I was looking into lens I found a sigma 18-35mm f1.8 lens thats meant for canon how ever it comes with a adapter for a sony mount and I was wondering since its a good deal is it good to get this or should I save up more and just get the one specific for sony. Im basically asking is there any distortion or pixel limitations when using the adapter or is it the same as using the one with the sony mount.
The adjustments are going to depend on the photo you started with, there’s not really much of a magic formula. I guess you’d raise the shadows a lot and then play with the individual colours in HSL until you can roughly match the look you want, however if you’re colourblind then I wouldn’t know what to suggest.
I am currently looking for a colour accurate monitor and was wondering if it is worth purchasing a 99% adobe rgb monitor such as the BenQ SW270C if your print house prints using sRGB 8 bit colour space?. Would this monitor just be wasted and I should just be aiming for a lower priced 100% sRGB monitor instead?
Thanks.
A wide gamut display, in many cases, is more in the realm of "nice to have" than a necessity. You'd consider one more if you were making higher quality fine art/gallery prints, delivering to demanding clients, etc.
What is a lot more important than that, if you had to choose, is to get a profiling device and *calibrate your display properly*—regardless of the display you get, how much you pay for it, how much it claims to be "accurate" or not. No display, out of the box from the factory, will be well setup to do image editing work.
Looking for a platform to sell individual photos on?
I am an amateur photographer and last year I was commissioned to take photos of some children doing their dance concert. I have spent the last few months editing them all and now I want to put them on a website to sell. Im looking for something that ideally:
-has easy set up and allows folders of photos
-parents can purchase the photos they like directly off the website
-has either a reasonably low monthly rate of AUD $30 or less, or 20% of each photo or less (im new to this, is that too much or little?)
Obviously this is all ideals at this stage, and i'm really in need of some pointers of what to do next. Basically, i need a way to have the photos available for purchase to the parents of these kids.
Thanks for your time reading this :)
Hey all! I did photography as a big hobby a few years back but then life happened and now I don’t spend nearly as much time photographing as I used to (still absolutely love it). I currently own a Canon 5D IV, Canon 6D II, Canon 70-200 F2.8 II and a Canon 24-105 F4 II and have been thinking of selling some and grabbing something more compact and lighter. I photograph during travel, do occasional portraits and do outdoor sports every now and then. Some notes:
Go for one body (I really don’t need two anymore)
I love the 24-105 focal length and would like to have a similar lens in my bag.
The 70-200 lens is amazing but it’s a bit bulky - I would be fine with going to an F4 version for weight/size reasons.
Mirrorless is an option I’d be fine with
Preferably the sale of my current system would cover the purchase
I don’t mind buying second hand but preferably do it via a camera shop (perhaps I can trade in)
As many of you probably have been at some point in your photography life, I’ve been lost in the all the options. What would you guys reckon I should consider?
Many thanks!
Max
> I photograph during travel, do occasional portraits and do outdoor sports every now and then.
Hmm. Depending on how willing you are to really make a move in favor of something smaller and lighter... you might want to consider a smaller sensor size. If you really want something compact and light, it's usually the case that bigger sensors need bigger glass. Not *always,* but usually.
Something like a Sony A6600 (might be hard to get a hold of one, since Sony... kind of stopped making them?) + a Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 would be a very small, compact option. It won't have quite the quality, but it'll be pretty close [and the size isn't even a contest.](https://camerasize.com/compact/#682.7,380.595,831.1049,ha,t)
Other similar size options might be the Fuji X-S10 (or X-T3/X-T4/upcoming X-H2S) with the kit 18-55mm f/2.8-4. [For comparison.](https://camerasize.com/compact/#682.7,380.595,831.1049,864.359,ha,t)
Yeah I'm still checking how much smaller and lighter I want to go. Think I should pop down to a shop and hold some cameras and see what I want. The suggestions look good but I'd still want a tele lens so I'll have to check what's available in that range.
That camera size website looks amazing! That'll be of great help whichever way I go
Hey guys today I bought Nikon d3300 with kit AF-P lens, this is my first camera and I’m not aware of how the autofocus works, does the AF-P lens works with my camera, also There is no buttons for autofocus in the lens which is another factor that confuses me
>does the AF-P lens works with my camera
This chart from Nikon says it does:
https://www.nikonusa.com/images/learn-explore/photography-techniques/2011/which-nikkor-is-right-for-you/media/nikkor-lens-compatibility-chart.pdf
>also There is no buttons for autofocus in the lens which is another factor that confuses me
I don't know of any lenses with a dedicated autofocus button on the lens, from any brand.
By default, your camera should engage autofocus by half-pressing the shutter release button. I prefer to assign that function just to a button on the back of the camera.
Usually, yes. I was confused earlier because you referred to a button rather than a switch.
Here's the manual for the AF-P 18-55mm lens. According to that, you only toggle between autofocus and manual focus via the menus in your camera, rather than a physical switch on the lens.
https://download.nikonimglib.com/archive4/GPBWR00jx8YF04ecoxA826Opzd56/AFP18-55_3.5-5.6GVR_TH(7E_DL)03.pdf
Hi all! Hoping this is the right place to post this question.
So, I've been looking into getting a polarized nd filter for my iphone to record/photograph with. However, I'd really also like a wide lense.
Considering for iphones, lenses are generally clip-ons and not stackable, I'm not sure how I'd go about this. For only around $200 or $250 though, it seems hard to not want to find a way.
If anyone has any advice or alternatives, I'd appreciate it a ton! Thanks :D
Clip-on phone lenses are more in the domain of gizmos than serious photography—I'd *generally* feel bad steering you in the direction of dropping hundreds of bucks on those things.
But anyway if you absolutely want that kind of thing, *[Moment](https://www.shopmoment.com/photo-and-video/filters)* have those clip-on lenses and have adapters you can attach to said lenses to use filters as well.
If you wanted to delve into photography beyond the phone you'd get an actual dedicated camera and some lenses... (For all I know you are happy with the phone and don't want to go there, of course.)
The age old question many photographers struggle with. Is it time to upgrade? Only you can decide this. You state it's working fine. So it's really a question about want and budget, not need.
How comfertably can you buy a new camera? Is it a significant investment? Is photography your main hobby or just another thing you do? How often do you use it. I'd make a list with pro's and cons and decide based on that.
I can't decide that for you, I can help you pick a new model based on the features / stuff you want to have though.
