500 or 1/1000 to see how it behaves.
>>
>>3465360
>>3465355
>>3465339
These look like motion blur rather than out-of-focus blur. Not sure why you’d be getting that with a 1/800th shutter speed, though, unless maybe you actually had it on a tripod with the vibration control turned on? Or maybe your shutter speed wasn’t actually 1/800th?

Can you post a full size image instead of just a 100% crop of the sunglasses shot?
>>
>>3465414
If you carefully examine the reflections in her eyes you can see something casting a shade, judging by the thickness of the shade it's OPs legs without a tripod
>>
File: 01_03_1841.jpg (113 KB, 1025x607)
113 KB
113 KB JPG
Is it possible to take good photos without going outside?
>>
>>3465495
Yeah, but it just can't be your own home you're inside. You're too biased, liking things and moments on sentimental values instead of aesthetic qualities. Tunnel vision. Not everyone is equally susceptible to this, but everyone is.
>>
File: IMG_0537.jpg (3.37 MB, 4000x6000)
3.37 MB
3.37 MB JPG
>>3465414
This one with -
iso - 100
aperture - 2.8
shutter speed - 1/1250

No tripod

>>3465378
I don't believe my hands are THAT shakey. When I used to old 18-50 IS with me EOS M, I was able to go as low as 1/4.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS Rebel SL2
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2017 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2019:04:16 20:27:00
Exposure Time1/1250 sec
F-Numberf/2.8
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/2.8
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length85.00 mm
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width4000
Image Height6000
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>3465515
It's back focused a bit. Try shooting again with better light/stop down some to get a deeper depth of field. It's probably just struggling because of the relatively dark scene and being almost wide open.
>>
>>3465516
Oh and I say it's back focused because of the fabric of her shirt. The sharpest focus seems to be a bit in front of her face.
>>
File: why2.jpg (4.61 MB, 1600x5352)
4.61 MB
4.61 MB JPG
>>3465516
Then the lens must be back-focusing or just having focusing issues on every picture in general, including the ones in bright sunlight.

This photo was from back in September. The focus was right on her eye. And as you can see, it still slightly oof.

iso 200
aperture 4.0
shutter speed 2000

Yes I know I could have lowed the shutter speed for 100 iso.


And if you quickly head over to this page and scroll down to the guy who has wedding shots and look at the full image, it blows mine out of the water.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4005594

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2017 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2019:04:16 20:54:57
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width1600
Image Height5352
>>
>>3465518
The way to know for sure what it is doing to test it in a variety of conditions.
>>
>>3465520
Varying lighting conditions or testing on walls and stuff?
>>
>>3465522
Look up how to make a focus target (basically like a vertical stick beside a ruler that's at an angle). I'd start with base ISO, wide open, and whatever shutter speed on tripod with good illumination. Throw it out of focus, then AF on the stick. Take a picture. Throw it out of focus again, tighten down the aperture be a stop or so, AF, then take a picture. Repeat through the aperture range.

The ruler will let you figure out if focus is centered on the stick.

Repeat again in darker conditions.
>>
>>3465522
Here's a couple of examples of the idea:

https://petapixel.com/2013/03/12/ghettoca-a-diy-lens-calibration-tool-for-micro-adjustment-enabled-dslrs/

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/focus_testing.html
>>
File: RokinonRK12mESIL12mm.jpg (150 KB, 1061x1500)
150 KB
150 KB JPG
I'm new to photography, doing real estate photos. Right now I've got 18-135mm and a 16-50mm lenses. The wide angle doesn't seem wide enough to me, and I found a Rokinon 12mm fixed lens. Would this be too wide? I'm not sure how well LR/PS could handle the distortion from the lens.
>>
>>3465524
>>3465523
And I'm saying repeat it in lighting conditions and though the aperture range because that'll help tell you if it's just an issue with the AF system not being sensitive enough for the conditions (if it's only missing focus at say less than f/5.6 but nailing it above there, then in darker situations it misses up through f/8, then it's probably just the limit of your AF system).
>>
>>3465525
Just stitch if you need better coverage. The corners of UWAs get bad.
>>
Do you need to use targets and create profiles for flatbed scanners or do flatbeds calibrate themselves?

