Hi, I'm currently using a Nikon camera.
I want to understand the differences between certain focus settings if you can help me.
There are three setting here which have their own options:
Auto-Focus Area Mode
-Quiet Shutter Release
I think I understand release but I don't understand the difference between the first two options.
Thanks if you can help.
>I think I understand release but I don't understand the difference between the first two options.
One is continuous, the other is a single shot. Meaning that if you press the shutter and keep it pressed in continuous you will get tons of pictures, in single frame you will get only one.
Only uses the selected AF point.
Initially uses the selected AF point.
But when the subject moves it uses the AF point still on the subject, as long as it's in the selected area.
This is good for things like birds or sports, where it's hard to keep the AF point on the subject all of the time.
Initially uses the selected AF point.
But when you move the camera it will use whatever focus point is still on the subject.
Note this is very similar to dynamic area, only it's optimized for a moving camera rather than a moving subject.
This is good when you like to "focus and recompose" instead of composing and then selecting an AF point.
Computer decides what to focus on, based on subject distance and contrast.
Generally only noobs use this.
But might be handy in situations where you can't look through the viewfinder for whatever reason.
Hi, thanks a lot this helped but when I'm using the camera, I can chose both focus mode and af area mode.
So let's say I'm shooting a bird, I know now to use dynamic area but in the focus mode option, what would I use? Continuous servo?
Let computer decide between "single servo" and "continuous servo".
Really only for noobs, higher end Nikon's don't even have this mode.
Stops focusing once focus has been acquired.
Note that you can't use "dynamic area" or "3D tracking" with this mode because it's meaningless.
Keeps focusing to tracks the subject using the mode you selected.
Not "servo", just "manual" - disables AF.
OK I'VE GOT IT.
FOCUS MODE - REFERS TO WHEN OR IF THE CAMERA FOCUSES BASED ON WHAT IT CAN SEE
AF-AREA MODE - REFERS TO THE FOCUS POINTS AND HOW THEY ARE USED
RELEASE MODE - REFERS TO HOW MANY IMAGES ARE CAPTURED
OK GOT IT THANKS
Dynamic area only works in continuous, so yes.
I also recommend setting "AF-activation" to "AF-ON only".
And then just keep it on continuous servo all the time.
This gives full control over when to focus and when not.
Hi, I've done this, this is called back button focusing right?
Now I just press that button when I want it to focus, what does this exactly do though? I know it means you don't have to actively change the single servo to continuous and it stops the camera from having to focus only when the shutter is half pushed down but I don't really get the benefit fully.
So let's say I'm shooting a bird. I put it on continuous servo and select dynamic area, then I press continuous shutter. Then I select my middle focus point, aim at the bird and press the AF BUTTON, now let's say the bird begins to move, do I just keep my middle focus point on the bird and it will always be in focus without the camera having to adjust itself?
>this is called back button focusing right?
>Now I just press that button when I want it to focus, what does this exactly do though?
Exactly the same as half-pressing the shutter button used to do:
It activates the AF and turns on metering.
Only now you can also press the shutter without activating auto focus. (metering still gets turned on with the half-shutter press).
>let's say the bird begins to move, do I just keep my middle focus point on the bird and it will always be in focus without the camera having to adjust itself?
You TRY to keep the middle focus point on the bird.
But since this is very difficult with long lenses and birds that change direction quickly it will probably move off the center point sometimes.
In that case, as long as it's in the "dynamic area" the camera will continue to track the bird.
Any shots you take now should have the bird in perfect focus.
If the bird goes outside the "dynamic area" the auto focus will first pause, giving you some time to get the bird within the "dynamic area" again.
Any shots you take now will likely have the bird out of focus.
If you fail to get the bird in the dynamic area after about 1 second (on some cameras you can configure this delay) it will focus on the center point again. - in that case you will have to release the AF-ON button, and press it again with the bird under the center AF point.
People are welcome to critique things, especially if you pay for them. It's like writing a bad review for a restaurant and the owner commenting WELL IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT DON'T EAT HERE.
Move my body when I want to play with perspective and compression and intimacy. Zoom when perspective can't be adusted, when I can't get closer or further away, or when I don't feel like carrying a bunch of primes and I want to shoot a cool tall building but also a portrait of the awesome tattood guy who I'm chatting to while waiting for my panini to be done in the oven.
So I bought myself a used A7 about a month ago as my first digital camera after using film for years on end and I have a question regarding Alpha lenses. Why would you need an adapter for pre-digital Minolta AF lenses and what's stopping me from just directly mounting one to the camera? Is it because the AF is driven by a motor in the camera, which the a7 obviously lacks? And if that's true, then wouldn't the adapter change the focal length since they're also meant for crop lenses?
i got a question which might be stupid.
Which Nikon picture control settings will save me the most image information for RAW files, and which one for JPEG files?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 50D Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS4 Windows Photographer Douglas J. Klostermann Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 96 dpi Vertical Resolution 96 dpi Image Created 2013:04:04 12:56:33 Exposure Time 1/125 sec F-Number f/2.8 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 400 Lens Aperture f/2.8 Exposure Bias 0 EV Subject Distance 0.42 m Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 50.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 600 Image Height 222 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
The mount at the back of the lens is different from the mount on the camera, so you need an adapter. The Flange distance of the lens is larger than the flange distance of the camera, so you need an adapter. The autofocus on the lens requires a motor to work, which the camera doesn't have, so you need a big stupid cancerous growth of an adapter.
said, for raw, your picture modes don't affect them. You get all the information automatically. For JPEG, you will preserve the most information by lowering contrast, saturation, noise reduction, and sharpness all the way down as low as they will go
If you don't know automatically whether you prefer 40mm or 28mm, then I'd say you aren't enough of a photographer to really need either of those, and that you wife is better off buying you a nice Tampon superzoom for your NEX.
Move your body whenever feasible to do so. Zoom when circumstances prevent body movement.
Also, in regards to continuous focus mode, your camera may require you to select how many focus points you want active for the continuous tracking to use (usually 1, 4, several, or all). Better cameras give more flexibility in exactly how much power the continuous mode has to readjust itself in this way. But most important thing about continuous focus: it is an assist. Do not rely on it. Always try your best to keep your subject where you want it in frame and let the af-c, shutter speed, and lens image stabilization be your safety nets. Also, make judicious use of the focus lock button to prevent the camera from changing focus when you dont want it to. Getting a feel for the interplay between these systems is key to maximizing your odds of hitting focus on a fast moving subject.
