Previous >>3484707 Post stupid questions that need no extra thread. Use /gear/ for gear related stupid questions.
I wanna buy an 85mm 1.8, I have a Canon rebel t6i. Main use are for portraits. I have a 50mm 1.8 I always use. Do I need the 85mm? Is it sharper glass? Make my peekchurs better?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 7.0 (Macintosh)Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2018:12:02 02:06:06Color Space InformationsRGB
>>3492882Yes, you are dumb.>Use /gear/ for gear related stupid questions.
>>349288285mm * 1.6 crop on a t6i =~ 136mm what is a good focal range for portraits, but you already have a 50mm 1.8, which is fairly a good lens for portraits, almost a 80mm on your crop ratio. if you shoot mostly headshots, without many background, the 85mm would be a good purchase
>>3492889Shit sorry I didn't read the last bit just read stupid questions. My bad.
>>3492890Much thanks! I'll just keep the 50 then
>>3492826Darktable or Corel Paintshop?I can use both but dont know which one is more reasonable to learn. I have that lifetime license for Paintshop from one of the bundles for cheap.
>>3493049Different tools for different tasks I supposeDarktable definitely has a quicker workflow for basic photo edits but you're not gonna be doing major manipulation and layer stuff
If I use an APS-C 18mm on a full frame, what is the equavilent remaining after you crop the border away?Any way to measure or estimate it?
>>3493108>Any way to measure or estimate it?I guess the only way is to actually put it on because each apsc lens will have different vignette on full frame. Some full frame cameras allow to change FX to DX mode but then the lens will behave like on apsc body.
>>3493052Darktable has layers. Even blending modes. Most raw editors have these already. Only one without is Adobe. Some bs marketing decision preventing shit from Photoshop into Lightroom.
>>3493143Any sources of in-depth tutorials for darktable to be able to do similar stuff as Paintshop in terms of manipulation? I mean, like fill flash modules or skin smoothing?
>>3493169You could look their forums. I use Affinity Photo for that stuff. Most of the time the process is the same across different editors, so I'll often look up tutorials and instructions for Photoshop (the wealth of knowledge for it is unrivalled) then repeat the steps in Affinity Photo. The tricky part is knowing where certain tools are in different program.
>>3492826My phone takes alright, tolerable pictures in the morning, but every single picture taken at night looks like grainy unfocused shitWhat am I doing wrong?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera ModelRedmi 5AEquipment MakeXiaomiFocal Length (35mm Equiv)0 mmSensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaImage-Specific Properties:Image Created2019:06:14 21:19:58Vertical Resolution72 dpiHorizontal Resolution72 dpiTime (UTC)18:19:57Date (UTC)2019:06:14Color Space InformationsRGBF-Numberf/2.2Focal Length3.79 mmLens Aperturef/2.2Exposure ModeAutoImage Height2340Scene Capture TypeUnknownExposure ProgramNot DefinedWhite BalanceAutoImage Width4160Metering ModeCenter Weighted AverageFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryBrightness-5.5 EVISO Speed Rating3297Exposure Time1/13 sec
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC (Windows)Image-Specific Properties:Image Created2019-06-14T20:59:25+19:00FlashNo Flash FunctionImage Width700Image Height465
>>3492826OK, this is probably a REALLY stupid question, but hey, that's what this thread is for, right? What is the big deal with Lightroom? Why should anyone use that instead of Photoshop? I've read that PS is actually a more powerful/versatile editor.
>>3493469It's easier for teh noobs. It's also raw editor + file organiser. Meaning it's easier to do same kind of edit across multiple files faster. Another advantage is that it stores history forever. Absolutely true that Photoshop is better editor. It's got tools and options that are unavailable in Lightroom, and it's CameraRaw plugin contains every single tool from Lightroom. Biggest disadvantage, though, are file sizes. Few layers, exposures and your 20mb image soon takes few terabytes.>>3493187You're using a phone. Even the most powerful sensors need long exposures, and often struggle with focusing. Try to look if you've any tool for capturing longer exposures, and experiment with manual focusing if you have it available.
how to get p gf?
>>3493478Thank you for the LR/PS info... exactly what I was looking for. Since LR wasn't even a thing while I was active professionally, I'm comfortable with PS. And since I'm only shooting for fun/friends/family these days, the file organization aspect of LR isn't really a big deal for me. I do like the "forever history" aspect, but again, not a huge deal, especially since I make major use of adjustment layers in PS. Again, thanks for your time/input.
I was moving around some frames and I found that this "old" print's (20 years or so) material has some strange kind of texture, what type of paper is it? could it be a type of leather?I'd like to print some images on a material that can give a similar feel but I don't know the name.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeSONYCamera ModelDSC-W180Maximum Lens Aperturef/3.3Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2019:06:15 21:27:42Exposure Time1/50 secF-Numberf/3.1Exposure ProgramNot DefinedISO Speed Rating100Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length6.20 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3648Image Height2736RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeNight SceneSaturationNormalSharpnessNormal
>>3493542It's not leather.
why dont focus points work with fully manual lenses? imagine you could select a focus point/sensor and then just turn the focus ring until the value peaks
No definitive google answer found for noobs like myself and the sticky doesn't elaborate:Bought my first camera used, came with a visible smudge on the lens. Windex? "Alcohol?" Any solution that has a picture of a camera on the bottle? 20 dollar solution recommended by paid youtubers? Help?
>>3493578alcohol. dont spray it on to the lens, wet a micro fiber cloth and wipe it off
>>3493615like pure alcohol or a solution with water?The sticky both says to use alcohol >if you have to clean stuff use a blower. Only if needed microfiber cloth and alcoholand then links to this sitehttp://www.astro-tom.com/tips_and_advice/cleaning_optics.htmthat says to NEVER use alcoholam I being paranoid? I just don't wanna already ruin my new shit
how was this processed? it feels so cozy, kind of retro and love the colours. what did he do to it in post?
>>3493705Split tone I supposeYou can see a bit of cyan in the shadows and highlightsThough I'm hecka blind and dumb
>>3493617No alcohol is very old tip regarding lens coatings. When coatings first came around you could peal it off from front element by rubbing it too much, even pure alcohol could destroy it. Modern coatings are impervious to that. Personally I'm not a fan of alcohol anymore, I use a drop of dish cleaner and water.
Guys I want to take some portraits in bw and I want to use filters. I only got yellow and red filters, if I stack them up will I get the same effect as using an orange one?
Is it a bad idea to try to recreate photos from auto modes to learn about setting speed/aperture/iso as a beginner?
Is there any advantage to using lightroom over bridge + photoshop combo?
>>3493782depends on the filters you have, it may push for a different orange tone, you'd have a darker image and it may be slightly red or yellow toned. Try it on digital to see how it would turn out.>>3493799to learn how to deal with those settings, sort of, but not sure if it would be good. Try to focus on one stuff at a time, first shutter speed, then aperture and ISO later. >>3493803you'd be using just one software instead of two, saving rams on your computer.
Anyone knows if it's possible to change photoshop image tabs while in full screen mode via any other way that going to the window menu?
>>3493705Looks washed out to me. But what do I know. If you've original it'd be possible to guess. But from the look of it, it's just regular desaturation to bring pastel tones to the foreground.
>>3493806Thanks, I just generally don't have a clue where to start yet with exposure. I get how to adjust and read the light meter and the concept of stops and everything, but picking a first shutter speed or aperture feels totally arbitrary
>>3493840it isn't, right exposure is your goal, but you'll need to know what you want.Do you want your image to be frozen in time or blurry? The moment or the movement of the action? Then you're going to think about how many of the image you want in focus
I'd been lurking around /p/ for a bit and reading about photography, so I bought a Nikon D3500 the other day. I went out this weekend, and I caught a cardinal waving hello! I manually adjusted the fstop and shutter, so could somebody give me a rule of thumb of how to go about these pictures in the future? The concept in my head was low fstop for DoF, high shutter for precision but the precise numbers seem arbitrary to me as a beginner.Also, what strategies are useful when editing this kind of picture? I think the colors look muted, and that may be because I had some exposure compensation set from earlier. Is this something I can adjust for as I take the picture is it best left to post-processing?What kind of approach should I take when framing this kind of picture? My thought process when taking it was to have the lines of the building flow with the shape of the bird. My expectation is that the eye sees the architecture, then naturally leans towards the subject. I tried to capture it in a way that didnt have too much of the open background so the wing still had an approachable flow. Not sure how to word it.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2019 (Windows)Image-Specific Properties:Image Width6000Image Height4000Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8Pixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2019:06:16 18:51:54Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width6000Image Height4000
>>3493872exif data, got scrubbed in PSlooking back f/8 seems a bit higher than I remember, and I dont know if 1/4000 is perfectly fine or if it could introduce problems of its own.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:
>>3493872>>3493877Generally you want a lower iso due to sensor sensitivity and grain. Your image could have less grain/noise if you shot say, f/8 1/500 iso400.
>>3493877I would have went for ISO 1600 and 1/1000. Probably would have been fast enough but with less noise. But here is the order of importance for crisp vs blurry pics.1. Get it properly in focus.2. If it's moving and you want to capture details. Choose a high shutter speed.3. Keep your ISO as low as possible without compromising rule #2.If you can master that then work on your composition skills.
I want to print/paint small letters/numbers on my camera but I want it to be a specific font. What's the best way? Any tips?