I'm trying to get a color managed workflow set up and am concerned about scanner accuracy.
>>
>>3465525
Do you have a full frame sensor? They're important as they effectively fit more from the lens into your photos compared to crop sensors. 18mm is pretty wide but it's more like 24mm on a crop body, so dropping down to 12mm won't be super effective if you're not on full frame.

Also what kind of real estate photos are you trying to take? Autist architecture fapbait or photos to showcase properties for property sales? This guy >>3465528 has a point but people taking looks at property they want to rent/buy won't give a flying fuck about chromatic abberation and that kinda shit.
>>
>>3465525
>12mm
Get if you can afford.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krD0GSqkfSQ
>>
>>3465535
>but people taking looks at property they want to rent/buy won't give a flying fuck about chromatic abberation and that kinda shit.
Ehh, UWAs get fully shit in the corners, not just kinda shit, and corrections can end up taking you more time than just stitching a couple of non-UWAs together.
>>
>>3465538
Shit... Maybe in a few months if stuff kicks off well. Thanks.

>>3465535
Nope! I wish, but we were trying to keep costs reasonable. Ended up settling on a Sony a6400.

>>3465528
Any decent material to read on that? (Or any good info for starters, especially real-estate related)
>>
does anyone have a source for cheap backdrops?
>>
>>3465546
Just look up stitching photos, there's a ton out there. One of the important things for stitching is keeping your exposure the same across the photos (using strobes is helpful here, and this means getting each image the same general brightness, not necessarily keeping the same settings between shots) you're doing and have a decent overlap between the photos.

You'll also want to look into doing HDR, but for the love of God, don't over do it.

Biggest thing generally is working out an efficient work flow, and a lot of that is trying to minimize post processing time by getting as near what you need in camera.
>>
>>3465548
How much work are you willing to do?
>>
>>3465545
Again people looking for rentals don't care so much about image quality as they do the overall picture.

They just want a feeling of what it's like, they're not there to admire lens sharpness or intrinsic quality of the photos.
>>
>>3465551
are you suggesting painting my own canvases? I honestly hadn't considered it.
>>
>>3465546
>Nope! I wish, but we were trying to keep costs reasonable.
Well, real estate is a fucking joke.
You can bring a tripod and control the entire scene with lighting if you wish so the camera doesn't matter to be honest - only the framing of the photo.

You're going to be extremely limited, or have to pay a HUGE premium to get the field of view you want with lenses on a crop sensor. I won't lie, it is simply best you forget about your DSLR and buy something else.

Like, for your ultra wide stuff (showing off tight small spaces, etc) you can literally just say fuck it and use a GoPro. Then use your DSLR for other shots.
>>
>>3465557
>Real estate is a fucking joke.

I figured as much. We normally car photos (ones for dealerships, not the good shit) with iPhones and I figured they'd be fine with the grips/wide-angle lenses we have, but these realtors wouldn't even give us a chance after we mentioned doing it on phones.

Not trying to shit on good, quality photography, but for quick, cheap marketing photos the current gen of camera phones do fine. Only a matter of time before these people realize.

Back on topic tho, we got a copule Neewar or whatever lights to brighten up corners and such. I was hoping to get a better camera for this, but how long it would take to recoup that cost is kinda nuts just doing real estate.

>>3465550
Will do. I've seen some HDR stuff before, I think it looks like complete shit when overdone. No clue how that shit sells.
>>
File: 71Zl9VCnBTL._SL1500_.jpg (110 KB, 1455x1500)
110 KB
110 KB JPG
>>3465551
$27 on amazon. Why tf didn't I consider this? Now to find cheap paint I guess.
>>
>>3465554
>Rentals
Depends on the kind of rental? $300/month shoebox? Yeah they don't care. $3500/month townhouse/condo? They care.

>They just want a feeling of what it's like, they're not there to admire lens sharpness or intrinsic quality of the photos.
Yeah, and shitty pictures makes it feel shitty, but you're missing who the customer is here: the realtor. If you charge them for bullshit they can do with their phone, then you're not getting hired again.

>Will do. I've seen some HDR stuff before, I think it looks like complete shit when overdone. No clue how that shit sells.