Another question about this focusing.
Let's say there's a bird on a branch and a background of mountains.
I want to have the bird in the top right of the frame. So, I hover my middle focus point over the bird, hit af, then i move the frame so that the bird is in the top right.
Will the bird be in focus? Or will it focus on what is it in the camera's middle point now? (and by that I don't mean actively do it, i mean just general focus)
If you hit the AF button and focus on the bird, and then let go of the button, you can do whatever you want, and the bird will stay in focus. Recompose, take a nap, build a cage for said bird, etc. The focus won't activate until you press the AF button again. That's one of the major benefits. You can point the center point at the bird, focus, let go, recompose, and then let go of the camera entirely, and wait for it to do something interesting. Then, when it does, you press the shutter button, and it fires. If you use shutter button focus, you have to keep the button pressed down for it to stay locked, otherwise when you go to take the photo, it will have to acquire focus again, and if you don't recompose to the bird for it, you get the mountains in focus.
Then you'll be fine. The camera will only focus if you're holding down the button.
Keep in mind that "focus and recompose" (as your technique is known) can throw off focus at close distances (like with portraiture or macro), but in your example you'll be fine.
So that must mean the camera knows how much you've moved and keeps the bird in focus in relation to that right?
But Okay, let's say the bird is in flight, a previous post told me that you'd have to hold onto the button, but surely according to what you've told me, I wouldn't?
No, the focal plane is just a flat plane, so anything that is also that distance from the camera will be in focus too. When you're focusing on a bird 40 feet away, everything 40 feet away will be in focus. So if you turn the camera a bit, the bird is still 40 feet away, so it's still in focus. There's nothing complex going on.
>But Okay, let's say the bird is in flight, a previous post told me that you'd have to hold onto the button, but surely according to what you've told me, I wouldn't?
If the bird is changing distance from the camera, you have to keep the button pressed so that the camera continues to work to focus on it. The first bird only stays in focus because it is not moving closer or further from the camera.
>So that must mean the camera knows how much you've moved and keeps the bird in focus in relation to that right?
What the fuck? No. The camera doesn't need to know anything, because the focus shouldn't be shifting all that much in the first place if you're just changing the angle of the camera. It would work the exact same on a manual focus camera from 1935.
It's okay buddy. Photography seems like it's really confusing at first, but the basic concepts are simple and easy to grasp as long as you don't overthink it (which is what you're doing).
And, again, read the manual. Seriously. SERIOUSLY. It will answer 99% of the questions you might have. I know it's long, but it will save you legitimately six months of your life of trying to figure everything out on your own.
Another silly question, when shooting monochrome, is that desirable? Or is black and white film much better than a DSLR's monochrome?
Or is post much better? Like using photoshop etc by turning colour image bnw.
Tihs is a whole can of worms that you're opening here. Some people prefer the look and character of monochrome film over digital, some people prefer the versatility and flexibility of digital over film.
Personally, I don't think anyone can call themselves a photographer until they've paid their dues and shot and developed a roll of black and white on their own.
On digital, if you want B&W, you start by shooting color, so you can adjust contrast by channel (Sort of like using color filters used to work on film)
In a lot of cases, B&W film can look a lot more smooth and buttery than digital, merely because, on digital, you only have 255 values for what tones can be in the image, whereas B&W film has a tremendous range. Also, the crunchy blacks and rolled off creamy highlights of film look very nice when they're B&W.
This being said, knowing how to process digital images to look B&W can give a lot of this tonality and quality to a digital image. But just clicking DESATURATE is going to leave you with a result that looks worse, most of the time.
It's really down to preference, and the skill of the artist. Digital has drawbacks, just like film, and if you can learn to work around them and manage them, both digital and film can look incredible.
Thanks, so the photographer sebastiao salgado, his images are all in bnw but I saw him using a dslr in documentaries I've watched, is it not strange that such a pro would use that method rather than shoot real bnw film?
Or is he so good that he can develop colour images into beautiful bnw ones?
Actually since writing this I realise how silly of a question it is but it interested me
>Thanks, so the photographer sebastiao salgado, his images are all in bnw but I saw him using a dslr in documentaries I've watched, is it not strange that such a pro would use that method rather than shoot real bnw film?
So, Sebastiao Salgado is actually known for using a Leica and monochrome film. Probably 95% of his work is film, and it was sort of a big deal that he used a Canon DSLR for Genesis. It ultimately just goes to show that it's the photographer that matters, not the medium.
That is a good link, and none of the information is wrong, and yet there is a LOT more to getting a well toned black and white image than what is covered there. Look into some youtube videos, as there are a lot of people who go into a lot of detail about it.
Only in 8 bit images. This is why people shoot raw and not JPEG. Even if Photoshop only has 255 levels in its color picker on 16 bit images, true 16 bit records 65,000+ colors per color channel. Most cameras have a lower bit rate, but even compressed 12-bit like the Nikon D3200 records 4096 levels per channel. This is not an opinion or up for debate, just a description of facts about how a digital camera converts analog data (light) into digital data (a collection of zeros and ones that is used to represent a picture on screen).
>Only in 8 bit images
so basically every display ever.
to be fair he did miss the point that black and white actually DOESN'T have tremendous range, and instead is only binary. The grain is either activated or it isn't.
Ok so f/3.5 etc, shallow depth of field, great for portraits and to keep the subject in focus and to blur the background, lets in a lot of light to have a faster shutter speed when using a low iso
f/22 for depth of field, landscapes, keep everything in focus etc
BUT WHAT ABOUT ALL THE ONES IN BETWEEN LMAO
when do i use f/11???
this is so confusing lmao
FOCUS DISTANCE, FOCAL LENGTH, APERTURE, ISO, SHUTTER SPEED, WHITE BALANCE, TYPES OF FOCUS, TYPES OF FOCUS POINTS, EXPOSURE COMEPNSATIN, RAW JPG, FRAMING, TIMING AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHGIDVKHAERPHVR
JUST FUCK MY SHIT UP
It's okay you'll get used to it. Maybe it'll take you 6 months or 2 years, but eventually it'll happen.
Tip: if you have a bunch of free time, you can sign up for a 3-week trial with Lynda.com if you have a LinkedIn profile. Then you can watch all of Ben Long's videos, he's a fantastic teacher.