>>3493872The way I like to shoot is by eliminating the variables.First I choose the aperture based on the depth of field I'm trying to achieve.Then I set the shutter as slow as the speed of moving subjects allows.Lastly, I set the iso to reach the correct exposure or as low as possible. After that all you need to adjust is the shutter speed, and because we set it to as slow as practical earlier, it's only going to get faster, so no extra motion blur will be introduced.Obviously, when you get good at it you can just juggle all three values around like it's no big deal, but for starters this might be a good flow.
This isnt a question but i just realised i can change to auto iso by pressing the ISO button and moving the front dial. I have been turning it on and off in the menu for 2 yearsI feel like an utter retard
>>3494015Why were you changing iso in the first place? Lock it to 1500max and leave cam to do it's work.
What's the official technical difference between a zoom lens and a macro lens?
>>3494225Zoom lens has variable focal length, you can change field of view.Macro lens has very short minimum focus distance, it can focus on objects that are very close.
>>3494225Macro lens has little or no distortion a close focusing distance as well as being able to do 1:1 at least on any macro worth a shit
>>3494224Not sure if trolling or actually stupid
>>3493617No reason to use alcohol unless you got oily shit on your lens In fact just buy a lens pen and be done with itAbsolutely do not use alcohol on focusing screen, mirror or sensor
those umbrellas octabox can be used professionally outside the studio?I want to use the octabox outside the studio, and I'm considering the usage of those umbrella types for speedlight octabox sometime 90cm to 120cm wide octabox is it a good idea?
>>3493872You basically just try to correctly focus the bird and use a fast setting on shutter priority with centered metering. Unless your camera really sucks at this, it'll be more or less the best option.> Is this something I can adjust for as I take the picture is it best left to post-processing?Generally no time & no point. Shoot RAW, handle it in post.> What kind of approach should I take when framing this kind of picture?Shoot the bird unless the building is somehow interesting together with the bird. Which it usually isn't.
How do I improve low light quality?I get visible noise on 400 iso on D5300 camera which, according to cameradecision, have 1200 value as "low light iso". It also frequently under expose even when I use spot metering on object (but camera cant show histogram at live view so I only discover that when I drop photos on PC).
Hey /p/ i've picked up this hobby in recent months because my brother gave me his old Canon T6 ~rebel~ (I have a 50mm on it). I have taken a liking to photographing fighting game events in my area. I have a problem tho, these events are extremely dark and I am having a hard time getting the right settings on my shit camera. Flash isn't really an option here because players don't like bright lights in their face when they are playing (understandable). I don't want to blame my gear but I do know I am using a hammy down budget camera, but does anyone have any tips for this kind of situation? I'll attach one of my photos from an event I attended that I liked.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS Rebel T6Lens Size18.00 - 55.00 mmFirmware VersionFirmware Version 1.1.0Lens NameEF-S18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS IIImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2018:07:01 10:33:40Exposure Time1/125 secF-Numberf/5.6Exposure ProgramShutter PriorityLens Aperturef/5.7Exposure Bias0 EVFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length55.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width5184Image Height3456RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandardExposure ModeTv-PriorityFocus TypeAutoMetering ModeEvaluativeISO Speed RatingAutoSharpnessUnknownSaturationNormalContrastNormalShooting ModeManualImage SizeLargeFocus ModeOne-ShotDrive ModeSingleFlash ModeOffCompression SettingFineMacro ModeNormalWhite BalanceAutoExposure Compensation3Sensor ISO Speed320Color Matrix135
>>3494777Here is one more photo from the same event last year.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS Rebel T6Lens Size18.00 - 55.00 mmFirmware VersionFirmware Version 1.1.0Lens NameEF-S18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS IIImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationLeft-Hand, BottomHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2018:07:01 10:33:42Exposure Time1/125 secF-Numberf/5.6Exposure ProgramShutter PriorityLens Aperturef/5.7Exposure Bias0 EVFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length55.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width5184Image Height3456RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandardExposure ModeTv-PriorityFocus TypeAutoMetering ModeEvaluativeISO Speed RatingAutoSharpnessUnknownSaturationNormalContrastNormalShooting ModeManualImage SizeLargeFocus ModeOne-ShotDrive ModeSingleFlash ModeOffCompression SettingFineMacro ModeNormalWhite BalanceAutoExposure Compensation3Sensor ISO Speed320Color Matrix135
>>3494777>>3494778In such dark events, it's best to use spot metering and aiming at subject himself. You might want to add exposure bias too if your camera frequently underexpose your photos. You might always play with it later in software and having longer exposures actually help reducing noise.But Im impressed by having it shoot at only ISO 320. Normally I would have shooting at 1600 at such conditions.
>>3494795Thanks for the advice! I will have to do some research into spot metering.
>>3494777>>3494778in frustrating lighting conditions you should ideally be shooting manual. 320 is way too low of an ISO - thats why your photos are so dark, like above guy said, set it to around 1600 (or as high as you are willing to go.. the trade off is image quality), have your aperture as wide as it will go, and your shutter speed as low as possible without motion blur or missing focus. if you had the same settings basically except ISO bumped up you'd have more usable images. one thing that may help in the absence of flash is a lens upgrade. not to be a gearfag, but going from a variable aperture zoom to a fixed 1.8 prime is such a delight. it honestly opens up a whole new world of shooting, and it doesn't have to be that expensive you can get a 50 or 35mm 1.8 AF for dirt cheap these days.
>>3495007oh and shoot RAW
>>3495007>>3495008You are for sure right. I actually just this week aquired a 50mm 1.8 STM and have been trying to get practice with. As for RAW I don't have any sort of editing software but I'm not opposed to getting something.. what would you recommend buying/torrenting/downloading for free?
>>3495013i torrented lightroom 4 and photoshop cs6 back in 2013 and have been using them ever since. lightroom is just wonderful. but that also means i'm not the best for offering a suggestion. what's adobe CC these days, less than a tenner a month? for legit software with updates and a clean conscience. might even consider it myself. people also mention GIMP (free) and capture one, but i've never used either.
>>3495019Speaking with a friend now, they are recommending Spark. is that trash?
When do you decide to use flash and how do you go about calculating exposure when you add flash to the mix? Light meter will just read really like -2 but then it turns out fine, I'm confused
>>3495013Darktable is open source and great software, surpassing most paid ones.
Photography noob here.TL:DR: What do I need to look out for when buying a used lens?I had my eye on this one lens (pic related) but I was a little hesitant of buying it because lenses are kind of a pricy thing, even the cheaper ones, at least for me.I saw a guy seling one near me with the box and "as good as new", if and when I buy it, what should I look for? What should I ask? What should I look out for?Basically, how do I avoid buying defected lenses?
>>3495149Take your camera and try it out, see if it focuses quickly and accurately, move the rings manually as well and check if they're smooth, go through the aperture range with DoF previewLook at example photos online, preferably one with fine detail to get a feel for how sharp the lens should be & try to replicate the result. Shooting a brick wall or something like that and zooming in on your camera should be good enough to give you a decent idea if its performing well enough.Do a visual inspection as well, check if the mount is worn/fucked and just the general condition of the thingLook at the glass and check for fungi streaks
>>3495144I came back to this thread just to thank you, I installed this last night and tested have been working with it ever sense. Thanks amigo
So would you say that it's worthwhile to have a compact "one you have with you" camera? I have a nice full-frame DSLR, and no desire to get rid of it. But of course it is something that you need to decide you're going to bring with you, so I generally only do so when I already expect I'm going to take pictures. Do you find having a camera available for stuff that you just stumble across in everyday life is useful? The other thing worth noting is that I don't carry a smartphone, so so I really do have no means to take a photo when I'm out unless I bring my DSLR.
>>3495247Compacts are very capable if you know what to look for so I'd say go for it, pana lx100, snoy rx100 mkIII or ricoh gr ii if you are into primes.Sometimes on my trips I walk around with my compact and dslr with tele zoom attached to have that ultra-zoom coverage without juggling lenses.
>>3495247invest in a nice bag, I carry my heavy ass FF DSLR with me wherever I go.
Is there ever a reason to not have a "foreskin style" build-in hood extended, as on 135 and 200mm Zuikos and certain Nikkors? The lens design is such that the front element catches all sorts of stray light otherwise, and the lenses don't focus close enough for the hood to obstruct anything.
In a lot of senior portraits where they're standing in a field, do you think they get permission from the land owner or do they just find an abandoned field?
>>3495350I may be spreading medieval knowledge, but my belief in light that's given to us from above source is leading me into thinking that you're getting a tinny better light gathering abilities with hood down.
>>3495409Yeah, if it's long enough to vignette. But any light from outside the angle of view is only going to cause loss of contrast in the picture, i.e. bring the noise floor up higher on digital, and mess with contrast in areas that're already being exposed above the minimum (aka the reciprocity failure line).
Why are my raws so fucky? These are both how they look straight into editing softwares with default settings. Left is Photivo and right is Darktable. The images look fine in my camera. What's going on and how do I fix it?
>>3495454I think I've seen the right one once when opening unsupported raw in darktable. Never tried program on left, but it looks a little as something that you get when you've clipping warnings turned on. Can't help you more without further info or raw file.
>>3495458That's a good one, thanks. Dunno how close you'd have to be focusing for built-in hoods to obstruct hotshoe (or onboard) flash, but w/e.