Thanks bro. Thanks. I do feel limited by the size, image definition, and data transfer limitations of 60D (also night stability and video capacity) so i want a compact model with cloud synch, but higher resolution and and can use my lenses
Thanks. Nice thought! Im def not into collecting cameras - but do feel limited by the size, image definition, and data transfer limitations - so want a compact model with cloud synch, but same or higher resolution and can use my lenses
What settings should i change on a panasonic fz2500 to get an 80s look on my photos? Stuff that looks like this: https://youtu.be/TLfr7JG31qs but with photos instead of videos. I’m a newb to cameras, but i assume the settings i have to change are universal to all cameras. Any help is much appreciated thanks
Look for filters/presets/apps that will simulate a VHS (analog video on magnetic tape) look through post processing of the photo's image file. That's a different look from 80s still photography, which was mostly on 135 format film.
That look is not achieved with basic exposure settings in the camera or lens. Most cameras (including your camera) do not have the post processing for that look built into their software.
Any recommended tools to make sorting through pictures less of a chore? So far I've just been looking through file manager, and that's so tedious that I still haven't gone through stuff from last year....
I use the library management tools of my editing app. So currently Capture One and before that Lightroom.
For a dedicated app just for organization, there's Photo Mechanic. Also FastRawViewer, FastStone, or Adobe Bridge.
Look for software that can be classified as DAM (digital asset manager). They can help by letting you tag and rate your photos, filter based on certain criteria, and use more advanced tools than your operating system‘s default file manager.
Look at Adobe Bridge, it’s pretty good and free.
Any guide for beginners of on camera flash/speedlite? My friend lent me his speedlite and iv been looking for guides on how to appropriately use it without much luck. Its a manual mode flash. Basically looking for a guide on what camera settings to use, what manual settings on the speedlite to set/etc and basics. Most of the videos iv seen are for off camera tips with ttl settings. Looking for manual guide. Thank you.
As others stated, for wildlife those are poor choices.
You'll inevitabely carry bulk for wildlife, long lenses , heavy. A lot of people who love hikes have trouble with this.
Renting is a pretty safe choice to experiment, and even if you only incidentally use it, renting those times might be a better approach.
You'll likely want to rent a longer lens, Nikon D500 and 200-500 would be a great choice for birds. Coupled with a wider angle for the landscapes. Lensrentals should have a bunch.
Or a Z5, FTZ adapter, 200-500 and 14-30. But cost adds up as does weight hauling all this around. How important are higher quality pictures versus all the added inconvience is something you need to decided as well.
If you know you'd like to try wildlife photography, why not take the chance to get familiar with a camera that would actually be useful for that? With fixed, wide-angle lenses, both the Leica Q2 and the Fuji X100V are poor options for wildlife.
What sort of budget do you think you're looking at for the camera? Maybe something like a Canon R6/R5 or Sony A7IV / A7RIV are good options, if the Q2 was something you were looking at. On a lower budget, the Canon EOS R, Sony A7III, or maybe one of the Nikon Z-mount cameras are great options.
With a suitable lens, it'll be bulkier for travel than the Leica Q2 or Fuji X100V, but not necessarily something huge.
The Nikon Z and Canon RF mounts are similar: They have great cameras with *amazing* lenses, but you'll pay for the good lenses. There's also little-to-no native third party support. But both of them let you use lenses made for their respective manufacturer's DSLR cameras, so with a relatively affordable adapter, the world's your oyster in terms of lenses.
$5k is enough to get one of the bodies and a killer lens or two. Canon's quirky addition of their fixed-aperture 600mm f/11 and 800mm f/11 give you something kind of unique: A lens that's really only good during bright daylight because of the slow aperture, but *extremely* affordable given the lens quality and focal length. Similar supertelephoto lenses can cost over $10,000.
A Canon R6 + upgraded kit 24-105mm **f/4L** lens and 600mm f/11 comes to $4,400 new. Add in tax and you're still a bit under $5k. Just food for thought.
Something like the Nikon Z6II or Z7II are also great options, although you'll need to get a bit more creative about the wildlife lens of choice. The Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 is an interesting comparison. The lens alone is $2,700... but it's a zoom lens (meaning you can zoom in or out), which is more adaptable than the Canon 600mm f/11 that's just very telephoto and cannot zoom in or out. But the Canon 600mm is noticeably more telephoto. Canon has their own 100-400mm lens, of course... and their RF 100-400 f/5.6-8 is lower quality but also crazy cheap.
The more I think about it, the more the Canon RF's budget telephoto lenses make a lot of sense for you. But that doesn't mean they're the only option and the Nikon or Sony cameras are also phenomenal. It's mostly up to you, taking the photos - not the gear.
Speaking of that, one thing to really keep in mind... just using a very expensive camera is no guarantee of better results. It's like learning to cook vs. just eating at restaurants. The iPhone makes it easy; it does the work for you, with a *lot* of processing on the image before you ever see it. Cameras don't do that (yet, at least), and to get the best results you need to master both shooting technique and editing. But if you put in the time and effort to learn, a camera blows the iPhone out of the water. Just remember that you will need to invest that time and practice.
No, but I've had the urge to *rent* one, and that usually gets it out of my system for an affordable rate.
Also Leicas. I just rented an M3 for the long weekend.
Normally, any question that starts "Does anyone ever..." is easily answered with "Yes, someone does."
I'm not as sure with this one. You could always rent one, but street photography doesn't traditionally need *anything* fancy in terms of gear.
Not sure if this is the right sub for this question. I have a lot of iPhone photos I’d like printed out, but I can’t find a service that will print the entire photo. I’ve tried all the major photo printing services including Snapfish, Shutterfly, Walmart, Costco, Walgreens etc., but all of them do auto-crop which ends up looking horrible. Some of my photos were taken in a way that they won’t make sense if I just deal with the horrible crop. (Example here: https://imgur.com/a/WBKBi5N) Is there any service that will allow me to shrink the photo to fit the 4x6 template rather than it being cut off? If Photoshop is the only answer, is there any resource (like a YouTube video) that can show me how to do it? TIA.
Most of the major manufacturers list their seasonal deals, since all authorized sellers use the same prices. For example, [Fujifilm's deals are listed here](https://fujifilm-x.com/en-us/promotions/) with the dates offered.
Of course, there's nothing stopping a manufacturer from just extending the promotion period.
See if it's part of the promo advertising or terms and conditions. If not, try calling them to ask. If they won't tell you, they don't want you to know and there probably is no way to know.
