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

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 143 posters in this thread.

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



File: DSCF3222-1.jpg (232 KB, 1500x1000)
232 KB
232 KB JPG
For all your questions that don't warrant their own thread.
Use the /gear/ thread for gear related questions.

Previous >>3492826

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeFUJIFILM
Camera ModelX-Pro2
Camera SoftwareWindows Photo Editor 10.0.10011.16384
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.0
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)53 mm
Maker Note Version0130
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2017:03:29 20:27:07
Exposure Time1/80 sec
F-Numberf/2.0
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating800
Lens Aperturef/2.0
Brightness1.5 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length35.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1500
Image Height1000
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
SharpnessNormal
White BalanceAuto
Chroma SaturationNormal
Flash ModeUnknown
Focus ModeAuto
Slow Synchro ModeOff
Picture ModeProgram AE
Continuous/Bracketing ModeOff
Blur StatusOK
Focus StatusOK
Auto Exposure StatusOK
>>
File: DSCF0071_Fotor.jpg (479 KB, 2000x3001)
479 KB
479 KB JPG
I'm looking for a simple photo editor for free or cheap that is good for just cropping, straightening, exposure, highlights and shadows however InPixio and Fotor both export substantially smaller files than the originals. Is this a concern? I only work with jpgs and don't need anything as sophisticated as Lightroom.
Fotor actually started spewing out horribly pixelated files. Why are they all so shit? I'd use my ipad for editing if it wasn't so hard to get photos on the fucking thing.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeFUJIFILM
Camera ModelX-Pro2
Camera SoftwareDigital Camera X-Pro2 Ver5.00
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.0
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)53 mm
Maker Note Version0130
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2019:07:08 13:20:55
Exposure Time1/220 sec
F-Numberf/5.6
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating800
Lens Aperturef/5.7
Brightness6.1 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length35.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2000
Image Height3001
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
Blur StatusOK
Chroma SaturationNormal
Continuous/Bracketing ModeOff
Auto Exposure StatusOK
Flash ModeUnknown
Focus ModeAuto
Focus StatusOK
Picture ModeProgram AE
SharpnessNormal
Slow Synchro ModeOff
White BalanceAuto
>>
>>3509488
>simple photo editor
>for just cropping, straightening, exposure, highlights and shadows
>my ipad

You know, the integrated editor in the Photos app does all that, just put your photos onto Dropbox or a cloud service, move them to your photo library and edit
>>
>>3509488
Just use iPad+Lightroom
>>
>>3509488
Just be yourself bro.
>>
Will a 20 mm asp-c lens on my fullframe camera capture less wideness than a 20mm fullframe lens?
>>
File: index.jpg (5 KB, 275x183)
5 KB
5 KB JPG
>>3509939
It would give a wider view but the image circle most likely won't cover the entire sensor. You will likely end up with something like pic related.
>>
What is the best free software to mess around with .raw images?

I just started taking pictures in raw-format, but editing them on the camera is a pain in the but and the results aren't that great. Any recommendations?
>>
>>3510231
People usually recommend RawTherapee or Darktable around here.
>>
>>3510231
rawtherapee or darktable. Both have windows and linux builds. Somewhat steep learning curves compared to paid alternatives.
>>
>>3510248
>>3510254
Thanks, guys!
>>
I recently bought a photo printer as it turns out it's cheaper in the long run to do so than to go print shit out at print shops. Is there a site or possibly thread on this board that I could use to print out photographs? Is there a program which is recommended to setup the way it's printing and the sort
>>
How do I get good quality scans of polaroid picture?
>>
I'm curious about m43, and I'm thinking about buying in, but I only shoot stills. I know that countless people who are better photographers than me get excellent results with it, but I still can't shake the feeling that m43 development can't keep up with larger formats and the system will be retired. So, my stupid question is: would it be foolish to buy in now? I want to begin taking my camera with me everywhere, and the m43 system seems small enough to do that. Also considering the Fuji x-pro2, or 3 if it gets replaced anytime soon.
>>
>>3510674
>quality scans of polaroid picture
Because of the physical form of a Polaroid a flat bed scanner may not work well. A dslr/macro lens/tripod will be better..

That being said, "new" impossible project film and Onestep looks awful. Many years ago I got some film for a generic Polaroid camera. Looking at the prints with a loupe they were bretty gud.

If it's for insta just get a clip on close focus doodad from aliexpress for your phone.
>>
>>3510879
There were some rumours that Panasonic will abandon it and go apsc on l-mount for their budget option, but that looks to be false. They've own sensor foundry now, and are reportedly working on new time-of-flight auto focus sensor for it, so that should give mount a healthy life. Olympus aren't going anywhere either, and mount is pretty big in entry cinema circuits with Black Magic, Z-Cam, and now even Sharp who is entering it with own 33mp sensor.

Don't know the prices currently, so I can't help deciding what's the better option currently. Pentax is dedicated to it's crop, and Fuji as well. So it's down to prices and personal preference.
>>
>>3510672
>Is there a program
There probably is but here's my 2cents after watching youtube videos on the subject after being disappointed with my results.

>images on screen look very different to images on paper
>up the exposure by about a stop
>increase contrast, saturation and sharpness
>this might look a bit weird
>PRINT a (small) test sheet with 100% details
>rinse and repeat

You can do the same at "SnappySnaps". Just print out one or two 6x4 prints ($1) and take it from there. The machines are sort of calibrated so if you want a big print it'll be near enough.
>>
File: 1563306448815.png (1.86 MB, 1000x1132)
1.86 MB
1.86 MB PNG
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 sequence

Camera Sony A7m3 if that matters
>>
What does it mean when image stabilizing has 3-4 stop range?
>>
Fàms I want to take the photoshop pill for street pics editing, would anyone link me to a safe torrent to download? Really appreciated it
>>
>>3511105
No one is going to cop a ban because you're retarded.
>>
>>3511102

Let's take your statement for example:
> image stabilizing has 3-4 stop range

This means that with image stabilization, you can reduce either of the settings up to 3-4 times, giving you a more desirable result.

Let's say you're taking a photo at ISO 1600, f/1.8 and 1/400s, and the image is still too dark. Let's assume you maxed out your ISO and your aperture.

With image stabilization (IS), you can increase your shutter speed from 1/400s to 1/200s (that's 1 stop), then 1/200s to 1/100s (that's 1 stop), and then 1/100s to 1/50s (that's 1 stop).

So that's three stops less than your original shutter speed setting, but you can now hand hold the camera longer and get more light in, giving you a brighter image.

I hope this gives you the gist of it. If not, let me know.
>>
>>3511105
Is PS 2018 fine for you? You can get the official installation file from https://prodesigntools.com/, and then find the AMTEmu or whatever other Adobe software patchers there are from /r/piracy subreddit.

PS 2019 is a bit funky and so these old, trusted methods of patching don't work. I'd rather use a patcher myself than download a exe file of a Photoshop installation from somewhere random on the internet.
>>
>>3511136
That makes it very clear. Something in the "descriptions" I saw so far just didn't click in my head, but now it did. Thank you, much appreciated.
>>
>>3511140
I forgot to mention, the main aim of my example was to hold the camera longer to get more light in, while avoiding tiny camera shake.
>>
What is more preferred for promoting your own site with your photos - Facebook or Instagram?

I tried making FB page but it lasted 1 day before FB blocked it for "suspicious activity" (second time already, first demanded phone number, now photo) and it stays like this ever since. All I did was making account, then page, uploaded few example photos and left link for site and few galleries, nothing more.
>>
What's the average portrait session like? Like, how much do you charge? How much time do you spend on the shoot? How many finished photos are you expected to deliver?
>>
>>3511016
write a script to extract EXIF shot count data and rename files accordingly, or just pay me to

>>3511137
Run it in a VM and dont give a fuck if it is infected with aids
>>
>>3511229
Well did you provide a phone number/photo?

Honestly, as someone who has both a facebook page and an instagram account, they're both kinda shit in their own way. Like facebook won't even show all of your posts to the people who already like and follow your page. They have to change the following option from 'default' to 'see first' or something, and most people who follow a page most likely aren't going to do that by default. Of course the only real way for your post to reach all of your own followers is if you pay for an ad/boost your post. So you're paying facebook for the privilege of showing people who already want to see your posts with the ability to actually see your posts. I'm not as familiar with instagram, but it's more or less the same.

It's a pretty shady system, but if you're just looking for a place to host your photos so you'll have somewhere to point people to if they ask, I guess instagram is a better choice just because of its popularity. Just be wary of falling into the trap of relying on facebook/instagram's system of gaining likes and follows thinking it's a viable substitute for actually going out and networking and promoting your work.
>>
>>3511435

They asked me for phone number already before but did not upload any photo myself.

I already have private site for hosting photos so no need for FB or Insta to be my main gallery. But I noticed that a lot of people I did photos for wanted instead FB account to link for rather than posting link to my site. I never used FB before, I just assumed that its preferred front communication channel.

I don't know other ways of getting to people either. I basically have no friends too.
>>
>>3511415
>how much do you charge?
kek, If you're just starting out you pay the model. The more experienced you get it becomes more of a barter situation. Even when you have a decent portfolio models will expect to come out on top.

I worked with a guy who was into "portraits". He had a good studio set up but was a terrible photographer. The models (from MM) were paid £20 p/h for 2-3 hrs on average with expenses (travel). They'd split the cost for hair and make up. Model releases were signed and he refused to hand over the raw files.

Most of the time the models would flake at the last moment and he'd be at the train station waiting while their phone was switched off. The guy was ok and not a creep but models are fickle and will bail if the possibility of something better turns up.