I believe I have posted this before, and I'm sure it's been mentioned many times, but some very useful books for starting out include:
Molly Bang - How Pictures Work
Bryan Peterson - Understanding Exposure 3rd ed.
Freeman Patterson - Photography and the Art of Seeing
If you just want a single book, Ben Long's Complete Photography is also fantastic.
Tip #2: try leaving everything on auto EXCEPT for the thing you want to learn about. If you start with finding good subjects and composition (everyone should but nobody does), then you can actually leave your mode dial on the green camera icon and blast away.
What formats do you guys save your edited pictures in?
I shoot in RAW, edit in photoshop and save the finished picture in .PNG so i can go back and edit it again without destroying the picture like you would have with .JPG
is this a good practice? I have the RAW file and .xmp file saved for the original file, but the finished image gets saved as .PNG
It's terrible practice. PNG isn't meant for photographs. It was designed as a replacement for GIF.
JPEG is more than good enough. I don't know where you're getting the idea that you would destroy the picture any more in jpeg than you would in png. Any edit is a destructive edit, no matter the format.
OKAY THANKS A LOT, IM GONNA GO INTO PURE MOOD, READING ALL THE TIME, BUT MY MIND IS FUZZY, MY HEALTH HAS BEEN SHIT AND IVE BEEN DEPRESSED BUT THAT IS NO MATTER, I WILL DEDICATE MYSELF TO THIS, YOU WILL READ ABOUT MY PICS IN 10 YEARS
Asking here now:
Using LR3, when I try to export a file I can only export it to my user file, desk top, same folder as original and the only other option is my dropbox folder - which was the last folder I was exporting to before this happened. I'm not able to choose an option for exporting it to say a different folder in my F drive.
Has anyone ever encountered this and how would I fix it? Google really hasn't been much help to me.(I know I should upgrade but it does what I need it to so I'm good for now)
Screenshot of my options:
No where in that file tree is an option for any of my other drives.
How do I find out if this stuff is expired or not? I have one fairly new 24 shots roll and 2 fuck-knows-how-old 36 shot rolls. Graphics on it are slightly different but can't I get the year of manufacture from the serial number or something?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SIGMA Camera Model SIGMA DP3 Merrill Camera Software SIGMA Photo Pro 6.2.1 Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.0 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 75 mm Serial Number 90609357 Focal Length Range 50 Firmware Version 1.02.8.7091 Camera Software SIGMA Photo Pro 126.96.36.19912 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 180 dpi Vertical Resolution 180 dpi Image Created 2015:12:21 15:14:15 Exposure Time 1/15 sec F-Number f/2.8 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 200 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash Focal Length 50.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 750 Image Height 500 Rendering Custom Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Unique Image ID 3030363039333537EF19785645353141 Drive Mode SINGLE Resolution HI Autofocus Mode AF-S Focus Setting AF-S White Balance Auto Exposure Mode A Metering Mode 8 Exposure 0 Contrast 0 Shadow 0 Highlight 0 Saturation 0 Sharpness 0 Fill Light 0 Color Adjustment 1 Adjustment Mode Custom Quality 10
f/22 comes into play for light gathering purposes. If you need to be at a 1/30s shutter speed in bright light, and you're at ISO 100, you can stop all the way down to f/22 to try to kill the light further.
To determine what aperture gets you what depth of field for what lens, check this out:
I fell for the meme and bought a Ricoh GR II.
Could you guys share your custom settings? My main use for it will be street photography and I'm really overwhelmed with all the possibilities. Thanks.
Say you're doing macro. You need a lot of light for that but also don't want your depth of field to be tiny. You slow down your shutter speed but there's still not enough light and you don't want your iso really high either because you're looking for crisp detail and minimal noise. So. You use a flash at max power and you close your aperture to f/18 or even further if you're willing to allow some diffraction in to the image in exchange for more dof.
Macro is just about the only use case i have for very small aperture settings. Maybe occasionally some long exposure situations also.
wtf is this shit on my sensor? mold? im getting ready to sell this, should i spend the $60 to have it cleaned? or hope the next guy buys it and pawn it off on him like a chump?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS REBEL T1i Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh) Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 1500 Image Height 825 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 220 dpi Vertical Resolution 220 dpi Image Created 2015:12:23 22:57:29 Exposure Time 0.3 sec F-Number f/14.0 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/14.0 Exposure Bias -1/3 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 24.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1500 Image Height 825 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
read the manual. then jewtube.
get your aperture (f-stop), shutter speed and ISO familiarized. then look into a thing called "composition".
do yourself and everyone around you a favor and completely forget HDR even exists
Hey, what kind of lens/camera are capable of producing images clear enough to be magnified and framed for large picture frames(I'm talking up to 3 meter square)? I'm looking into buying a rokinon 35mm for my a5100. Any advice or suggestions?
Does it need to be sharp up close?
You can probably work with ~100 dpi, which gives you a ~45 megapixels image.
I'm considering you mean a 3 m2 frame, not a 3 m by 3 m frame, that would be impractical at 100 dpi.
Use sharp primes at their sharpest aperture, and go panorama if you need it.
Your a5100 will get you ~60 dpi at this size.
Thanks, made a mistake with explaining my intent previously. I'm going to have a giant image put together onto my wall around 2x3.5m large. The picture frame thing was just a reference to say how large the image is planned to be for each section. What I'm going for is a collection of sections that create a gigantic landscape.
Hey guys ,
How do you stitch two images with overlapping?
Like, I have two images to be stitched vertically and the middle portion is same in both so it has to be overlapped.
Can you recommend some software?
Example, pics in reply
I'm having a problem when I shoot a high DOF picture on high aperture.
I don't understand on what part of the picture I should focus when I want to get a deep field of view. When I focus the flowers the skies is out of focus and when I focus the skies the flower are out of focus.
I want to manage to take a picture like pic related (for example)
So I'm interested in how this guy edited this to give that atmosphere. Like the slight haze and lack of color feel. How would I replicate that in editing software like lightroom? I've been messing around a bit and have gotten close but I can't get that exact feel.
means everything is in focus
what do you even mean by this. Aperture isn't high or low, it's either open or closed. You mean high like high number, or high like very bright?
>I don't understand on what part of the picture I should focus when I want to get a deep field of view.
Everywhere. Close down the aperture, get distance from your subject and/or a wide angle lens.
Focus is a sphere. Pick a point in the middle of the field, with a stopped down aperture (i.e. f/8, f/11, stuff like that) everything will be in focus especially if you're using anything even slightly wider angle.