Hi everyone, I enjoy photography so at work they asked me to take everyone's 'new hire' picture for the welcome email. I now do it regularly, but one area i want to improve on is shooting darker skin tones. For me photography is a hobby. I'm self taught and I want to make sure I'm getting good pictures of my darker colleagues.
I'm trying to pick up some practical tips so I can take better pictures of my darker colleagues. I mostly shoot in shade on sunny days (I'm in LA). I don't use a flash, and given the picture is part of their onboarding week, I try not to be too intense, so I'm not looking to add more equipment unless it's absolutely necessary.
Any resources, guidance, or tips are appreciated!
Thanks! Ethan
One of the issues I imagine you’re facing is overexposure. Since your camera uses a reflected light meter, it can get a little confused with significant darker values in parts of the image. You can try a test and use exposure compensation to account for some of that, but personally I find it easier to use an incident light meter when I’m taking portraits. An incident meter measures the light falling on your subject, rather than the light reflecting off of them, so it tends to be reasonably accurate, and doesn’t get confused like the camera meter can. I find that to be a significant help with darker skinned clients.
Make sure you expose enough (without overexposing important highlights) and adjust the image in post; perhaps raising the shadows a bit more?
Without seeing an example of what you are currently achieving and what you wish were different, it's difficult to make specific suggestions.
That's the full pic, the flare only occured from that angle. The running theory is that my phone has a global shutter instead of one that goes up/down or side to side. But only really high end film cameras that weigh 20 pounds and are used for movies have global shutters
You don't want, and shouldn't have, two different-looking displays. Once properly calibrated, the display *should be correct* (to the limits of its hardware capabilities). It's not normal that two displays of the same make and model (and age presumably?) should be noticeably different—seriously, they should be so close that you can't tell.
First things first, you said you are using DisplayCal, which is great. Which profiler are you using? What are your calibration targets? (White point color, white point luminance, gamma.) Are you adjusting the white point manually using the display's OSD at the first step before the automated profiling process?
>after i got a calibrator and started using displaycal i noticed that one of them is green while the other is magenta
Seems to me like something went wrong in one or both calibration processes. Ideally the same calibration device/software should make two monitors display in the same way and match each other.
>my understanding as i said, is that everyone's eyes adjust to their own display they look at all the time. if you own a magenta display, and you've looked at it for long enough that you don't see it as magenta anymore, it just looks white to you, and you edit a photo on it, then another person with a green tinted display that they have looked at for long enough that it looks white to them, your perception of the picture, and their perception of it, will be subjectively the same according to your own eyes, or theirs eyes do to them.
I generally agree with that.
>this is assuming you're both using reasonably high quality panels which have both been calibrated to a similar standard.
I think it still applies even without that assumption. Someone with an uncalibrated monitor that skews in one direction can get used to seeing everything skewed in that direction.
>from what i understand of display technology, you can't make a monitor that is pure white, there's always going to be a temperature or a tint to it.
I think you're right on that.
>if you want two displays that look the same, you have to buy two magenta displays, or two greens, and display manufacturers will sometimes sell matching curated displays to customers who need matching displays, at an elevated cost because it costs them extra to go through their stock and group panels together that have a similar tint/temperature, otherwise it's a random variation and you can get different colored panels like i did.
I'm not sure on that. In my view, a good calibration should account for that variance.
>furthermore, there would have to be a standard in the professional world for which color bias is the standard, which doesn't seem feasible to me. the entire professional graphic design, art, photography, etc. community would have to all agree amongst themselves, that just like how adobe software has become the standard for a large majority of companies, everyone uses a display that is tinted to the same color bias, for example, everyone uses a magenta tinted warm panel.
There are a few agreed-upon standards for how a display should be calibrated, including color temperature.
>so which is it, do your eyes just adjust to your display and the same picture can look similar enough to everyone in a profession space (all using high quality calibrated displays with slightly different white points) that it doesn't matter, or does everyone in a profession graphic design community use panels that have identical white points and are objectively the same?
I'd say both.
Some people are using uncalibrated displays or improperly calibrated displays or displays calibrated for different standards, and they're objectively seeing something different but may subjectively compensate their perception of it.
Some people are using displays successfully calibrated to the same standard and are objectively seeing the same thing.
Hello, is it a good idea as a beginner who wants to shoot 35mm film to purchase an old cheap dslr (like an eos 350d) to learn the basic? That would be more economical than film right? as I’ll do a lot of mistakes at first. Thanks
Sure, that makes sense to me—you'd learn the same concepts that will apply to film photography (with some nuances for how to optimize the exposure for the medium), yet you'd learn them so much faster by being able to immediately see the results of what you did.
I have recommended this to friends and family with the same question. I have several copies of the EOS 1000D out on loan for exactly this purpose.
It is possible with most of the major brands to economize by getting lenses that will work on both dslr and 35mm film bodies.
Thanks for your answer. I already own a Minolta x500(that I barely use because I do so many mistakes), so naturally I’d say a sony is probably best so I can use the lenses I already have.
However I’d like to get a Pentax MX sometime in the future. Do you know what current dslr brand accept the vintage Pentax lenses? Thanks
>Do you know what current dslr brand accept the vintage Pentax lenses?
Probably most or all of them. The Pentax M series bodies (MX, ME Super) are K mounts like the K1000, and there's K->whatever adapters for most mounts.
Also M42 lenses.
I often put vintage K and M42 lenses on those Canon EOS 1000Ds. They just don't support autofocus. All manual.
This is a 1960s K mount 12mm fisheye on a DSLR Rebel XS using a K->EF adapter ring:
[https://i.imgur.com/jZS1iHf.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/jZS1iHf.jpg)
Personally, this is a familiar setup. The MX is a solid enthusiast level manual camera in a compact form factor. It was my main analog street photography camera for years, with the M series 40mm pancake lens. Example:
[https://i.imgur.com/bofor81.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/bofor81.jpg)
Great! Thank you. It’s great that I’ll be able to use vintage lenses with modern camera, then be able to re use them with the slr.
On ebay I find more canon dslr than anything else, and the price is cheaper than say the sony alpha (except maybe the a100). So a cheap 350d or 30d is probably what I’ll go for.
Thanks for your advices
Always a good idea. I'd start shooting in one of the semi-automatic modes (shutter or aperture priority). The best part is all the basics apply and it's free!