If you are really interested make sure you are professional from day one. Start with friends and family, a good shot of your grandpa with good lighting is better than nothing.
>>
File: VJAo05v.jpg (118 KB, 1280x846)
118 KB
118 KB JPG
I'm brand new to film photography, I barely know anything about it but I'm diving straight in. I got a medium format camera, some film and I've ordered a bunch of supplies to start developing my own film. While I wait for gear to arrive, what is a good place I can send film to have it developed? I'm anxious to see what my shots will look like. It's 120 btw.
>>
File: file.png (184 KB, 340x340)
184 KB
184 KB PNG
Companies pay me to edit their videos on Premiere. I want to expand and record footage too.

Is this kit good to start on that? eos m5 + rode mic
>>
>>3511551
>will bail if the possibility of something better turns up.
Shit, doesn't even have to be something better. Just irresponsible assed people. I mainly work through agencies and some of these bitches can't even be bothered to show up for a $1000 payday for like 4 hours of work.
>>
>>3511496
Well, try uploading a photo of yourself? They've already got personal information of millions of people, anon. What's one more for the pile? :^)

I guess facebook is fine for what you're planning to use it for. Maybe fill out more of your account information. The only thing I can think of is someone with the same name out there is reporting your account for trying to impersonate them. I know it sounds stupid, but we live in a very stupid world. If you make it clear that you're John Smith from Idaho and not John Smith from Maine, maybe that'll solve the problem.

Also, I remember facebook has a rule that you can't make 'fake profiles'. Like there was a couple with the last name Avatar, and their accounts kept getting autoflagged because a lot of people who play Second Life make facebook profiles for their accounts/characters, so the word avatar is a flagged term when choosing your first or last name. So don't make a blatantly fake name like Stonecold Steveaustin. Other than that I have no idea what's happening to your account.
>>
>>3511763

Did another one since first one got locked for good. This time with photo and phone (sane ones I sent for verification so what gives) and so far it did not get blocked yet. I really have no idea what happened.

For unlocking first one they asked for ID card scan. Given that you can take a loan on on one, I said fuck this shit and simply made new one.

Thanks, by the way.
>>
>>3509485
>no stupid photographer on /sqg/ starter
>so sad
>>
>>3511687
People complain that the Rode VideoMic Go has problems with interference from Wi-Fi and BlueTooth sources.
>>
>>3511763
>>3511936

Wee, blocked again just now. I guess Im just not allowed to have account or something, for whatever reason.
>>
i don't really understand how different metering method works despite the simple explanation from most dslr when i chose them, i just find them all the same
>>
>>3512109
Here's a pretty good explanation
https://photographylife.com/understanding-metering-modes

It's a bit general and some cameras have metering modes that work a little differently (like some cameras "spot" is only the very center of the frame, while others meter at the selected AF point, check out your manual for your specific body), but it's how the concept works.
>>
What should I know before shooting expired film? Ektachrome e100 to be precise.
>>
>>3512114
Loses sensitivity with time so you want to overexpose it a tiny tad, by how much I do not know
>>
>>3512109

Put it in spot meter and focus on a point in the shadows in a scene that has bright highlights and dark shadows. Take a pic like that. Now do the same but focusing on a highlight.

Compare to a pic taken in matrix mode or whatever your camera calls the mode that evaluates the whole picture.

If these 3 shots don’t look very different then your camera is very weird
>>
>>3512115
And no one knows who doesn't know how the film has been stored.

Like if it's been in a deep freeze constantly for the last two decades, it probably will be just fine at box speed. If it's been in a storage shed for the last couple of years getting exposed to 100+ degrees over and over again, it might not work at all.

Rule of thumb is expose 1 stop over for every decade, but then that also depends on the speed of the film in addition to how it was stored (slower is more stable)...

The way I do it is rate it one stop over then bracket by a full stop for any shots I really want to make sure I get.
>>
>>3512115
>>3512119
Thanks, frens. It's supposedly been stored on a fridge but that's not something I can verify, really. Is there anything else I need to consider given that its slide film? I've never shot slide before so I'm kinda anxious.
>>
>>3512130
ehh...if you do overrate, don't overrate by much. Maybe a half stop?
>>
File: 1907260018_19.jpg (662 KB, 2075x3130)
662 KB
662 KB JPG
Anyone knows what went wrong here? I'm new to film and this is the first anomaly I've encountered after 4 rolls.

I don't belive it's the labs fault at scanning but I'll be able to get my negatives once they open again in a few days.
>>
>>3512150
What's the issue?
I think it looks bloody cool
>>
>>3512151
I also like it but I don't know what the black thing is that covers the top. It's been a while since I took this picture but I don't remember that being part of the plane window.

But I don't know, maybe it actually belongs to the window and I'm just being a brainlet.

This is a second shot from that window with a shorter exposure, it's also in the right corner but not as large as in the first image.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNORITSU KOKI
Camera ModelEZ Controller
Camera SoftwareLightroom
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created2019:07:26 16:59:14
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
>>
>>3512150
Makes you wish plane windows were bigger
>>
>>3512150
>>3512165
Just shoot another roll and see what happens. Pretty sure it's just a one time brainlet scenario and you're looking at the plane window frame.
>>
>>3511936
>>3511992
I'm guessing they have your information from your locked account on file, so when you use your name/email/phone to make a new account you got flagged. Honestly the only way I can see it ever getting resolved is if you give them your ID card. I can completely understand why you wouldn't want to give them that information though.

The only work around I can think of is to make a new account under a fake name and hope it doesn't get flagged. Don't use any information you've already used before, so make a new email address. There's also a chance your account is being flagged because they have your ip address, so you might want to make the new account in a public library or something just to be ultra safe.

Good luck!
>>
Should I be formatting my 128GB (micro)SDXC cards to exFAT? Only ever going to be transferring to Windows.
>>
>>3512335
I assume it defaults to NTFS? NTFS is more robust then exFAT and you should keep using NTFS as there is no advantage with exFAT. Nearly everything supports NTFS nowadays.
>>
>>3512228

I actually consider sending them email asking why exactly Im getting blocked like this. Especially in times after GDPR, asking for ID scan is law breaking. This is clearly automated action, like you said.

Thanks for help!
>>
How do I pick best/good/correct aperture?
I have a manual 55mm prime that goes from f/1.7 down to f/22.
When I pick too wide, obviously the DOF will be shallow, so it won't work with landscape photos.
Is there some rule of thumb for picking aperture for different types of photos?

>>3512335
Format it in camera.
>>
>>3512403
>How do I pick best/good/correct aperture?

If I want sharp images, I have looked up the best aperture for my lenses. Mostly hover around 8-11, obviously. Max I shoot at all is 16
Other than that, whatever type of picture needs in background blur.
>>
>>3512403
Half of the pic must be sharp, other half must be smooth background.
>>
>>3512403

Simple rule is that two-three steps above widest opening produce sharpest images. But at the same time you have to remember about diffraction limit, which is related to camera sensor instead of lens. For 25mp crop camera limit is f/8, above you will get slight blurr. But it's rather weak effect to dont worry too much about it.

As for different types, portraits are usually shoot at 2.8-5.6 since in most cases you dont want to include background too much. Landscape is all about narrow aperture and tripod of course. In general, you pick up aperture that will show what you want to show and/or blurr what you don't want to. Keep in mind that focal length affects DOF too.
>>
Nub here. Is there a decent, or even good tutorial for basic photo editing? I have shots I like, and I'm not sure what to do from there.
>>
>>3512472
Post one of your shots without any edits and we'll give you a rough outline on the basic stuff you can do
>>
Is Instagram good place to promote your photos? Or its related to same retarded auto-block policy as FB?
>>
File: IMG_0463s.jpg (2.11 MB, 5472x3648)
2.11 MB
2.11 MB JPG
>>3512473
Should I host a raw somewhere? Or is a re-saved jpg enough, serving as an example.
>>
File: frogo-1.jpg (2.03 MB, 3884x3107)
2.03 MB
2.03 MB JPG
>>3512476
Nah this is fine
Well here are the things that I'd do

First up I'd compress the highlights, you can absolutely recover the detail on the tree/branch/whatever and the frogs head. As it is I feel like it's too distracting of a feature and it takes away from the subject.

Then I'd bring up the shadows to get more of the picture and frog in view
I'd also bring up the brightness values for green and yellow a touch to get the bits and pieces on the frog a bit better defined as well as up the saturation on green and yellow -> orange tones, a bit of local contrast may help with that as well, but not too much since that'd make the background clip into black too much

And I'd give the image a crop, I went with a 4:5 landscape orientation crop

Keep in mind that I'm shite at this
>>
Anyone else find it difficult to just go out and shoot? Or to find a place to shoot?
>feel like anywhere with too many people I'll look like an idiot with my camera out
>worry about where to park my car
>worry about getting mugged
shit weather doesnt help. today it is super overcast, basically 100% cloud coverage
>>
>>3512490
Cloud coverage good though
Big softbox for your macro photography

But I agree with the rest of these. I go on hikes around the forest near my house a lot, but I've never taken anything worthwhile anywhere else.
I tend to carry my camera anywhere I'd take my bag but it usually stays in there.

