Took a picture of what I believe is an Orchard Orbweaver and I'm having trouble editing it cause I'm used to landscape photography.I have a closeup of my edit as picrel and I'm bothered with how noisy it is. I've linked the mega folder with the best pictures and if you could pick one and edit and post it that would be much appreciated.https://mega.nz/folder/6eA13bCD#R0Jr5eT0DvjFz0GXGB-sogGear:Canon EOS 800D/Rebel T7iEF 70-300mm IS USMP.S.If there is an actual name for this type of thread please let me know
>>4505116I hate these spiders with a passion. I grew up in Hong Kong and they were everywhere in the rural village I lived in. Sage, nothing personal
>>4505139I didn't even know they existed before that day.I was going through a park looking for a butterfly garden(didn't find it) and ran into a spider webthen as I continued walking I was about to run into a second one but noticed it and the spider so I took pictures of the spider instead
>>4505150They are very easy to run into. One made a web across a wide sidewalk and a tree and the web wrapped around my head as I was on a bicycle. Luckily the spider was thrown free, didn't help the panic though.
Please next time use normal formats like RAW (NEF/NRW), NEFX, JPEG, TIFF (RGB), HEIF (HDR), and MPO (3D)I can't open your fucking CR2 in my patrician Nikon Studios
>>4505116
>>4505116>I'm bothered with how noisy it isThat's what you get with a budget APS-C body and 1600 ISO. They're noisy even at 100 ISO when properly exposed and you're at least 6 stops under exposed with this. 4 under by going to ISO 1600, and ~2 stops dark after all that gain.This is what I would do with this shot. Fighting noise is just copium at this point. It's not even sharp.Consider using a flash or two next time. Lighting the subject goes a long way. Especially for spiders. Lighting can help make webs shine.Ignore this troll >>4505163
>>4505116Try using higher iso. Slightly overexpose even. Gives better results than moderate iso and underexposing.
>>4505177edited in snapseed on my phone in the bus going to uni…
>>4505116B&W and say that you shot it on film.
>>4505163I'm sorry, did you try double clicking the image to open it?
>>4505176>That's what you get with a budget APS-C body and 1600 ISO.Should my next upgrade just be a full frame? I pushed off on it and I'm upgrading my lenses cause I didn't think it would be that bad. >>4505177I thought underexposing > overexposing no? >>4505180Never owned a film camera but I'll give it a try lmao
>>4505202>Should my next upgrade just be a full frame?a flash don't you have a built-in flash in your camera?
>>4505202>Should my next upgrade just be a full frame?If you have the money yes. Also >>4505229 is correct. A $100 speedlite and a $20 softbox will work wonders. Doubly so for macro shots like OP where you need like f/45 to get anything in focus and even broad daylight wont be enough. Your cheapest full frame camera will cost at least double that, and the speedlite will last you through many cameras worth of shots.>I thought underexposing > overexposing no?That's the advice for (negative) film because once you burn your highlights there's no saving it, versus shadow recovery being possible.For digital it's Expose To The Right (ETTR) which means to meter for the right of middle grey and get more overall exposure. You still want to avoid clipping your highlights (complete white, no detail) or crushing your blacks (complete black, no detail), but some clipped irrelevant background is better if it means you get more light on your subject.The reason being, if you take a midly overexposed photo and dial the gamma/exposure/brightness back to where it should be, it looks far cleaner than taking an underexposed photo and trying to raise it up to the brightness you wanted in the first place; light is detail and it's better to have more light than not.
>>4505229Yeah but I didn't think to use it, I don't do a lot of macro photography. >>4505233Any specific models you recommend/any specific specs I should look out for?And is there a general rule of thumb on when I should use the flash/softbox and when not to?
>>4505116i saw these mfers in japan all the time and cos most japs are midgets i ended up walking into their webs since they build their webs above foliaged pathways
>>4505116Noise comes from a lack of exposure, if you want less noise, you need more exposure:>decreasing shutter speedMore light, but more potential for subject motion blur like in your pic>wider apertureMore light, but smaller depth of field, wont get the whole spider in focus>add lightMore light, don't have to worry about subject movement, and can use a narrower aperture to get everything in focusMost macro is done both with flash and at apertures closer to f11 because of these reasons. With flash, you can be noise free, frozen motion, and fully in focus.Going to FF will help in some ways and worth upgrading for, but it wont help macro nearly enough as the above. Not mine, but Picrel is R5 for example.Consider that for equivalent DoF, the formats will perform very similarly in terms of noise anyways. If FF is showing less noise, that only happens if it's also showing a shallower depth of field too.
>>4505302Picrel is also no flash, 1/60, f5.6, ISO 200So they had enough natural light, subject was static enough, and enough depth
>>4505302Noise comes from the camera>>4505116>falling for the canon maymayIf you used the chad nikon d5000 series you’d have 2x less noise and a sharpwr lens. Never fall for the canon maymay unless you’re a gearfag who can afford a 5div. Nikon, pentax and sony are just better at making useful cameras that don’t require flash to shoot outside of full sun to part shade.