This is my first time coming on /p/ and I'm so fucking angry at you for not colour correcting.
if you don't have any tripod, and playing with relatively low shuter speeds, get as many point of contact as you can.
stick the viewfinder to your eye, hold the lens with your other hand, this should make it more stable
I'm on continuous autofocus, 1/1000th shutter speed but my photos of my friends dog running towards me are always fuzzy. Lens is a 70-300 Tamron on a Pentax K-3. I know I have a short amount of time before the dog gets too close, but I was hoping to get more in focus shots. What am I doing wrong?
>Are you using continuous autofocus?
Did you read the first four words of his post?
How many focus points are you using? I'm not familiar with the K-3, but usually there's full auto mode with all the points active, then a zone of focus points, and then a single point to choose from. With photos like this, a zone is usually best, using as phase detect points.
Chances are good that your trouble is just that you're using a very cheap, very low quality lens from a third party manufacturer that had to reverse engineer the AF system and didn't nail it down. Tracking AF is pretty demanding on a system, and it's very rare to find a third party lens that does the job anywhere near as well as first party lenses.
In your case, the focus point is behind the dog, so you could be dealing with a shutter delay issue, but who knows. More likely just that the lens isn't capable of this level of performance. There's a reason that the equipment you see on the sidelines of sporting events carries the price tag that it does.
Do Nikon Lenses focus past infinity? On my Canon there is a mark for infinity and you can focus slightly past it.
There is no such mark on either my 50mm prime or 18-35mm zoom Nikkor lenses. I take that means they focus at infinity at the most.
Question two: for star trail photography do I just focus at infinity or try to focus on a bright star?
Not all lenses have a hard infinity stop, especially cheaper zooms. This is problematic for astrophotography, and you'll need to focus on something at infinity during the day and leave it until night.
Going to be shooting an event tomorrow. This will be my first event. What mode do you recommend I shoot in?
Pic related is what I dont want to shoot in.
I was thinking of shooting in aperture priority so I can capture motion or freeze the action as I see fit.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D800 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/3.2 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 105 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 7360 Image Height 4912 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2013:10:15 22:37:49 Exposure Time 1/200 sec F-Number f/8.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/8.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 105.00 mm Comment Jokin hauska kommentti Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1423 Image Height 950 Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control None Contrast Soft Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
Ok, so I'd like to get a Zhongyi Lens Turbo II to mount m42 lenses to my mft camera, but they don't make an m42 to mft. So am I able to just get a m42 to nikon adapter and a nikon to mft Lens Turbo and attach them all together?
Uhm I just noticed I can set custom color profiles on my rabal and there's a sharpening option
is there any reason why I shouldn't just put it on the maximum value? Is it a video guy thing where they dont want their video to be too sharp to seem more realistic or something?
Or is it something you should do with the RAW in lightroom instead of just doing it in-body
If you're shooting RAW, your in camera settings don't matter. In JPEG, it's very possible to get a "too sharp" image where things just look very crunchy and gross, rather than detailed and clean.
I think you've confused aperture priority with shutter priority. I suggest you don't shoot the event until you understand how things work because that's not how they work, that's not how any of this works.
>More likely just that the lens isn't capable of this level of performance. There's a reason that the equipment you see on the sidelines of sporting events carries the price tag that it does.
Ya. I really wanted the Pentax 150 - 450mm but the $1 800USD price tag is out of my budget for the next long time.
I think the issue I had was the auto focus zones. I had it on spot. I'll try again with a more wider zone range. Reading the manual, I have
- 1st Frame Action in AF.C ~ Release-priority (default setting) Auto, Focus-priority
- Action in AF.C Continous ~ Focus-priority (default setting), Auto, FPS- priority
I think the second option would be best suited? I think that leads me to : I noticed that when I pressed and held the shutter button (spray & pray?) that it wouldn't refocus. I had it at the highest continuous mode, this probably didn't give it enough time to refocus. I guess I should not hold the shutter for next time.
I reached out to this ad on craigslist for two AE-1 Canon bodies and a Minolta SRT sc ii body along with three promaster lenses.
The person got hold of this gear from their grandparents so they aren't very helpful at giving me info on the lenses as well as the status of the cameras. But given the possibility of the equipment having no issues, I offered the guy $150 USD for it and they accepted. Do you think it's worth it, /p/? I'm meeting them tomorrow to check it out.
>but it'll work
No it won't. The flange focal distance of the Nikon mount is incompatible with that of the m42 mount. He won't be able to come anywhere close to infinity. He's better off using a Canon to mft lens turbo and then a m42 to Canon adapter, since that combo retains infinity focus. It also won't look anymore ridiculous than a normal lens turbo with a lens mounted onto it, since the m42 adaper is no more than 2mm thick and won't be noticeable at. >>2729783 Don't listen to what >>2729779 has to say, almost all of it was incorrect. Buy a Canon to mft lens turbo and then a m42 to Canon adapter and you should be good to go.
Probably not, AE-1s aren't worth more than 30 bucks each and the lenses are probably shit since vintage third party lenses tend to have low iq. The minolta is also worth around 30 bucks, so you're overpaying by a lot. I wouldn't give that guy more than 90 bucks.
How the hell can i get the perspective on this photo right?
I know its nothing amazing, but now I am determined. Was hoping to use just lightrooms perspective correction
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NORITSU KOKI Camera Model EZ Controller Camera Software paint.net 4.0.6 Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 6774 Image Height 4492 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2015:12:22 12:55:11 Image Width 3015 Image Height 4547
I think my perspective was off in the first place but I'll look into it.
The line on the bottom and the top don't exactly line up but I think your suggestion will work for that. Sounds cool
Would it be possible to make a double exposure by printing two photos on top of each other on the same photo paper? Say I print the first photo ( a portrait for example) and then a texture photo on top of that?
Negative film has way more dynamic range than slide film (slide film doesn't compress it). If you cross-process slide film in C41 does it compress the dynamic range to something more like a C41 negative?
I make virtual copies of photos and then edit them. Sometimes Lightroom will remove them, so I lose my edited copy. What's causing this, how can I prevent it and is there a way to get them back?
I have only one catalog for the camera. I have back ups. I've never tried restoring from a back up. Will it overwrite edits I've made since? I don't back up every time I close.