Want to get some hope for your future? Go look through the pictures on Sotheby's realty site.
>>
>>3465555
Well there is that, but that's not what I was going for. So the heavier the fabric, the more it resists wrinkling. The fewer wrinkles, the less time you spend ironing/steaming. Heavier fabric is more expensive. Light thin ones are cheap.
>>
Why didn’t anyone tell me iPhones could take snapshots at night?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeApple
Camera ModeliPhone SE
Camera Software11.4
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)29 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2019:04:16 19:46:06
Exposure Time1/15 sec
F-Numberf/2.2
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating2000
Lens Aperturef/2.2
Brightness-5.4 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length4.15 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width4032
Image Height3024
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
File: IMG_8568.jpg (88 KB, 525x700)
88 KB
88 KB JPG
what camera is this?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width525
Image Height700
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>3464960
I bought a 40d and the 50 1.8
Finally got something and just started shooting
>>
>>3465606
why not a 35mm?
50mm is 80mm on Canon APS-C
>>
>>3460492
4chan.

I'll teach you.

shutter speed relates to movement and motion blur. Adjust as necessary.

aperture relates to depth of field. Adjust as necessary. Want background blur and narrow focus? go low. Want everything in scene relatively sharp? go high.


and that's literally all you need to know about aperture and shutter speed. Literally it. That right there above.

It gets more complicated once you factor in exposure but that's a whole other deal. Basically, you need to compromise at least in one area to get proper exposure - or use filters.

If you want a nice wide aperture shot in bright sunlight with motion blur you're going to need filters because a wide open lens and slow shutter speed would quickly be overexposed in sunlight, etc.


If all you want is sharp photos set your aperture to like 8, iso under 400, and adjust shutter speed as necessary. 125 vs 6000 shutter speed effectively takes the same photo with no compromises of still subjects but going higher up will "freeze" motion and make cars appear still.
>>
>>3465609
>and that's literally all you need to know about aperture and shutter speed. Literally it.
Well that’s not true. Just off the top of my head, here are other things that are important to know about aperture:
1. Lower f/number (meaning a wider aperture) lets in more light. Higher f/number let’s in less light.
2. Your widest aperture (Ie, lowest f/number) and narrowest (ie, largest f/number) are rarely your sharpest apertures. Usually the sharpest photos come a couple stops down.
3. Each of the numbers in this sequence is one stop of aperture away from the next/previous: 1.0, 1.4, 2.0, 2.8, 4.0, 5.6, 8, 11, 16, 22, 32, 44, 64. A “stop” represents a halving/doubling of the light in your exposure, and is basically the fundamental unit of exposure.
4. As a wider aperture let’s in more light, you can use a faster shutter speed to get the same exposure. For this reason, lenses with a large maximum aperture (low f/number, like f/1.4 or f/2.0) are referred to as “fast” lenses.

And shutter speed:
1. For a hand-held shot without motion blur, the rule of thumb is to use a shutter speed of 1/(focal length of your lens, 35mm-equivalent) or faster. So on full frame, with a 50mm lens, 1/50th of a second or faster.
2. One stop of shutter speed is just double/half the speed of the next.
>>
File: focus issues.jpg (2.54 MB, 3072x1400)
2.54 MB
2.54 MB JPG
>>3465524
>>3465526
>>3465414

So here are my results from my super ghetto setup cause I don't have a printer.

As seen in the picture, the green is where I have the auto focus locked. At 1.8 it is clearly back focusing by a good 0.5 - 0.8 inches. You can sort of see it in >>3465515 if you look at the metal hole in her hoodie. Notice how it is the most in focus. Which would make sense if it was back-focusing about 0.5 ~ 0.8 inches.

Now as we continue to ramp up the aperture, you notice that the 36' mark does not actually get sharper but everything behind it does. At F8, there is about 2 inches where there would be acceptable sharpness.

I don't usually shoot above F4.5 with this lens. So I see now why a lot of my photos are out of focus because at F4.5, there is about an 1 1/4 inch difference from where I am actually focusing. So if I focus right on her eye, it is actually focusing about an inch behind her eye thus causing oof images. Even worse at 1.8.


So I guess now my options are to either order Tamron's stupid TAP IN hardware to adjust it myself, or see if there is a local shop that happens to have it and have them do it.

I will do another for my camera's actual focus point to see where exactly it picks up focus relative to the rectangle point.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2017 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2019:04:17 02:10:43
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width3072
Image Height1400
>>
Olympus has the omd em10 mark 2 with 14-42 IIR and the 40-150mm F4.0-5.6 bundled for $650.
What do you guys think, it's currently cheaper than my local retailers and B&H.
>>
>>3465619
With other cameras you could do AF fine tune (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2tKs1zQ58E) but I think you are shit out of luck with the SL2.