>>4505352>Noise comes from the cameraIt comes from a camera experiencing low exposure
>>4505379Noise literally comes from the camera. I’m not going to regale you with a tech paper on dark current flux capacitor photointerference but I will tell you to stop coping and lying about e-waste. Canon in particular made egregiously bad cameras. Lots of them.
>>4505392The quality and look of the noise itself depends on the camera, sure, but noise in general is a function of exposure.https://www.dpreview.com/articles/8189925268/what-s-that-noise-shedding-some-light-on-the-sources-of-noise> You might be surprised to discover that a lot of the noise in your images doesn't come from your camera at all: it comes from the light you're capturing.>This is exactly how shot noise contributes to your photographs. A darker exposure gives you less chance to catch photons, so you're more likely to be able to see the random nature of them hitting your pixels. And this doesn't just apply to bright or dark exposures, it also applies to bright and dark areas within the same image.>The important thing to realize is that this type of noise is present whenever you try to capture light. Whether you use film or digital, medium format or a smartphone, all of the light you're capturing has shot noise built into it. And the solution is always the same: the more light you are able to capture, the less you'll be able to see that noise.https://photographylife.com/what-is-noise-in-photography>So, how do you get the best image quality in your photos? It’s all about capturing more actual signal so that you can overpower the backdrop of noise that will always be present. You can do this by using a longer shutter speed, setting a wider aperture, or photographing a more luminous (brighter) scene. In other words, by capturing a greater “luminous exposure.”If you want less noise, you need more exposure, simple as.
>>4505394>generic blogslopI’m not going to argue technicalities and explain exactly WHY a shitty canon has more noise than a better nikon even given the same exposure. It’s irrelevant why. It does.
>>4505396>I’m not going to argue technicalitiesThey aren't technicalities> a shitty canon has more noise than a better nikonYou want OP to buy a different camera as a baindaid fix. I want OP to understand why they are having a problem in the first place. If they fix the issue, they don't need to cope by consuming more.
>>4505399>fix the issue by carrying more equipment, especially publicly obnoxious equipment like flashes and tripods, or not taking the photo>ANYTHING but exchanging $350 ewaste for better $500 semi-ewaste. thats CONSUMING!Oh yeah how horrible. “Consuming”. A JEW might even make money. Terrible. Never buy anything. If you bought garbage you need to buy more garbage and alter your lifeatyle to cope with it. Under no circumstances ever save up a trivial amount of cash and upgrade to something that is less shit ever!He says on the internetSent from his iphone (or lovingly compiled gentoo install, same shit really)I hate fake ascetics like you.
>>4505247>Any specific models you recommend/any specific specs I should look out for?For a speedlite? Godox sets you straight until you start dropping pretty hefty sums. TT350 was my choice but it's the smaller model that has a lower GN (total power output), The TT600 and V100? are worth looking at. Can't remember their price.General specs to watch for are Guide Number (GN) which is a measure of it's total power. I forget the formula but it's something like lumens per foot at iso 100 or something. Look it up if it's important to you. GNs of less than 20 are basically fuck all (built-in flashes are normally around 6-8), GNs of 30-50 are a healthy middle ground, and GNs of greater than 60 are quite strong. After that you normally see gear advertising Watts instead of GN because you're entering studio strobe territory. Basically higher GN = stronger flash at full power. You also want to be mindful of how many shots they advertise at full power on one recharge. My TT350 advertises about 250 shots at 1/1 power which is plenty especially considering it takes AAs.For a FF camera? Canon's 5D or 6D lineup. Pick a Mk according to your budget, you can't really go wrong. I recommend the 5D MkII for total value, or the 6D for something a bit nicer and more modern. >And is there a general rule of thumb on when I should use the flash/softbox and when not to?For macro? Basically all the fuckin' time. You're so light starved even under pristine conditions that macro without a flash is going to have wafer thin DoF or dangerously slow shutter speeds. That's why I bought the more compact speedlite: so I'd actually take it with me all the time.The softbox should always be used as long as you carry it with you. It softens the light so it doesnt look so harsh, which direct flash typically does. Natural light looks the best but unless you figure out a way to turn the sun up on command, you're only getting as much of that as god determines any given day.
>>4505403Meds.
>>4505396"I'm not going to try and defending the point I'm arguing for. I'm just gonna call whatever you presented slop and insist I'm right"
Every fucking thread starts with a ragebait calling canon shit or worse than Nikon, which causes an actual gearfag to start an argument with the troll. Literally every thread.
>>4505434What? That ragebait comment was made 4 posts in, OP only shared what gear he used.
>>4505434>an actual gearfagYou mean the guy saying to focus on technique rather than just buying new stuff? What's gearfag about that?