I have ND filters, polarizers and UV filters. ND filters because you can do long exposures during the day, something that I don't think you can Photoshop/edit to the same effect. Polarizers because I find them much better for bringing out the blue in the sky. Depending, post editing can make the blues look fake and you can get an outline around trees/buildings/etc. Polarizers also let you see into water, something you're not able to change in editing. UV filters always because it protects the front of the lens from damage.
Hey this is a good thread for me. So is instant film cameras even worth it? The idea appeals to me and I hate developing film it sucks. And I'm talking vintage cameras no fujifilm ish,so the film will be expensive
Honestly the Instax stuff is bretty gud. The shots my girlfriend has shot using her Instax (the best mini model) look way better than the shots from her old Polaroid on Impossible film. You can get 20 shots of Instax for less money than 8 shots of Impossible, and even cheaper if you buy bulk.
Though you could probably get a MF camera with instant back and shoot FP100C for about the same money, if you're patient and look around.
Your camera manual can. Have you tried there?
I'll explain using my favorite Faucet metaphor. When you're exposing a photo, you're trying to collect the correct amount of light. It can be thought of like filling a bucket with water from a faucet
Aperture is the hole in the lens that lets the light in. It opens and closes, to let it more light, or less light. How open or closed it is is measured in f/stops. The aperture is like how high you turn the faucet, a trickle (small aperture) or a torrent of water (wide open aperture)
f/stops are needlessly complex to really understand but: The f/ number is a ratio of width of the opening, to the total focal length of the lens. So, if you have a 50mm lens, and the aperture is open 25mm wide, your aperture is f/2 (25mm goes into 50mm 2 times).
Because it's a ratio, f/2 is a LARGER opening than f/11 (because 1/2 is larger than 1/11th)
Shutter speed is how long the shutter stays open to let light in to the sensor or film. A longer shutter speed lets in more light. This relates to how long you have to hold the bucket under the water to fill it up.
ISO is how sensitive your film/sensor is to light. At a low ISO (ISO 50, or 100) the film/sensor is not very sensitive, so it needs a lot of light to expose it. (this is like having a very large bucket that takes a lot of water to fill). At higher ISOs, the film/sensor is a lot more sensitive to light, so you need a lot less of it to get a correctly exposed photo (like having a smaller bucket that needs less water). At higher ISOs, your sensor is less accurate though, so the image looks a lot more "grainy" and noisy, and you lose tonality and range.
So when you're filling a bucket, You can decide to turn the faucet on a little bit, and leave the bucket under the faucet for a long time, or you can turn the faucet on a LOT, and leave the bucket under for a short time, or if your water pressure is bad, you can turn the faucet on a little bit, and leave the bucket under for a short amount of time, and use a very small bucket.
WHAT THE FUCK I AM SO PISSED RIGHT NOW
Newfag to /p/. Bought a camera (nikon 1 j1), stabilizer, sd card, and tripod from eBay.
The stabilizer is shit. Always swinging left and right horizontally.
The SD card has a shitty write speed, there's random pauses in the video.
And I don't even know what the fuck is wrong with any of what I'm doing, everything is just garbage.
Where did I go wrong?
How do tou fix light seals and where can you get the foam for it? My OM-1's bottom light seal ripped out and it's been sitting on a shelf for a couple months now because of that (and an ongoing affair with point & shoots). I just got a roll of Precisa back from this summer that I shot with it and holy crap, I gotta fix it.
I need a clarification of what "pushing" film really is.
Let's say I have ISO 200 film, but I want to "push" it to 400. Do I just put the ISO dial to 400 and after finishing the roll just tell the lab to process the film as if it was ISO 400?
Also, how horrible will the results be if I'm using cheapo Kodak Colorplus film that cost me 3€ for a 36 exp. roll?
"pushing" 200 film to 400 is:
Under exposing your film by one stop, then making up for it by over-developing the film by one stop. This increases the contrast and graininess of the film, and how well the film handles the push depends on the film. Some film like TriX handles it fantastically well. Other film does not.
Colorplus won't be very happy with it.
Some oil spilled on a roll of film in my refrigerator and osmotically seeped into the can. It managed to soak the entire roll. Does anyone know a substance I can use to clean the oil off of the film without damaging the emulsion?
The flash is nearly instant. It's like 1/40,000th of a second, So if the only light in the scene is that flash, you could leave the shutter open for 10 minutes, and the motion would still be "frozen" because the exposure really only took place for that 1/40,000th of a second.
Got a toy camera for Christmas, anyone here able to read Japanese?
I'm assuming it means it is fixed at f9 with a 1/100 shutter speed but I'm not sure what the ISO 400 thing is about.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Created 2016:01:02 21:00:52 Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Time (UTC) 21:00:21 Date (UTC) 2016:01:02 Color Space Information sRGB F-Number f/2.0 Focal Length 3.79 mm Lens Aperture f/2.0 Image Width 4160 Image Height 3120 Flash No Flash, Compulsory ISO Speed Rating 757 Exposure Time 1/33 sec
Can you help me /p/?
I got them from my vacation in Greece (warm country). An old man wanted to throw them away, but I showed him with hand signs that I would like to get them. Couldn't speak his language, so I don't know how they were stored. I've got 30 rolls, so it would be cool if I could sell or use them.
>So if the only light in the scene is that flash, you could leave the shutter open for 10 minutes, and the motion would still be "frozen" because the exposure really only took place for that 1/40,000th of a second.
AH!!! Now it makes sense. Thank you.
Would you set the scene up with low lighting and then use a flash? The dog would need to be able to see there's a treat coming.
You can shoot them, but don't expect anything great. Also you'll have to shoot it at like ISO 25 because it's expired and not stored correctly.
I guess you could also sell them for like 50 cents a roll or something, but they're not going to be worth much. I think Polaroid had some special chemistry films years ago, but I'm thinking those are just regular C-41?
The room could be fairly bright. ISO 100, aperture of f/11, shutter speed of 1/250, will leave you very under exposed in normal indoor lighting. Could also be using modeling lights, which turn off for the exposure itself.
What should I do if I'm doing street photography where I move around a lot into different areas with different lighting conditions shooting time sensitive subjects that doesn't really allow me the time to mess around with my settings? Should I just shoot in programs mode? Shoot in raw and edit everything in post? Are more experienced photographers really able to think on their feet and set the white balance correctly even in time sensitive situations?
You should shoot in raw and edit in post.
