Snoybob EditionOld thread autosaged. Dumb questions go here.
Anyway, I've already got one.I want to stack some astro shots in sequator but I've run into a few things.If I give sequator the RAWs it spits me out a TIFF, which Canon's DPP can't apply RAW corrections to. If I correct them first Sequator complains it works better with RAWs. What the fuck do I do, is there a way to brute force the corrections onto a TIFF?Also because idk does a TIFF contain basically the same info as an interpolated RAW or am I losing out on something>?
>>4474667You have to do the processing in the program like sequator. TIFF isn't RAW
>>4474667>Also because idk does a TIFF contain basically the same info as an interpolated RAW or am I losing out on something>? A TIFF is suppose to be an uncompressed JPEG, but most cameras add compression to them.A RAW file is a conditioned version of the data that the sensor detects, and most cameras add compression to it too. But it is still more manipulable in post processing than JPEGs or TIFFs.
>>4474667RAW corrections are applied in sequator internal raw converter
>>4474667a RAW is like undeveloped film. you can run different developers on it.a TIFF is like a developed film. you have the image data baked in. no other development possible.what i'm trying to say it: raw converters get better over time. you can extract now way more useable data out of a 2007 RAW than you could in 2007. if you did that in 2007 and just kept the TIFF you would be locked in the 2007 data. no way to run the newest algorithms over your old RAW data.
Asked in a different threadAny reason to use picture profiles or anything similar to it on a sony camera if all I do is RAW shooting? Or should I ask, is it detrimental to use them?
im retarded. everywhere i look about shutter speed, it's always a fraction. yet on the zf dial, its just numbers like 15, 8000 etc. is that meant to be 1/5?
>>4474763Yes, 250 is 1/250, and that gets shown on the screen tooThe red digits are full values though, it goes 1/2", 1", 2", 4", or you can use 1/3 step and control via one of the 2 normal dials
>>447476315 is 1/15 of a second
I just got into photography. I know zero and just wondering how to take (relatively) close up photos without getting a fisheye effect - currently sitting at my desk taking photos of my monitor and the top of the monitor appears to curve towards the edge of the photo area.Is it just some inherent part of photos that they warp at the edges, or is there a setting I haven't gotten to yet that will compensate for that, or what?I see that people suggest to move further away, then zoom in a bit to reduce it. Is that the only way to accommodate for it?Got a Conan EOS 1500D (Rebel T7 in the US) if that matters.
>>4474904What lens are you using? Any wide lens is going to have distortion, and zoom lenses will distort features which is why you avoid using them for portraits generally. You will probably want a nifty fifty (50mm lens) because they most resemble the human eye.
>>4474910Just using the lens that came with it.>non-image-stabilized (non-IS) EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 III lens
>>4474917>>447490424mm and wider is what we'd call the UWA zone and those focal lengths here are going to have distortion. Even the pricey ones are going to have some, just less of it.Digital corrections can mostly if not completely overcome this distortion, but the more it has to correct the more the corner details get smooshed around. Some lenses are better with this than others but your mediocre kit lens is likely garbage in comparison to some other lenses available. Make sure "Distortion Correction" is enabled in your camera menus just in case.But you just want to take close up photos. That doesn't need an UWA and generally shouldn't be using one for that anyway. You just want a lens with a relatively good magnification level. This is not always directly marketed on the lens unless the value is high, and we call those ones macro lenses. A true macro lens is 1x magnification which go google it if you care, but some other lenses have decent 0.5x or even 0.3x values and are passable enough. It depends on how big the thing is you're taking a photo of. Longer focal lengths allow you to be further away from the thing but still get a close focus on it, which is why most true macro lenses are 100mm focal length.Anyway. Buy an EF 100mm f/2.8 USM (not the IS version) for $300 and be done with it. It's a true 1x macro lens and is also two stops faster than your kit lens is at 55mm.
>>44747638000 is 8000 seconds. Very nice for long exposures.
>>4474904>I know zero and just wondering how to take (relatively) close up photos without getting a fisheye effectYou need a telephoto lens.
Should I avoid (whenever possible) shooting at the widest aperture even in low light?I noticed several lens reviews mentioning the widest apertures being quite weak (blurrier, full of color fringing and vignetting). For instance for my Sigma 30mm 1.4, it's often recommended to start with f/2 (not much can be done about barrel distortion though it seems). Is this universal?