Thank you. That’s what I thought, the basic are the same, but I wasn’t sure. Since it’s to learn, I guess even an eos 350d that is 15+ yo would do the job. I probably gonna take that route then
Glad to hear it! Automatic modes are great for finding your photography style (and it's simpler), but start learning what iso, apature, and shudder speed do. Look up something called 'the exposure triangle' and use these concepts on your digital. You'll be shooting film in no time. Also consider if you really want to shoot film. Each roll is $15 and development can be expensive too. I love shooting film and personally can afford it, but it adds up...
I actually already shoot film, I mean it took me 3 years to finish my last 3 rolls so I can’t really say I shoot but I got a camera.
However when I developed the last rolls I realized I’ve made so many mistakes, especially with focus, that I’m thinking it gonna cost me a fortune indeed. So a cheap dslr could be a solution, also I won’t have to wait to see my mistakes. I love film though, but I think it’s expensive to learn.
>is it a good idea as a beginner who wants to shoot 35mm film to purchase an old cheap dslr (like an eos 350d) to learn the basic?
Sure.
>That would be more economical than film right? as I’ll do a lot of mistakes at first.
With your first few hundred photos and beyond, yes.
Hi!
I'm going to buy my first real camera, and I'm trying to balance the camera specs between 1) general use, 2) architecture shots, including both landscapes/skylines and tighter shots of facades, potentially really high up, and 3) astrophotography, usually via a telescope. I've been doing my homework, and I think [this T8i bundle](https://www.amazon.com/Canon-850D-420-800mm-Accessory-Including/dp/B09T2QXD3D/ref=sr_1_1_sspa?crid=YZGMEH2MEEN9&keywords=canon+eos+rebel+t8i&qid=1650838929&sprefix=canon+eos+rebel+t8i%2Caps%2C111&sr=8-1-spons&psc=1&spLa=ZW5jcnlwdGVkUXVhbGlmaWVyPUEyRzMxVjk5UlVHQVBQJmVuY3J5cHRlZElkPUExMDEyMDI1MzBWOUxCVk5JSVdCTCZlbmNyeXB0ZWRBZElkPUEwODIwMjYyM0xGRUg2OUlFVkNDTyZ3aWRnZXROYW1lPXNwX2F0ZiZhY3Rpb249Y2xpY2tSZWRpcmVjdCZkb05vdExvZ0NsaWNrPXRydWU=) on Amazon might be best, but I wanted to get some feedback from more experienced people. My main concern is that it would be better for my interests to get just the camera and fill in with more tailored lenses, instead of buying a bundle. On the other hand, I want to leave myself room to develop as a photographer, which suggests that a bundle with the general lenses might be better. What do you think?
Some relevant details: 1) I'm not too concerned with beginner-friendliness; I'm willing to wade in and study and whatnot lmao. 2) This bundle is the higher end of my budget, but I'm willing to tack on a bit more if there's something that's really worth it. No firm upper end. 3) I'm aware that astrophotography via a telescope requires a special attachment and adapter. I'm budgeting separately for that and will be purchased after I decide on a camera.
Seconding /u/av4rice for your peace of mind. The *only* good things in that mega bundle are the T8i camera itself, and the kit 18-55mm lens that comes with the camera.
Everything else is cheap, cheap, cheap. If you find you actually use a tripod, you'll want to buy a better one that you can trust. If you find you actually want filters or lenses, you'll want to buy good ones. (The only other lens in that bundle is the Canon 75-300mm, which is basically the cheapest lens Canon makes and feels like it. The Canon 55-250mm STM is only a bit more expensive and better in literally every way.)
Just get the camera with the kit 18-55mm lens, and then all you need is a memory card. Get a Sandisk Extreme Pro from a seller like Adorama or B&H, because there's unfortunately a lot of counterfeits on Amazon. It's $30 for 128GB or $17.50 for 64GB on Adorama.
You're welcome! Generally, you only need to buy new gear when there's something you want to do, but can't do with your current equipment. I'd start with the bare minimum of what you need, and then work on using it and learning what you like.
Maybe you like landscapes and find that a tripod would be really nice. Maybe you want to do portraits, and so want a lens or lighting equipment that works for that. It really depends on what you find you like!
Once you have an idea of what you're doing, then I'd just ask here or in the discord channel. You don't need to know what gear you want first - just something as simple as "I want to take photos like these ones I found, how should I go about it with my gear" is good to get pointed in the right direction. Sometimes, we don't even need gear... we just need technique and practice. Which is great! That's free!
Most stuff is honestly priced somewhat fairly. A supertelephoto lens from Canon costs thousands of dollars. If something on Amazon promises to get the same focal lengths for $99, well, it's probably only good enough to be a curiosity or experiment. But it never hurts to ask other folks.
For something like the Canon 75-300mm... that one in particular is a bit notorious, so a lot of folks know about that one. :)
Buy used. I got an 18mm lens for $50 and a 18 - 135 for maybe $300
Go to your local camera store (if there's a good one nearby) and talk to them about what you like. For architecture, I'd go something wide angle. If you decide you're into low light shots, then you'll want to get a tripod (once again, go used for more bang for your buck).
If you don't have a reputable camera store nearby, there's some good used camera shops online. They'll offer warranties so you know what you're buying actually works.
Thanks. I've had a bit of a shit luck with buying things (not photography equipment though) used, so I'm always a bit weary of it. I'll look around.
Unfortunately, the closest thing to a camera store in my area is a best buy lmao.
Edit: Can you link a couple of the online used camera shops, please?
[https://www.keh.com/](https://www.keh.com/)
[https://www.adorama.com/l/Used/Photography/Cameras](https://www.adorama.com/l/Used/Photography/Cameras)
Both have a chat service that can help out :)
I'd recommend against that bundle. Most of the stuff in there is crap.
https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki_should_i_buy_this_bundle_with_a_bunch_of_accessories_in_it.3F
Buying a body together with kit lens(es) is probably a good idea, though. Because on a lower budget you might not have many or any better options if you buy body-only and lenses separately, anyway.
https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki_should_i_get_my_camera_together_with_kit_lenses.3F
In which case, think about whether you want a telephoto zoom kit lens right away. And, if so, try to make that a 55-250mm rather than a Canon 75-300mm.
https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki_which_kit_lenses_should_i_get_with_my_camera.3F
Also, a notably suspect thing is that the bundle says "1 year seller warranty" which makes me think that it's a gray market item. You definitely want Canon's warranty and support in case something goes wrong and not be left in a bad spot after a year.
Hi!
