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


Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 83 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: morans1-e1435205247281.jpg (36 KB, 1200x657)
36 KB
36 KB JPG
Stupid questions that need no extra thread. Post them here and get enlightened. MORANS Edition.

Previous: >>3312456
>>
Yesterday I was mighty drunk and thought about making some money on the side while I finish my degree and considered maybe going around my city and making photos of drunk idiots and maybe thereby maybe getting clubs or party organizers to hire me for an evening.
I have no idea about pricing and I'd compete with pic related.
I have an external flash and did plenty of photos on parties for my friends. But my Camera is a G85 which I bought mostly for video, so I wouldnt get that super crazy shallow depth of field all the Instagram hoes gush about, but maybe I could make sample videos for people to use for their Facebook etc.

How stupid is this idea?
>>
File: crapma.jpg (611 KB, 1191x1080)
611 KB
611 KB JPG
I recently got an old Sigma 70-200 2.8 practically for free. It doesn't work in live view with my D7100 because it't old as fuck and live view wasn't around back then.

Does anyone know if there is a firmware update or something that can make it work in live view? I mailed Sigma the same question but they always take a fucking week to reply.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON D7000
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.4
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern1018
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)127 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width4928
Image Height3264
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2012:01:06 09:59:09
Exposure Time1/320 sec
F-Numberf/2.0
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating3200
Lens Aperturef/2.0
Exposure Bias0 EV
Subject Distance1.12 m
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length85.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1191
Image Height1080
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlHigh Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
How to shoot with a wide open lens for mah blurry background photos when there's too much sunlight outside?

If photos are overexposed at low ISO and high shutter speed.
>>
File: ndfilter.jpg (2.99 MB, 3504x2336)
2.99 MB
2.99 MB JPG
>>3320750
Neutral Density Filter

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS 30D
Photographerunknown
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2010:06:14 23:13:18
Exposure Time1/5 sec
F-Numberf/16.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/16.0
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length21.00 mm
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>3320752
ah.. every lens have a unique one or one size fits my camera/all lens?
>>
File: rings.gif (156 KB, 960x668)
156 KB
156 KB GIF
>>3320753
You can use step up rings to use larger filters with smaller lenses.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/hands-review/wisdom-step-and-step-down-rings
You can also use square filters but they are somewhat less practical and you will essentially have the same problem with the filter holder.
>>
>>3320755
Got it. Thank you!
>>
File: KA-Nightlife.jpg (36 KB, 550x550)
36 KB
36 KB JPG
>>3320737
Forgot pic related,
>>
>>3320737
>I wouldnt get that super crazy shallow depth of field all the Instagram hoes gush about
What lens(es) do you have? Shallow depth of field doesn't matter that much for party stuff, but a large aperture does help with keeping the flash power low so it doesn't light the entire background up.

>>3320770
If this is the local competition you don't have a lot to worry about lol.
>>
>>3320770
>>3320737

Most people you will take photos of dont care about image quality. They just want to post that shit on facebook to show how cool they are.

Better take some photos of KA's beautiful construction sites..
>>
File: hmmmmmmm.png (286 KB, 1222x1074)
286 KB
286 KB PNG
Let me tell you a little story about me regards photography, as an proud eastern eurofag my family has never been capable of buying me a reflex camera. My dream camera would still be the Nikon D5200, even though i have been looking for bargains and I have found what i think is my best kit. I know that i am not able to buy it right now, I only need other points of view about my choice.
It consists of a Nikon D5300 with an AF-P DX NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3G and a AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G
>>
>>3320737
There're less annoying ways to make money than dealing with drunks when you have a camera

That said, it's easy to get into, easy to get paid and there's a small consistent market

Not a terrible idea for a student and if >>3320770 is your competition then it's free money unless you're a spastic

>>3320752
>>3320750
Something I'm dealing with just now for a new genre (for me) of photography and in the end ND Filters were the wrong option for me because of my subjects but would work for your needs. Square ND Filter is the cheap way to go but obviously you sacrifice flexibility and focus. If you're poor you can buy one circular ND and step down for your other lenses

>>3320848
Wrong thread, you want the gear thread. Also without know what you want to do nobody can recommend you anything

For people who have no idea what they want I always suggest the a6000 and looking at the stat sheet of the 5300 it's basically the same camera, and nikon lenses tend to be cheaper so if you already have your heart set on that then it's a reasonable choice despite the drawbacks
>>
>>3320775
I have the 25mm 1.7 and the 12-35mm 2.8. I mostly use the latter because crowded spaces. I also have an old 50mm 1.4 FD from my dad but it's hard to use inside because of the distance I need to the subject.
Currently have a Godox TT350. I'd probably invest into a mobile background system since I could use that for my interview videos and maybe set up a mobile photobooth
>>3320840
>>3320852
Thanks for the feedback so far. I thought I'd open a FB and IG account.
I thought of clever naming stuff, I can make my own logo and business card with inkscape, but since Karlsruhe's icons are a pyramid and a fan-like infrastructure it always comes out looking like illuminati stuff.
>>
>>3320770
>me in the middle
>>
Do you guys carry your cameras with you everywhere? All my favorite photos were taken with my phone because the shot was so spur-of-the-moment. How do you avoid this? Yeah sometimes you can go back with your actual camera but more often than not the light has changed or the weather is different and the shot isn't as good as it used to be.
>>
>>3320887
My RX100 is always in my bag and it's no hassle to slip it in my pocket if I'm not taking my bag with me. Before this I used a DSLR and I never took it with me unless I was specifically going somewhere to take photos.
>>
>>3320753
check the filter thread size of your lens. Most of mine are 52mm. It should be written on the lens itself or you can find the info online.
>>
>>3320887
I use a Ricoh GR as my walkaround streets camera and a Sony A6000 for more specialised work.
>>
>>3320887
>Do you guys carry your cameras with you everywhere?
Pretty much. Bought mirrorless specifically for this reason and don't regret it.

Another important thing is to vow to never walk past a shot- in the past I remember several moments where I saw something interesting out of the corner of my eye or let a moment pass because I was in the wrong position or felt something was off, or couldn't be bothered to walk those extra hundred meters and then later regretted it. Whenever you feel this, realise you're probably missing a good shot
>>
>>3320887
Yes, either my dslr or my rx100.
>>
>>3320887
I try to leave my phone in my pocket and not stare at it as I walk around like most people do these days. I feel like if you're constantly staring at your phone you're not LOOKING for photographs to take.

If you keep your camera in your hand and focus on the world around you you start noticing patterns and interesting symmetry/leading lines everywhere. It's great.
>>
>>3320743
>It doesn't work in live view with my D7100 because it't old as fuck and live view wasn't around back then
It's a fucking lens you nigger.
Lenses do lens work.

Live view not working is a problem with your body.
>>
After some learning, I now understand everything. I have taught myself literally everything that's needed to know when it comes to the science behind photography but I lack hands on experience and familiarity when it comes to knowing what's what, despite understanding how it all works and how it's achieved. Also proprietary shit is obviously not something one can understand without looking at things so camera specific shit is irrelevant to me I'm just knowledgeable with the fundamentals and objective truths of things.