Ive noticed (when outdoors) how pointing the camera towards the sky vs towards the ground makes the light meter freak out. What's the ideal technique for taking photos of moving things like animals from different angles (squatting down or standing up) and not having to change the settings every two seconds? Also, a part 2 to my question is, when taking several quick pictures in a situation like the one described above, is there a way to check where the meter was when the picture was taken? I know how to see the other settings like shutter speed aperture etc.
My camera (Nikon D5300) have noise reduction of different level in options. Is it advisable to turn it on full or use noise reduction on postprocessing? Or it doesn't matter at all if I shoot in RAW?
>>3496207P mode with exposure compensation, and check your histogram.>>3496886it doesn't matter in RAW. Never use it full, keep it low when shooting JPGs
>>3496886I'm actually not sure it affects RAWs at all, it might just control the jpeg that cameras insist on making from them. In any case if you're shooting RAW you probably want it off. Your computer has a lot more processing power at its disposal than your camera, and your raw developer has an interface bigger than the camera LCD. Both of these things let you do much nicer noise reduction yourself when developing raws than your camera could ever do on its own. >>3496207There is a lot of stuff in exif metadata, including what metering mode was in force when the picture was taken. Your editor should let you see this, though it'll probably be under some "just show me all the metadata" option.
>>3492826I've been using an old point and shoot (film) camera, and I found it very fun. I mostly walk around the city for some hours, looking for interesting compositions, and I think it can be a nice hobby to get out of the house and meet people. I like the fact that my camera is old and I don't have to worry about a lot of settings and about breaking it, but there are a lot of little costs: film, developing, a scanner (if I buy one).I also feel like a digital camera could be more useful to take pictures of myself, to learn about lighting and to experiment...Am I right to consider the "digital path" less expensive? Will I lose some of the "fun" by making this switch? I'd like to keep it a casual hobby, but just the scanner is as expensive as a Canon DSLR... I'm consfused.
>>3496893>>3496901So far I was using profiled denoising in Darktable - are there better option? I also have Paintshop but it seems to handle denoising worse. Darktable also have something called "raw denoising" but I noticed it either doesn't really work or make everything blurry at close.
>>3492826when you travel with a camera, do you include it as your only carryon? and check the rest of your luggage?
>>3496990First thing, make sure that you've lens corrections turned on, they may include some ca corrections. Also make sure you've defringing turned on. Denoise isn't on by default in Darktable. Auto one is called Denoise (profiled). Denoise (non-local means) is same just with manual input. Then you've also Denoise (bilateral fiter) and Raw Denoise. I don't think the last two are any good. All of them are way too strong by default for my taste. Either use profiled with very low strength or Denoise (non-local means) with luma aroun 0-30, chroma 30-50. Too much luma starts blurring detail.
New to editing, how to I export my image when I'm done without making it look all grainy and compressed? The raw file I was working with is crystal clear, and the jpeg has all this noise
Would you smoke this moroccan hash with me?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.7Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2019:06:25 09:54:16Exposure Time1/10 secF-Numberf/1.7Lens Aperturef/1.7Brightness-1.8 EVExposure Bias0 EVFocal Length4.20 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width4032Image Height3024Exposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandardUnique Image IDF12LLJA00SM F12LLKL01GM_
>>3497322I'm not pathetic enough to do that.
Alright anons, If I have a camera that isn't waterproof (Sony Cybershot WX350), can it be used in foggy/misty conditions or will it be fucked? Today is a great day for taking photos but I don't want to fuck up my camera
>>3497322hey i recognize this from your thread on /tv/ that went extremely downhill extremely fast
Am I missing out by using RawTherapee over Darktable?
>>3497340My camera isn't waterproof or weatherproof and it's been fine in such conditions. Just don't leave it out there and all should be well. Wipe it off when you get home if there's any condensation on it.
>>3492826is there anything better than the a7 iii in its price range coming out anytime soon or can I buy it without buyer's remorse for at least a year?
>>3497464Canon RP, Nikon Z6, Fujis/Olympuss/Panasonics
Im slowly getting mad over my inability to get better.Why every photo I make is blurry? And worse, the more I photograph, the more blurry they get?It's like shooting with compact all over again, anything over 200 iso and everything is blurry on real size. And d5300 in theory have low light iso at 1200 so I MUST do something wrong all the time. Worse, whenever I try to fix it with Darktable, it gets worse. Tried equalizer to bump high freq (right side), gets unnatural contrast. Used sharpen tool, either does nothing or gets even more hazy (radius 1, effect 0,800 and threshold 1,5, no idea if this is right or wrong).Use small autofocus field and always try to aim at nose or eyes. Why it doesn't work?I will never get better!
>>3497503Sounds like you have brain problems
>>3497503Have less shakey hands
>>3497520You mean that 1/60 on around 55mm with viewfinder pressed against face is not enough to deal with shaky hands?I simply cant shoot everything at 1/250.
>>3497503Does the focus problem persist in live view? If not then you might just have a miscalibrated phase-detect AF sensor. Higher-end cameras have AF fine-tune to correct this kind of thing, D5x00s don't though. I presume you've already checked the shutter speed you're shooting at. Not everyone can hand-hold sharp pictures at 1/35-equiv focal length. (before VR. is that on?) You're not stopped down to f/32 or anything, are you?
>>3497503Just embrace the noise. Shoot 500-1000 iso above recommended, and don't denoise at all. Blur comes from denoising shit too much and from cam shake. That should eliminate both to a degree.
As someone with about 6 months experience with a DSLR, is it realistic that I could make about $1000/mo income as a photographer? Currently I am a NEET welfare cuck so I have all the time in the world to practice, study, do shoots, make websites etc.. Should I be offering cheap portrait sessions? I've seen ads on IG and FB that say >"ditch the digitals and offer canvas prints if you want to make real money"So what would be the best course of action to make a living as a photographer? I have an 18-55mm f/4-5.6 IS and a 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS. The long lens does great background blur and takes good nature and bird shots
>>3497550Sucks.Yeah, I have VR on and it usually works out nice (like when producing photos with minimal blurry in dark conditions, iso 1600-3200 and so, 105mm with like 1/30 sec). Problem is that normal shoots like people inside buildings with 400-800 iso and around 55mm, max 2-3m away, still produce blurr even with relatively good shutter speed for those conditions like 1/125.Or for some reason I cant handle raw. I don't know anymore.>f/32Heh. I mostly do f/5.6 like 90% of time. My lens cant go wider anyway (3.5-5.6 officially but simce I rarely go under 50mm, it stats at 5.6 being widest). I don't have prime yet.
>>3497582Try to focus manually or do it through live viewLike an anon mentioned, maybe your phase-detect AF isn't locking on right & low light conditions don't help that
>>3492826If i have a lot of dough to spend, and my gear is beginner tier at the moment, what should i upgrade on?should i get a high end DX lens, or should i just get a full frame body with a decent prime lens?ultimately i just want a similar setup right now (d3400 + 35mm 1.8g), but retaining the same weight, but higher picture quality in terms of better low light performance and sharpness. i was thinking of maybe going mirrorless, getting a sony a7ii and a 50mm prime.
>>3497740It's all about the glass. 99% of the time better lens = sharper photograph. I don't know about Nikon, but as a Canon user I bought some decent full frame lenses before upgrading to full frame. They worked great on an APS-C camera, and produced images that were much better than the EF-S (crop sensor) equivalents.
>>3497757I thought that full frame lenses don't go well on crop bodies? Besides, what benefits do full frame bring?
Guys...my camera has no ttlAnd how am i supposed to go down 8 stops when the film is iso400 After 4 stops it becomes iso25Or am i missing something>R72 infrared filter[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeHUAWEICamera ModelWAS-LX1Camera SoftwareWAS-LX1 188.8.131.523(C432)Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)26 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image Width2448Image Height3264Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8Image OrientationUnknownHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2019:06:26 14:40:01Exposure Time3/100 secF-Numberf/2.2Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating320Lens Aperturef/2.2Brightness0 EVExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceDaylightFlashNo FlashFocal Length3.83 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width2448Image Height3264RenderingCustomExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>>3497740Not going to lie to you, a Sony a7ii and a 50mm prime would improve your photography a lot. High end DX glass is good, but I think it's not nearly as good some high-end FX glass.. >>3497759overall a better iso performance, sometimes a better glass performance with some better sharpness overall... it depends on the sensor and the glass you have. thinking about D3400 + 35mm 1.8G versus a a7ii + 50mm 1.8, you'd have a better iso, better sharpness and better DR on the full frame side.
>>3497783Yeah which gets me thinking, would high end FX lenses go well on DX bodies?Another thing is, I don't wanna invest in DX lens only to know that they are meh compared to FX lens. Then again, I kinda don't wanna get a full frame DSLR because they are heavy/bulky, so it seems to me like a full frame mirrorless is the way to go.
When looking at used lenses, I found Nikkor 85mm 1.8 in two versions "AF-S G" and "D". Difference in price is about 1/3. Which one would be better option if I plan to use them mainly for portraits and overall people photography?
I take elektronic shutter shot 1000/s apart. Two images are same frame except one is distorted because of rolling shutter. Can I know what one is distorted?