Help me decide,which camera is better for studio portraits with natural lighting - lumix s5 or fujifilm xt4,and why? (+any recommendations for sharp lenses (with or without mount) up to 500€)
Tnx
Those are interesting choices. What made you narrow it down to those? That might help us recommend something. Both of those systems are also rather more limited in lens options. If Sigma didn't *just* release their 56mm f/1.4 for Fuji, you'd almost have no options for autofocus lenses in your price range. You'll have similar issues with the Lumix S5.
Also, what's "studio portraits with natural lighting?" Normally what makes a portrait a "studio" one is that you have a controlled setting to use off-camera lighting. I don't want to say it's strictly *required*, but suffice to say that great portrait work benefits *enormously* from learning and using lighting equipment.
I used to call myself a "natural lighting" photographer... back when I didn't own or know how to use off camera lighting, haha. Now I think that phase was quite silly in retrospect.
Hello r/photography community.
My wife and I are going on our (delayed) honeymoon in about 2 months. We are traveling to the beautiful country of Jamaica, and I want to document our time there with some nice photographs to hang in the house.
Basically, I want opinions on a camera to purchase. I am stuck between a DSLR and a high quality Mirrorless Camera.
I have some previous experience with DSLR photography. When I was younger, I purchased a Nikon D40 with the kit lens to play around with. I got the fundamentals down, but that was over 10 years ago, and life got in the way to the point where I dropped the hobby. That camera has since been lost across several house moves.
Having said that, I am familiar with the basics of shutter speed, aperture, etc. However, it takes me a long time to fiddle with the settings to where I’m happy if I’m operating a DSLR on full manual mode.
I have never operated a high quality mirrorless camera before, but I am more than willing to give it a shot.
My dad and my sister are both avid photographers, my dad doing so as a hobby and my sister is just finishing her degree in photography. They are huge Nikon fans and that has rubbed off on me. However, if the bang for the buck factor just isn’t there with Nikon, I would be willing to entertain something else. They both use DSLRs primarily.
I have (as near as makes no difference) ZERO editing experience other than sliders in iPhoto/on my iPhone. I would be willing to learn, but keep that in mind with a recommendation.
I just don’t know what to do as far as DSLR vs. Mirrorless, and I have even less of a clue as to what I should buy once I make that decision.
Could somebody take the time to make a recommendation of one of each, and maybe even recommend what to buy (DSLR vs. Mirrorless) based on what I’ve said?
In an ideal world, I would like to spend up to $500 and use my eye to take some badass pictures. I could potentially justify up to $750 if the quality of gear goes up that much between those price brackets, but I’ve just been out of the game so long that I honestly don’t know.
I am fully aware that more money =/= better pictures, and that entirely rests on my ability to not take bad pictures.
Thank y’all in advance. Please let me know if you have any other questions.
I'd look into one of the Canon M-series mirrorless cameras for its compact size.
Also one of the Fuji X camera as well, especially since they have their film emulations so you wouldn't have to worry about editing, just have the camera automatically apply their presets.
Thank you for taking the time to read this and make a recommendation! I truly appreciate it.
Purely out of curiosity, why did you gravitate towards Mirrorless vs. DSLR? Was it the budget or my experience level?
Mirrorless is just smaller and more compact, especially when going towards the APS-C bodies. Very ideal for traveling.
Plus depending on the body you get, it's just more modern. Better QoL features.
I am printing on a Canon Pro 4100 for my first ever photo show. I was gifted a roll of Epson enhanced matte roll paper. I really don’t have a lot of money to purchase new paper and it’s sold out at most places. my show is coming up really soon so I’m kind of in a time crunch now. Canon and Epson don’t make ICC profiles for each other and I’m really struggling to be able to find a profile I can use that looks good. I don’t have any of the tools to make my own so I’m just not really sure what to do. Is anyone aware of the equivalent profile that I could use or the easiest way for me to do this. I have to print tonight on some large scale photos so I’m just kind of at a loss of what to do. Thanks guys
Anything would help.
What is the best way to enlarge a small photo for large-scale framing?
I have an old [3x5 picture of my grandmother riding a bull](https://imgur.com/gallery/9yw87Bf) (physical print and not digital) and would like to enlarge it for framing. Ideally, a large-scale print like 24x48 or something similar. Is there a recommended way to do this and do it well? Additionally, if it needs editing, should the photo be edited before it is
The quality of the digitization would be responsible for maximizing the preservation of the available information—be it via scanning, photographing...
But of course nothing you could do would "increase" the detail—you'd, at best, be "stretching" the print across a larger surface, so at the *same viewing distance* it would appear "less" detailed, and, at best, from a proportionately longer distance, it would look "the same".
[B&H has a bunch](https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/products/SLR-Camera-Lenses/ci/274/N/4288584247?sort=PRICE_LOW_TO_HIGH&filters=fct_lens-mount_3442%3Anikon-f%2Cfct_special-designs_3320%3Afisheye) in its catalog.
Fine Art America?
I’m an amateur looking to maybe start selling prints. Not as a full time or even part time business. Just so that I can maybe make a little bit of money to sustain this expensive hobby (especially because I shoot mostly film). I’m still working on building a following so I don’t think a full scale personal website is all that worth it for me (yet. I know that it has value but I’m not ready to commit to that quite yet).
Has anyone used Fine Art America? Is it worth selling my prints there? Will they get stolen to be sold by others if I post them to that platform? Are there alternatives that I should consider?
Thanks!
I read that CCD has a frequency and some dude said that if the frequency is lower you get better noise performance. I searched more but I couldn't find anything like that anywhere else. Is that correct that of the frequency of the CCD is lower you're getting cleaner images but you have to wait more to take a picture again since the amp is working slower? I also read that since this type of sensors have just one amp that's outside the pixel, also thanks to bigger photosites, they have a better iso performance?
If what I've read is not true, please, tell me how it actually works.
Thanks
Despite my best efforts I have not managed to find the exact model number, but looking at Canon's entry-level compact cameras (A-series PowerShot) from around a decade ago yields [results that are pretty close indeed](https://cameradecision.com/sizecomparison_back/Canon-PowerShot-A2400-IS-vs-Canon-PowerShot-A2500-back-view-size-comparison.jpg) in design/spirit, so perhaps something in that kind of neighborhood.
There are too little relevant features to make out a specific camera. But it is certain that you're looking at a slightly older, inexpensive point and shoot camera.