Also, I think your imagination of what street photography is like is pretty far from reality is. It's not an action-packed frenzy, it's patience, waiting and timing. You'll get more keepers out of one hour spent on a street corner than you will out of a whole afternoon wandering around like Scarlett Johansson in Lost in Translation.
>Is there a way that I create an effect that makes photos looks similar to that produced from a disposable camera? Without editing if possible that is.
Shoot photos on a disposable camera.
>Alright I'm out of the loop. How the fuck does Instagram work? Can you only upload pictures from your mobile phone?
Yes. Though many people take photos with their camera, and load them to their phone, and then upload them.
>What's the difference between super 35mm mode and full frame mode?
In what context? Likely that Super35mm is a crop mode very similar to APS-C
Ok this is going to sound really stupid.
Could someone tell me a good video/movie editing software I can buy that has...filters like instagram has and such? Is that stupid?
The closest I've ever used is Windows movie maker and I'm looking to buy something that has filters and something easy for a person like me to use, someone like me who isn't officially educated in video photography.
Super 35 is a standard from the motion picture industry.
It uses 35mm film VERTICALLY, so the WIDTH is limited to the distance between the holes (24.9mm).
The height is 18.66mm, corresponding to four holes.
Full frame is a photography standard.
It uses 35mm film VERTICALLY, so the HEIGHT is limited the distance between the holes (24mm).
The width is 36mm (an arbitrary number, they just liked the 3:2 aspect ratio I guess).
So full frame is almost double the surface area.
But when you're filming with a full-frame sensor the camera will only use part of the sensor, to give you a 16:9 aspect ratio and to nicely alight the pixels.
It will almost certainly still be bigger though.
Would it be fun to start a photography youtube channel or will it get repetative. Is reviewing random gear the only way to keep it going?
Hi, yes I'm learning to do editing using photoshop, but I don't have access to decent quality photos. Anyone know any good sites with diverse photos? I took quite a few from /p/ but the quality on the ones I'd like to practice editing with is simply too poor.
Honestly you can't be any worse than what is already out there. You can review gear even if it's old. You can give long term use reports like in Motor Week. You can even review used equipment and film gear. Not everyone is out to buy a new 3,000$ DSLR.
If you really want to stand out you can start by being a photographer. The majority of youtube photography channels are not run by photographers but people trying to promote their workshops. Being an enthusiast is fine too: It's actually equivalent as someone who has a workshop.
I think it would be a lot of fun but also a lot of work if you have any interest in doing a good job. There is so much you can do. You should totally try it even if it fails (it most likely will).
Reviews are the worst thing to do for photography videos. It may be a dependable way to get views, but god they are boring.
Videos from photoshoots -- how and why the photographer handles the shoot the way he does -- are great. (Digital Rev's pro photographer/cheap camera challenge is a gimmicky version of this.)
How-to's can be good, and there are lots of ways you could make ones that aren't just the standards -- how to scout locations for photoshoots, how to get good poses for portraits, etc. You could get a fairly long series out of lighting how-to's. Shit, a how-to on lighting for perfect cat photos would get a lot of views.
>Shoot photos on a disposable camera.
Problem is the cost of processing, the cameras, and then having to have it scanned to save it onto a harddrive. Any way to mimic it with current cameras purely with equipment?
Would filming a documentary style video (think "the office") be possible with pic related? Would I need a new camera or could I just buy gear for this one?
No. Not even close. Pretty much every advancement that's been made in digital cameras has been to get as far away from results like that as possible, which is why everyone at the time hated the look, and why you, now, are finding it romantic.
When you want a digital bw image, do never ever tick such a setting in your camera. Just make a colored one and postprocess. This is actually what your camera most likely will do, when you tick such a setting, except that you can't adjust it.
Read some tutorials or something, how bw is made non digital, especially the effect of colored filters. (Yes, colored filter are very important for bw photos). You don't have to practise it non digital, but I gives you much more sense of it, when pping digital. Most times pp'd bw photos look unreal colored, before applying the desaturation, as a different color changes the appearance of the bw photo. Just experiment using first a common desaturation filter, and then changing the colors of the photo below.
This is totally true.
PNG compression is nearly non existent on photos, as it mostly compresses homogen colored fieldls, which are nearly non existent in photos.
Keep the raw for editing, and publish the JPEG at a good quality.
why the fuck does this happen often? not like all the time, but id say around 1 out of every 300 shots ill get one of these.
older t1i/500d on Lr 5.6 OSX 10.11.2
Getting my first camera (X-T10) soon so I need to get something for editing I guess. I'm on Mac and already have Pixelmator, but I'm realizing it's pretty clumsy for photos. Lightroom looks super nice but apparently it's still shit with Fuji raws. What do?
I shoot Fuji.
I process RAWs with Iridient Developer, doing my sharpening, noise reduction, and minor exposure tweaks there, then I export as TIFF and import to Lightroom for color correction, then color grading, and then final cropping/effects/etc
Does anyone have a diagram like this comparing the focal length of a lens and the distance you have to be from the subject to frame the exact same shot? Preferably with everything drawn to scale like on this picture.
no, that would be stupid (because purely diagrammatic or assumes sensor size)...
Hey guys I have a question so I just recently got a new phone and I was checking out the settings, one of them is choosing how many megapixels it uses (I'm assuming for a smaller filesize)
How come it looks just as sharp at 10 megapixels than it does at 1 megapixel?
I thought the more megapixels the sharper and better the image?
megapixels is just the size of the image. When both files are viewed as the small size on your phone, it's no difference. But try zooming in to view both the pictures. One will be a lot smaller.
If you're talking about huge differences in resolution, like 8mp vs 36mp, you can get a bit better gradient and detail in the end result due to down-sampling, but it's not dramatic, and it won't have any affect on whether your photo is good or not. And the difference between 21mp and 24mp is essentially non-existent. Even 24 to 36 is pretty *shrug*
Much more important than the number of pixels is the QUALITY of the pixels, and the size of the pixels.
Usually, the manufacturer will publish that detail (see: Apple bragging about their big pixels in the iphone 6) but the rest of the time it's just deductive reasoning. If two sensors are identical in dimensions (say, 3mm x 4mm), the one with more megapixels will have smaller pixels. .
This is counterintuitive to the whole more megapixels = higher quality, I know. Just understand that bigger pixels capture more photons in low light, smaller pixels render more detail. It's a tradeoff on either end, and the whole issue is complicated enough without getting into new technologies like backside illumination.