I understand focal length, focus, depth of field, but I want some help visualizing it so I can achieve the look I want without renting lenses or having to buy some and learn firsthand.

Before I make my next purchase for lenses what's a good site or resource to find pictures taken with specific lenses with EXIF data intact?

I'm not some rich guy who shits tripods, cameras or lenses.
>>
>>3321019
Why don't you go outside and take some photos instead of nerding out on some website about technical bullshit while gaining no real life experience?
>>
>>3321019
Flickr has photos taken with every camera or lens ever made with full exif data intact.
>>
>>3321032
>Why don't you go outside and take some photos
I wanna see pictures taken with different lenses/settings that I don't own to know if I want to buy one. I can't simply go out and get "real life experience" with things I don't own.

>>3321035
>Flickr has photos taken with every camera or lens ever made with full exif data intact.
Good to know, thanks.
Do you have any advice on how to search that for specific focal lengths and aperture or do I just have to go digging?
>>
>>3321040
If you have no "hands on" experience then you don't need to buy a new lens. That's just pointless gearfagging. You buy things as and when you need them through using your camera. You sound like one of those guys who sits indoors all day watching dozens of YouTube reviews without ever taking a single photo with your camera. The lens ultimately doesn't matter if you're not going out to take photos.
>>
>>3321040
>I can't simply go out and get "real life experience" with things I don't own.

Yeah you can, you can try lenses in camera shops or even rent them for a day to try them out. Or if you're reluctant to go outside you can order them on Amazon then return the lens if you don't like it for a full refund. Staring at photos taken online is pointless imo. What are you going to do, go to 300% zoom and micro compare sharpness? At the end of the day it doesn't matter how good a lens is, it's how you put it to use as a photographer that matters.
>>
>>3321042
>If you have no "hands on" experience then you don't need to buy a new lens.
I have "hands on" experience with what I own.

>The lens ultimately doesn't matter if you're not going out to take photos.
I am going to take photos. Stop being retarded.
I want/need lenses for macro, telephoto, and wide angle.

I simply cannot go out with my 50mm prime and get experience with these things.

>>3321046
>you can try lenses in camera shops
I was unaware of this, I knew they did rentals but didn't know they'd let you try lenses for free.
Thanks. I'll have to go looking for a camera shop near me.

>Staring at photos taken online is pointless imo.
>What are you going to do, go to 300% zoom and micro compare sharpness?
I see your point but that's not what I'm after, I'm trying to see the general pros and cons overall between wide and telephoto lenses and see the difference aperture makes on each in general, if it's any different compared to my prime.

Not looking to pixel peep and try to get the sharpest of sharp lenses. Just an unbiased look at what offers what so I know what to expect and shop for.

>At the end of the day it doesn't matter how good a lens is, it's how you put it to use as a photographer that matters.
This is a stupid meme and very untrue.
In regards to quality vs budget it has some merit, but when it comes to your tool being literally unusable for your intended goal, gear does matter. A whole hell of a lot. I literally can't take good macro shots with my 50mm prime. My little point and shoot, on the other hand, can. It has a small as fuck sensor and a 5mm lens (but it's cropped as hell so it's effectively ~29mm) however due to the small size it gets to focus on things that are up extremely close. My DSLR with the 50mm cannot.
>>
>>3321058
I use a 135mm lens that nobody has ever heard of or memed online for a great deal of my work. I found it in a charity shop for cheap and thought "why not". Nobody has ever brought it up or cared what's on my camera. Nerding out reading about pros and cons from a bunch of shills would have been a waste of my time that I could have spent using my camera.

You've already admitted that you have limited hands on experience with photography and spend most of your time reading about it. Now you're looking for more ways to waste time reading instead of taking photos. Just buy the cheapest macro, telephoto and wide angle you can find then go out and shoot. The "pros and cons" legitimately do not matter, all that matters is you put out some work. By spending all your time researching you're stagnating and not improving as a photographer. Ultimately you'll end up like a lot of the gearfags around here who endlessly research gear but never take photos. I know we're men and it's our job to research every single thing we buy like an autist but this is paralysing for creative work. I don't know how else to warn you about this, it sounds like you're too stubborn to realise that it's a common problem on this board.
>>
>>3321058
>I literally can't take good macro shots with my 50mm prime.

Just buy an extension tube my guy, bam, you've got a macro lens.
>>
>>3321065
>You've already admitted that you have limited hands on experience with photography and spend most of your time reading about it.
Uhh, no?

>By spending all your time researching you're stagnating and not improving as a photographer.
I simply want to make informed decisions for future purchases for my next lenses.

>Just buy the cheapest macro, telephoto and wide angle you can find then go out and shoot.
The cheapest are still pretty costly, so I'd rather not just go buy them without looking into them a little bit.

>Ultimately you'll end up like a lot of the gearfags around here who endlessly research gear but never take photos. I know we're men and it's our job to research every single thing we buy like an autist but this is paralysing for creative work. I don't know how else to warn you about this, it sounds like you're too stubborn to realise that it's a common problem on this board.
Thanks for looking out for me but I don't expect I'll be researching gear endlessly or much at all after I buy 3 lenses.
>>
>>3321067
After some learning, I now understand everything. I have taught myself literally everything that's needed to know when it comes to the science behind photography but I lack hands on experience and familiarity when it comes to knowing what's what, despite understanding how it all works and how it's achieved.

How is that not admitting you lack real world experience and spend your time reading about photography?

I'm out, there's no point in this discussion. Enjoy your lenses!
>>
>>3321066
>Just buy an extension tube my guy, bam, you've got a macro lens.
Good idea, nice cheap option to get a quick easy macro setup so I can retire the P&S so I can shoot bugs and shit.

>>3321069
>How is that not admitting you lack real world experience and spend your time reading about photography?
A couple days focused on reading about the fundamentals and science behind photography is a drop in the bucket compared to the tens of thousands of pictures I've taken with cheapo cameras over the years without knowing shit.

You're trolling, right? I mean you can't be serious.
>>
>>3321079
>he thinks he learned "literally everything" about photography in a "couple of days" of reading

Man, you must be the one trolling. No wonder you're in the Stupid Questions Thread.
>>
>>3321080
>Man, you must be the one trolling.
Test my knowledge faggot.
>>
>>3321081
I don't need to, you're the one who took tens of thousands of photos over the span of years without understanding a thing about photography or learning anything the entire time. I'm sure the Photography Fundamentals For Dummies book you read this week really opened your eyes.

"Dude, there's such a thing as aperture and depth of field, it's crazy"
>>
If I intend to sell a photobook for profit, containing images of persons' body parts/areas of their body, but not use their face or names, would I need model's release?
>>
>>3321095
>If I intend to sell a photobook for profit.. would I need model's release?
Yes
>>
I ordered some pricey gear (~$2600 CAD) from an eBay seller from Belgium and the delivery is off the grid now 3weeks after he shipped it.