>>3497788Yes, I'm using some good fx glass on my DX camera and the results are overwhelming. since you're just using the center of the glass, you have a better result with less vignetting in most of the casesdepends, mirrorless cameras are smaller but their glass are huge and heavier than DSLR glass. Going mirrorless over weight and size is just a myth. >>3497831G lenses have AF in all cameras and are newer than the D lenses. if your camera have af motor built in, there's no problem getting a D version of the 85mm. About quality, I'm not sure what exactly are your taste, but the 85mm G is sharp as a good knife
Is post processing software (lightroom + photoshop) actually necessary? What if I just want the picture to look the way it looked when my eye saw it
>>3498061Im having D5300 one, does it mean that D one won't have working AF on my camera, only manual? Which one would you suggest anyway? Worth paying more for G?
>>3493872Low fstop but not at the cost of focus, fast exposure but not at the cost of exposure, you're working with high resolution raw photos so framing and colors can be fixed in post.Shitty photos I took from 2 years ago look better today now that I know how to edit.
>>3494772Longer exposure times? And noise reduction in post.
>>3498098Not easy. There are problems with photographic receptor. They are not seeing as eye see. Editting programs can help you make image as eye see it. They can also make image crazy not real. It up to you to make it real. Not easy, harderd than make it crazy not real.
>>3498106Can you give like an example? So far I'm mostly photographing outdoors like animals and landscapes. When I open up the editing software I don't know what I want to change.
>>3498101Yes, you're right. the D5300 doesn't have any af motor, so your 85mmD would be manual only. I had the 85mmG, amazing lens, wish I didn't had to sell it. for the AF it's a good purchase, will pay every cents invested. what about the 50mm 1.8G? it would be similar to a 85mm on your camera due of the crop.
>>3498061Isn't a mirrorless setup like a Sony a7ii and a 50mm prime going to be lighter than a d750 and a 50mm 1.8?I mean the body alone of the d750 is already 750g
>>3498133I actually plan to buy two primes - Nikkor 35 and 85mm, both 1.8. Right now have 18-105mm 3.5-5.6 kit lens and wanted to have covered two of my most frequently used values - 35mm (eq of 55 on crop) and 105mm but I couldn't find such lenses with wide aperture and I need them for low light conditions or low depth of field.Unless you have better suggestions for my camera than those two.
Does anyone else absolutely hate every single picture they take?
>>3498275I do. I feel like my pictures gets worse and worse every time.
My cam has built in ND filters. The manual says that the 1st reduces light by 1/4, the 2nd by 1/16 and 3rd by 1/64.This seems to be completely wrong to me because the 1st is brighter than the 2nd and the 3rd darker than the 2nd. But what is the mistake exactly? Did they mix up the numbers or just used the word "reduce" in a wrong way?Could someone please explain me how ND filters are measured and how 1/4, 1/16, 1/64 or on other places 0.3, 0.6, 0.9 are meant and related?Is it - maybe - that the light gets reduced TO 1/4 and not BY 1/4. If so, does 0.3 then also mean that the light gets reduced TO 0.3? And therefore 0.3 is darker than 0.6?
oh and I have another question: with GND filter, 0.3 means that the darkest area at the filter is 0.3, right? or is it the average loss of light from the whole filter?
Anyone got a torrent for a good photoshop tool? What are the best photoshop tools out there?
>https://www.flickr.com/photos/59004610@N02/46857133982/in/datetaken/does this photo have so much detail because it was taken on a 42mp camera? would i be able to capture a similar amount of details with a 24mp camera and a sharp lens?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeSONYCamera ModelILCE-7RM2Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2019 (Windows)Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2019:01:28 21:37:34Exposure Time1/80 secExposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/11.0Metering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length21.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormal
>>3498303Usually nd filters tell you by how many stops they reduce light gathering of your system. Your pnshoot tries to tell you instead by how much it's shutter speed will be reduced by it. My advice? Return and buy something with changeable lenses. Anything.
>>3498455You could get close with a phone. That's photo manipulation. 50% of it is fake, and what isn't is artificially sharpened.>>3498373Give Benz the moneys. It's all you'll ever need.https://gregbenzphotography.dpdcart.com/product/101487?method_id=106811
Are lens kits in general less sharp than prime lenses or it depends on lens itself?For example, if I have right now "AF-S DX Nikkor 18-105mm F3.5-5.6G ED VR" lens, would "AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm f/4G ED VR" produce much better results or it would be pretty much the same at same aperture and length?
>>3498694I have the Nikkor 18-55mm kit lens, the one with VR and a 35mm 1.8 Nikkor prime.My conclusion is that the prime is slightly more sharper, has better color reproduction and has A LOT less vignetting. I had to pixel peep to see the difference though, except for vignetting, which was pretty obvious.But the major difference I guess is the larger aperture on the prime, which allows more depth of field and better low light performance.
>>3497464No. Sony has a head start and a considerable lead when it comes to mirrorless full frame.
Just got into film. What film should I get for these different interests in visuals.90s I want to revisit my childhood. 60s just wanna try some raw film that has that "vintage" look (I know I'm sounding like a real idiot right now)And something with strong colours like almost bleeding colours that would be fun for neonlit streets almostl ike a stereotypical cyberpunk look. Again, I know I'm sound like a real fucking idiot, but yeah I'm extremely new to film. Only ever used those one-timers back when I was young in the 90s.
>>3498694Depends on lens. Some prime very very sharp. Some prime not really. Some prime very trash like Sony 16mm f/2.8.
>Just got a new D7200>Took a few shots>wanna blow it up on my screen>pop the sd card in my computer>open up lightroom>files not supported>???>look online>my version of lightroom(4) doesn't support it so I would have to upgrade lightroom to their bs creative cloud subscriptionI'm just gonna use DNG. Fucking kikes.
Why are all my pictures slightly fuzzy or unfocused? Doesn’t matter if I use AF or manual and it looks sharp in camera when I go to process they’re always too soft
>>3499136Post an example
I was looking for first prime lenses and found one that fits parameters I need but have "macro" in name. Im still green, does it mean I cant use it for intended purpose of shooting events and stages at low light conditions?
How to make decent self-portraits with just a phone? I can't afford a professional and my only camera is a chink phone.
>>3499471...no? it will do everything a normal lens does but it can focus closer, if needed
>>3499133just torrent photoshop and the latest camera raw
>>3499497Install something that lets you take RAW photos with your device (Open Camera or similar) Purchase a remote shutter release (you can get cheap little bluetooth remotes) Get a cheap tripod and phone holderDIY or buy some lightingThen go at it, also it'd probably be neat if you plugged in your phone to external display. You can do this over USB or Wifi if your device supports it
>>3499497Camera phone or not, proper lighting is the answer desu.
What is this called and how do I do it?
>>3499698You need to hold the proper power crystal in front of the lens to capture the wavelengths comming off of the subject
>>3499707Gotta charge it up first though. Get some bros together and start cranking.
>>3499698it's a long exposure with a speedlight onbasically you're going to use your flash with a low-sync shutter speed. the speed light will 'free' the action, while you can capture all the other lights from the ambientalso black magic.
Is there a name given to this style of photo? Was there a photographer who took photos like this? That washed out, symmetrical, California look. It looks so familiar to me but I don't know what to search for to find similar photos.
whats going on with this camera? why do the lights look like this?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareGoogleImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandImage Width1024Image Height768
>>3492826Found some of my dad's old camera gear that he left. Would lenses like these still preform fairly well when use on a modern dslr? Not for any professional use, just personal fun photography
I was planning to buy first two prime lenses, one for portraits and one for stage events but when I asked about opinion family member that is experienced photographer I got told I didn't thought that over and instead if prime fast lens at 85 or 105mm, I should rather use something close to 70-300mm kit and stay at aperture around f/5.6.Problem is, my D5300 camera don't handle high iso values well - at 1600 or 3200, the most common settings at poor light I often see at stage, I end up with rather noisy images and lose lots of details. I kinda have to keep shutter at around 1/125s, while VR is working okay, it still can't prevent blurr from movement of subjects themselves. I understand the point if such longer focal lengths, that it allows close up from larger distance. But I thought that fast prime would be better?Im confused right now. How do I reduce noise on stage images? What kind of lens do I need? Or maybe I actually can do it right with my current 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6 kit?
>>3500127That’s about $48,000 worth of lenses, anon.
>>3500127Well do you already have a modern DSLR? If you do and its Canon or Nikon, those lenses ain't going on it. If you do and it's Pentax, they'll mount and work, with some limitations. They can be used on any mirrorless camera with an inexpensive mount adapter. The 50/1.2 might be worth keeping if you have (or want) something that you can put it on. It's going to be pretty low-contrast wide open, but it's great for bokeh-whoring, and of course you can stop it down to f/5.6 and enjoy nice sharp images, like most double-gauss 50s. It also has some value on the used market (though not as much as it'd have if it were the SMC-A version). The other things that are worth something to collectors, which the Pentax world seems to have quite a few of, are the fisheye and the extension tubes, though neither of them is something I'd be particularly keen to put on a modern camera. Presumably your dad had is own camera that he put those lenses on, though, if you care to shoot some film you might want to see if that's in good working order. Film won't show up the shortcomings of old glass nearly as much as a modern high-resolution sensor will. also this guy is just fucking with you >>3500137
>>3500107no idea but if i had to guess i'd say it looks like the red/green/blue channels are cutting out in certain places on the sensor
>>3500127I don’t know shit about pentax gear, but a 50mm f/1.2 in any system would be pretty desirable.