Okay thanks for the explanation Anon.
Last question: My phone as a photo setting called HDR, should I be using that all the time? From what I understand it takes 3 different photos at different exposures to capture detail better. I don't see any cons in not using it but you guys are the experts, what do you think?
What's a good aperture size for just a regular, everyday shot (like maybe street photography or something)
I know I try to make the aperture really wide like 1.8 if I want to really focus onto a subject and have a nice blur effect, or make it small at like 14 or something if I'm shooting a landscape to bring everything into focus, but what's a nice middle of the ground aperture? Just anything that looks good? I've only just started messing around with my DSLR and I've mostly been shooting in Av.
There is no "right" aperture, just like there is no "right" wrench size. It changes from photo to photo. You select the correct aperture to get the right amount of things in your scene in focus, or to get the correct amount of light (if you need to)
(If you really want someone to focus on one subject, it's better to use light, color, texture, or space to focus your viewer, than just blurring away the background)
Ok so I was looking at these Dog Schidt lenses and basically what these guys do is they take a helios 44M lens and add vintage character to them by tinting the glass inside the lens, changing the shape of the aperture and even adding small cleaning scratches to the glass.
I was thinking about messing around with one of my old lenses wondering if anyone has purposely done things like this to add a bit of uniqueness and character to a lens?
Also, when adding the cleaning marks, how much is too much? Ideally, these marks should only be noticeable when light flares across the image, so I’m guessing I shouldn’t use sandpaper?
A friend of mine is going to get married today and she asked me to shoot her wedding.
I remember that long time ago, some /p/hag stated that a wedding is like playing pokemon snap, and he provided a list of goal shots, but I cannot find it.
Do you have that list by any chance?
If not, then what are some obligatory wedding photographs?
>pic related, I'm this level of stupid.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Exif Software Version 188.8.131.52 Camera Model GT-I9300 Equipment Make SAMSUNG Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.6 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Image Width 3264 Image Created 2016:01:16 07:19:10 Image Height 2448 Unique Image ID BHFJ02 Exposure Time 1/77 sec ISO Speed Rating 50 F-Number f/2.6 Exposure Program Aperture Priority Lens Aperture f/2.6 Brightness 4.9 EV Color Space Information sRGB Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Exposure Bias 0 EV Image Height 2448 Image Width 3264 Focal Length 3.70 mm Flash Flash
When shooting film I should meter for the shadows right? Because film retains so much high light information?
Are there any film scanners that are as sharp as DSLR scans or can it just not be done? It seems like shooting MF isnt worth it if a scanner is going to take away from your potential sharpness
You mean MF, and it's Medium Format
There are special film magazines for instant film available for many MF cameras but it only captures onto a part of the instant film that is the size of the camera's regular negative.
Kind of hard to put in writing but if I could just show you it's obvious lol. It doesnt fill out the whole 4x6 or whatever size of the instant film. Like if it was a Hasselblad it would just make a 6cmx6cm square on one side of the instant film.
Honestly just go instax. It's the new polaroid nbd. Or you can get a polaroid Land Camera from ebay for about $30 and do a simple battery conversion. The Land Camera will take FP100 film
If you're shooting print film, yes, you want to expose for the shadows. If you're shooting slide film, you want to expose for the highlights.
There are film scanners that are as sharp as DSLR scans, yes, but they generally cost many thousdands of dollars, are slow, and inconvenient. The main benefit of DSLR scanning is the fine detail. However, the main drawbacks are color correction, and the overall hassle it takes to get a high quality scan. For best results with a DSLR, you need a really nice lens, and multiple shots per frame stitched together.
If you're just doing a single shot with an okay lens, you'll get results you can pretty handily match with something like a PlusTek 8100 (for 35mm film)
Well shit because Im shooting Medium
Format as well.
Epson 700? 800? I want the finest detail possible without breaking a retarded amount of money. Will probably get into Large format eventually as well
>have external flash off
>camera's exposure meter is right at the center
>turn on external flash
>exposure meter is now underexposed by about a stop
I'm retarded and I don't know how external flashes work. Why is it doing this? Is it normal?
How to get portfolio work?
Like I wanna do portraits and stuff with models, but not sure how to get people interested in taking time out of their day if I don't already have work to show which will help talking people into believing I'm "serious" about photography, you know what I mean?
inb4 ask friends. I've tried posting to my FB about it and no one cares.
Yea, I don't really want a professional model. I just wanna take some portraits.
I've always felt like paying models as a photographer was kind of counter intuitive. They need you and you need them. You're both benefiting. Why is any money exchanging hands?
But yea, I guess I'll consider it.
>I've tried posting to my FB about it and no one cares.
And don't do this. When someone posts "hey, anyone want me to take photos of them for my portfolio?" most people you would want to shoot are going to say "Oh, he doesn't mean me"
What you do is find a person you want to shoot, come up with a theme/idea for that person, find a location, come up with wardrobe ideas, and then email/message/text them saying "Hey, I have a photo shoot in mind that you'd be perfect for. Would you let me shoot you for an hour or two if I buy you lunch afterwards?"
If they're your friend or acquaintance at least.
>They need you and you need them.
If they needed you, they'd be contacting you. They aren't. So they don't need you. They need photos, that are good, for their books. They aren't going to approach some nobody with no photos to show, spend their time, and energy, without knowing if you're good or not.
>Yea, I don't really want a professional model. I just wanna take some portraits.
More along the lines of what I was looking for. Thanks!
I didn't mean me, specifically. I meant models need photographers in general and photographers need models. The whole concept of either of them paying the other one is what boggles my mind when both of them are taking their time out of their day to help the other one.
Models are used to sell things, generally. If a model is wearing a bunch of crazy clothes for a national gucci campaign, she's not going to take TFP simply because she can put it in her book. Also, when a model is in demand, she doesn't have the time/energy/desire to work every single job, and if she's in demand, she can take her talents and make a living off of it. If person A has no portfolio, and doesn't see the need to pay her (even though he needs her to make a port), and Person B has good photos to show and is willing to pay her $50 per hour, why the hell would she shoot with guy A?
Conversely, if you're a talented photographer and you have lots of models trying to get you to shoot them, why would you book yourself 18 hour days with four different models all over the city for the fun of it? So you can have a TFP portfolio with 3000 girls in it, no time for anything else, and also no rent payment this month?