Need to conquer fears and whatnot
>>3512479
Also keeping in mind that you should pull the sliders more than I have when working with RAW. I maxed out the highlight compression and it didn't do much, on RAW you'd get more out of it, same with everything else I did
In hindsight you could also go with a tigher crop
>>
>>3510879
even if mft dies tomorrow, you will have access to many quality lenses for relatively cheap and very good cameras. FF is very affordable because of sony now, but if size is your concern that shouldn't matter.
>>
>>3512496
I thought about FF, but the lenses are huge and expensive. I know smaller, slower lenses exist, but using them leaves a lot on the table, and kinda defeats the purpose.
>>
File: Nothing.png (611 KB, 589x594)
611 KB
611 KB PNG
Am I blind or why I can not find any difference on these three pictures or is there any?
>>
>>3512920
Very little difference in amount of noise. Nobody should shoot at 25600 though.
>>
When are you guessing the A7 iv will be announced? My bet is mid november, looking at the a7r iii and a7 iii announce dates
>>
Will any ND filter I buy fit my 550d stock lens?
>>
>>3513335
Yes any will do, I believe that your lens needs a 58mm filter.
>>
>>3513338
Very based, thanks
>>
Is there any difference in RAWs from two cameras from different brands with the same sensor? Other than what the lens will change or just assume same lens setup.
>>
>>3513469

Colour science can vary between brands, so your colours may appear different (saturation, slight difference in exposure, and cast).
>>
How do you guys store a battery grip if you're not using it?
>>
>>3513898

If it's not being used at all, and wont be for a period greater than 24 hours, remove the batteries and just store it as usual.

If it is in my gear bag and will be used during a shoot, just detach it from your camera.
>>
Is there a software for raw development that would let me work in sRGB color space? I don't ever export my images to adobe rgb and I fukcing hate to see differences between a photo in lightroom and exported image.
>>
>>3513957

Photoshop/Adobe Camera Raw can edit and export in sRGB.
>>
>>3509485
Why is /sqg/ missing it's characteristic photographers doing stupid things starter image?
>>
>>3512920
No, you're correct. Even if you put this in numbers like with the 5D IV vs the A7 III:
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-IV-versus-Sony-A7-III___1106_1236

Dynamic range is only half a stop apart and all other values on the imaging sensor are also basically not different at all at ISO25600 .
>>
>>3513957
ON1 can export to sRGB. As for what you're working on, that's the camera space of your camera's RAW files, right?
>>
>>3513901
> remove the batteries and just store it as usual
I don't see a reason to. Is yours draining the batteries when not in use if they remain plugged in?
>>
>>3512920
>>3512929
>Nobody should shoot at 25600 though.
Nobody should shoot at anything but base iso.

Even die hard gearfags have now realised they're being cheated at every corner when they're doing predictable dxo inspired tests.
>https://www.fastrawviewer.com/blog/determining-practical-dynamic-range

In short, base iso that's usually at 200 despite, manufacturers claiming iso 50-100 is your best dynamic range tool by a wide margin. At higher isos you're effectively loosing resolution, so you're better off underexposing and shooting wide open at low isos. On top of that, it's apparent that high iso dynamic range tests are all flawed.
>>
>>3513469
In theory, no. In practice >>3513471 is correct. What colour you get is determined by how camera exposes your image. That's done by image processor depending on photo modes, metering modes, and even focus depth readings. Each manufacturer uses different algorithms here, so end results will vary considerably, even on naked raws. Now, that's another story altogether. Plenty of editors will never even show you real naked raw file, and those that do rely on reverse engineering and plain hacking of the data, so you end up seeing different results by comparing them.
>>
>>3514006
> Even die hard gearfags have now realised they're being cheated at every corner when they're doing predictable dxo inspired tests.
Of course not, and that linkage shows no such thing.

It's just the die-hard number / context deniers that have trouble with DXO. The measurements otherwise make sense and are generally corroborated by other measurements.

>On top of that, it's apparent that high iso dynamic range tests are all flawed.
Nah, DXO's set of measurements work just fine.

> manufacturers claiming iso 50-100 is your best dynamic range tool
I have no clue if Canon even made that claim, but it *IS* ISO100 for various manufacturers and yea, ISO50 can be worse than 200.

But when it is worse, I don't remember any manufacturers claiming ISO50 is better than ISO200.
>>
>>3509485
I found a phone a couple of months ago that I don't remember the name of. It was basically a very basic smartphone with a really good camera but without the capacity to do much else. Does anyone know what it is?
>>
Are there situations that actually warrant following Ken Rockwell's advice and shooting JPEG?
>>
>>3514604
Never any for me. Even if I want to quickly share photos to strangers on-site (because it's fun and more rewarding for them to participate in my snapshits), the smartphone companion apps to wlan/bluetooth enabled cameras can do the conversion and actual sharing part better.

If on the other hand a shot actually gets to any editor on a computer or smartphone, there is no advantage in it being JPEG (unless the machine or it's storage is just too damn slow... but that just shouldn't be the case with how cheap either is).
>>
is it possible to fake a cinema lens by bending the lens hood in to an oval shape? you know to shape just the booke? would that look good? or rather fake? like software blur? which i really hate.
>>
>>3514604
>>3514619
Shoot raw + jpeg. Sometimes the jpeg is just fine and you can use it as-is. If not, you've got the raw file to do with as you wish.
>>
>>3514434
Give it back Tyrone
>>
Is micro-contrast and 3d pop a meme or real?
>>
>>3514621
As I just explained, I really don't need any JPEG.
Why would I? It just clogs up space and reduces burst rates rather pointlessly.

I can basically "use the RAW as-is" anyhow, neither a smartphone nor a PC will spend a terribly significant amount of time on transmitting / storing / converting it even without me using the hottest storage possible.
>>
>>3514604
Sports, news, fashion, candids, basically everything that needs to be processed fast. News agencies like AP will now only accept out of camera jpegs.
>>
>>3514636
It's an inaccurate concept but I and you get what they mean.

Still "micro contrast" is mostly just related to sharpness metrics in technical measurements. And making things "pop" is basically possible on manipulating colors in a sharp image.

IMO you can achieve this on either a sharp Zeiss, Sigma, Canon L, Sony G(M), ... or whatever other sharp lens, preferably prime.
>>
>>3514639
There is no reason at all why you can't process RAW fast.

AP is of course one of the few examples where they're crazy enough to only accept "straight out of camera" JPEG.
While I get that editors don't want to deal with camera specific RAWs themselves because that new software of theirs may not support it, there are very few faggots that that wouldn't want to deal with RAWs processed in the photographer's quick workflow over some pretend "genuineness" or whatever idiocy AP said they were going for.
>>
>>3514641 (cont'd)
Ah, and I think it was Reuters mainly, really not sure if AP joined in.

But yea, hurr durr move. And not really faster on your end.
>>
>>3514640
>IMO you can achieve this on either a sharp Zeiss, Sigma, Canon L, Sony G(M), ... or whatever other sharp lens, preferably prime.

Sharpness and microcontrast are two completely independent terms. Lens can be sharp and have appalling microcontrasting abilities, or it can soft as fuck and be great at it. In fact many old lenses are looked for in this regard.
>>
>>3514643
Nah, its still a sharpness metric. You don't get "microcontrast" if some wavelenghts get mixed into the wrong places, it also reduces actual sharpness.

[You also wouldn't get "microcontrast" if you generally filtered out a lot of visible wavelengths or were unable to somewhat accurately record many of them, but that isn't generally a very big problem in reality in machines vs. our perception]

If you have all your light in the correct place -which is muh sharpness-, you can always use this information to further accentuate the differences between some adjacent pixels by, say, 5% - what contrast exactly you accentuate is obviously different based on the tool you apply ("structure", "dynamic contrast", yadda yadda...).
>>
>>3514641
Sports images go directly up the server after each half/quarter, even as the game is running. It's all jpeg since forever. Paparaci/candid/red carpet/event goes to small resolution sites and newspapers, same thing.
In these areas It's often fastest guy that uploads it that gets the cash. Besides, nobody has time and will to process raws after buisy workday.
>>
>>3514642

The Reuters policy is mostly about them thinking that images you edited in LR or whatever could be fake. Only the camera's JPEGS can be trusted as real news. Nothing to do with the overhead of processing your raws. They don't want any JPEGs that you edited at all, period.
>>
>>3514645
You're mistaking microcontrast with something else then. It's not a scientific term at all, it's few blokes liking certain lenses that tried to figure where the look came from. And then they defined it as this quasi scientific pixel peeping term. To add to confusion it's lately catching ground as marketing slogan as well.

>https://yannickkhong.com/blog/2016/2/8/micro-contrast-the-biggest-optical-luxury-of-the-world
>>
>>3514652
I think that this guy actually coined it. The basis for it is thought that less elements in a lens is better for micro contrast, because science, and graphs, and film looks better because of lenses! Comments are amusing to say the least. All things considered, I still believe there is some truth to it.

>https://petapixel.com/2016/03/14/problem-modern-lenses/
>>
>>3514648
> Sports images go directly up the server after each half/quarter, even as the game is running
No problem whatsoever doing this with a RAW workflow. Done in 2.5s or so after even with tethering / WLAN sending applying a few standard corrections. It's not really slower than SOOC.

You can be uploading the JPEG and RAW async in this priority order right away with whatever bandwidth you have available on site.

And if the super quick turnaround times aren't automatically generally needed you can still get from RAW to JPEG ad-hoc in seconds, even with just a smartphone at hand.

>>3514650
> Only the camera's JPEGS can be trusted as real news.
They can't be trusted for shit, they're not even meeting basic criteria for tamper-proofing.

But regardless, if Reuters wants to pretend and you want to be Reuter's good little slave photographer feeding their not terribly competent slave editors, there is not much you can do other than play along with this charade.
>>
>>3514652
>You're mistaking microcontrast with something else then.
Nah.

> It's not a scientific term at all, it's few blokes liking certain lenses that tried to figure where the look came from.
Certainly, but like people trying to describe this "fire" element thing, there is ultimately a better answer.