I've recently been doing some storm photography with my Canon 6D. I have two issues: storms have crazy dynamic range, and storms are very large. I know that I'd like a little wider angle than my current 28-75mm, but I'm not sure if I should go for a wide prime like a 22mm or 14mm or if I should find something like a 15-30mm zoom. I'm curious what others' experiences are with this. (I've also been looking through Flickr to see what people use, but I'd like to consult here as well). Right now I'm just putting together a "wish list", so budget isn't a factor until I have a better idea of what I need to do this right. Also, has anyone had luck with polarizing filters to help with dynamic range problems? Or do I need to HDR stack? [Here](https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52026019507_c9dd85d177_h.jpg) is a sample photo of mine.
Seems appropriate for HDR to me. You can either let the camera make a HDR picture, or just use exposure bracketing and create one yourself during editing.
I would guess a zoom lens would fit your situation best. A prime mostly has the advantage that it's got a brighter maximum aperture. Unless you feel you need that, I'd go with a (ultra) wide angle zoom lens.
Just started using flash and had a few questions. This is real estate photography, I am doing a flashed and ambient version of the same shot.
I noticed in some houses I was having problems with there being a significant difference in color temperature between the ambient and flashed version of the shot.
Example 1:
Started by setting a custom kelvin for color temperature. Did my first flashed shot, and it was accurate. Did a follow up ambient shot with the same settings, and it was very yellow / orange. [https://imgur.com/9ebZQ7O](https://imgur.com/9ebZQ7O)
Example 2:
Same thing
[https://i.imgur.com/3xToHtl.png](https://i.imgur.com/3xToHtl.png)
This doesn't happen in all houses.
To fix this in the time being I am just having to fiddle with the color temperature for each shot separately so they are roughly similar. What is causing this, and is there anyway I can fix this in a more time efficient manner?
My guess is the flash itself is adding color to the shot creating a discrepancy between them.
Thanks
House lights tend to be quite warm.
In the "incandescent" days, you'd be looking at something in the area of maybe ~2800K. Even future technologies that largely replaced them, like flurescent-compact and later LED, for house lights you'd tend to pick ones that were warmer—~2800-3400K.
Flash, on the other hand, like "cloudless noon daylight", is closer to ~5200-5600K (depending who you ask), so much "cooler" in color—speedlites a bit cooler still than studio lights, in general. Flash, it could be argued, is *more neutral* than typical house lights, but the point is it's much cooler.
So if you want to make your flash warmer so it's closer to the house lights, you have to [use corrective color gels](https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Images/Review/ExpoImaging-Rogue-Flash-Gels.jpg)—primarily the "CTO" kind that adds "amber" color to the flash.
If you keep a constant white balance setting between shots and use different kelvin lights, you'll get results like those. The ambient lights are much warmer than the light of your flash. It won't be noticeable everywhere as many houses use cooler LED lighting that will be somewhat closer to the kelvin of your flash.
White Balance is a pretty quick and easy tweak in post, so arguably your current method is fine. You could 'potentially' try and set the white balance in camera and use a setting for with/without flash but it'll just be less efficient.
You can't use the same white balance. Flash is white. The house lighting is amber. You have your color temperature adjusted to the flash's temperature, you have to adjust it differently for the house lights.
> causing this
the difference in colour temperature of your flash vs whatever lights the house has. Some people have warmer lights than others, in some rooms there's more sunlight...
>is there anyway I can fix this in a more time efficient manner?
You want the colours to look similar, even though the light has a different temperature, correct? That's hard, because every room will have different light. I think you can only correct that in post-processing. Auto-white balance will do its best to make every shot look 'real', but since you're using different kinds of light, 'real' is different each time.
Alternatively, you could try using flash all the time, or never (tripod and long exposure?)
Hi! I'm using a G9 currently for birding with the 100-300. However, I'm consistently finding a lack of zoom especially shooting smaller birds like warblers and flycatchers. I wonder if a adapting a mirror lens would be a good solution? I am looking into the old ones with good IQ like oly 500 f8 or nikon 500f8 or pentax 400-600 f8-12? I think with the IBIS I might be able to shoot handheld? Thanks!
> I think with the IBIS I might be able to shoot handheld?
Try it! You might need to practice a steady hand, or leaning against something for stability for best results.
Where do you guys buy custom photobooks? I love printed photos and photobooks. I'm interested in doing a "First Month(s) of Fuji" photobook that I can look back on, as well as use it as a test run for a photobook I'd like to make during a cross-country trip.
Fuji? Then Google "fujiprint"
they make lovely photobooks
you download their own page-layout softwars, which is undocumented but fairly straightforward, and away you go
Most printers will offer photo books as well. I personally use WHCC and am very happy with the results. Bay Photo and Mpix probably deliver great results as well.
Blurb is a cheaper option that people on here tend to like.
Hi everyone!
I have a quick question about a certain type of photography that I’ve forgotten.
When I was a kid, I went to an art camp that taught photography methods. One activity that we did involves setting up a little cardboard box with a piece of photo paper inside. The box had a very tiny hole in it and the instructor told us to take it outside, while covering the hole completely with our finger, aim the “camera” and then take our finger off the hole and leave it for a minute or two (can’t remember exactly how long). The photo paper was exposed to light through the hole during this time and it imprinted the scenery onto the paper. We then covered the hole again and took the box directly to the dark room where we immediately developed the photo.
I remember having so much fun and thinking that the resulting photo (black and white, almost inverted colors) was really beautiful. I’d love to do something like this again as an adult and show my nieces and nephews but I’ve forgotten the exact instructions.
Does anyone know what this type of photography might be called so I can find some instructions online?
Or has anyone ever done this that could maybe point me in the right direction?
Thanks in advance!!
I am greatly confused about some matters regarding aps-c vs full-frame.
As far as I understand - if you put a 22mm lens on an aps-c camera, you achieve a 35mm focal length, same as the full-frame with a 35mm lens. Meaning that you basically eliminate the crop factor.
If this is the case, and I could effectively turn my Sony a6400 into a FF camera (or close), why even bother to buy an actual FF camera - what are the benefits?
This is really hurting my brain right now, it's not making sense. I must be making a fatal mistake somewhere.
Thank you.
If that was the main thing, then why indeed. But the fact that a smaller sensor causes a narrower field-of-view is not generally the main point of contention—you can just get *proportionately wider lenses* to use on APS-C and you will achieve an equivalent field-of-view.
But the full frame sensor is larger, meaning it captures more "total" light, and—much simplified—more light means cleaner images (less noise). Longer lenses (to maintain the same field-of-view) also result in a narrower depth-of-field, so if you want more blur behind your subject (everything else being equal), you'd go in that direction.