You need models to make photos with which to market yourself (Or just to have fun shooting models). They have no use for you (because why would they, without any work to show?). Therefore, your dynamic is off balance, and you balance it by adding money to the equation.
Once a model or photographer has a portfolio built up, they use it to get jobs and sell themselves. You need a portfolio to make yourself desirable.
>I didn't mean me, specifically. I meant models need photographers in general and photographers need models. The whole concept of either of them paying the other one is what boggles my mind when both of them are taking their time out of their day to help the other one.
It's a balance of who is more established and the kind of work you're talking about.
Far more established photographer with starting model for her portfolio, model pays photog.
Equally established model and photog? Likely will work together for free on some project that is of interest to both. Otherwise, both are getting paid by some third party.
Model more established than photographer who needs shots for a portfolio? Photog pays model.
Commercial work tends to seeing both sides get paid no matter experience level (experience determines the amount of pay).
For personal projects, a lot depends on connections made and the person's portfolio. These can range from free to direct paid to profit sharing, or even both paying part of the setup cost to get better production value (like splitting the cost of a MUA)...once you're pretty established though, you don't usually do this kind of thing because you're too busy trying to make money.
>cpl filter turns my lcd monitor black at a certain rotation
Could they make windows out of this stuff so you can see in my office but not my screen? (unless you tilt your head to the side)
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 600D Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/4.4 Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 5184 Image Height 3456 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2015:01:12 01:08:15 Exposure Time 4 sec F-Number f/4.5 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 400 Lens Aperture f/4.6 Exposure Bias -2 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 33.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 3988 Image Height 1907 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
What's the best smaller/travel sized camera (mirrorless, etc.) For about $500? (I really don't want to spend more than 300, but I'm trying to be realistic.)
I've been using a D7000 with the kit lens + 50mm for the last 4 years and was looking for something that travels better.
First time here. I have always wanted to try photography.
I assume this thread should be the place to ask
How do I start?
How do I get into photography?
What do I take pictures of?
How/ Why did you start?
sorry if im being annoying or really stupid
Guys how do I get rid of this? This dust is on the top element of the lens, I've tried cleaning it with everything, but it just does not go.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 640 dpi Vertical Resolution 640 dpi
Here ya go. The sensor and the rear element are also clean. Have no clue whats causing that
Well its hard to actually see your lens.
Look, minor dust on your front element should be invisible in your image. When I had a shitload of sand in my lens and on my sensor (Im OP from the military thread) it was giving me lots of dark ugly dust. I posted a photo in that thread to show.
are you sure the "dust" isnt scratches? What are you using to clean it? It doesnt make sense that you cant just knock off whatever it is. Are you sure the dust is on the outside of the element, and not the inside?
Too poor for camera so it's mobile for me.
What's a good app that doesn't have retarded auto focus?
I want more control over where it focuses than tapping different parts of the screen and hoping for the best.
Any recommendations for famous portrait or headshot photographers to look into? I like Dylan Patrick's style of retarded amounts of bokeh very much. What other photographers resemble his style the most?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D700 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7 (Macintosh) Photographer Dylan Patrick Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 200 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2015:02:05 14:27:47 Exposure Time 1/1600 sec F-Number f/2.8 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 320 Lens Aperture f/2.8 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash Flash, Compulsory, Return Detected Focal Length 200.00 mm Comment Eds d700 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Portrait Gain Control None Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
for light gathering purposes, no. f/2.8 is f/2.8. for depth of field purposes when the field of view is the same, yes, a larger sensor will give you a thinner plane of focus at the same aperture.
It does if 99% of his work looks literally the same.
What are your thoughts on photographing things that you don't really support? Like, if you're really against the whole BLM thing, but they're having a rally a few miles away from you. Would you go there just to look for rare photo opportunities? What if you take a photo that resonates with people in favor of their cause, would you feel bad for throwing fuel to the fire of something you personally hate?
I just came back from a trip and am looking forward to review my photos (hopefully something worth sharing will be there) But I'm starting and learning about photography by myself (youtube classes etc.) I know even less about editing software so:
>how important it is to edit your photos in post?
I have no idea how to use software like photoshop, I don't even have it.
>Does the software counts? Should I get Gimp, Adobe etc? or am I fine with something like Apple's Photos app?
Could I use a monopod as a steadycam? Or is it pointless might as well just hold it?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 2500 Image Height 2500 Scene Capture Type Standard
This is a dumb hypothetical situation because I don't actually take pictures
But on my phone what's better? Zooming in all the way and taking a photo, or not zooming in and croping and zooming in?
well, with some luck and a well balanced cam on head it might stabilize a little bit the x and y achsis. due to the slightly lower balance point. on the other hand you got more weight and some less free moving space.
in the end it will depend on your "steady" skills. but the result won't be near to a real steadycam either way.
post processing CAN be a additive creative tool, but it depends on your kind of photography. since you don't know anything about pp, most likely your photography does not demand it. so, it will be more than sufficient to get e.g. gimp and just use some very basic tools like levels/gamma and saturation (maybe white balance). generally: don't overdo. in fact the more pro you are the less strong the post is ... or rather: has to be.
monitors have a layer in front which polarizes the led light. without this layer the image is useless. in fact you can remove it and put a layer on your glasses, and then only who wears the glasses can see the monitor content.
in principal you can polarize a window so that a monitor is just black. but the angle must be right and the larger the distance between the monitor and window is, the less the effect will work.
also a whole window with a polarizing layer sounds like a huge overkill.
Im looking for a photographer I've forgotten the name of. His work has pretty dark vines and an almost painterly quality. I think most of his stuff is urban and taken at night. He did work with girls in seedy looking hotel rooms as well. I've seen him posted here a few times before but can't recall his name for the life of me.
Wasn't sure where to post this, so figured this was a safe bet.
You think this asshole really tried to wrench this Nikon lens onto his Canon? Or just a typo? Either way it's a good deal for $100 imo
i got the 35mm f1,4 only
and tought about buying this 18mm f2 for 250€
they both have the same filtersize 52mm means that i can attach the same metal hood on it.
is this a good investment ?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make FUJIFILM Camera Model X-Pro1 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.0 (Macintosh) Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.4 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 53 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2013:08:11 20:04:33 Exposure Time 1/125 sec F-Number f/8.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 200 Lens Aperture f/8.0 Brightness -2.6 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 35.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
If I put a 35mm film in a medium format camera, without the adapter thingy how fucked will the images be?