You mainly just need sharpness from a real lens (which should automatically mean not much wavelength specific blur etc.), then you do something like:
https://exploringexposure.com/blog/creating-micro-contrast-in-photoshop/
https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/local-contrast-enhancement.htm
or any of the faster methods built into the various RAW editors or tools like:
https://www.knowhowtransfer.com/photoshop-professional-plugins/next-local-contrast-enhancer/

The point being... it's not really a lens attribute past sharpness, even if lens - camera combinations can interact to make it seem that way.
>>
Im buying a used d7200
I have the 50mm 1.8 and 55-200
Should i sell the 55-200 and get 28 or 35mm, or go for a zoom wide angle like 11-18 or sth?
I mostly shoot portraiture and product photo
Kinda small budget also
>>
>>3514712
You probably want a 100mm macro?
>>
>>3512475

Please respond ;_;
>>
>>3512475
Depends. Do you mainly shoot e-celebs and tits&ass&abs?

Do some of them want to do their paid promotions through your photography? Else no.
>>
>>3514744

Mostly various events (but not as official, paid photographer) and amateur cosplayers, aside from whatever I find interesting at the moment (I try to take camera with me when I go outside). Nothing anyone would paid me for.

But at the same time I want to share photos I do but my own site where I upload them have like 5 visits per month at best. I do have fun while taking photos but at the same time I want to show them to others and my family doesn't care at all (instead keep asking why Im not married yet).
>>
>>3512475
absolutely.

definitely isn't hard to get more than five viewers on your Instagram. use popular hashtags, socialize a bit with others, try to tag people and places

that should be a good starting point for IG
>>
I've sent a film to be developed and digitized, never done the latter before. How bad is the digitized result vs actually printing from the negative? Also, printing digital is far cheaper than enlarging the negative, but is it worth it? Thanks
>>
Whats the (in)famous Instagram filter and how to actually produce it?
>>
>>3514812
Explain & post an example
There's lots of shit instagram filters
>>
>>3514813

Actually I don't know more than comments on threads about "adding instagram filter". Thing is, I just want to make cosplay pictures I do appeal more interesting to viewers and if I for example would made them all sharp, they wouldn't like visible imperfections on face.

Im using Darktable if that helps.
>>
>>3514821
Instagram has lots of filters you can apply to photos and you can recreate them with Darktable if you know which one you'd want

Hiding facial imperfections is more retouching and making people look like aliens in photoshop rather than applying colour profiles. Sure lower contrast may help hide them but I mean, editing should be done on a per picture basis rather than "oh put on an instagram filter xD"
>>
>>3514828
Unless you want to put on the dog ears and tongue filter thing, in which case you should swiftly kill yourself
>>
>>3514828

Oh, okay. It's just that all I was doing so far was color correction, levels and denoising, plus some slight sharpening. I simply don't know about what people expect and articles or videos from search gives shitty oblivious suggestions or are complete waste of time (15 minutes of guy moving brightness slider with constant "mhmmm, yeah, mmmm, ehmmm, ye, mmmm, ye, don't forget to subscribe").
>>
>>3514883
Basically just do a teal & orange colour grade so it's "cinematic"
That appeals to the casual folk
>>
Why can't I fire an off camera flash if my dslr is in live view mode?
>>
Why do all YouTube photography videos all use the same shitty electronic music?
>>
>>3514891
Thomas Heaton typically has shitty indie folk sounding crap
>>
>>3514891

Because knowing enough about photography to have a popular YouTube channel doesn’t mean they know shit about music.
>>
>>3514766

Tried making account, at first try it said that something went wrong but it locked email and name as taken. Tried creating again, with different email with same result. But since it locked email, I tried logging on it, said its not signed to any account. Tried login on name and it allowed only to show me that both got instantly locked "for violating terms".

FB doesn't have contact email or phone, I cant even contact them to explain this.

Are there other ways to reach people without social media? Seems like Im forever locked outside of them. It's simply not fair...

I just want to reach people, not be forgotten nobody with private sute that nobody visit for the rest of my worthless life.
>>
>>3514734
I should mention that i dont shoot in studio, and for macro im thinking in extension tubes
Is the aov of the 35mm in apsc worth the difference from the 50mm?
>>
>>3514929

For "portraits" the 50 is probably preferable to the 35, and for other stuff they're probably interchangeable.

I have both but that's just because I wanted both. I could lose one or the other.
>>
>>3514940
So theres no notable difference in the aov?
Then should i go for 28 or 14-20 i Guess
>>
>>3514948

There's a noticeable difference between the 35 and the 50 if you take shots with both and compare them. But in real world usage, you'd just stand slightly closer with the 35 than with the 50, and forget about it.
>>
File: DSC_5049.jpg (205 KB, 1000x667)
205 KB
205 KB JPG
>>3514954

35mm on D7200

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON D7200
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.7 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.7
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern814
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)52 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2019:08:01 16:24:31
Exposure Time1/60 sec
F-Numberf/1.8
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating1100
Lens Aperturef/1.8
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length35.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlHigh Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
File: DSC_5050.jpg (224 KB, 1000x667)
224 KB
224 KB JPG
>>3514961

50mm on same camera, same distance

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON D7200
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.7 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.7
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern814
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)75 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2019:08:01 16:25:01
Exposure Time1/80 sec
F-Numberf/1.8
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating2000
Lens Aperturef/1.8
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length50.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlHigh Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
File: proxy.duckduckgo.codm.jpg (14 KB, 474x237)
14 KB
14 KB JPG
Are mirrorless cams without shutter count unlike dslr's or am I missing something?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
File: 1555555786503.jpg (6 KB, 225x225)
6 KB
6 KB JPG
>>3514954
I see, my issue actually is when i can't get further , so i guess this lens would be a good consideration.
Is there any old AI 35mm nikkor that has autofocus capabilities with the d7200?

>>3514961
>>3514963
Thank you so much for this! This is the kind of comparison i've been looking for everywhere but can't get to find
And also your doge is beautiful and super good boi/gurl
>>
>>3514755
Then share closer to the cosplay forums / event sites (whether they're on facebook or anywhere else).

And while I guess you could publish to other sites, why not focus primarily on the ones that don't fucking wreck your photos like flickr or pleroma streams or your own site rather than instagram?
>>
>>3514972
Most MILC have a physical shutter and will increase shutter count.

Although there also are some with fully electronic shutter (all current Sony IIRC) and as far as I know they won't increase shutter count in fully electronic mode.
>>
>>3514887
Maybe it's not just live view but live view silent shooting that is enabled on your camera?

Or maybe it doesn't provide the TTL information in live view mode or had some other bug (IIRC some older DSLR had this issue).
>>
>>3514891
Because just about everyone on Youtube uses the same royalty free NCS music to avoid issues with all the copyright drama the music industry and YT algorithms cause.

Not that the tunes are bad, but sure they get old rather quick. Still, it's the workaround for publishing on YT.
>>
>>3514977

If you want a 35mm prime for DX just get the 35mm 1.8 DX one. The old full frame AF version is slightly slower (f/2) and even used isn’t cheaper.
>>
>>3514977

You may find some use for:

https://dofsimulator.net
>>
When I see the pics I take on my camera's screen I can even see the droplets of sweat on people's brow. When I pass them on my phone to edit them the quality looks hella reduced. Same thing passing them on my PC via cable. How come?

Stupid question but I've never owned a camera before and I'd really like to get into the hobby
>>
>>3514987

Problem is, they all use FB right now and it seems I cant have FB/Instagram account since somehow Im on black list or something since any attempt to make account ends in automatic, immediate deletion for "violating terms of service". No idea if my name is forbidden, having protonmail account, my IP or whatever. I cant contact them either, even Instagram doesn't have any contact email, no link in information about deletion either since I use PC and not phone app.

It's like Im sentenced to be forgotten and treated like worthless trash and I don't even know, what I did wrong. It's not fair.
>>
>>3515016

Don’t transfer to PC using a cable, take the card out of the camera and physically stick it in the PC. Even the most entry level laptops have SD card readers built in.

Also, shoot raw.

But even the jpegs should be your cameras full megapixel resolution.
>>
>>3515010
Will do, thanks anon
>>3515012
THANKS OMG YOU DESERVE TO BE HAPPY ANON
>>
>>3515023
Try vpn, different email or just use something else. 500px, deviantart, are all decent alternatives to instagram.
>>
>>3515023
Certainly FB is an uncaring island monolith with shitty morals and average service. So are Instagram and others. Many of them also have beyond dubious licensing/usage terms. Can't really help you with finding your own workarounds for the worst social media sites around. Maybe there are not even any good workarounds.

But you can at least start publishing on Pleroma Mastodon etc. already. Won't immediately get you the same attention, but nobody really can mess with ALL Pleroma/Mastodon etc. servers either.
And then also publish on other sites like flickr if they treat you alright, and your own website. You could even try to go as far as start a larger host for creative commons cosplay photos on your website.
>>
>>3515016
>When I pass them on my phone to edit them the quality looks hella reduced.
Maybe your camera app just doesn't fetch the original photos but some low res derived JPEG?

> Same thing passing them on my PC via cable.
That is more weird regardless if it's MTP or mass storage access, but even there you might just have some image viewer that sucks at viewing the RAWs you might be using. Perhaps it just shows an embedded preview.

Probably fixed with a better RAW editor and it's viewing/import method.
>>
>>3515027

Each try was from different email, tried different browsers too. It's kinda ridiculous at this point.

>>3515030

This whole FB stuff pisses me greatly and even more the fact how widely accepted it is. I was accused of being weirdo and once of being suspicious potential pervert for NOT having account and cosplayers can sometimes tag my name and surname without even checking if I have account or not while being asked to paste link to my site instead.

Photo hub on private site sound really interesting but I doubt it could work since its shared server and I already start to push limits of storage.

Never heard of Pleroma and Mastodon before, will check then.
>>
>>3515038
> This whole FB stuff pisses me greatly and even more the fact how widely accepted it is.
Same thing here, but people have shit taste and made the internet worse by their choice of social networks. You can only slowly do a small bit to revert this trend.