>>3500210Oh yeah I guessed they were worth maybe $200 total haha. I'm looking to get a used Pentax K-3, I do have some older film cameras as well all Pentax (ME, ME-Super, MX). I figured the optical quality might not be totally up to what's out now but if they'd be a good start till I can decide and save for newer lenses and that
>>3500257Well... remember that there aren't exactly many new lenses in K-mount. Sigma and Tamron have stopped bothering with them. Pentax themselves are the smallest fish in the rapidly shrinking interchangeable-lens camera pool. They only recently managed to get out a new, modern 50mm that'd been promised for some years (if I remember right the optics are licensed from Tokina) and the 85 that'd been promised at the same time still hasn't shown up. Only A-mount has fewer vital signs.
I struggled with noise problems on my D5300 camera and today ran into video with one guy replacing base profiles for his Nikon files on darktable and getting somehow much, much less noise.I cannot repeat that somehow. But does it mean that I was doing it all wrong so far and darktable doesn't really support Nikon? In base curve for example all photos I open are automatically opened with "like Nikon replacement" setting for example.The only other software I have is Paintshop but it handke denoising very poor. Or Im doing something bad yet again.
Whats the difference between whites and highlights and blacks and shadows? Sliding the bar around in my editing software seems to do the same thing. Also when should you pinpoint these vs adjusting the overall exposure?
What makes DSLR picture quality much better than smartphones? Is it the lens? Or the sensor size?
I am a complete and total photography virgin. I've been going to beautiful places and I'm tired of relying on my eyes and memory to capture the memories. What are some good beginners resources for learning how to not suck at taking pictures? Basic principles, entry level cameras, etc. I combed thru the sticky but a lot of the links were dead :(
Dies it even make sense to buy Corel Aftershot Pro if you own Paintshop Pro already? If one shoot in raw that's it.
After having upgraded from a Sony a6000 to a Fuji X-T3, I realized that I had foolishly never given a thought to the aspect ratio I had been shooting in. The Sony a6000 was some weird ratio like 6000x3376 but the X-T3 is 4:3. I was wondering what aspect ratio people here shoot in and why.
How likely is it that a new and improved Nikon 200-500 will come out in a couple more years?
>>3500610Both of the above. >>3500759slim to none I'd say. It's only a few years old, and already an E-type lens. New F-mount lenses are slowing down while they do their stuff with Z, and even if you're interested in that long telephotos will be the last to get Z-mount versions - the advantages of a wide, short-flange mount are almost all for wide-to-normal lens designs.
If I have a 1.4 lens I can get more light, better for low-light. But does it have a downside in daylight? As in, is it bad to just have a 1.4f 50mm in your camera at all times as opposed to swapping to a 2.0f during day and then back to 1.4f at night? (I'm using an SLR if that matters)
>>3500779No, not really. Well, I guess you could say that if you're going to be shooting in bright daylight, and not staying out until it gets darker, you might as well bring a lens with a smaller aperture and smaller physical size, since you probably won't be able to shoot at f/1.4 in bright sunlight without an ND filter. (A body that can reach a 1/8000 shutter speed is sometimes enough) But there's no real downside other than that. You can shoot an f/1.4 lens at f/8 after all.
>>3493705>>3493709what he said.Split tone, some negative clarity, negative contrast
>>3493803I use all three in my workflow- Bridge to organize, cull, rate- Import to Lightroom to play with the colors copypaste edits to set- PS for skin fix, obstruction removal, ect- Back to LR for batch resize/export
>>3494313make sure you get some weighted bags to hold things down.also consider the strength of the light you use if you want to shoot during the day.
How to extract ICC profile from NEF (Nikon raws) files? Or it cant be done?
SLR question. I have this Yashica FX-7 with what I assume is it's stock lens. ML 50mm 1:2 (f2) Anyway when it's off the camera I can clearly see the apeture going in and out but as soon as I slap it on the camera it just opens up fully and won't adjust. Is this normal?
>>3500996The LED sensor goes up and down in exposure when I change the apeture though but I can't see it actually physically move when looking' down the barrel'
>>3500996>>3500997Set the aperature to f/22 then take a photo in bulb mode holding down the shutter. If the apertures move then there shouldn't be any issue with the camera
>>3500998Oh yeah I see that now. It worked. I tried putting it on 125 as well, I saw it slap down and up again. Thanks
What the hell does this thing do?
>>3501268It applies deconvolution sharpening. It is designed to offset softness during capture from lens, anti-alias filter, etc. Great for enhancing small detail.It is best to use Smart Object to mask out smooth areas (sky, water, etc), as they will typically show noise. Only apply to an image with 0 previous sharpening, including in raw.
>>3501272All it does is radius 0.5, detail 100. And it introduces a bit of noise everywhere. I just really don't get it why it's being called a fancy name.
I like this style of photo and i want to learn more about it. Is it taken with a wide angle lens?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:CommentScreenshotImage Width1242Image Height1525
>>3501594Here is another example. It seems dark are but there is still a lot of light on the model. Are they using some lamps of flash or something?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:CommentScreenshotImage Width1242Image Height1523
>>3501594I'd guess that one is more normal to short telephoto.>>3501595Yea, this had 1-2 lights at least. My guess is a studio strobe with a beauty dish and one with a bigger diffuser, but admittedly I really am not very great at guessing this sort of thing.Background might be edited in or not, but it'd probably be easier to set this one up if the model was in front of a green/blue/[...]screen. Then you just edit the remaining scene in.
Why do I need a tripod for landscape photography, assuming I can get fast shutter speeds of say, above 1/250?I like to hike and stuff, and bring my camera to snap shit, but I really don't wanna lug a tripod around.
>>3501605So basically they are very complicated with a lot of extra lights? I find it hard to describe what i like about these but thanks for trying to help me.
>>3501609Dont most landscape guys shoot at like F860
I'm pretty new but getting there. I'm using Aperture priority and a 18-55mm lens and tried taking some landscape pictures today but they didn't turn out very sharp. I used 35mm with F8 and F9 but they didn't look very sharp at all, except for things within about 20 feet of me.Any tips? I know I'm doing something wrong but I don't know what.
Does gear matter that much ? Given the same composition and setting and focal length, would a pro setup thrash a beginner setup all the time?
>>3501954I think gear will matter when it can't keep up nor accomplish the required task in certain conditions. A beginner setup can do what a pro setup can given that the former can meet the rqmts. for the job. However, a pro setup can be a waste if the user doesn't know how to fully optimize the pro gear. Same with a beginner setup, when the user doesn't fully squeeze the juice out of it thinking that he suddenly needs a pro setup and will instantly make him a better photographer.
Pretty important question: I went someplace really quite special and shot a ton of pics on a CF card. Got home, tried to get the pics of the card. Can get up to the folder which contain the files but cannot open them. Windows says 'please insert disk' followed by 'not accessible' and 'device not ready'. Files are all intact, showing up normally when I use my camera to view them.Generic windows and Hama cardreader for CF I/II
>>3502034take a test shot with another CF card to check if the Hama card reader has issues or test with another CF card reader
ID on this Fuji?
Photolet here, why do the colors of my sunset photos always come out muted and boring? Is it a dynamic range issue?
Legit question. Using Lightroom and have pics stored on external hard drives. Have 3 hard drives with identical folder structure and files for redundancy. Drives labeled Drive1 Drive2 and Drive3. Import pics from subfolders on Drive3 and do edits. Catalog stored on C: in computer. Drive 3 is physically failing. Can I just rename one of the other drives Drive3 and keep working since the folder structure is identical or does that mess up the catalog? Thanks to anyone who actually answers this.
Hi guys, I wonder if someone can help me? I got a great deal on this Vivitar F6.3 400mm (10 usd) and I want to adapt it to Nikon f and I’m not sure how to go about it. The lens is T mount and came with a Minolta MD adapter. I would just get a T mount to Nikon F adapter but the lens came with a Minolta teleconverter that I would like to use. The issue with a Minolta to Nikon adapter it that the lens would no longer be able to focus to infinity. So which adapter should I get? Is longer reach worth not being able to focus to infinity?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKONCamera ModelCOOLPIX S205Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.8.18Maximum Lens Aperturef/3.2Focal Length (35mm Equiv)27 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2019:07:07 22:55:55Exposure Time1/15 secF-Numberf/3.2Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating400Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length4.90 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1333Image Height1000RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlHigh Gain UpContrastNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknownColor ModeCOLORImage QualityNORMALWhite BalanceAUTOImage SharpeningAUTOFocus ModeAF-SISO SelectionAUTOImage AdjustmentNORMALAuto FocusCenterSaturationNormalNoise ReductionOFF
>>3502391If you want them to look more vibrant, you can change the picture control from neutral to vivid. I'll assume you're not using RAW either right?Set the camera to RAW and then edit the photo to make the colors stronger.
>>3502684that's already a pretty slow lens, and it's not exactly like they're optical jewels so you're probably going to want to close it down to f/8 or f/11 if you can... and you want to put a teleconverter on it? get a T-to-F adapter and use the thing. This will probably cure you of the impulse to put a teleconverter on the thing, but if it doesn't, then look for some cheap janky-ass old F-mount teleconverter on KEH or something to put on it. It's already an all-manual lens so anything will work, and it's already going to be not terribly sharp so anything is sufficient quality.
>>3502733That sounds like pretty good advice, thanks man
What do you think of Dell P2419H display?