Do you have the same issue if you focus in live view?
>>
>>3465638
Yeah, the SL2 does not have any form of micro adjustments. I just tried the lens adapted to my EOS M and it still feels like it is off slightly compared to manual focus. I'm pretty sure the lens is just needs to be calibrated slightly. So unless my local shop has the tech to calibrate it, I guess I'll just have to order the TAP.
>>
>>3465624
It's worth it for that 40-150.
>>
>>3465619
>Now as we continue to ramp up the aperture, you notice that the 36' mark does not actually get sharper but everything behind it does. At F8, there is about 2 inches where there would be acceptable sharpness.
This sounds like (optical) focus shift. It's a characteristic of the lens design (and aperture shape).
However this is usually seen in faster, older manual focus lenses. With autofocus, it's more probable something's out of calibration or the algorithm fucking things up.
Still weird though that - apart from backfocusing - the plane of focus noticeably changes with aperture. Maybe the autofocus algorithms also takes into account aperture to optimise where it actually focuses, and that creates even ,more issues when there's backfocus to begin with.
>>
Rapidfire incoming. Why can't I see the whole picture through the viewfinder on a T3i? The corners are cut. How do you check if your exposure was right when the bright sun obfuscates your screen? I use the meter as a rule of thumb before shooting but it's often wrong. Can I just keep my focus on servo/continuous mode all the time when using back button focus? I can just stop pressing and then shoot.
>>
>>3465674
>Why can't I see the whole picture through the viewfinder on a T3i? The corners are cut.
100% coverage viewfinder is a feature usually found in higher end bodies.

>How do you check if your exposure was right when the bright sun obfuscates your screen?
You let the camera set it automatically in one of the priority modes.

>I use the meter as a rule of thumb before shooting but it's often wrong.
I'm pretty positive that you're wrong and the meter beats you easily in a variety of lighting situations.
>>
>>3465674
>I use the meter as a rule of thumb before shooting but it's often wrong.
https://digital-photography-school.com/metering-modes-and-how-your-camera-meter-works/
>>
File: wtf.jpg (238 KB, 1440x930)
238 KB
238 KB JPG
What the LITERAL FUCK are these images all made with? Why do they all look so eerily similar? What's the fucking pattern?

1/2
>>
File: fff.jpg (292 KB, 1440x745)
292 KB
292 KB JPG
>>3465695
2/2

This is from maxrivephotography, and I don't fucking get it. They're all this weird ass-looking faux-dramatic.
>>
>>3465679
>>3465693
Thanks, but while I understand the metering modes, I assure you the "guesses" often miss, even when spot on.
>>
>>3465696
First one is somewhat plausible, although birb is 100% shopped in. If you manage to catch one, it's a speck when shooting at those distanced. Second one is probably stitch from about two completely different locations.
>>
>>3465716
What the fuck is it about the image that makes it look so fucked, though?
>>
>>3465708
No you don't. If you did you'd understand the difference between a meter being wrong and a meter telling you an exposure you don't want. You'd also understand what causes this and how to mitigate it and deal with it. The only exception to this with a modern camera is if there meter is somehow broken and with how they're integrated into modern bodies I strongly suspect far more wouldn't be working than just the meter.
>>
>>3465721
Alright then, no point in discussing this if you're dead set on proving me wrong. Haven't got the slightest clue why I would lie about this.
>>
>>3465724
It's not a matter of you lying. It's a matter of you thinking that you understand how something works when you don't, and is something you're not really in a position to say.
>>
>>3465731
>spot metering
>single focus on vase
>meter says it's good
>shoot
>vase overexposed by 1 stop
Enlighten me.
>>
>>3465733
The fact that you think those words are enough to give anyone enough information to say anything about what's going on just goes to show you don't understand how the meter works. I can't know what the EV of the scene is. I can't know what you think over exposed is. I can't know that you didn't spot on a darker part of the vase either on purpose or mistake. I don't know if you want to preserve highlights or shadows or just want to focus on middle values...

Look, Anon, I know you think I'm trying to be mean to you, I'm not. I'm just being direct.