> Photo hub on private site sound really interesting but I doubt it could work since its shared server and I already start to push limits of storage.
Obviously this requires some effort. although I'd also like to point out that we live in the times of cheap 10TB HDD and cheap 500GB+ SSD. It's not such a big deal overall to host a whole lot of images, theoretically.

> Never heard of Pleroma and Mastodon before, will check then.
They're more like an actual to Twitter and Instagram. Social networks that run between many servers.

Servers decide what other servers they associate with (and also what features they have, how large and how compressed the images are they share/forward, ...). Users can then message between the servers.

Overall this whole group is not too tiny at this point; has about 5m users although this is hard to measure accurately.
>>
File: 01-raf-simons-aw-2001.jpg (187 KB, 800x1223)
187 KB
187 KB JPG
Fuji owner here. I always here stuff like "the jpegs are better".

Is this because of the way light room processes fuji files?

Is there a difference in the film simulation when jpegs are compared to RAW?

Is there better software for fuji files?
>>
>>3515088
>Is there better software for fuji files?
Capture One
>>
How do I change who the "photographer" is on the meta data of a photo? Is it something I need to change on the camera?
>>
>>3515103
On my Fuji X-E3, there's a setting in the menu for copyright information where I can set author and copyright holder separately.
>>
>>3515107
Yep, found it; thanks fren
>>
File: 81B2vJYZyNL._SX425_.jpg (25 KB, 425x319)
25 KB
25 KB JPG
do nikon FX kit lenses performance better than DX ones on APSC bodies?
Like, if the overall optics are larger, one should expect less vignetting, etc, right?
>>
>>3515103
Can be changed in camera or on import with various RAW editors.

>>3515113
Depends on the lens, but not rarely yes.

The center of lenses is generally speaking sharper (and you're using the center of the lens with FF lenses on APS-C) and FF lenses tend to cost more anyhow giving them more of a "chance" to be better.

> if the overall optics are larger, one should expect less vignetting
It will depend on how that center of the lens behaves.
>>
>>3515016
Could also be shitty poojet software, try another app
>>
Do you get more background separation with a longer focal length?

like subject is far away from the background, would a longer focal length produce a more blurred background
>>
>>3515206
Yes, at the same aperture and framing a longer focal length blurs the background more

You can test this here
https://dofsimulator.net/en/
>>
>>3515206

Longer focal length "flatten" perspective but that makes it good for portraits.

https://expertphotography.com/understand-focal-length-4-easy-steps/

There is comparison later on this link. There used to be gif going around on /p/ showing effects of different lengths but I cant find it.
>>
in photoshop, if i do Automate>Photomerge to do a focus stack or panorama with raw files and then flatten image when i'm happy with all the layers and use camera raw filter on the flattened image, is it retaining/combining all the data of the raw files that i stitched together or is it just giving me the stitched image basically as a jpeg?
>>
>>3515042

I checked that Pleroma which seems to be infrastructure itself with Mastodon being actual social service. But it seems to be more like Twitter. You say that some people use it to promote photography?
>>
>>3515213
>>3515214
Thanks friends.
>>
Heard Heaton mention that he likes to expose his subject properly then control the highlights with an ND filter.

How is this done, exactly? Is an ND filter just sunglasses for the lens that reduces the amount of light that can reach the sensor?
>>
>>3515307
>Is an ND filter just sunglasses for the lens that reduces the amount of light that can reach the sensor?
More or less
For niggas that are shooting on the very cheap it's possible to just use 2€ welding mask glass. Though that gives you a horrid green colour cast.
I would assume he meant a graduated ND filter to just darken the sky which tends to be the brightest bit of an image
>>
>>3515315
Is this just because you can't recover highlights if the sky is too blown out? So a shitty solution could be to underexpose everything so the sky is correct then recover it in post?
>>
>>3515317
If it's the sort of shot without any real movement like most landscapes are you could (should) just bracket and merge the images and save yourself the $200 a typical decent ND filter costs
>>
>>3515317
To add to this, keep in mind that Thomas Heaton LOVES long exposure photography
When you're doing that sort of stuff you need ND filters to extend your shutter time.

During daytime light at your smallest aperture and lowest ISO setting you'd be lucky to get a 4 second shutter time.
And to get really flat water and smeared clouds you need much more than that. At that point you need an ND filter along with a graduated ND filter to take care of the sky.
>>
>>3515322
And to add to this as well, you shouldn't be shooting with a completely closed aperture anyways because you're ruining the quality of the shot.

This is the scenario where ND filters are actually necessary.
If you're just doing stuff without any long exposure memery you're better off to just bracket and merge in post
>>
>>3515320
>>3515322
>>3515323
Thanks. I found that if I let my camera choose exposure for me, it would underexpose everything to control the sky. Then I'd end up with these darker pictures with crazy fast shutter speeds.

Think I'll bracket for now and if that doesn't control overall exposure I'll look into ND filters.

Wish C1 would be able to merge exposures, focus, and stitch panos. I think they are intentionally holding those features back to release in future updates.
>>
Can I do focus stacking in Corel Paintshop?
>>
>>3514620
What in the goddamn hell are you talking about
>>
File: isco-single-focus.jpg (63 KB, 1280x480)
63 KB
63 KB JPG
>>3515418
He wants the anamorphic bokeh
Technically speaking he could get it by doing this, except cutting out an oval
https://thelawtog.com/how-to-shoot-shaped-christmas-tree-bokeh/
>>
>>3515420
But that has nothing to do with making a lens look cinematic.
>>
>>3515424
The term 'cinematic' is an idiotic buzzword in the current world
And anyone that wants to make 'cinematic' footage or upload 21:9 format video to youtube should be castrated.
That's just my take on it.
But I enjoy playing with fun shaped bokeh which is why I replied in the first place
>>
>>3515426
>>3515424
To add to my post when people say "cinematic look" what they mean is an orange and teal colour grade, 21:9 format and anamorphic bokeh
>>
I'm in a large metro US city wondering if it's safe to mix all my spent c41 chems together and flush them down the drain, or what?
>>
when do i actually use aperture higher than f11?
>>
>>3515512

Landscape, basically. You don't mind diffraction here and just want everything in focus. Don't you dare forgetting about tripod in such case, however.
>>
>>3515427
Cinematic is the new c-word.
>>
>>3515487
Put them in a used water jug, label it as 'PHOTOGRAPHY CHEMICALS' and let the garbage disposal people take care of it as they see fit.
>>
what really are ISO speeds? I mean, I know that they measure the sensitivity of film or digital sensors to light, but what kind of unit are they expressed in? How'd the decide what sensitivity would be referred to as "100"? etc
>>
File: 19fz1sjijhm5ujpg.jpg (697 KB, 1280x990)
697 KB
697 KB JPG
What are these dongles on hotshues you see so often?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width1280
Image Height990
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution96 dpi
Vertical Resolution96 dpi
Image Created2014:02:17 08:24:09
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width1280
Image Height990
>>
>>3516044
Also, who copied who in design here?
>>
>>3516044
Generally radio transmitters for flashes but those are something else judging by the cables, like wireless trigger releases.
>>
Is there any downside to compressing raw files into a rar for archiving?
>>
>>3516094
Mostly none.

(Except rar is a proprietary format and some older software may have trouble decoding newer rar files. I'd use .zip for that reason.)
>>
>>3514891
because having a camera doesn't buy originality nor good taste
>>
>>3516043

% I guess, since 100 is base and each increase is basically multiplier.
>>
>>3516094
modern raw formats will be already lossless compressed. so you will not save any space.
>>
>>3516126

But they had the same speed system in film for decades and 100 was not the slowest.

The Wikipedia article “film speed” explains gives a lot of numbers and math but seems to gloss this over. Or I’m just insufficiently math-literate understand it.

Maybe they designed the ASA (later ISO) system way they did specifically to make “sunny 16” work?
>>
I visited a city and found an image stenciled onto a random wall. I'm not sure if it was graffiti or some art thing. I took a shot of it that I'm very pleased with and wanted to know if I'm allowed to sell and distribute it legally. There's no artist attributed to the original work so I can't ask permission, and it is seemingly just some graffiti in a public area. My intuition says it's not ok to sell prints of it because it's someone else's artwork that I simply took a photo of and edited, however there is other graffiti in this city that I've seen other photographers sell prints of so I'm not sure.
>>
>>3516061
I think in this case it's true. But I've also seen people use them handheld in Sports and news.
>>
If Im 29 and tried making cosplay photos on events since 2 years and have no social account, is it safe to assume that I will never achieve anything anymore and can as well give up?
>>
File: 20190805_160044.jpg (1.56 MB, 2560x1440)
1.56 MB
1.56 MB JPG
This fell out of my 550d mirror, what is it?
>>
I upgraded to a7r2, all the new focus area settings are overwhelming. What are the best ones I should use for different situations?
>>
I'm currently in the process of editing like 200 shots and I'm using the built in windows editor just for cropping and minor exposure changes but when it saves the file it goes from 10MB to like 3MB. Is this losing a lot of detail? When I zoom in it looks the same, where's the 7MB going?!
>>
>>3515088
Some people prefer to use JPEGs from Fuji straight out of the camera. The reason some people swear by that is because Fuji has Film Simulations which pre-apply a pleasing look which you can further microadjust in camera. So they just abandon editing RAWs. I always edit my RAWs, I've never managed to get something consistently pleasing in camera.

Otherwise Fuji RAWs are fine. Lightroom used to struggle with them but they added a mode called Enhanced Details which cleans them up and removed any weird artefacts.