Why can't anamorphic adapters be placed in between the lens and mirrorless bodies?
>>3502773Nothing's preventing you from trying it.
>>3501610>So basically they are very complicated with a lot of extra lights?I wouldn't necessarily call them "very complicated" - I personally think could rather easily do this if I shot the foreground in front of a screen and edited the BG in.Whether I could do the entire shot on site depends on how the light actually looks. Maybe this would also have been easy, though if these lantern shaped lamps aren't very strong it might also be annoying.> I find it hard to describe what i like about these but thanks for trying to help me.I think you maybe like the color profile and of course it's mostly simply pretty great for portraits to have one or a few lights with big ass diffusers.
>>3502621I think in most versions of Lightroom you can point at a new location even if you're missing files from the catalog. I'm not sure you can just change drive letter of a replacement drive without this step though.
>>3502784Jup, that's what you do. Move drives, launch lr, it detects missing files, rightclick one of the missing files then point at new location, and it detects everything for you.
>>3502784>>3502798When you guys say detects EVERYTHING...I have a few hundreds of folders named like 2019-07-04 parade and 2019-07-05 travel etc with hundreds of photos in each. These are 4TB drives full so the catalog is pretty large. If I click on one image in any folder it will know where the other 400,000 images are in their respective folders? Doesn't LR just care about folder structure? That's why I was asking if I just named the replacement drive the same as the 1st drive LR wouldn't know the difference as the substructure and files are identical on each of the 3 drives. I mean no other info is stored on the externals whereas the catalog is stored on the C: internal drive.Also... 2nd stupid question. Is there an easy way to backup the catalog to a second location in case that got corrupted? That's my only single point of failure in my setup at this point. Thanks again.
>>3502807If folder structure is the same it'll detect all missing files fine, but it'll be a slow process working with 4tb+ data, so have patience. First wait for it to detect all missing files, then point to one of them, and it should do everything for you. If you've changed folder names, you may need to point to images in specific folders. When program detect one image in the folder, it'll start looking if the rest of the missing ones are where they used to be.Read on manually backuping catalogues. There are guides out there. And I'd advise you not to rely too much on them. Make different catalogues per years or something like that, and make sure to have exporting of metadata to .xmp enabled all the time. That way you won't be tied to adobe's cord in case you decide to switch, and you'll be at least left with keywords and ratings if something gets corrupted.
>>3502807> Doesn't LR just care about folder structure?I don't know if this is entirely true, but I remember that even if it looses track you can point it at the new location; there's probably not too much that can go wrong there.> Also... 2nd stupid question. Is there an easy way to backup the catalog to a second location in case that got corrupted?Use the feature in LR or just copy the LR data folder (probably preferably while it's not running).That said, I couldn't be arsed to make the migration to the cloud ripoff version of LR and the comparative slowness of the software got on my nerves anyhow. There's a chance that this in some way no longer applies on your version.
>>3502813>>3502870Thanks guys. I'll try this when I get in tonight. I'm a photojournalist so my editor has the most important stuff over the years but I have all my RAW images.I never want to store anything in the cloud and prefer my methods of redundancy. I keep one working hard drive here attached to the MAC. Another at my editors, and the third in a fireproof safe. I never have more than 2 in the same place and that's just for syncing purposes.I'll read up again on backing up my catalog. I start a new one every 3-4 months as the amount of work I do bogs the size down when I do backup and close LR.Thanks again. I'll post my results. I do know 4TB will take a while to ReSync. Patience, I know. I'll do it at the end of the day today.
I had a Sony a6000 and the auto focus on that thing was fantastic. Super fast, took milliseconds to focus if I ever wanted to get a super quick shot of something.I sold it a year ago when I needed money. Today, I finally had some spare cash and ended up purchasing a used Canon T5i since I thought it would be better for my use (flip out screen, mic jack, cheaper used lens market, etc).That said, the auto focus on the T5i is fucking abysmal. Am I retarded? Are my settings wrong? This thing on average takes like 3-5 seconds to focus on something, going in and out of focus back and forth until it finally figures it out. Sometimes the auto focus just doesn't even work (tapping on screen, or half pressing the shutter button). It's pretty jarring for video, too. I don't think it's that reliable. I also think it just doesn't work in manual mode at all, is that correct? Is this camera just retarded with auto focus or am I doing it wrong?
>>3503085Follow up question. I liked how on my Sony a6000 with the digital viewfinder, even in manual/Av/Tv modes, if I look through the view finder, I could easily tell what my shot was gonna look like 99% of the time. With this Canon T5i, for all I know my shots end up just being completely black. I don't get it. How can you tell your exposure with this camera without checking every photo on the screen afterwards and adjusting for the next shot? I like the idea of just flipping the screen inside the body so I don't have to worry about it and can save battery but I guess that's just not feasible. Is this just something I'll have to get used to?
I want to get into photography with a proper camera and I don't wanna spend $1000+I like low-light and macro photography. What rig should I start with?
>>3503042>I never want to store anything in the cloud and prefer my methods of redundancy.On that end - I'd consider snapraid or zfs [or Ceph, if you have the skills] or maybe one of the commercial (still self-hosted and perpetually owned without subscription) solutions for some of the storage eventually to use more efficient erasure coding redundancy + error correction to detect and fix bit rot on the local copy. Or at least augment your data with PAR2 data maybe, but that's a bit annoying to keep updated.> I'll read up again on backing up my catalog. I start a new one every 3-4 months as the amount of work I do bogs the size down when I do backup and close LR.That's LR, yes. You could eventually look into replacing that too, Phase One or DXO or even ON1 or Corel or Photo Ninja or such can be fine. The subscription model is an arsepain anyhow and all the other options -even multiple- might actually be cheaper.But I guess that stuff is work.
>>3503087Could be wrong, but one of the biggest things separating lower end cameras and higher end cameras is low light performance. So your best bet is probably any cheap Canon DSLR that has the features you want, and some prime lenses that open up to f/1.8. That'll give you decent low light performance with an APS-C size sensor since there really isn't much full frame cameras sub $1k. Then also getting an extension tube set to turn your lenses into macro lenses.
>>3503085>That said, the auto focus on the T5i is fucking abysmal.No? The low end Canons are pretty much intentionally shit, you're given nearly every reason to upgrade to the high end. They also removed $0.5 buttons and pure software settings like being able to exposure bracket (or have bigger steps there). Duopoly exploitation, eh. Either way the lower end cameras are essentially crappy bait to sell the more expensive ones, they are frustrating to almost anyone even by design.>>3503086Live View and review it, I don't think there are that many better options on this camera.> Is this just something I'll have to get used to?If I were you I'd just switch back to an A6400 or A7 III (or again the A6000) or a Panasonic or at least upgrade to a better Canon or Nikon. At least now you know why. I mentioned the Sonys first because of familiarity and nice features and Panasonic because they don't do that bullshit feature castration as strongly as Canon/Nikon.
>>3503087Nobody really "wants" to spend $1000+, there are just very good reasons to do so when you want to do various types of photography.You can get reasonable macro under $1k, I suggested the A6000 + 100mm Samyang macro before, not a bad combination in that price range.>>3503094> one of the biggest things separating lower end cameras and higher end cameras is low light performanceCorrect. Making actual low light without flash work well is one of the primary reasons to get the high end of at least FF cameras or even the expensive MF setups.If you don't want to spend much, you'll have to deal with flash photography.> and some prime lensesSame idea here - even if you do the compromise with mostly flash photography it's still good to have comparatively fast/sharp lenses (as you can get them on APS-C) - on the A6000 you might like the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 or 12mm Samyang f/2 for example.
>>3503094>Then also getting an extension tube set to turn your lenses into macro lenses.There's also the option to use an achromat close-up filter lens like the nice ones by Marumi. This can even be done in addition to the extension tube.Both are budget options that are usually just plain worse than shooting with a dedicated macro lens, but if you don't want to spend much it might be a sufficient compromise.Decent article here:https://www.ephotozine.com/article/close-up-filters---extension-tubes-for-macro-photography-31150
Which 'brands' of lenses would work on a Nikon F2?
>>3503042Just a follow up. Renaming drive #1 to Pics3 and LR couldn't tell it was a different drive and all is well. No question marks or any re-idexing needed.Thanks for the input,
film question: i saw a video where he was talking about overexposing film on purpose etc. but then he said "for example putting it on 200 when it's a 400 film" --- isn't this underexposed????
>>3504322if the camera thinks the film is lower sensitivity (ISO 200) than it is, (actually ISO 400), then no, it'll give it one stop extra exposure. It's basically just a way to have +1 stop exposure compensation by default. Usually this works well with color negative film, since it responds much better to overexposure than underexposure. (digital is exactly the opposite)
What is the point of sharpening? I realize it's a silly question, but every time I dick around with the sliders in Lightroom I can't really say I notice much of a difference (unless I go completely overboard).
hello everyone. I wanted to dump a number of pictures of 60s - 90s black and white photography from asia, but everything on this board seems to be from anon's personal images. is there an appropriate place for me to post these? I can't find any threads of similar things on this board. thanks in advance
>>3504532Should be ok. We had lost photo dumps before.
>>3504532You could make a thread. OTOH your own website or even flickr or such might be more long-lived.