The only tracking I can access online says it left the big EU international shipping centre in Germany 3 weeks ago, it’s totally lost now and Canada Post have no arrival scan in this country in their system.

I’m pretty patient, the seller has filed a complaint/issue ticket with bpost and is trying to be helpful — but has anybody here been through the refund process with PayPal/eBay? What happens if I go through that shit and then the package appears? When is a good time to throw in the towel?
>>
Ehm.. When you edit RAW files you are supposed to save as Jpegs r-right?
>>
>>3321175
yup, be sure to keep the raw for future edits
>>
I'm having a hard time coming to a decision. I'm about to buy my first ever camera, and want it to be a compact that I can use for the upcoming trip I have overseas. I'm between the G9X mark ii or the first rx100. I fail to see the difference that isn't extremely negligible.
I want to hear opinions from experienced people because I'm an indecisive loser who can't do anything by himself.
>>
>>3321179
They are very similar cameras in terms of features. The G9X has wifi (for remote control and image transfer to a phone or tablet) and a touchscreen, the RX100 has better battery life and some extra buttons. If you can step up to the RX100 II you then get wifi, a tilting screen, and a hot shoe that can also take an EVF, and even better battery life.

If you can increase you budget even further the RX100 III is a significant improvement with a better lens, better video, a built in EVF, a screen that tilts all the way to face forward, and a built in ND filter.
>>
>>3320852
Thanks for responding and I want to add that I am the most attracted towards landscape photography and wildlife photography too. I enjoy a lot being with my old camera in rural areas in general.
>>
what's that photography website that you can search photos of anything and it will tell you what camera was used etc?

I'm pretty sure I've heard of it from here.
>>
>>3321292
I guess I'll get the rx100. The II and III are slightly out of my budget so I'll wait on that.
>>
>>3320978
>you nigger.
go back to /pol/

Anyway I accidentally a word, live view works, live view AF doesn't.
>>
File: .jpg (127 KB, 1280x720)
127 KB
127 KB JPG
I get this message while filming on a 600D/t3i with magic lantern.
Is it strictly a memory card write speed issue?
>>
>>3321410
Flickr?
>>
>People often say megapixels aren't important.
>MUH U AINT GONNA PRINT ON BILLBOARD SO WHY DOES IT MATTER!?
Why is this kind of shit said so often?
This "megapixels aren't important" meme needs to die.

Assuming quality is good, more megapixels translates into more reach you crop. Resolution 4x higher means 4x zoom (through cropping) without losing quality.

A theoretical 1,000 megapixel sensor with a super high quality 16mm lens would basically let you shoot anything but extremely distant subjects and you'd have no need to switch out lenses.

Minus the obvious marketing lies for "multi shot" megapixel ratings which come with their own cons (multiple shots needed, not suitable for any motion) I personally can't wait till we see affordable DSLRs with true 100+ megapixel sensors everywhere.

What would the downside be? File sizes?
>>
>>3321717
>Why is this kind of shit said so often?
because it's accurate

>Assuming quality is good, more megapixels translates into more reach you crop. Resolution 4x higher means 4x zoom (through cropping) without losing quality.
If you're regularly cropping your images 1:4 you have bigger problems to worry about than megapixels, like basic brain function

>A theoretical 1,000 megapixel sensor with a super high quality 16mm lens would basically let you shoot anything but extremely distant subjects and you'd have no need to switch out lenses.
If you don't give a shit about focus, sure

>What would the downside be? File sizes?
Price. Higher resolution just isn't that important for 99% of pro photographers except in a few select genres like Astro
>>
>>3321725
>If you're regularly cropping your images 1:4 you have bigger problems to worry about than megapixels, like basic brain function
Lol. Cropping is very common in wildlife photography especially birds.

You could just buy a longer lens but cropping is usually needed. APS-C sensors already "crop" for you and are common in that field.

>If you don't give a shit about focus, sure
You'd still be able to focus on things with no problem.
Why wouldn't you?

Obviously you wouldn't want to crop into the peripheral. It'd just be a way to essentially have focal length selection in post, by means of cropping accordingly, instead of switching lenses. Bonus, this could also be a setting in the camera to save crop presets so you don't waste space when you don't want wide angle.
>>
>>3321737
>Lol. Cropping is very common in wildlife photography especially birds.
Which is why I conceded there are exceptions

>>3321737
>You'd still be able to focus on things with no problem.
He/you were asking a generalised and lauded question under the pretence that high resolution is under-rated. I was showing that it isn't- it's not in demand because it's a smaller part of photography and doesn't really matter that much, like most people state
You were talking about a 16mm on a 1,000mp sensor which is an absurd example but if we assume that then we extrapolate what we already know about extreme resolution cameras- focus is "limited" because the lens is also ultra expensive and lenses tend to be wider than 16mm to compensate

In normal use higher res doesn't make any real difference to DoF but you were talking about extremes there

In short, higher res is always nice but it's not a big deal in most circumstances
>>
>>3321717
>Resolution 4x higher means 4x zoom (through cropping) without losing quality.
But you are loosing quality anon. I guess you haven't shot birbs before, but cropping will always decrease quality compared to moving in closer and taking equally framed shot. Yes, resolution is important, but you loose vital sharpness pushing only after it. Just look at mobiles, you've silly mp numbers, jet end output looks worse than ten year old 12mp full frame.
>>
File: Landscape01.jpg (1.11 MB, 1337x666)
1.11 MB
1.11 MB JPG
I was on a recent camping trip and had no tripod to shoot at higher stops or time to balance the camera on something so had to use faster shutter speed. Has chromatic aberration ruined this image?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON D3100
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.12 (Windows)
PhotographerKieran Holland
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.7
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern816
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)75 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2018:07:11 12:25:02
Exposure Time1/800 sec
F-Numberf/3.5
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/3.5
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceFine Weather
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length50.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlNone
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
File: Koala.jpg (763 KB, 1024x768)
763 KB
763 KB JPG
My film advance lever is stuck! I'm not sure if its because I have the film in incorrectly but it wont move regardless of whether or not there is film in there. WHAT DO I DO?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
PhotographerCorbis
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created2009:03:12 13:48:28
>>
>>3321751
>In normal use higher res doesn't make any real difference to DoF but you were talking about extremes there

Not the point though.

Take this for example >>3322165 if this were shot exactly as it were on a 1000MP sensor you'd be able to either choose the full scene, and scale it down to not be ridiculous in size, or you'dbe able to crop into the tents and discard the landscape.
>>
WHY IS EVERYONE POSTING IMAGES WITH A RESOLUTION OVER 1000 LATELY.
do people not care anymore? is there a large influx of newfags?
>>
>>3322217
>be normie faggot
>so normie you don't even adblock
>be on /soc/ rating faces
>one day see banner at top of page
>/p/ photography
>hey i liek photos
>i have a really good phone
>thinking of getting a rebel and going pro
>visit /p/
>hey guys rate my photo
>>
Where are the best places to go to have prints made? And how much should I expect to pay?
>>
Hey how do I turn VR off with AF-P lenses on a D7200 with the latest firmware?
>>
What do you call a series of images that show subjects of the same type. Like the work of Bernd and Hilla Becher for example.