Capture One is the best RAW editor for Fuji because they have complete co-operation from Fuji themselves. Total support for almost all Fuji cameras and lenses which Adobe doesn't have. You can even flick through all the film simulations on your Fuji RAW file from within Capture One.
>>
>>3516860
If you're editing raw files that's kinda normal. Going from raw to jpeg will loose shit ton of data. Also check what kind of compression your editor is using. You should be around 90-97%
>>
>>3516870
>You can even flick through all the film simulations on your Fuji RAW file from within Capture One.
You can do the same in lightroom/photoshop, as long as you're still editing raw.
>>
>>3516661
Do whatever makes you happy.
>>
>>3516908

I don't know if anything makes me happy. When I take a picture, I see only flaws to correct.
>>
I got a Polaroid one step 2. The itype film looks washed out to hell. Any better film I can buy?
Also, any advise on post-processing?
>>
File: guitar1.jpg (1.06 MB, 4000x5613)
1.06 MB
1.06 MB JPG
How long does it take to get gud

I've been shooting for about 2 months, practicing everyday, and my pics still look like phone shit

Any tutorials, specifically on portraits and cosplay, that I can look into?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS Rebel SL3
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 8.0 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2019:08:04 21:00:24
Exposure Time1/50 sec
F-Numberf/1.8
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/1.8
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length50.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>3517016
Do you have like a local photography group that does feedback? There's usually at least one mofo in those groups who knows their shit.
>>
I want to scan 35mm film what kind of macro is recommended? I really don't want to buy the 90mm Sony FE 2.8 because it's 800€ used.

The Laowa 60mm f2.8 looks good but some people say it has heavy distortion.

And then I might think of adapting the Canon 100mm f2.8 macro (non L).
>>
>>3517571
You know what's cheaper than all of those? A dedicated 35mm scanner which keeps the film flat and handles everything automatically and consistently.
>>
What happens if your camera runs over the shutter actuation rating? Can it be repaired? Is it worth it? Is that number just a meme?

My camera has a rating of 100,000 but I often shoot 600-1000 shots for events. Does that really mean I can only shoot 100ish events before it dies or am I an idiot?
>>
>>3517754
Depends on the model if it's worth repairing, typical bill is supposedly around $200
If you've got an entry level rebel then it's debatable if it's worth repairing.
You can definitely go over 100k actuations, there's sites where people report their numbers when it does so you can get a better idea rather than a blanket rating.

Getting close to it mostly means you should heavily consider carrying a backup camera, which if you cover events are already doing
>>
>>3517754
You keep using it until the shutter breaks. I got a 5DmIII to 400k before I sold it.
>>
>>3516699
The piece you have with you.
>>
Does srgb image look wrong on argb monitor, the same way that argb image look different on srgb monitor?
>>
why the fuck are lenses so expensive?

i wanna get into portrait photography so i went looking into the used market for bang for buck, but the cost of a used big name brand lens makes the cost of the body look like pocket change.
>>
>>3518384

Because lenses are the part of the camera that is actually hard to make. A body is just a sensor (often a third party component) hooked up to a small shitty computer. A lens is a precision crafted piece of manufacturing.
>>
>>3518384

What camera is this for?
>>
>>3518394
ive gone looking for lenses for the 60D and the d3400, ive yet to buy the body so im trying to figure out what my best option is.

>>3518392
fair point, but i would have thought the used market would help me here.
>>
>>3518397

Lenses retain their resell price better other things because they retain their usefulness longer. Lens tech changes slower than what’s inside the body and even lenses that are technically obsolete have their uses. For instance old manual focus lenses are still useful on modern cameras that can mount them.

I don’t really do “portrait” stuff but I’d think you could go a long way with a 50mm f/1.8 lens on either of those bodies. These should not run you more than $200. You’ll get bokeh and the angle of view will be equivalent of 70-80mm in full frame lenses. That is close to the 85mm that everybody says to get for portrait.
>>
>>3518420
will there be any proportion distortions? its really critical for what i want that everything look exactly as it does in person, no weird warping or squashing/stretching of body parts.
>>
Got a Nikon F80 on ebay for super cheap but the autofocus just screws in and out and never finds a focus point. Is the camera totally fucked or could this be an easy fix?
>>
>>3512479
Sorry for the late reply, but thank you.
>>
when I take night shots of the sky they look great when I'm editing them on my computer, or even on the camera's screen for that matter, but when I go to post it somewhere I realize that anyone who has their brightness low on their phone is basically looking at a black image with a couple dots. Should I be editing my images to be brighter?
>>
>>3517016
It takes a while, different for different people, and most give up before they get there. It took me about two years before I produced anything I would consider genuinely good. I could have gotten better faster if I had been more willing to be criticized and challenged myself more in areas I was weak in. Look into rggedu stuff in areas youre interested in. Also seek out high quality photography that isnt on instagram.
>>
>try to take one of those long exposure photos so the water and sky look like they’ve been painted
>shutter open for ~30 seconds
>f20+
>ISO 100
>camera securely on a tripod
>photo still comes out extremely overexposed and blurry

What gives?
>>
>>3518754
probably blurry, not as sharp because of diffraction wich happens when you close the aperture too much, try using a 10stop ND filter instead and reducing the aperture by a few stops
>>
Another anon in one thread claimed that Darktable have layers functionality and I don't know this software. But I seriously don't see layers anywhere. There is mask tool but it's not layers in traditional sense.

Can somebody explain?
>>
>>3518754
f20 is for large format cams. Even ff will give you diffraction at f20 with the best lens money can buy.
>>3518769
That's it. Every tool can be duplicated. That way they act as layers. You can use blending modes and drawn masks, and you can even use parametric masks on them as means of luminosity masking. What I think that's missing are manipulation tools like clone stamp. Also their brush tool is awkward as fuck. I'd go to krita to do brushwork.
>>
Should I buy a full frame DSLR if I do wildlife photography? The reach is less than an APS-C sensor but you can just crop your shots to get the same result, right? Or will the full frame cropped shots be lower resolution and thus not as clear than if I just shot on an APS-C sensor?
>>
>>3518790
Always get a full frame. Don't worry about cropping and resolution. Worry about image tonality and overall quality. Full frame sensors blow aps-c out of the water in this regard. Take a horribly underexposed photo on both types of cameras, same settings. Try recovering the images in Camera Raw. The difference is astounding.
>>
>>3518795
Was gonna get a D7200 but I'll look into full frames. Got any recommendations in the $500 range used? Has to be nikon. Would like to have 60fps video but I'm guessing a used full frame in my price range will be too old for that.
>>
>>3518790
Irrelevant. Buy ff if you've money for long reach ff lenses. Buy crop if you don't. It's the lenses that matter. FF with lousy lens at 40mp will look worse than m43 at 16mp with a good lens.
>>
>>3518799
Pick up a D800 if you can find a good deal or can squeeze a little more out of your budget. Still and incredible camera/sensor, hasn't been improved upon that much in later models unless you really need 4k video. Resolution difference isn't that huge from d800 to d850
>>
>>3518803
an* incredible
>>
>>3518803
I wouldn't. Nikon is deader than Pentax.
>>
>>3518810
Get outta here gearfag. Go shoot your shitty macro photos and stop acting like you know what you're talking about.
>>
>>3518763
I don’t have access to an ND filter in time to get the shot I need. Is there any alternative to getting the shot right? Even at sunset the photo is far too overexposed. Will using Bulb mode instead of Manual and a slow shutter speed make a difference?
>>
File: front.jpg (181 KB, 1280x960)
181 KB
181 KB JPG
What do you anons think of the Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark II?

I'm currently looking at it, since it seems to have a good feature set and there's loads of m43 lenses.
>>
>>3518885
it's great but only 16MP image, while you can make 40MP photos you need to understand it's a composite, so if you need high resolution images you can't make one of moving objects etc, only for stills.
>>
>>3518888
Right. 16MP is good enough for me. The better optics alone will be an upgrade from my current camera.
It has a solid build quality, right? I hear that comment about it often, but I've seen a handful of reviews saying it broke down after 6 months.
>>
>>3518841
If the picture is overexposed without a ND filter how will shooting in Bulb mode solve anything? It will only exacerbate the problem as you will be letting even more light in...
>>
>>3518885
end of this month olympus will show the Mark III version, so the mark II might go down in price
>>
>>3518122
afaik argb includes/extends srgb, so an monitor which supports argb gammut should be able to display srgb flawlessly.
>>
>>3518841
>I don’t have access to an ND filter in time to get the shot I need
But you have time to stand there for 30 seconds? Dude just get a filter, it's not rocket science. Too bright at darkest settings? Reduce the light coming in. Ez.
>>
File: IMG_20190810_104904~2.jpg (1.21 MB, 2567x3101)
1.21 MB
1.21 MB JPG
>tfw internal dust
Wat do

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Makemotorola
Camera Modelmoto g(7) play
Camera Softwarechannel-user 9 PPY29.105-36 d7abe release-keys
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width2567
Image Height3101
Image Created2019:08:10 10:49:29
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
ISO Speed Rating1904
F-Numberf/2.0
Exposure Time1/15 sec
Focal Length3.54 mm
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Image Height3120
White BalanceAuto
Brightness-3.3 EV
Image Width4160
Exposure ModeAuto
Lens Aperturef/2.0
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
>>3519073
Nothing, it's irrelevant unless crazy excessive. As long as there is no fungus you're good
>>
How do you go about editing shapshits taken in bright mid day sunlight that look washed out as hell
>>
>>3519073
take it apart and rub the inside of the lens with the corner of your shirt to get the dust off
>>
>>3519104
is this a troll post? pls say yes
>>
>>3518891
Don't buy silver, and you're good. The ones that broke were chinese batch. New ones are all from new vietnamese factory. Silver colour ones have been known to flake colur on viewfinder bulge.
>>
>>3519073
Don't listen to >>3519104 it'll damage your lens what you have to do is lubricate your lens with your breath so the dust doesn't scratch it up then you can wipe it with a shirt.