>>4475363it depends, you gotta use your own judgement depending on conditions and your particular gear. in some cases scene is so dark it won't be salvageable in post, so extra light gained from opening all the way is worth it. some lenses are so shit wide open your photo will be totally unusable and having more noise or faster shutter speed is prefferable. sometimes soft image, optical artifacrs and vignette in corners are quite useful if you're taking a portrait and don't care about the background and want to focus on the face in the center of the frame
>>4475363The performance difference between wide open and 1 stop (or more) will be really lens dependent. Plenty of lenses are totally fine to use wide open, but there are plenty of reasons to stop down a bit for others.Also consider that even though you're stopping down 1, you aren't necessarily losing 1 stop of light. One of my lenses vignettes so much wide open, but it cleans up so much 1 stop down, that it never feels like I'm missing out on exposure.
>>4474917If you are using Canon, download DPP for free from Canon support and use the lens correction when fiddling with your raws. Using longer end of zoom and stepping back should minimize distortions.For flat subject if camera is not perpendicular to surface (sensor / image plane is not parallel to surface) you'll get also perspective distortion. Which is an user issue.
>>4474760what sort of picture profiles are you talking about? like something thats in the cameras menu, or something in lightroom etc..?
I am a visual artist (le amawu gril drawer), would this help supplement my skills or have carryover? I am thinking of adding it as a cheap method of making myself seem more of an artsy type to appeal to art hoes, but I would do it anyway regardless since I've picked up an interest in it. I had social experiences under MDMA recently that made me think "Huh, maybe I'm more attractive than I think" and so I wanna double down on the performative aspects of artistry, but also expand my skillset.
>>4474666Why do boomers love an ultrawide field of view?
>>4475469Because bigger is better, duh. No replacement for displacement!Sent from my iPhone
>>4474666why Nikon dslr images look so good compared to Nikon mirrorless? dslr have nicer colors and more pleasing sharpness, can an anon who used both dslr and mirrorless shed some light in this matter
After doing a bit of post editing and whatnot I've noticed something.What the fuck is the difference between boosting or lowering gamma in post, versus raising the ISO at the time? I've seen the photons to phaggots chart, I have a rough idea that boosting your camera's ISO at certain levels ends up cleaner than the alternative, but after you get past that area, is it basically the same thing? If your camera is completely invariant is the really anything to gain from ISO vs gamma adjustments? I feel like i'm missing something since you can't seriously tell me that shooting at ISO 100 then raising the gamma 6EVs worth is going to look the same as shooting at ISO 6400
>>4475476the gamma slider isnt the same thing as the exposure compensation slider, so no, it is not the same as using a different iso. using the exposure slider should be, in most cases, identical to boosting iso though.
>>4475477Ah shit. Yeah now that you say it I said the wrong thing. But the question is basically the same then just with the exposure setting in post instead of gamma.So excluding crushing blacks and torching highlights, it's bascially interchangable?
yup, the nikon (sony made lol) sensors are basically iso invariant. for example, on the zf/z6ii/z5ii and whatever else that uses the same sensor theres a small drop in read noise from 100 to around 640 because of the dual-gain setup. so using the cameras iso in that range can give you slightly cleaner shadows (as long as youre not clipping highlights ofc). after about 800 it doesnt really matter since its already in the higher conversion gain mode.the difference in noise is tiny though, were talking a few electrons of read noise (8.3-5.2, whatever that means). just shoot the lowest iso that gives you a good exposure without killing your dynamic range either way
>>4475478>>4475480forgot to quote you lol
>>4475458I mean built in picture profiles on a sony camera (a6500)https://fstoppers.com/gear/proof-sony-picture-profiles-do-affect-raw-photo-files-345045It seems there's something to it
>>4475486literally watch the video. nothing changes for the raw files, except when you use a different gamma setting in camera, so, "any reason" is that you might emulate what the final image is gonna look like in your viewfinder with a profile, similiar to shooting a fuji recipe but developing the raf files
>>4475476For digital, you should always tend towards using a lower ISO at capture + pushing in post.You end up with the same result, but will be less likely to run into highlight clipping at capture. This is how Fuji's DR modes work too for example.It's also one of the reasons I generally avoid auto ISO altogether. You should always be prioritizing shutter + aperture for maximizing your exposure before considering ISO, and any small changes in exposure are better left corrected for in post than via small changes in ISO at capture.I basically only ever use whichever my dual stage ISO limits are, and then 6400/12800 at the extreme end as needed, since pushing that far from 640-800 is often worse.