What I can tell you is that if you find something like a plain wall or poster board, then put the camera in an automatic mode (auto/shutter priority/aperture priority/program) and matrix/evaluative metering, select the middle focus point, then without changing lighting or camera position take a bunch of shots, then if the exposure is the same through those, the meter is working. (Incidentally, you can use these to figure out if it is at middle gray too). If varies wildly, it's not working. If I were there with you I could help you with the other metering modes like center surround and spot, but I'm not so this is the best I can do.
>>
File: maxrive9d.jpg (266 KB, 1023x1009)
266 KB
266 KB JPG
>>3465718
Beats me. For me that's already photo manipulation and not photography, so I'm not giving it much though.
I think I saw a tutorial of his once. At the time he was not even working with layers, he was just clone stamping different exposures of pics together. Simplistic as fuck.
>>
>>3465733
Oh, one of the simplest things:
Do you have +1 EV exposure compensation dialed in and is your body set to remember exposure compensations?
>>
>>3465733
>meter says it's good
>shoot
>vase overexposed by 1 stop
Was the vase roughly medium grey in colour?
If not, did you use exposure compensation? (-1 if darker, +1 if lighter)?
>>
Why do you never see candid pictures of black people?
>>
>>3465771
Khalik Allah, nigga
>>
>>3465653
Is the em10 mark II not a good camera?
I won't be semi pro for a couple of years, it's just my hobby, tired of using cellphone camera.
>>
>>3465752
I feel like most photographers are just lightroom junkies.
They probably spend more time developing one shot than just taking that perfect shot at the perfect time.
>>
File: Pano.png (1.58 MB, 1280x720)
1.58 MB
1.58 MB PNG
>>3465718
>>3465696 is wide panorama. 10-20mm ff equivalent lens. At least two rows, at least three images by a row. You're bound to get weird looking fisheyish images. His composition is sound, though. Foreground is framing the main scene, is darker and takes your eyes right into it. Found another version of that one to give an idea what he's doing to them.

>>3465776
Offcourse. There really are no bad cams in that price range. I'm just particularity fond of that lens, nothing else. Cheap, light, and sharp.
>>
I have a scanner and I'm kinda lost.

I have VueScan and Epson Scan.
I thought that color correction settings disabled in both programs scanning the same thing would result in equal looking images but that is not the case.

Using Epson Scan I get scans that appear more vibrant and colorful, even with the program set to "No Color Correction" which greys out all exposure options and post process features.

Why isn't this giving consistent results with VueScan, with all post processing turned off in that as well?
>>
>>3465548
Aliexpress?
>>
>>3460728
Depends on the manufacturer. No name chink brand? maybe a month.
If it is a well know 3rd party they will usually do pretty well. my race photography setup has 4 ravpower batteries and they have held up fine, they get 10% less charge than true nikons but they were literally a quarter of the price.
>>
>>3465785
Thx bro i think i'll pick it up.
>>
>>3460788
>Can I get my money back if I measure it and it's not actually 2499 mAh?
Depends on where you bought it, but probably.
My friend is doing this with suspicious usb sticks from wish, he buys a few from a single seller, tests them, they are always 8/16/32gb instead of the listed ridiculous capacities, and then he asks for a refund. We've got a bunch of free sticks now at work.
>>
might be a dumb question
is it possible to modify and convert a d800 to take AA batteries without a battery grip?
I mean 2 batteries do fit into the battery compartment, does anything like that exist?
>>
>>3465785
I don't get why the photoshopped look is so consistently weird on all of his shots. What is the tool and method he is taking to get them all to look like ass called? The best analogy I can think of is when a girl posts a mangled Snapchat filter picture at night when they're drunk as their profile picture.
>>
Are there any advantages to setting a camera to black and white mode as opposed to changing it in post?
>>
Do you guys use micro sd's with adapter, or the full sd card?
>>3465948
He blurs the waters, and lowers the contrast to become a lottle bit darker, then he probably increases the color saturation a little.
Throw in some blur in specific spots and it will turn to bloom, and you should get near his results.
My computer art teacher taught us some tricks back in highschool, but we only had photoshop.
You can probably do some serious work with a more focused program.
>>
>>3465945
how do you plan on getting 7v from 2x 1.5v batteries
>>
>>3465961
Full SD, cards micro SD is usually slower and has less write cycles
>>
>>3465970
Thx baebee
>>
>>3465969
doesn't 3.5v batteries exist?
am I just retarded?
>>
turns out that I am stupid, disregard my posts
>>3465945
>>3465977
>>
>>3465961
>more focused program
Heres a newsflash for you. There's nothing else.
>>
>>3465961
What a fucking weird way to put images together.
>>
>>3465959
You can shoot in jpeg and not raw.
Only thing i can think of using modes.
>>
>>3465988
Dang, i though you guys used the manufacturers program.
>>3465991
Just play around and find your style, my teacher made his pics look like cartoons, he had this big ass canon dslr with external flash.
>>
>>3466006
That seems stupid.
>>
>>3465600
Mamiya TLR. C330 or something.
>>
>>3466006
>Dang, i though you guys used the manufacturers program.