The word has been at the top of my tongue all day.
>>
File: 1531365646506[1].jpg (134 KB, 867x1300)
134 KB
134 KB JPG
It's starting to depress me when I look at photograph of beautiful women and realize there is a particular range of "pretty" that most photographers shoot for, and it ends up making most women look the same.

>her face is too long;use a longer focal length
>her face is too squished looking; use a longer focal length
>she has a poorly-defined jawline, have her raise her chin up
>she has a too-defined jawline, have her put her chin down
Add in the same hairstyles, and using lighting and flash to actually change skin tones and you're turning a woman from who she is into a more generic model of some ideal woman that has been agreed on.

I forgot my question
>>
>>3322217
>do people not care anymore?
I don't. It was and is a retarded idea.
>>
Will a 10 years old huey pantone gretamacbeth work with dispcal on windows 10?
>>
Whats with the small image size / limit? Hr easily consumes way more data and it makes little sense in current year
>>
If I want objectively good photos, like objectively superior imagery and not "artsy" shit, small apertures are usually always best, right?

"bokeh" unless at an extreme and done on purpose (for like portraits) seems just objectively bad to me. It's blur, and sharpness being what you're after, it contradicts your goal unless it IS the goal.

When is too small of an aperture a bad thing with sharpness as your main concern?
>>
>>3322438
This is why you don't buy magazines.
Just check out photos of cosplayers, they're usually amateurs and not in fully controllable environments.

Cosplay photos of cute girls are some of the best pictures available.
>>
Anybody got the link to the /p/ discord?
>>
>>3322515
To a certain extent you're right, but stop down too far and you lose sharpness due to diffraction. This is part of why pin holes "lenses" with ridiculously small apertures are so soft.
>>
Can I take good landscape photos with a 50mm prime lens?
>>
>>3322530
Sure, you just need to be a bit more creative.
The picture I have gotten the most positive feedback here has been a landscape photo taken with an old Nikon E-series 50mm lens.
>>
>>3321697
maybe overheating the Digix chip
>>
>>3321697
>>3322565
Opps, it's actually called DIGIC. The DIGIC chips in the 500D/550D/600D are all the same chip and were the first to include video encoding abilities with H.264. Being the first they had problems with overheating during video recordings.
>>
File: 1450859049534.gif (372 KB, 256x256)
372 KB
372 KB GIF
if I buy one of these for my 18-140mm, will I need a filter mount? because I'm not finding anything about it and it doesn't look like it'll be able to turn and I'm seeing different shit all over the place.
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/HOYA-PRO1-Digital-CPL-49-52-55-58-62-67-72-77-82-mm-Polarizing-Polarizer/32816316105.html
so can I mount it without a filter mount, and if so should I be using one?
>>
>>3322630
Pretty much every lens in existence has a filter thread on the front of it. Your lens (assuming it's the Nikon, that's the first thing that came up when I Googled that focal range) requires 67mm diameter filters. That particular filter, like all polarisers, is actually two independently rotating parts. The knurled part is what you grip to screw it to your lens and then the part with text on it rotates separately.
>>
>>3322639
ah cool, I thought that entire thing was a single piece, thanks anon.
>>
File: d3400.jpg (302 KB, 2000x2000)
302 KB
302 KB JPG
Photography newbie here.
I use a nikon D3400 with an 18-55mm kit lens, and I honestly have no drive to get a different lens (other than maybe one that has a longer focal length, for taking pictures of things that are further away).
What am I missing out on by using a kit lens? is it one of those cases where I'm content with something until I experience something better?
>>
>>3323204
Buy a Nikon 35mm f1.8, best investment you’ll ever make to up your game.

Learn about aperture and shutter speed and how a “faster” lens gives you higher quality photos. Photographing with a fixed lens is something every photographer needs to do and does eventually, kit lenses just can’t even touch fixed primes. Learning to shoot with a fixed lens makes you a much better photographer and taught me far more about composition than any yt video will (okay maybe not literally but you get the point).

I bought a 35mm 1.8 for my D3200 a couple of years ago and still regret selling that setup (despite now using a setup 2x the price now), it was genuinely a quality setup that could have you set for years to come. Buy it, $175 for that thing is a steal.
>>
File: ApertureDepthOfField1.jpg (550 KB, 595x842)
550 KB
550 KB JPG
>>3323204
Not as much light or subject separation. Kit lenses tend to have an aperture like f3.5-5.6 so they're not great in low light or for getting blurry background (bokeh) from your subjects. You'd have to try pretty hard to get anything pleasing out of them for subject separation.

Prime lenses tend to excel at allowing in more light and bokeh. Higher end zooms will have either allow in more light like starting at f2.8 or they'll have a fixed aperture that doesn't darken as you zoom in like kit lenses do. The aperture remains the same throughout the zoom range which is good for video as you don't need to constantly adjust exposure as you zoom in.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2015:04:08 09:52:05
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width595
Image Height842
>>
>>3323220
not saying that you're wrong or that it's a bad lens, but i do think it's funny that you made this comment at the same time that somebody else made a thread just to bitch about this lens.
>>
>>3323204

Basic kit lens is nice, I have not heard that there would be much sample variation or such. Wait for inspiration that requires some specific lens. Maybe micro-nikkor or 24mm f/1.8 or telezoom. There is nothing wrong to buy before need, the need will likely come and there You allready have it.
>>
>>3323249

Can someone repair its camera at home?
>>
Would anyone help me out here, where can I get the full version of VSCO App for android?
>>
How much are lenses, usually?
Like what's a recommended entry level price to pay for a ~28mm lens? And how much for a ~75-300mm zoomer?
Not looking for luxury or amazing, just entry level.
>>
>>3323556

Lens vary widely in price, depending on the system and lens, and whether you buy new or not.

Certain manufacturers will have a cheapish 28mm lens, others won't.

You'll need to be more specific.
>>
>>3323567
Ballpark. New.
For an entry level DSLR.
>>
>>3323580
That's not specific at all, you didn't even say which mount. We can't go off "entry level DSLR".

Honestly, the faster way to check would be looking on ebay or looking up top budget lenses for the camera you're about to buy into. Every camera mount has different lenses at different prices. For instance Sony lens prices tend to trend more expensive than Canon's lenses in my experience. Plus there's always an option of buying vintage lenses with adapters which are either rock bottom priced or priced exorbitantly depending on the lens and who made it. Not to mention the cheap chink lens options these days. Fast lenses tend to cost more too.