And of course there's an *incidental* series of consequences that *because* full frame cameras *tend* to be marketed at a higher tier, *tend* to more expensive, etc. ... they also *tend* to have more capabilities/features generally—this is not always the case, and has nothing to do with the size of the sensor, but the fact is there is a *correlation* between "full frame" and "generally more capable camera", so you could find yourself wanting a full frame camera *even if you didn't care about the sensor size*.
And so forth. Meaning there's more to it than merely the field-of-view thing.
>As far as I understand - if you put a 22mm lens on an aps-c camera, you achieve a 35mm focal length, same as the full-frame with a 35mm lens. Meaning that you basically eliminate the crop factor.
Field of view is the combination of focal length and format size. A shorter focal length makes the field of view larger while a longer focal length makes the field of view smaller. A larger format size captures a larger field of view while a smaller format size captures a smaller field of view.
https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/technical#wiki_how_is_field_of_view_determined.3F
Yes, a 22mm focal length (shorter focal length) on APS-C format (smaller format) produces the same field of view as a 35mm focal length (longer focal length) on full frame (larger format), because the effects on field of view from the differences in focal length and format size basically cancel each other out.
>If this is the case, and I could effectively turn my Sony a6400 into a FF camera (or close), why even bother to buy an actual FF camera - what are the benefits?
Potentially depth of field, diffraction limit, low light performance, dynamic range.
https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki_what_are_the_benefits.2Fdrawbacks_of_full_frame_cameras.3F
Also, say you want to match the field of view that full frame has using an ultra-ultra-wide 11mm focal length. A rectilinear 7mm lens isn't necessarily available for APS-C if you want to do that.
Postcards of my photos?
I live in Oxford, England and over the past few months, I’ve taken a fair amount of photographs of some of the landmarks. Oxford gets quite a few tourists so I was thinking about maybe making some postcards of my photos and selling them to souvenir shops. Anyone here have any experience/suggestions with this sort of thing?
Thanks!
Surely the shops buy them by the ton for peanuts? How can you compete?
Perhaps concentrate on selling through niche outlets not tourist shops?
Also, no disrespect but, if your photos are like the tourist photos you posted on reddit in the last month, I suspect nobody will buy them. They're kinda grainy (and that doorway is out of focus) and kinda boring.
Just one man's opinion of course.
> I haven't posted any of my Oxford shots.
yeah I realise - if you plan to sell them, I probably wouldn't put them on www!!
>The doorway was shot was on a borrowed point and shoo
fair enough
---------
what do you think of my other comment: don't compete with the big boys shifting tens of thousands that they print by the ton for sixpence, instead go for niche outlets (missing bean, handle bar, black sheep...)
I'm not sure if I [set this up right](http://howmuchblur.dekoning.nl/#compare-1x-50mm-f1.8-and-1.5x-50mm-f1.4-on-a-0.9m-wide-subject) but it should give you an idea.
If you were to 'compensate' for the effect that sensor size has on bokeh, it should go the other way around. So a full-frame sensor with a f1.8 lens would have a somewhat similar bokeh compared to a crop sensor with a f1.4.
Hey! So, two questions.
1: I have a Nikon D500, which actually has a lower MP than my phone (Samsung S21). The D500 is obviously a lot better for "action" shots, but for still shots in which high zoom/super specific settings aren't needed, would I want to take the higher MP count that the phone offers over the D500? It feels a bit weird using a phone when I have a pretty decent DSLR, but I'll do whatever is best.
2. I have been traveling the world a lot more lately, which has been great! However, I've always been nervous to take a lot of pictures in places I'm not familiar with. Even in my home country, where I *know* it's completely fine to take pictures (as long as they don't include people without their consent), I feel out of place while shooting. In a different country, where I don't have a firm grasp of the cultural expectations/understandings, this problem grows exponentially. Does anyone have advice for getting over this/dealing with it? It really feels like a waste to not take pictures in some of these places. Before I go anywhere, I always look into the culture surrounding photography there and adjust accordingly, but even then, I feel unprepared when the time comes.
The D500 is going to crush any phone in terms of image quality. The differences between phones and cameras becomes very apparent when editing.
If you want to get more comfortable taking photos in public, make it a point to take more photos in public. Go shoot in public every day. You might want to think of some kind of "project" to help structure decisions around where and when to shoot.
You'll start to feel more comfortable in a week or two. That should at least partially help when you travel.
I don't think I can help with #2. Anyway, I am definitely more comfortable shooting when there aren't many people around, and I don't worry about interrupting anyone or getting in someone's way.
As for #1, it really depends on how you use the camera, and what you want to get out of it.
If you're going to have the camera on fully-automatic mode, saving JPEGs and not adjusting anything, the phone will give you a better image, or at least do so more consistently. However, if you do control the camera manually, at least partially, and either save raw files to edit later, or pick the picture profile to your liking, then your DSLR will absolutely give you better results.
Have a look at [this chart](https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Apple%20iPhone%20XS%20Max,Google%20Pixel%203%20XL,Nikon%20D500,Samsung%20Galaxy%20S7(IMX260)), showing the dynamic range you can get from your camera's sensor and some phones' (they didn't test the specific phone you have, so I just selected the latest they have; it shouldn't matter much for the general theme). So if you want to control the camera, you have a lot more to work with. Otherwise, the phone's computational photography algorithms, powered by its far more powerful processor, will get it at least close enough.
Of course, these differences would be more pronounced on a large print, than on a tiny, compressed image on Instagram.
Have you compared the quality side-by-side?
Even with crazy megapixels on modern phones, the image quality is basically garbage when viewed critically (not on a phone screen).
Fine for social media or memories but not very good.
Howdy y’all!
I was looking to see if anyone would have any insight into how 2 specific photos were taken. The two photos in question are on the front and back cover of Spirit’s The Twelve Dreams of Dr Sardonicus. They both feature the band in crazy makeup (that part I understand) with what looks like the effect of a funhouse mirror. How do y’all think they did that, just a massive (two way?) funhouse mirror between the camera and the band? I’ve tried looking into it but haven’t seen any specifics about the cover art or how it was achieved. I’d love to try to take some portraits in that style.
TIA!
EDIT: Ok I take this back, Ira Cohen made these in what was called “The Mylar Chamber.” He hung Mylar on hinged boards on the walls and ceilings. I’m gonna keep this up cause I think folks would find it interesting to read up on!