A friend of my dad gave me his Canon EOS 30 D, with a EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM lens. I didn't have any experience with photography other than with phones and I've been having a lot of fun learning how to use it and snapping pictures of everything. I do have a question though, from reading the camera's manual, it has an aperture priority mode, however no matter how much I cycle through f values, the image doesn't seem to change. I can get the "bokkeh" effect from using the lens itself, but not from changing the f values in aperture priority. Does this have something to do with the lens itself, or is the camera deffective? Once again, please keep in mind I'm a total novice at this
>>3504649Take a picture of an object close up with a background that's further away and change the f number. You should see a big difference, the lower the f number is the more blur the background will have. If you're taking a picture of a flat surface (a wall) you won't see much difference.
Why is it so hard to get wifi done right for camera manufacturers? I should be able to backup all of my photos to my nas with the click of a button on the camera, through my phone and some app with nfc/wififuck
>>3504658It's a meme feature anyway.
>>3504658>Why is it so hard to get wifi done right for camera manufacturers?> through my phone and some app with nfc/wififuckWorks on muh Sony.The NAS doesn't support this though, so there'd still be an intermediate step across a desktop/laptop/smartphone before it gets sync'd to the NAS.BTW if you want a not terribly secure solution, you can use one of the WLAN enabled SD->microSD adapters (the storage card you put in that is a microSD). It can provide a SMB share or FTP or both. Of course it's not the fastest long range WLAN since it runs off a SD card's power, but should be easy to deal with otherwise.
How do you focus when shooting portraits?Do you use different AF points or just the center one and recomposing? Or should I just get good and MF
Are there any better point and shoot alternatives to a Ricoh GR II?
What was it called again, when you hold the lens loose against the body to take a picture?
>>3504416could you explain this like i'm five? or do you have a video or something? because i don't fully understand what you mean to be honest. so what if i used 400 film and bumped it to, lets just say 1600, would that "underexpose" the film? isn't higher ISO = brighter image?
>>3505043ISO on a digital camera is setting the sensitivity of the sensor. It's equivalent to changing the ISO rating of the film (kinda) ISO setting on a film camera is changing how the metering works.If you set ISO to 100 the camera would assume you're shooting ISO 100 film and have the light meter act accordinglySince ISO 100 film needs more light to be properly exposed compared to a faster film like 400, using 400 Film with 100 ISO set would overexpose the film even though the light meter would tell you you're bang on with the exposure
>>3505048Thank you! So could you explain what would happen what would happen if I take an ISO 400 film. And if I put it on 200 or 100 And what would happen if I did 800 and 1600?
I'm having the same problem as this guy with the latest capture one 12 on windows 10 https://forum.phaseone.com/En/viewtopic.php?f=76&t=32185 does anyone know how to fix it? I've encountered this before with Fuji's silkypix raw converter and it had something to do with whether the program was controlling the monitor colors or not. Pic related, the image from the post. If you don't want to click, all images look orange in the preview but convert to tif just fine.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2019 (Windows)PhotographerDragonflyImage-Specific Properties:Image Width1920Image Height1080Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8Pixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2019:07:13 16:08:06Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width720Image Height405
What kind of camera is this?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2013:11:07 03:29:47Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width1800Image Height1315
How exactly is this bokeh so strong? The face is fully in focus, both the nose and the eyes.With my regular 50mm 1.8 if I would focus on the eyes, the nose would be slightly out of focus. And the bokeh would be way less.I have 85mm 1.8 and I would assume framing it similarly but from a longer distance would probably give a stronger bokeh and the nose and eyes would both be in focus, but I don't really notice a drastic difference.Can anyone explain the technical aspect of this shot?
How to transport camera and lens in bag pack safely?I checked "camera bagpacks" but they all have absurd prices. So far, when I had one lens, I just carried it attached to camera and in normal bagpack in crude solution of sealable bag with wool hat inside. Now, it probably would need reorganizing.Any tips?And how should I store lenses when nit in use? Vertical or horizontal?
>>3505407No joke, get the Amazon Basics cam bag.
>>3505413Are there other options than Amazon? It's costly for me as Im not in US.
>>3505407Look at used gear websitesI got my camera messenger bag/waist bag (Kata W92) literally for free
>>3505610Just take good photos man
>>3492826What is wrong with my picture? Used capture one.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Maximum Lens Aperturef/4.9Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiExposure Time1/800 secF-Numberf/5.0Lens Aperturef/5.0Exposure Bias0 EVSubject Distance30.00 mFocal Length72.00 mmImage Width5122Image Height3419RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>>3505263The tip of her nose and her ears & beyond aren't in focus. Excellent work of the focus puller becomes your answer.Also seems like they used a lens with a larger focal length, it's not that uncommon to have focus curves like this.
>>3505613What do you think is wrong with it? All is see is a bit high jpeg compression. And maybe slightly missed focus.
>>3505647It's disorienting to look at. I used 1/800 while in a vehicle. Could it be camera shake? Sorry im really new still.
>>3505613It's just a visually cluttered image. Lots of contrasting small details, coupled with the noise makes it hard to look at because it's unnatural for our eyes to be blasted with so much information at once. Also looks oversharpened.
>>3505671Well, sorry again but what do you suggest that i do in post, or is it just a bad scene? I saw a photo like that where the trees were slowly fading into the mist and it looked really cool.
I was told this is a horrible photo , are there any suggestions besides "smash your camera"?
>>3505675If I were you, I'd walk back a bit and use a 105-135 mm lens to not include the figures on the left and right. As well as a slightly faster shutter speed.
>>3505679I dont have a changable lens , I use a nikon coolpix L840, I want to pick up photography as a hobby , but before dropping some money on a DSLR I want to make sure that I have "The photographers eye" or is that just bullshit ? This is a bee picture I took I think its pretty good
>>3505681Your pictures are very mediocre, and don't blame your gear because one can do much better with your camera.Composition is something you develop with a lot of experience. Watch tutorials, look at good photographs, and shoot a lot.
>>3505681If you like taking pics then just keep doing it. You shouldn't look for approval in any hobby, what matters is that you enjoy it. Photographers eye is bullshit indeed. The longer you do anything the better you will get at that discipline, but what matters most is enjoying yourself like with any hobby. Keep going lad, photography is very fun.
>>3505613No homeless people.
>>3505613I don't see what you mean anon. This is a decent picture. I personally would crop the bottom slightly, and it is a bit blurry, but if you export it at a smaller resolution it won't really be noticeable.
>>3505063The metering would simply not be accurate. If you shoot kodak colorplus 200 and leave the ISO on 800 then the film will be overexposed (the captures will be brighter than they should be) since the camera is metering for ISO 800 film and not 200.
>>3504934I use centre dot focus, aim for the eye which is closest to you and then recompose while holding the focus. This is the most accurate method. I have a cheap canon which doesn't have range finder focus tools, so manual focus doesn't work for me. If you have a camera with such a feature then you could try that, but you're just making it harder for yourself. only time you should use manual focus is when it's too dark to pick up a focus point IMO.
>>3505703But if you put it at Kodak 200 at 100 it would be "overexposed" as well what from I understand? I'm not understanding the difference.
>>3505706>This is the most accurate method.unless the lens you're using has even the slightest hint of field curvature.
>>3505706On any cheap m43 you do mf instead. 2x or around magnification on evf. And look at the eye.
>>3505665In a moving vehicle? Then that's better than what you'd expect from it. It's not perfect, but technically you can hardly go better considering the situation.
>>3505694Ok I will look into composition >>3505697I like it I did it a while ago when I was younger , but I stopped, this is a film picture I took and I think its alright[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution200 dpiVertical Resolution200 dpiImage Created2006:08:16 23:29:51Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1215Image Height1800
If I use an ND16 filter with an ND8 filter does it turn into an ND24 filter, or is there some weird mathematics going on? Do you multiply ND16 by ND8, but that can't be right I think.
>>3505723Higher ISO film is more sensitive to light. ISO 100/200 film is only meant to be used in daylight. If you use ISO 200 film and set the camera ISO to 100 then you are underexposing the film, but not by much, just one stop.
>>3505751no that's overexposing. Lets say the correct exposure, according to the camera's meter, is ISO 100 at 1/100th f/5.6. Now you go behind the camera's back and swap the ISO 100 film for ISO 200 film. The film is one stop more sensitive. If you tell the camera about that by setting the ISO dial to 200, then it'll compensate for the one-stop difference, say by increasing the shutter speed to 1/200. The film has one extra stop of sensitivity so you cut the shutter speed in half to let half as much light in and you get the same exposure.Okay, but now suppose you *don't* tell the camera when you swap the film. You have ISO 200 film in the camera but the camera still thinks its ISO 100. It'll meter the exposure the same as before, ISO 100, 1/100, f/5.6. But the film is actually one stop more sensitive than that. You'll be overexposing by one stop, since the meter won't say "oh geez, better cut down on the light for the more sensitive film". This is just an alternate way of dialing in a +1 stop exposure compensation. People do it this way on film cameras sometimes because negative film usually responds well to mild overexposure so you might decide you want that to be your "default" setting.