I unironically use DPP4 because its lens correction is better than PS
>>
I'm deaf and though I understand aperture and its notation, I don't know know how to pronounce it when I'm mentioning it to others. Do you say "eff one point four" or "eff over one point four?" Or am I way off the mark with one of those?
>>
>>3466003
Clever I don't think I would have thought of that.
>>
>>3466050
Eff 1.4 is fine
>>
>>3466050
The first one. I've never heard anyone say the second one.
>>
>>3466050
I've heard
>eff of 1.8
>Eff 1.8
And usually with the focal length of the lens or where context otherwise makes it pretty clear you're talking about aperture, just not saying there f part
>50 1.8
>>
i imagine when i say 'ive been doing this for over a decade at a fairly intermediate level' someone will deny it over the question im about to ask but what in the flying fuck does exposure comp actually do? ive explored every functionality i could possibly imagine of old and new, modern dslr's and never really DONT understand something, except exposure comp is just a function i never learned how to use. i honestly have no idea what it does. is there some sort of visual guide or something?
>>
>>3466289
Say you set it to +1. That tells your camera to set the exposure one stop brighter than the exposure value it actually is reading.
>>
>>3466295
>>3466289
As far as learning how to use it goes, that's more just being familiar with how your meter works and knowing what kinds of scenarios will cause it to give you an over exposed or under exposed image.
>>
On this subject what does Auto Exposure Bracketing (AEB) actually do on canon cameras.
>>
>>3466307
Bracketing is letting the camera shoot the same picture (usually) 3 times with 3 settings.
One that the camera feels its fine, one underexposed and one overexposed.
>>
>>3466317
I'm assuming that sucks unless your using a tripod/photographing still things

Should I be using it for wildlife/nature shit ?
>>
>>3466338
Stacking programs are pretty good. You should be able to come away with handheld shots, as long as you've no blur on them.
>>
>>3466341
Thanks I'll have to try it
What do I use for stacking besides DPP4
The only other stacking programs I'm familiar with are for Astro shit not HDR
>>
>>3466289
This helped me a lot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmY3Nac26yc
He talks a bit specifically about your question too, very well explained.
>>
are medium format cameras a lot better than 35mm?
>>
Where to buy used gear in Yurop? Ebay buyers have a tendency to overpay for everything, looking for alternatives (mega bonus if it offers warranty).
>>
Redpill me on battery grips
>>
This is probably dumb as shit but my question is... What determines the physical size of a lens? Like I know zooms/telephoto lenses are bigger but... Why is Canon's 50mm f/1.2L so much bigger than the "nifty-fifty" or why is the 35mm f/1.4 Bower lens I have the same size as a 24-105??
>>
>>3466829
Cost/how much they want to fit in there.

Your minimum diameter is a little bit plus the focal length divided by the maximum aperture, like a 50mm f/1.4 cannot be any smaller than 35.7mm across whereas a 50mm f1.8 has a minimum diameter of 27.7mm).

Everything else depends on the size of the components and how much they want to spend to affect the size right up until physical limits.
>>
>>3466628
Just buy grey market.
>>
Whats a good place to upload HQ images?
No, using the archive is NG and insta and imgur are shit.
Flick now limits the img number for free accounts and who knows what's next.
>>
>>3466722
They're heavy and expensive and unless you're an event or sports photographer they're unnecessary. Too many people burst their pictures as a crutch. Slow the fuck down and think about your shots and battery is rarely an issue. Extra batteries are small and cheap.
>>
>>3466850
Your literal own website.
Anonfrom4chanphotography .net or .com .org etc.
>>
>>3466722
Their stupid unless for some reason you plan to be taking a retarded amount of shots with no time to change a battery.
Only other reason to get one might be some tiny camera and giant hands shit, I kinda wish my T6 was a bit taller on the grip but not enough to buy some chink shit that might break my camera.
>>
How do you organize your photo file directories for your short-term (inbox to be processed, etc) and archival usage?
>>
>>3467157
When I import, it puts them under Pictures named with the date. E.g., 'Pictures/2019-04-19'. If it has that sort of name, I know it still needs to be processed.