Tl;Dr There's no "ballpark", prices are all over the place depending on what brand of camera you get then what brand of lens you get.
>>
>>3323580

The other guy is right, there is no guaranteed ballpark, but you’re looking at around 800-1000 bucks.
>>
>>3323596
Nah, there's cheaper lenses for every system.

Sony and Micro 4/3 has the Sigma cheap lenses like the 19mm 2.8, 30mm 2.8 and 60mm 2.8.

Canon has cheap lenses like the 50mm f1.8 (with an even cheaper chink version by Yongnuo), the EF-S 24mm f2.8 and the EF 40mm f2.8. Nikon has similar offerings at the low end although I'm not as familiar with them.

It's all relative of course, maybe he'd find those expensive too but to me those lenses are affordable.
>>
>>3323599

There are definitely cheap 28mm equivalent lenses, but there aren’t many cheap 75-300 lenses brand new, which is what led to my high ballpark.
>>
>>3320770
Be careful of the girl on the left... I feel she might kill you in the night.
>>
Fuck, I wish I saw this before posting a thread. Here's my question-

If I'm shooting a video at night, the camera seems to adjust really really well-- and what I see in the viewfinder is close to what I'm seeing in real life, if not better. It will automatically adjust the brightness etc.

But as soon as I hit video to actually start recording, everything goes very very dark and I can't see a thing. Is there a fix for this? Could I have some settings restricting the video options which prevents the camera applying it's 'autofix' to it?
>>
>>3320587
When is it appropriate to use a dutch angle? I read that it can be used as a technique to fill in the frame.
>>
>>3322183
>it were on a 1000MP sensor you'd be able to either choose the full scene, and scale it down to not be ridiculous in size, or you'dbe able to crop into the tents and discard the landscape.
Sure, but why would you want to? For a tiny fraction of the cost you could buy a longer lens and get it even sharper on a smaller sensor

>>3322217
I don't. In 2018 nobody is using less than 1000px resolution. I post either 1600px or 2048px, occasionally 1300px if it's vertical

>>3322377
Wherever the local pro's use. Depends on the size, format, coating, quality, etc

>>3322390
I wanted to say Typography, but that's text apparently. It starts with a T though

>she has a poorly-defined jawline, have her raise her chin up
You raise the chin primarily for the light. It's a symptom of studio work and actually takes away more than it adds if you work the light right

>>3322487
The rule was presumably set years ago

>>3322515
>If I want objectively good photos, like objectively superior imagery and not "artsy" shit, small apertures are usually always best, right?
No. You use whichever aperture the shot and scene demand. That might sound like a cop-out but answering otherwise is simply misguided
Your example is a good one because you're clearly aware good bokeh is often one of the goals of a shot and matters more the better you get at certain types of portrait photography

>When is too small of an aperture a bad thing with sharpness as your main concern?
If you're purely talking sharpness then whichever aperture causes the lens to be less sharp than it's optimal sharpness. Typically anything above f8 on most lenses

But again, that's simply an autistic way of picking an aperture because sharpness is a low priority in most professional types of photography

>>3322530
Yeah, my woodland stuff shines on a 50mm because it has just enough compression and is wide enough to do all sorts of things

That said, I usually want to be wider or way narrower for landscape so it's not ideal
>>
>>3323204
>is it one of those cases where I'm content with something until I experience something better?
Yup. Think of it as back button focus or shooting RAW vs JPEG. You're perfectly happy on the former and you can learn and do almost as much but once you try the latter you realise it gives you more flexibility and quality

>What am I missing out on by using a kit lens?
I haven't used the Nikon kits so pinch of salt but sharpness, more light, more frame or more "zoom" or more DoF, etc are some of the benefits of switching to prime and/or away from a cheap kit

>>3323556
$5-50,000+
Figure out which features you want and google that with your mount/camera brand and you'll get an approximate cheap lens price with those spec

>>3323648
>Could I have some settings restricting the video options which prevents the camera applying it's 'autofix' to it?
Put it in auto numb nuts. Your viewfinder is compensating for your underexposure
>>
File: artifacts.jpg (102 KB, 519x722)
102 KB
102 KB JPG
See embedded image,

idk if artifacting is the right description, since this is straight from my raws and not due to compression.

What would you call this image ailment and what is the solution? Obviously cropped for clarity, it is not the worst thing in the world.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Softwarepaint.net 4.0.21
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution96 dpi
Vertical Resolution96 dpi
>>
How is this shot done? Guides I saw mentioned cutting up shirts to mount the camera on your chest. How would /p/ get it done? Self timer? Have someone trigger shutter remotely? I'm thinking I can record video then cut the frame from it.
>>
>>3324418
All most all of these are just a screen cap from a gopro. Saw a fucking pinterest about it 2 years ago.
>>
>>3323224
kit lenses also go for 18-55mm 3.5-5.6 ranges because those minimum apertures at those focal ranges make it more unlikely that user error will result in out of focus photos.

>baby gets first camera
>gets fast lens
>shoots wide open
>WHY IS EVERYTHING OUT OF FOCUS!
>This camera sucks!

but 55mm @f5.6. reasonably deep depth of field = lots of room for user error and wobbly people and subjects moving closer or further away.
18mm @ f3.5 = most shit is in focus 27-28mm eqiv. view.

TLDR: kit lenses are designed so it's harder for noobs to fuck up snapshits
>>
>>3324421
OK I thought that night be the case but wasn't sure because I saw some with background blur like when you pan and shoot a speeding car or runner. Maybe they did radial blur on photoshop.

Anyway, I don't have a gopro but do you think it's feasible to do it with the dslr strapped over the neck as usual? The widest lens I have is my 24mm pancake so I think it maybe able to focus.
>>
>>3322165
A little hard to tell at this size. If you wanted to print it at 8x12, I don't think it would be an issue.

Maybe it would be if it were printed larger but you can probably just lower the saturation for whichever colors are coming in with CA.
>>
>>3323693
>I don't. In 2018 nobody is using less than 1000px resolution. I post either 1600px or 2048px, occasionally 1300px if it's vertical
Yeah, it's not like the biggest social image sharing website on the planet posts images at 1080x1080 or anything...

Post whatever size you like though. If I;m somewhere with shitty internet, I generally don't open shit over 3mb
>>
>>3324445
Should be fine. 24mm is pretty wide, and the focus distance wont change much.
I shoot a lot of wakeboarding and the first time I tried, I realised the easiest way was to set manual focus because with the rope between the boat and the rider,, the subject was always the same distance from my camera.
I'd still go with the video option and cut it later.

That background blur can still be done pretty easily with a GoPro. I only have the hero 4 but they allow for a fair bit of manual control through the app. Not really choosing aperture or shutterspeed but really just by dropping the ISO and doing this in the afternoon rather than mid day sun.
>>
>>3324471

Oh no, some self-righteous faggot won’t look at photos on a photo board... no....
>>
Got a Canon T6 with two lenses (18-55 and 75-300) because I thought it was a bargain deal, which I later found out that it’s not.