>>3505744>Ok I will look into compositionNot that anon but look at pic related (ignoring the front focus). If I just stood over the dog and took its picture, it would be shitty because who wants to look at a picture of the top of a dog. If you get down on its level though it becomes much better. Instead get down to the bee's level and take a picture of it looking at it's face.Also in the pic you just posted of some kike with a flip phone, dont cut off the feet.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D7500Camera SoftwareVer.1.10Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.7Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)52 mmImage-Specific Properties:Pixel CompositionUnknownImage OrientationTop, Left-HandImage Created2019:06:23 15:32:41Exposure Time10525/21049999 secF-Numberf/1.8Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating100Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length35.00 mmImage Width5568Image Height3712RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
What are these lines/streaks going down this scanned bw negative? What went wrong?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNORITSU KOKICamera ModelEZ ControllerCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh)Image-Specific Properties:Image Width2416Image Height2380Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8Pixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2019:07:15 02:05:29Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width1000Image Height993
Do I absolutely NEED FB or Instagram account if Im photographing and send photos of people and events? /cgl/ outright calls photographers without FB "suspicious" but /g/ told me to stay away.
>>3505856Squarespace =D Instagram and FB are nice because they're accessible and it's easier to spread word that you existFor any serious sharing you'd obviously want your own portfolio website
>>3505862I do have my own website but whenever I send some cosplayer photos, they forget to include link. Of course, list me as author but it doesn't help in finding me.
>>3505744Yes that's better, but I suggest you look into ways of isolating your subject from the background.
>>3505856Just make an instagram account anon, it's just how it works.
Does anyone know if the latest Capture One supports the 10mp mode for the D1X?
>>3505867But /g/ said its dangerous and anti-privacy.
>>3505759I think hes german , but thanks for the information , I appreciate the help! I eventually want to take close up pictures of spiders so the info helps a lot>>3505866yes , Ive been reading alot of articles about the rule of three and the other compositions and I think I am ready to take that into practice on my next outing thanks!
>>3505856Not sure what you're asking but uhh no? You can send them an email or a drive link. Anyways i think it's wise to have a fb account, don't upload anything on it if you want but have a place where your clients can give you a shout out when they upload your stuff and maybe a friend of them likes what he sees and will contact you through there.I upload all the stuff i like onto flickr. Fuck instagram btw facebook does its job better.
After reading >>3505863 yeah i doubt they forget, probably think it's too much of a hassle to copy paste a link than to just tag a guy. Make a Facebook and put a link to your site on it.
Just got a used DSLR off of craigslist. How come whenever I attach the lens hood, it makes the most awful grinding sound as I try to screw it in? Then removing it is a pain in the ass as I'm twisting over and over waiting for it to unhook. What's up with that? It sounds like nails on a chalkboard. It's some generic looking lens hood and a Canon 18-135mm lens.
>>3505970Is it a bayonet hood or a screw-in one?If it screws in it might be caused by dirt in the screw thread.
>>3505975Should be a screw in. There's threads in it. I've tried wiping it down with a microfiber cloth but that didn't seem to help. Am I screwing it in too far? It definitely screws in super smooth but in order to get it to stop wobbling, I need to tighten it to the point of where it starts scratching. I can do it just to the perfect point where it doesn't get to the scratching part, but doesn't wobble, but then I can't adjust the hood if light is coming in through the cracks or if it's causing vignetting or something.
>>3505970Sounds like you have some sand in there.
>>3505982And thats why you dont buy things from CL
Is there a way to change the file naming system so I can get it to display photos beyond 9999? I shot about 3 times over the last few days and when I put the card in the computer I realized there were 2 folders with the same date with the later having filenames begin from DSC_0001 as if the card had been formated. It's tedious to then have to put them all in the same folder and manually remain the later photos to continue the number sequence.If the camera number caps out at 9999 before resetting to 0001 then is there an app to help rename them all properly with manually entering? I know a quick workaround would be right clicking to set view to show files by creation date but I rather see all the numbers in proper sequenceCamera Sony A7m3 if that matters
Why don't they make variable zoom lens with wide-ass apertures? I can find either get 18-2500 zoom at f_3.5-6 or I can get 35mm at f_1.8.Is it just too much mechanical hassle to do both?
>>3506039the short answer is that its harder to get a zoom lens decently sharp and well-corrected over the whole range. the other thing that makes optical corrections harder is a wider aperture. You generally have to trade away one to get the other - this is why high-quality pro zooms are generally f/2.8, a fairly modest maximum aperture for a prime, and have pretty short zoom ranges.is it theoretically possible to build a 16-250/1.8? Yeah, of course it is. But it'd cost like 50 grand because it'd need to be built to such extraordinarily fine tolerances.
>>3506039All purpose lenses? They would require too much glass to be economical, and even practical. There are some fast wide zooms like Canon rf 28-70mm f2, Panasonic 12-35mm f2.8, Olympus 12-40mm f2.8, they only operate from wide to standard focal lengths, last two only feasible because they're on crop bodies, and first one because it's on large mirrorless mount.To get real all purpose lenses, you'd be looking at the sizes and prices of sports tv lenses. They go from 30k and up, are huge, and not even that fast. If you'd go even further and start looking at fast all purpose lenses, you're soon looking at the most expensive lenses in the world.
>>350605950 grand? That would be extremely cheap.
>>3506059>this is why high-quality pro zooms are generally f/2.8, a fairly modest maximum aperture for a prime, and have pretty short zoom ranges.Sigma has the 1.8 zooms for APS-C
Traveling to Italy for 2 weeksShould I bring my X100F or X-T1 with 23mm or 18-55mm?
>>3506059>it'd need to be built to such extraordinarily fine tolerancesno reason it would need to be. they can build it shittily and it would still work the same. glass just needs to be big enough for maximum aperture at both ends of the zoom range. even if the lens was built with shit optics and everything else it would still be expensive due to the size of the glass needed, and it would be huge and heavy as shit>>3506075>Sigma has the 1.8 zooms for APS-Cwhich are pretty much f2.8 for FF with speedbooster tacked on. Next you're gonna tell me someone made an f/1.0 zoom for m4/3 or 1" sensors.
How do I keep unused lenses? I have Sigma 70-200 one that is quite heavy and I have no idea if it should lie on the side or at back cap or whatever.
I'm going on a vacation in August to eastern Oregon (near Hells Canyon) and wanted to get some really good outdoor shots. I doubt my phone camera will be satisfactory so I'm considering renting a DSLR. I have absolutely no experience with DSLRs or anything of the sort, and don't really have the money to go out and buy a camera and lenses. What advice would you give to a completely new wannabe nature photographer in this situation? What should I rent? What kind of lenses would be ideal? What are the ideal light settings? Not really sure where to start.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:PhotographerJeff BairdImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution96 dpiVertical Resolution96 dpi
>>3506489Did you look at rental prices yet?Here at least it doesn't pay off at all if you're going on vacation.First up they often require a security fee which you do get back, but still. It's money you don't have on hand.Then the rental fee adds up fairly quicklyHere the price for an entry-ish camera (A6300 range of camera) starts at 40€/dayBut that's just the body.Then assuming you'd go cheap and rent a general purpose superzoom lens, that'd yield another 20€/day to the bill. You're burning 60€ every day on what's really not the greatest setup.If you're on vacation for a week you could easily just outright buy a DSLR and lensBut that's here, no idea how it is there
>>3506492On BorrowLenses, some of the cheaper rentals are pretty good for just the camera bodies. For the time I need it (4 days) it's $32 total for a Nikon D7100. Renting a Nikon 18-300mm f/3.5-5.6G lens for the same time period is $37.75 extra. So $69.75 total for 4 days seems reasonable for my budget.
>>3506505Oh yeah, that's an entirely different deal thenGenerally I'd advocate just buying them outright and if photography doesn't stick with you then just reselling them right after for minimal loss or perhaps even a profit if you do a nice flip
>>3506505dont forget shipping costs tho
>>3506519Ah, you're right. Shipping is about $30. So let's call it $100 total. Still, I don't expect to take up photography as a hobby because there's really nothing worth capturing where I live. Mostly just interested in getting great shots during this scenic camping trip.
>>3506527You may want to spring for a tripod as well if you'd like to get a panorama shot done
Mechanical vs electronic shutter, why would I use one over the other?
>>3506642Electronic causes rolling shutter effect even on stills. And it's shit with artificial lighting. On some cams it even counts to shutter count.
>>3506248>D500 isnt a pro camera
>>3506532Stopped using it years ago for that purpose.
Does leaving IR remote control mode ON drain batteries on the a6000/a6500?
>>3506527>>3506489>I have absolutely no experience with DSLRs or anything of the sort, and don't really have the money to go out and buy a camera and lenses.>I don't expect to take up photography as a hobby because there's really nothing worth capturing where I live. Mostly just interested in getting great shots during this scenic camping trip.>>3506492If you don't know how to use a DSLR or interchangeable lens camera - and don't plan on learning, then don't rent one. You won't be able to maximize the benefits you get from one, and will feel ripped off $100 later.You can buy a cheap point& shoot with optical zoom that will give you better results than your phone, and cost about the same as renting.Hell, you could even buy an older model APSC like a canon 500D with a kit lens with $100 if you spend a few minutes looking>pic related after 5 minutes on ebay
>>3506661So I should stick to mechanical shutter? Silent operation is tempting so that's why I was considering electronic shutter.
>>3506032Bump, pls respond
Why did nikon only go Full Frame with the D3 as late as 2007, while Canon had released their first full frame body in 2002? What kept them back?
New photographer trying my hand at postprocessing and can't decide on what software to put time into learning. Is Lightroom still the go-to or are the alternatives better (or at least on par) now? Processing Fuji raws if it makes any difference.