After I finish doing my edits, I add a brief keywordish description to the day directory name. E.g.,
Pictures/2019-04-19.urbex-charlotte-executiveinn-theater-centralhigh

Finally, when I'm totally done with the directory (i.e., any pictures I've edited are uploaded or whatever), I move it under the year directory. So
Pictures/2019/2019-04-19.urbex-charlotte-executiveinn-theater-centralhigh
>>
>>3466628
Aren't there any local second-hand sites?
If you are around Holland: https://www.camera-tweedehands.nl/
>>
whats some good resources for film making? the vid sticky is garbage
>>
>>3466722
They make your camera look bigger and more like a "pro" body. This is literally the only reason anybody actually buys one.
>>
>>3467318
I think that they make the camera ugly and something that the teletubbies might use as a prop rather than looking "pro"
>>
>>3466722
These people have, in a really dumb way, hit most of the reasons you'd choose one
>>3466881
>>3467042
>>3467318
>>3467319
>Possible ergonomics
>Longer time between battery changes
>Usually turn on a faster burst mode for the body
But I think they missed the most important one
>Having controls for shooting portrait that don't wreck your wrist after an hour or two
>>
File: gh2.jpg (55 KB, 700x489)
55 KB
55 KB JPG
How much do you need to take a good picture, I always see people shitting on older digital cameras but won't a good camera always be a good camera even though better are released?
>>
>>3467421
Depends on what you're talking about with older cameras. Stuff like resolution doesn't matter all that much for the majority of shooters needs.

The problems start coming in when you start talking about stuff like dynamic range (the range of brightness levels from darkest to brightest that can be detected at the same time). Anything below around 10 stops of useable range makes a lot of kinds of scenes difficult to expose for with the shooter having to decide irrevocably whether to get rid of shadow detail, highlight detail, or some degree of both. Additionally, many older sensors were not what's called ISO invariant, something that severely reduces the editing latitude of RAW files.

There's also a lot of quality of life things, but those are just nice to have and not full on limitations of the hardware. Like the only way around limited dynamic range is HDR/exposure stacking, which can only be done in limited situations.
>>
Dunno where to ask so here goes. I'm making a website to showcase my work and attract customers, do they really care about an "About Me" section?
>>
>>3467436
Not really, but put a paragraph or so that talks about what you're really interested in and basically make yourself sound like a real person.
>>
>>3467440
wouldn't hurt and covers you for those who do care.
>>
>>3460482
Got a 20mm for dirt cheap that has damage to the rear element. Anyone know a way to completely remove lens coatings?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Makesamsung
Camera ModelSM-G950U
Camera SoftwareLightroom
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.7
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)26 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created2019:04:20 11:16:41
Exposure Time1/300 sec
F-Numberf/1.7
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating50
Lens Aperturef/1.7
Brightness5.6 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length4.25 mm
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
>>
New thread when?
>>
I'm follwing what he says but I end up with a pink border around the selection I've made once it's completed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOPHbSgJUSI
What has gone wrong?
>>
>>3467470
make 1
>>
>>3467529
>>3467529
New thread
>>
>>3467436
Yes, human curiousity I suppose especially if they find your work appealing. Just a few words will do and they will deduct what they think of you from there.
>>
Would this be a decent field monitor? Someone's selling one for $75 on Craigslist nearby.
https://www.walmart.com/ip/Lilliput-669T001-7-In-HDMI-Resesitive-Touch-Screen-Monitor-669GL-70NP-C-T/34367084
>>
If I use copper shims on my adapters, I can regain the hard-stop of infinity focus instead of having to fight for it, right?
Will the same shimming work for every lens that pairs with that adapter, then?
>>
I was thinking of getting a full frame Nikon F body, what are some second hand bodies worth looking for?



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.