Don't listen to >>3519077 either what a faggot
>>
File: IMG_8187-1.jpg (820 KB, 1620x1080)
820 KB
820 KB JPG
wait.... whats the real aspect ratio of 6x7 negatives??? sorry im fucking really stupid but putting in a 6:7 ratio crop doesnt seem right ?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS 5D Mark II
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 7.5 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2019:08:01 11:37:20
Exposure Time1/5 sec
F-Numberf/5.6
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating200
Lens Aperturef/5.6
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length100.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>3519104
>>3519135
You guys are both fucking autistic morons if you actually think you should ever TAKE APART YOUR LENS AND WIPE IT DOWN WITH A FUCKING TSHIRT. Your tshirt should never in a million years touch your lens. Get the fucking proper cleaning supplies.

But also, I'm right about that small amount of dust not affecting photo quality. Get out of here with your moronic flickr and /p/ education as if you actually know what you're talking about. The plane of focus is so far beyond that fucking dust, you can literally have a bunch of dust even on the front element of your lens and it will not affect your image. You're more likely to create bigger issues by trying to clean it yourself and scratching it with your fucking tshirt.

>>3519161
It's exactly what it sounds like. 6 to 7. The image you posted is 2:3 (or 6x9 in medium format). 6:7 will look closer to a square, which is often considered more formal, like 4:5.
>>
>>3519203

yeah the image posted was 35mm. okay yeah 4:5 ratio that's what i was looking for thank you!
>>
>>3519203
Stfu autist
>>
>>3519161

Even stupider question: are formats like 6x7 measured in centimeters, or inches?
>>
>>3519264
Medium format like 6x6, 6x7, 6x9 = centimeters. Large format like 4x5 and 8x10 = inches.
>>
>>3519283

so you have to already know if its a medium or large format to know what the numbers mean, ugh
>>
>>3519285
Well the numbers tell you what format it is. If you see anything going by 6x6, 6x9, 6x7 (or just called 120 or 220) it's medium format. If you see anything 4x5 or 8x10, it's large format. If it's medium format, it's a roll of film. If it's large format, it's sheet film.

There aren't any other relevant sizes still in mass production. You can find a few 5x7" sheet films out there still in b&w, but it's pretty limited.
>>
File: IMG_0885.jpg (3.22 MB, 3500x2337)
3.22 MB
3.22 MB JPG
If this is the original, the lighting in the park being pretty dull, because overcast forest....

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS 7D Mark II
Camera Softwaredarktable 2.6.2
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Image Created2019:08:11 22:21:55
Exposure Time1/320 sec
F-Numberf/6.3
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating1000
Lens Aperturef/6.4
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePartial
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length600.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width5496
Image Height3670
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
File: IMG_0886_01.jpg (2.07 MB, 3500x2337)
2.07 MB
2.07 MB JPG
>>3519566
...is this edit too much?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS 7D Mark II
Camera Softwaredarktable 2.6.2
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Image Created2019:08:11 22:21:50
Exposure Time1/640 sec
F-Numberf/6.3
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating1250
Lens Aperturef/6.4
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePartial
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length600.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width5496
Image Height3670
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>3519567
Original is better. Look how much contrast you lost in the face and all the fur -- it looks muddy now.

Learn to interpret a histogram and adjust accordingly. Then use curves layers w/ masks to selectively work on the photo (aka like dodge/burn if this were a darkroom)
>>
I'm too retarded to remember what guides say for shooting in manual mode and have to stick to Auto. Pls help
>>
File: DSC_0203_mod.jpg (892 KB, 1000x541)
892 KB
892 KB JPG
Different anon but did I ruin the picture as well by too much editing?

Original was too bright due to exposure bias +1 set by mistake.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON D5300
Camera Softwaredarktable 2.6.2
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern24854
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)240 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Image Created2019:08:11 23:11:59
Exposure Time1/100 sec
F-Numberf/5.6
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating800
Exposure Bias1 EV
Metering ModeSpot
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length160.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1000
Image Height541
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlLow Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
ISO Speed Used800
Image QualityRAW
White BalanceAUTO
Focus ModeAF-S
Flash Compensation0.0 EV
ISO Speed Requested800
Flash Bracket Compensation0.0 EV
AE Bracket Compensation0.0 EV
Lens TypeUnknown
Lens Range70.0 - 200.0 mm; f/2.8
Shooting/Bracketing ModeSingle Frame/Off
Noise ReductionOFF
Camera Actuations7849
>>
>>3519579
Use manual when shooting from a tripod and semi-auto modes when handheld
>>
>>3519583
Post original.

Right now you have way too much contrast. Your highlights are clipping beyond what they should be (it's okay for specular reflections to clip a bit, but you have too much rn). Might be unsalvageable depending how badly overexposed + your sensor quality. Shadows are clipping too, which shouldn't be an isssue since you overexposed

I suspect you pulled up saturation as well. Doesn't look good.


>>3519579
Just read and practice, jesus. Get a fucking brain.
>set ISO, leave it alone unless you walk into a different lighting situation.
>set aperture depending on desired depth of field, select a shutter speed that produces proper exposure
>OR
>select shutter speed depending on the desired motion blur or freezing of motion, select an aperture that that produces proper exposure

Literally just go outside with your camera and keep practicing. Change the shutter speed and aperture over and over until you understand the affect. The math is easy. Every full stop you open up = 2x the light. Every full stop you close down = 1/2 the light.

If you have a dslr, every shot is now free. No reason not to practice till you understand.
>>
>>3519566
First thing. Overcast isn't bad. Cam cares little if it's dark or not. Overcast may even give you sweet softbox look to the subject. It may trick your cams exposure meter, so you may need to figure what settings work best for you.
Second. What are you using to process? You've obvious chroma nose on both images. First thing you should do, before any other edit, is remove it. If you forget to remove chroma first, you only make it worse and worse through further edits. It's the reverse with luminance noise. That one you remove last. Luminance noise isn't huge distraction, chroma is always.
I agree with the guy above. First one looks better to me. With animals you don't need to do much processing. Selectively sharpening of subject is often only thing you do to it.
>>
File: DSC_0203_oryg.jpg (779 KB, 1000x541)
779 KB
779 KB JPG
>>3519586

Original, as you can see, is very overexposed.

I didn't pump saturation slider (in fact, reduced it) but instead changed color profile to Adobe and used velvia function in Darktable. Im still uncertain about how to edit pictures and my Nikon stuff always appear washed out of colors in Darktable.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON D5300
Camera Softwaredarktable 2.6.2
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern24854
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)240 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Image Created2019:08:11 23:11:48
Exposure Time1/100 sec
F-Numberf/5.6
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating800
Exposure Bias1 EV
Metering ModeSpot
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length160.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1000
Image Height541
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlLow Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
ISO Speed Used800
Image QualityRAW
White BalanceAUTO
Focus ModeAF-S
Flash Compensation0.0 EV
ISO Speed Requested800
Flash Bracket Compensation0.0 EV
AE Bracket Compensation0.0 EV
Lens TypeUnknown
Lens Range70.0 - 200.0 mm; f/2.8
Shooting/Bracketing ModeSingle Frame/Off
Noise ReductionOFF
Camera Actuations7849
>>
>>3519602
>velvia function

That's why. Velvia is such a tacky oversaturated film, lol. Just don't use any fake film presets, they're all bad on every program. I've never used darktable, but I assume it replicates most Adobe Camera RAW (or Lightroom Develop module). I recommend searching for a basic work flow in Camera RAW and imitating it on darktable. Learn how to interpret a histogram and edit accordingly.

FYI it's really worth it to just pirate Camera RAW / Photoshop. Truly. And I suggest setting your camera to capture images in Adobe RGB from the beginning. You should always aim to shoot + edit in the largest color space available to you, as it gives you more latitude in editing / helps you avoid things clipping. Convert to srgb for web output.
>>
You guys think Capture one 13 will be out soon? Seems like they have a yearly upgrade cycle and 12 perpetual licenses are half off so I assume that a signal.
>>
>>3519678
Yeah I imagine it'll be out relatively soon. Won't be upgrading till the new one can be easily pirated though, kek
>>
>>3518754
You're supposed to be using ND filters
>>
How do you stop water droplets on your lens from ruining your landscape shots at high apertures?
>>
>>3519689
Wipe them off. Or buy something like the Sigma water repellent protective filters.
>>
>>3519690
Can't wipe them off in wet weather or during long exposures.

Didn't know about those filters, I'll look into it.
>>
I'm new to photography, and as a small project I want to take some b&w pictures of my city and have some prints made to put up in my apartment.

I was wondering if there's any difference between shooting b&w in-camera or doing it afterwards on a pc?
>>
>>3519746
Shoot in raw and it's no problem at all.
>>
Is PDAF critically used for stills AF? Or only useful for video AF?
>>
>>3519746
Nearly all digital sensors shoot data in colour, and only later convert image to black and white, so it doesn't matter what you do. Converting from colour to b&w will loose you data and sharpness. You have some digital cameras from the likes of Capture One, and Leica that actually shoot only in black and white, and there is a possibility of modifying colour sensor so it only captures black and white. That would be the preferred way.
https://www.maxmax.com/b&w_conversion.htm
>>
>>3519785
It's mainly useful for some fast moving object either way. If you're shooting or filming still things like landscapes, posed portraits, or anything remotely still, like bird on a branch, there's really no use to it.
>>
>>3519798
This is more of an in-theory sort of response, just wondering if it'd be possible.
In certain RAW editors it's possible to choose the debayering algorithm. In RawTherapee in particular it's mostly done with AMaZE but it's very much possible to simply *not* debayer, leaving the 2x2 CFA on top of the picture.
Given that the pattern is known, wouldn't it be possible to just make a layer of just the colour pattern then subtract it from the photo, leaving just the luminance information?
>>
File: IMG_0886s.jpg (1.91 MB, 3000x2003)
1.91 MB
1.91 MB JPG
>>3519587
>What are you using to process?
Darktable. Very nub here, editing in general.