Feel like I felt for the sales meme, and not proud of owning a camera that’s being constantly advertised online.

Should I sell this and get a different body?

OR

Humble myself and be happy / go shoot with T6 + invest in lenses?
>>
How exactly does a lens, & the camer'a inbuilt capabilities such as ISO, actually work together? i.e if you choose a certain lens which doesn't 'allow' for a certain function that the camera has but you try use it, what happens? Just a shitty quality image? Or is the function not available at all once the lens is attached?
>>
>>3324500
18-55 is fine for a beginner kit. It's not very heavy and despite variable aperture on that lens, you'll get decent shots (provided that you're not trying to shoot in low light), and if you have a general sense of basic photo composition. You can shelf the telephoto zoom they included and get another cheap lens. I'll throw in a recommendation for the 40mm f2.8 pancake or 50mm f1.8 lens. Both are inexpensive and pretty sharp lenses in terms of image quality.
If you want a wider lens then get the equally as cheap 24mm pancake. Have fun shooting!
>>
>>3324500
the t6 came out in 2016
and even then it was just a relabeled t2i from 2010.
>enjoy your new old camera
>>
>>3324469
Thanks man!
>>
>>3324524
I did go out and grabbed 50mm 1.8. That’s the only lens I have been using as I’m interested in street photography.

I want to get the 35mm because I want a wider lens. Would 35mm L be an overkill for T6? Just stick with 35mm f/2? If not just get the 24mm?
>>
>>3320743
Update: Sigma said it was too old.
>>
>>3324689
I'd avoid the L version for now. The 35 f2 would suffice for your street needs while not breaking the bank. Just put aside the extra money you'd save for not getting the L version.
>>
>>3324689
Get the 24/2.8. You won't be disappointed.
>>
>>3324481
Self-righteous? maybe impatient is the term you're looking for.
>>
>>3324522
>How exactly does a lens, & the camer'a inbuilt capabilities such as ISO, actually work together?
Depends on the lens but typically aperture is chosen in camera these days while older lenses are semi or fully manual, meaning you set aperture and/or focus on them directly with rings. Many lenses offer both.

ISO and shutter speed are camera settings

>if you choose a certain lens which doesn't 'allow' for a certain function that the camera has but you try use it, what happens?
Nothing because it's physically impossible to move blades that don't exist
>>
Do step-up rings reduce the light I'm getting? Stepping down from 67mm to 49mm
>>
What's the difference between "exposure" and "levels" in RAW-editing software?
Exposure seem to exaggerate colour differences the further it is used to stretch a contrast, levels seem to keep the difference.
When to use which? When I use exposure to stretch a very non-dynamic picture to its brightness edges, exposure seems to fuck up colours on the far ends and levels seem to fuck up saturation

Pic related, typical example of what I'm talking about
>>
>>3325169
Exposure prioritises highlights. Levels is just an alternative methodology for curves

>When to use which?
Use neither. Curves always gives you more control
>>
>>3325150
Chances are using filters smaller than the lens is natively designed to use will result in vignetting, darkening to the outer edge of the frame (potentially enough that no detail is captured there at all and you end up with a circular image).
>>
>>3325349
>67mm to 49mm
Nah, it's OK mate.
>>
>>3325365
I took it to mean he was going to stick 49mm filters on a 67mm lens (I can never remember which way step up and step down go), I don't see any reason to assume using a larger filter would result in light loss.
>>
>>3325373
Technically I'd be using step UP rings with a 67mm filter to a 49 lens. They're confusing.

But I was only thinking about having multiple step rings on removing a heap of light from the sides, but I guess all that's really going on is the same as a lens hood and that doesn't reduce light that I can tell
>>
>>3325048
Thank you, I’ll stick to 35mm f/2
>>
Where can I get some Lightroom Presets for basic portraits? I just picked up Lightroom after using Photoshop for years and I'm kinda lost. I've seen some youtubers selling preset packs and I'm not sure if they're really worth it.
>>
>>3325725
>presets
just don't
>>
>>3325725
graphicex dot com, my dude.
>>
Where do those stripes in the background come from? They appear only in the sky,
>>
I'm going on a trip to Indonesia in a couple of months. If you were to bring a single lens, which one would you bring? I'm gonna spend most of time in villages/small cities but also do the occasional hiking.
>>
Hi! Is there anyway to take photos at night and get something that is not darkness?
>>
What's a good, cheap camera/lense to shoot video similar to this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LsRRTvPigY#t=2m22s

And for taking landscape photography.

Going on a road trip meeting some older people, want to get some footage interviewing them.
>>
>>3325914
nope, nobody has ever really taken a photograph at night. all the ones you've seen are just photoshopped daytime pictures.
>>
>>3325915
the old stuff looks like a mix of things but mostly 28mm

the new stuff looks like 50mm
>>
Help me out lads.

16-35
Or
24-70

What are your suggestions?
>>
>>3325972

Bang for your buck, 16-35 will get you a wider variety of looks. 24-70 is probably more versatile.
>>
>>3325972

I prefer primes in the 24-70 range. 16-35 could be done through zoom since you probably won't be doing a lot of low light that isn't long exposure
>>
>>3321717
>what is pixel size
>>
I'm bored and found some old 35mm film cameras.
I don't know shit about film. Part of the reason I'm interested in shooting film to begin with is to play around with scanning negatives in a flatbed.

I want to buy a couple rolls of film take a few pictures with them but I don't want to pay someone to make photos out of them, especially after reading a few articles. Apparently CVS, Walgreens, Walmart, and other stores don't return negatives and DESTROY them, giving you a CD and/or prints in return.

What should I do if I want to shoot like 6 rolls? How much should it cost to do it myself vs paying for someone to develop the film and return it to me? I don't really care about printing it.
>>
>>3326345
The darkroom does mail in and you get negatives in return.
https://thedarkroom.com/
>>
>>3326360
>They want $11 per roll of 35mm with "Standard" settings and no prints.
>Cost of shipping not included
What would it cost to do it all myself at home? Assuming I have no equipment but the cameras and just want the negs developed so I can scan them myself on a flatbed.
>>
>>3325972
If crop, 16-35
If fullframe, depends on what you're after.

But seriously if you're using a crop sensor don't get 24-70 it's effectively 36-95 which doesn't let you do anything resembling a wide angle shot and is difficult fitting indoor things in the frame.
>>
>>3325972
16-36 for landscapes and buildings
24-70 for people
>>
how do crop sensors and crop "lenses" work?
for example can I buy this 17-85mm EF-S lens
https://www.amazon.com/Canon-17-85mm-4-5-6-Stabilized-Digital/dp/B0002Y5WXO and get true 17-85mm "35mm equivalent" focal length because it is an ef-s lens DESIGNED FOR CROP SENSORS or do I still need to calculate in the crop factor?

Shit's kind of confusing.
>>
>>3326437
Pretty sure you always need to account for crop factor with every manufacturer.
>>
>>3326414
35 isn't that bad
>>
>>3326450
>35 isn't that bad
If it's the widest you can go, yeah it kind of is.