>You've obvious chroma nose on both images. First thing you should do, before any other edit, is remove it.

I tried using what I see in darktable concerning that, but down at 200% it doesn't look that nice now. Obviously that's not that significant, because that's 200%.
I don't think I went too aggressive with the sliders.

Here's the result. I think it's okay, but the chroma is still there. This one is now also jpg compressed, so that I don't post 10mb here.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS 7D Mark II
Camera Softwaredarktable 2.6.2
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Image Created2019:08:12 13:58:27
Exposure Time1/640 sec
F-Numberf/6.3
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating1250
Lens Aperturef/6.4
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePartial
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length600.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width3000
Image Height2003
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
File: 2YPAjXFXrH4.jpg (453 KB, 1555x1037)
453 KB
453 KB JPG
Anon, how do you edit your photo in Lightroom (for example) to get effect like this?
>>
Been into photography for less than a year. In the US on black friday, are there usually good deals on camera equipment? Like bodies and lenses
>>
>>3519813
First try denoise (profiled) if it fixes it for you.
Then denoise (non-local means).
Strenght about around 100, luma 0%, chroma around 100.
>>
>>3519801
I played with that. They also have mono demosaicing mode, but I haven't figured a way to make it work.
>>
>>3519830
Not usually, at least not on anything that's actually worth buying new. You'll see more deals on lower-tier intro photo gear.

KEH will most likely have a 20% deal for used cameras on Black Friday or Cyber Monday though. I picked up a nearly mint condition wooden field camera a few years ago for $400. Best BF purchase I ever made.
>>
>>3512472
Sean Tucker on YT has good videos on it
>>
>>3519873
wow this is great, didn't know about this site, thank you
>>
When will cameras get a wireless file transfer protocol as seamless as Airdrop?
>>
>>3520173
no problem! KEH is awesome. They're typically more expensive than eBay (which is why I wait for sales) but their rating system guarantees the quality of what you're ordering. Worth it imo
>>
File: isplr.jpg (884 KB, 1100x710)
884 KB
884 KB JPG
Is this photoshoped?
>>
>>3520631

If you mean fake, then no, it's probably not fake just a long exposure on a tripod to blur the waterfall.
>>
Are there places that will literally fix a broken camera while you wait in the shop, like they have for phones?

I need to get the LCD screen replaced on d7200. It seems totally stupid to send it out for repair of something so basic.
>>
I have heaps of 35mm slides that my dad took. What's the best way to scan them onto a computer? Should I pay someone to do it for me or get a scanner dedicated to it. I've got no idea.
>>
>>3520674
If you have a DSLR/DSLM and a macro lens then you can simply get a light table and scan them by taking a photo of them that fills the sensor.

If you don't have a macro just buy an old vintage one, most of them are good enough for that work. If you don't only have slides look into NegativeLabPro.
>>
>>3520645
There used to be. lcd's aren't that hard to replace, if you've a little knowledge you can buy a new and and do it yourself.
>>
is there any good website where to get spare parts for cameras? i have Minolta Dimage S414 which has a broken battery cover (i broke it like 12 years ago when i was an autistic zoomer) and because of that i can't use it. is it even possible to only buy the battery cover for it? i tried looking on ebay and a few other sites and in there they only had the whole camera, however i don't really feel like buying another one since the shipping for it costs twice the price of it and i also like the one i have since i had it for a long time
>>
File: IMG_2218.jpg (1.75 MB, 4032x3024)
1.75 MB
1.75 MB JPG
>>3520876
forgot to post pic

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software12.3.1
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2019:08:14 18:07:44
Exposure Time1/33 sec
F-Numberf/2.2
Lens Aperturef/2.2
Brightness1.9 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Focal Length4.15 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width4032
Image Height3024
Exposure ModeAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>3520876
Did you see if there were any "not working" or "for parts" listings? I repair some of my older equipment (mostly darkroom enlargers and shit though) with those listings. Usually a lot cheaper than working ones.
>>
Is flickr the only remaining site for explicit nsfw photography?
>>
I want to profile my flatbed scanner for accurate color scanning in VueScan.
What's the best way to do this?

Apparently I need a reflective IT8 target, where is the best place to get one and what should I pay? Is the process mostly automatic if I follow the correct steps or is there anything else required like user input and judgement?

I want to create an archive of lots of photos and be able to print things back accurately. Can I proceed with physically scanning and saving VueScan raw files to process later after I get the scanner profiling thing figured out? I know colors can shift a little over time and people say calibrate regularly but I'd be fine with shit that's within a margain of error vs being completely uncorrected if it's avoidable.

I tried to use the manufacturer supplied .ICC but VueScan doesn't seem to accept them. Right now EPSON Scan's ICM settings produce very different looking scans compared to VueScan even with some post editing in GIMP so something's very off somewhere. EPSON Scan's color corrected scans appear slightly ugly but they seem more accurate in some areas especially in blue-greens and yellow. I'd really be happy with something inbetween and I'm hoping that's what I'll get in the end. I scanned a few things and compared them IRL next to my monitor (factory calibrated Dell) and while IRL contrast on physical objects has nicer contrast and vibrancy I've noticed a lack of colors like mentioned above in the bluegreens and yellows. I can look up a photo of a dandelion and it's nice on my monitor so I assume this is somethting profiling will fix?
>>
should I get a film camera with fixed lens or ones with interchangeable mounts
>>
File: focusing thing.jpg (1.55 MB, 5184x3456)
1.55 MB
1.55 MB JPG
How do I into focusing better when dealing with smaller objects?
Longest I can go is 250mm so I struggle getting my middle point exactly bang on the subject often making them not perfectly in focus and some other leaf that's barely touching the square getting that honor
>>
>>3521530
depends whether you value portability of most of the fixed lens ones or the flexibility of using diff lenses but usually is bigger and heavier.
>>
>>3521532

you need a sony a7 series camera, mark II or newer

fixed
>>
How can I resize images in Lightroom without exporting them? is it possible at all?
>>
>>3521554
It s supposed to be stupid questions thread not stupid answers
>>
What settings do you guys usually set you computers monitors for photo editing.

I've processed some raws which I thought looked ok in terms of visibility and detail only to view them on my tv and phone and found them very dark.

Is there a standard for this sort of thing?
>>
>>3521832
Get a colorimeter like a Colormunki Display and do a hardware calibration of your monitor. Ideally, you'd have an IPS or VA panel with 100% sRGB coverage (or AdobeRGB if you work in that colorspace). Having a larger colorspace than 100% sRGB is not preferable as your colors will be too saturated on your monitor.
>>
>>3521832
I havent got a clue honestly, I base my final edits on my phone screen, given that I mainly upload to instagram that's what makes sense.
On my laptop it's down to estimates and looking at the histo, shit looks different on every screen I own
>>
Asking here because the gear thread is probably about to autosage.

Is it worth it to get a Canon EF-S 24mm f/2.8 lens if I already have a kit lens, a 50 mm and an 85 mm? I just want a wide angle lens that's sharper than the kit zoom lens. The f 2.8 aperture also seems pretty nice since I'm a bokeh whore and I can't get that on a kit lens.
>>
>>3521839
sure, i'd probably grab one if i shot on a crop canon dslr (have got an m5, so it would be a bit redundant with the ef-m 22mm f2 already in my bag)
>>
Should I actually consider full frame over my current crop camera if I mostly shoot portraits or events and have problems with low light?
>>
Is a 50mm 1.4 prime at f2.8 better/sharper/whatever than a 24-70mm 2.8 zoom at f2.8, assuming both are in the same "range" as far as quality goes, or is the only benefit of the prime the extra stops?
>>
>>3521884
honestly, considering how cheap a A7II is these days, theres literally no reason to even start on a APS-C
>>
>>3521884
It's a meme, large sensors have a different look to them, it's nice. But marginal low light benefits.
Fast glass, with VR (or a stabilized body, or both), will make a difference.
Or a tripod.
Or learn lighting, why do you shoot portraits in the dark.

Also what kind of maniac would buy a A7II when you could get a K1 or a D800 for the same price.
>>
>>3521915

It might be cheap but at the same time I have three Nikon lenses already and switching system is no-no.

>>3521959

Because sometimes I don't have the choice and have to shoot in iso 800 or 1600 but even at 400 noise is visible and problematic. This is related to events and stages where I cant use flash.
>>
So what is the drawback of "create texture" with the spot healing tool for retouching? It seems to do a pretty fantastic job with almost no effort
>>
>>3521959
>Also what kind of maniac would buy a A7II when you could get a K1 or a D800 for the same price.

Most people want better cameras
>>
>>3521914
>Is a 50mm 1.4 prime at f2.8 better/sharper/whatever than a 24-70mm 2.8 zoom at f2.8, assuming both are in the same "range" as far as quality goes
Yes. Just about every lens stopped down a couple stops will be better.
>>
>>3521832
TVs generally do some kind of post processing. Turn all that shit off. Also who the fuck views pictures on their TV and has to ask these questions?

>>3521738
>How can I resize images in Lightroom without exporting them? is it possible at all?
Its not, lightroom is nondestructive so you're never editing the actual file.
>>
i am offered to buy Nikon d600 for 600 euros. Worth it?
>>
There's plenty of shit on using a computer monitor as an external/camera monitor, but can I use a camera monitor as a PC monitor or do they lock it down through some weird fuckery?
>>
my a7r3 ibis started to shake and buzz like crazy while shooting and it didn't stop until i took the battery off. this has happened twice now with newest firmware (3.01). have no idea what caused this. am i the only one or has this happened to someone else too?
>>
>>3522484
That's Sony, baby.



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

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

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