For outdoor shit where you can just walk further away to get things in frame it's not an issue but indoor photography is different.
>>
I don't really know anything about cameras. Just want something better than an iPhone camera. Should I get a d3400?
>>
File: 711Ax2EafBL._SL1000_.jpg (177 KB, 1000x1000)
177 KB
177 KB JPG
Newbie here, I've got two questions:
1. is there a formula for what the apparent focal length would be if I were to use a full frame lens on a cropped sensor camera? anything else I should know about using FX lenses on DX cameras?
2. From what I understand a 50mm 1.8f lens is the quintessential portrait lens to start out with, but would it serve me well for other stuff in general? I want to graduate from my kit lens and this is about the focal length I use most of the time anyway, but I haven't really found my niche yet.
>>
>>3326546
1: I think you got the basics a bit wrong. When you are using a crop sensor, you always multiply your focal elngth by 1.5 to get the focal length that would give the same field of view on a full frame sensor. This "correction" applies for both DX and FX lenses
There is no difference between DX lenses and FX lenses when put on a DX body, except that with the FX lens you are only using the centre of the lens, meaning you are paying for and carrying glass you are not using. In addition you will get less sharp images than if you had put the FX lens on an FX body

2: 50mm on crop divides people. Some love it, others think it's awkward
Nikon makes a 35mm 1.8 DX lens which is considered the first must-buy lens by most. Generally, I'd recommend starting out with that one, but if you like to be at 50mm, the 50mm is probably the better choice for you

You can also go balls deep and get the 85mm 1.8g if you wanna do portraits. It's gonna be very long when put on a crop body though, mainly good for head shots
>>
>>3326495
Get a 3300 instead
>>
>>3326554
I really don't think you get worse sharpness, its just the crop factor magnifying everything things.
>>
How would one go about putting on an exhibition? let's say I have a collection of images that could form one, yet have zero experience or contacts in the art world to help. would it be a case of just hiring a space and doing everything myself?
>>
>>3320587
I got a Rebel T6s last year and I haven't used it that much until now. My question is, how much can I really do with it. I want to get into landscape photography. What sort of limitations will I run into with it.
>>
>>3326701
The cropped body on a Canon will give you 1.6 zoom on any lens. So a 18mm lens on your Canon will act like a 28mm on a Full Frame camera. That's the major down side to cropped. You will also have a bit worse low light performance (about a full stop). I only use cropped Canons so I don't look down on them.
>>
>>3321717

You're right only if the megapixel value is native and not interpolated but basically it's true, digital pictures are mostly worthless and a low resolution doesn't make it any better. What is the highest resolution availabke on a digital camera rn?
>>
>>3326345
>Apparently CVS, Walgreens, Walmart, and other stores don't return negatives and DESTROY them

HOLY SHIT
>>
>>3326731
Highest res full frame is the Canon 5Dr with 50mp, highest res APS-C is the Samsung NX1/NX500 with 28mp.
>>
>>3325725
Google will give you tons of free ones. Reddit and other places are good for the most up to date and relevant freebies
> I've seen some youtubers selling preset packs and I'm not sure if they're really worth it.
Never. They're literally just slider, curve and other adjustments that will take you a maximum of 2-3 minutes to replicate, except they give you shitter results than doing it by hand because they're not made with your photos in mind. Make a couple of your own filters for stuff you routinely do and never spend money on effects you can already do for free

>>3325813
That's the canvas

>>3325859
Whichever one you use most. For me that's a 12mm but for others it might be a 50. I'd never restrict myself to one lens but if you have to for some reason I can't think of, then kit lens might be the way to go since it'll give you the most range. Small cities and occasional hiking would make me value a wider lens

>>3325914
(You)

>>3325972
Whichever you'll use most. Pointless question without knowing why you're buying it

>>3326437
>DESIGNED FOR CROP SENSORS or do I still need to calculate in the crop factor?
Assuming you never use anything other than crop (or solely using any other sensor) then you don't need to calculate since you're not using anything else

Converting is only useful when you're trying to figure out how lenses will perform on different sensors.

>and get true 17-85mm
It's not "true". It's designed for FF. There is no "true" sensor and if there is, FF certainly isn't it. It's just most common so we use it as a 1x crop factor. Tons of bigger and smaller sensors exist
>>
>>3326546
>1. is there a formula for what the apparent focal length would be if I were to use a full frame lens on a cropped sensor camera?
Yes- Focal length x Crop factor. Pretty obvious

>2. From what I understand a 50mm 1.8f lens is the quintessential portrait lens to start out with, but would it serve me well for other stuff in general? I want to graduate from my kit lens and this is about the focal length I use most of the time anyway, but I haven't really found my niche yet.
I use a 50mm 1.8 on a APS-C specifically for Portrait. It's also useful for product photography but other than that, not very much. Some people stick on an extension tube and use it as a cheap macro lens but there're obviously better alternatives

I shoot much, much wider in general and I can't imagine using a 50 as my main lens, but it sounds like you shoot differently so do what works for you

>>3326554
>you always multiply your focal elngth by 1.5
Most popular crop sensors are now 1.6, but plenty other factors exist. Minor thing but worth pointing out
>>
>>3326741
>Assuming you never use anything other than crop
You should clarify that you mean the same crop factor. For example if someone uses APS-C and is considering moving to 4/3 it's easier to just multiply both focal lengths by the crop factor and get the 35mm equivalent than it is to get the APS-C equivalent of a 4/3 focal length. Same goes for 1 inch or smaller sensored fixed lens cameras, their focal lengths in the spec sheets (often not the label on the front of the lens) are almost always given in 35mm equivalents.

>>3326744
>Most popular crop sensors are now 1.6
Pretty sure Canon are the only ones with a 1.6x crop factor, everyone else (Nikon, Sony, Fuji, Samsung, Leica, Ricoh, Sigma) uses 1.5x.
>>
>>3326746
>Pretty sure Canon are the only ones with a 1.6x crop factor
Early Sony's are also 1.5 to 1.53 including NEX and some of the alpha range
>>
Should I buy an Epson R-D1 before the prices get memed to oblivion
>>
>>3326762
There's no need for accuracy down to two decimal places. It's not unusual for APS-C sensors to vary by 0.1-2mm in width and height (early NEXs are 0.1mm shorter in width).
>>
I have a d3300 and I recently wandered into a thread that said that having the noise reduction feature enabled can hurt image quality on some cameras. Can I get an explanation on that, and should I turn it off? Also, should I turn active d-lighting on or off? I have it off now.
>>
>>3326779
I did some reading and disabled noise reduction since it wastes battery and makes it take longer to process the image, and all it does is add a noise reduction filter you can do in post. Also seems like d-lighting is a meme that only works with nikon editing software.
>>
>>3326740

This is why I prefer shooting anal.
>>
My Nikon CoolPix L620 simply stopped working. Put in fresh batteries and it won't power up. Any way to bring it back from the dead or is it time to make like Princess Elsa and let it go?
>>
I currently shoot in RAW + JPG.

Thinking of switching to RAW only. Does anybody else do both and have good reasons for it? I'm relatively new to photography but think that at first it was useful, but I've found I'm very selective about what I publish and I often edit them anyway, so there's little use for the JPG files unless I want to quickly show somebody something (which is rare). All the JPG does is take up space.
>>
>>3325915

Use a longer exposure, that's how I do it.

t. Was shooting at night with a mechanical anal. with bulb setting
>>
>>3326779
Shooting JPEG in the first instance is a bad idea but Noise Reduction compounds the problem in most cameras. NR is specifically designed for use at ultra high ISOs but even then you can do a better job in post. Turn it off for best results

>>3327076
Some amateurs prefer shooting JPEG exclusively to save space, otherwise no, there's no reason to shoot JPEG
>>
Do I need any particular kind of gear to do a long exposure night sky? or do I just get away from city lights, slap the camera on a tripod, point it up and expose it real long?
Actually this is a double question, what would be the optimal gear for long exposure night sky? what is the minimum I could get away with ?
Also, what else should I keep in mind if I plan on trying to get a shot like this?
>>
>>3327258
Depending on how long your exposure is and what particular camera you have you may need a lockable remote shutter release to hold the shutter open for long enough (most cameras tend to top out at 30 seconds, for longer than that you use bulb mode). A remote is also handy to have to reduce vibrations.
>>
>>3327109
>Some amateurs prefer shooting JPEG exclusively to save space, otherwise no, there's no reason to shoot JPEG
Sports and photojournalism. For the former you often need to shoot JPEG to get longer bursts out of the buffer, and for both it speeds up transferring to the PC, editing, and uploading, which is a big deal if you're actually working on deadline in the field and need to upload photos live from an event.

>>3326437
Crop factor is always the same, whether the lens is designed for crop or not. All that EF-S (or DX Nikkor etc.) means is that the lens won't work on FF.

>>3325972
>>3326414
24-70 on crop actually makes a pretty great lens for portrait/fashion/wedding/etc. shooting. It's basically all of the common "people photography" FLs wrapped up into one. The only real downside is that f/2.8 on crop is pretty slow for that kind of thing and you'll have to shoot it wide open all the time if you want background separation.

For most people on /p/, though, the 16-35 is much more useful, since it seems like the vast majority of anons here are shooting landscape, street, etc.
>>
>>3326911

Looked at the various repair sites

* Changed batteries for new, nothing
* Removed card and batteries, let sit, nothing
* Canned air to blow out around the lens and battery area, still nothing.

I got it to come up *once* when I first plugged it into my Ubuntu laptop. Power light came on, screen came on (no picture) then nothing.

How dead is it?
>>
>>3326911
>>3327310
I'd say it's about time to replace it. Even a low-end new P&S will blow that old thing away, hell, even a lot of modern smartphones probably will. Maybe upgrade to an "enthusiast" P&S or an inexpensive mirrorless camera if you were using the old Nikon enough to justify it.
>>
>>3327266
Pretty sure no one recommends you do 30+ second exposures for night.
>>
>>3327349
If you're talking about avoiding star trails then it depends how wide you go, anything wider than 20mm FF equiv. would be good for over 30 seconds. Then of course if you're purposely going for start trails you'll definitely need more than 30 seconds if you're not stacking. And finally there are things other than astro where you might want such a long shutter speed.
>>
>>3327258
>Do I need any particular kind of gear to do a long exposure night sky?
Fast, wide lens

>or do I just get away from city lights, slap the camera on a tripod, point it up and expose it real long?
No, anything more than 25 seconds is generally unusable as the stars start to blur with motion. Otherwise yes, that's enough to get started

>Also, what else should I keep in mind if I plan on trying to get a shot like this?
You didn't post a shot but for stars and moon you want circa 20 second exposures at a low ISO. Again, lens is what matters most

If you're doing star trails you'll also want a remote or cable release and/or intervalometer

>>3327269
>Sports and photojournalism. For the former you often need to shoot JPEG to get longer bursts out of the buffer, and for both it speeds up transferring to the PC, editing, and uploading, which is a big deal if you're actually working on deadline in the field and need to upload photos live from an event.
I stand corrected. I'm surprised you guys aren't using pro cameras with fast enough buffering, even at high FPS and I find transfer/upload speed being an issue in 2018 hard to believe but I have no hands on experience so I'll take your word for it
>>
>>3327360
Honestly I stopped shooting pro sports a few years ago, so I'm not sure what it's like now. JPEG made a big difference with my D3S.

I'm pretty sure it still makes a big difference in post, though. RAW file sizes have pretty much kept pace with computer power, and it can be a pretty big deal if you need to quickly flick through thousands of images in Lightroom to find the ones worth sending off. It helps a lot being able to just send off a straight JPEG without having to convert a RAW first, too, and upload speeds can still be a pretty big problem if you're using mobile data with a tethered phone or a wireless card in a laptop. That's not as big of a deal if you're shooting ball sports at a field with a press room, but it matters a lot if you're shooting endurance racing at a huge track or if you're doing newspaper work from god knows where. (Or just if it's a big event where the press room is totally overwhelmed and your options are waiting for somebody else to finish up or just using mobile.)
>>
>>3327365
Makes sense. I'm on the Sony a6000 so I'm use to transferring to, editing on and uploading from my phone when I'm posting shots at gatherings/outside, and even then 20mb RAWs vs 14mb JPEGs barely make a difference on mobile. But I guess those 60 seconds of editing or running a preset matters in sports stuff or where there's competition like you say
>>
>>3327367
Yeah, and it's not just that there's competition, but that you'll probably be sending 50-100 photos off at a time and you'll only have a small window to do it before a break in the game ends or just to minimize the time you spend editing/uploading and not shooting.
>>
just got a brand new canon pixma ip6000d at goodwill for $3. how good is this? keep it to print? or sell it and save for a better printer?
>>
File: _DSC0880-2.jpg (4.04 MB, 6000x4000)
4.04 MB
4.04 MB JPG
Why are all of my photos soft everywhere except at the center? This shot on an a7 F2.8 Sonnar FE, at f5.0

I basically have to step down to f10 for any kind of landscape. Is my lens fucked up or fake?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-7M2
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.13 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)35 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2018:07:22 21:50:01
Exposure Time1/125 sec
F-Numberf/5.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating640
Lens Aperturef/5.0
Brightness4.9 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length35.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>3327412

looks like your lens is fucked up, maybe has some decentering from getting dropped.
>>
>>3327414
Shit okay. Is that expensive to fix? Is first party (Sony) the way to go?
>>
>>3327415

Did you buy it used or something?
>>
>>3327412
>>3327414

How does someone check for a bad lens? I've bought a couple and just use them assuming they're fine, but every time I watch or read reviews people talk about sending multiple copies back because of certain issues




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.