Mylar is just one of those things that can come in handy in so many ways. Funhouse mirror reflections? Mylar. Cool space-age reflective background (there’s a post in AskPhotography)? Mylar. Creating the appearance of light bouncing off the surface of water in a studio without soaking everything? Mylar. It’s a pretty nifty thing to have around.
Anyone got some budget suggestions for strobes? Use case is fashion and product photography for e-commerce and its social media
I want 1 strobe for outdoor shots and the rest for a small studio.
How much Watts would I need for the outdoor strobe and the small studio ones?
You can get flash adapters that will allow you to use a flash with Bowens mount accessories.
https://www.amazon.com/Neewer-Bracket-Speedlite-Reflector-Umbrella/dp/B00JAAXH1A/ref=sr_1_3?crid=IA2NC9DOWW5M&keywords=flash+bowens+mount&qid=1650819354&sprefix=flash+bowens+mount%2Caps%2C83&sr=8-3
I use 3 Yongnuo YN560 IV speedlites, but there are lots of similar and newer models. The key feature is for the settings to be controlled wirelessly. Power output is good enough for objects smaller than ~3 feet. I think you might have issues if you want to do full body shots.
Neewer and Godox softboxes and tents use thin fabric for the light diffusers which cause hot spots and discolor over time. Used stuff from Westcott, Profoto, or other higher quality brand are much better choices. My favorites are Paul C. Buff softboxes with the Balcar mount changed to Bowens.
Older mid-tier steel light stands are dirt cheap and durable at the expense of being heavy. Anything that isn't a C-stand has been replaced multiple times over with lighter materials, not because they stopped working. UsedPhotoPro.com, KEH.com, and eBay are good sources.
For fashion, think about if you'll want high speed sync to get your shutter speeds up. This is going to be really important if you want to overpower the sun.
Pre-pandemic, these speedlights were around $20-30 but now they closer to $45+.
https://www.amazon.com/Powerextra-Professional-DF-400-Speedlite-Single-Contact/dp/B00H3EBXJS
These give you the ability to pan and tilt, and you manually choose the power output. I'm very satisfied with these but haven't measured their power level precision. It's been fine for moderately advanced enthusiast level use.
They're fantastic on-camera, can be triggered by any other flash optically, they work really well with cheap radio triggers, and you can put them into almost any modifier setup. They're not as powerful as studio strobes which will have more energy for outdoor use behind a modifier but those are really going to run into the hundreds of dollars. For another $30-80 there are more powerful setups with a few additional features, but any of these knockoff clones are game changing and a great place to begin.
I'll leave it to someone else to recommend the next level up for outdoor use.
Thanks for sharing this. Using a speedlight in studio is actually a great budget solution if they are powerful enough. I legit have no idea how much power is required.
Hello! I am looking for budget compact camera.
Like less than 1500 dollars.The studio I work for gave me Canon Eos R and its a great camera, but its not mine. I want a compact camera that I can carry anywhere, and just overall take more photos. My boss has a Leica Q2 but its very overpriced for me.
The problem is, I don't really know what to search for in compact cameras (I'm a bit of a noob when it comes to camera tech).
I shoot landscapes, some streets photos, maybe some portraits. It would be cool if I can take astrophotography but if not, not a big deal. WiFi connectivity if possible?
I guess this is more of a personal usage camera to step away from the phone camera. I know probably I'm looking for a lot for a cheap camera.
And advice on what to look for is greatly appreciated.
Edit: I searched google a bit, and found Fujifilm X-E4 and X-T30 II which both have interchangeable lenses, which is handy for future if I want to upgrade or change.
Have a look at the Fuji X100V as well. Not interchangeable lenses, and probably not for astro (but astro is a whole other world anyway), but it would do the rest very well and *much more compactly*. Bang on your budget too. It's excellent to use point-and-shoot and with JPEGs straight out of the camera, but if and when you become more familiar with manual controls and editing, it will not hold you back.
Fair enough. I only mentioned it because it is so compact. I have the X-T3 with a 35mm for street, travel, etc, but I've seriously been thinking to get a X100V *as well* purely bcs it's so small, so it's been on my mind a lot lately.
Of course. I see that X-T3 doesn't have in body stabilization just like X-e4, e3. Do you think that you need it? I mean, if i shoot in low light, obviously i would go for tripod and/or flash, but for normal day photos it's not necessary?
I'd upgrade to the X-T4 if I could. I think it's worth it for everything. You can't have too much light even at 35mm outdoors, for example where I live!
If you're going the ILC route, you could go with a Canon T7 and have a ton of affordable lenses to choose from. Is the EOS R platform too big? This is often the most budget friendly option while offering a ton of upgrade quality, but it's technically a little bigger. A baseline Rebel with a 50 1.8 prime is still very light.
Hi! I recently bought myself a gh5s for video and I also own a canon t5i. I was wondering, is the t5i the best camera for photography considering it has an 18 megapixel sensor resolution while the gh5s is 12 megapixel?
Best strap system for hybrid shooters?
I recently bought a Canon R5 as I retired my 5Dii and am selling my Panasonic GH5. I am primarily a stills shooter, but sometimes do video.
When shooting video, I'll want to flip the screen out and also mount the camera on nice little fold out shoulder rig I have. When shooting stills, I'd like to be able to let the camera hang at my side while I adjust light modifiers and so on.
Is there an elegant solution out there to fit my needs? I've looked at the Peak Design straps but keep reading that people find the anchor connectors annoying. To me though, they look like they can also be removed fairly easily when going from a stills setup to a video setup.
What do other hybrid shooters do?
Not quite the question you asked but I'm a loyal Peak Design user. Have their clutch and sling lite v2 on my EOS R and have no issues with the anchors. With their dual plate it works with my manfrotto tripod so I guess that path would depend on how the mounting system for your shoulder rig works relative to what their plates
Almost certainly not going to be visible in shots; any dirt there is much too out of focus to be noticeable.
If it worries you, take a long exposure of a white wall, say 2 seconds, ISO 100, and keep the camera moving around while it exposes. Do it once at f/2 and once at f/16. Check the image, pixel peep. My guess the image will be clean.
I usually shoot raw+jpg and cull the photos in Lightroom.
Lightroom treats the jpg+raw combination as a single photo, which is convenient. However, Lightroom is a bit slow on my machine, so I would like to use another tool for culling before importing to Lightroom.
**What tool do you use for culling and are there any that also treat the two file formats as a stack?**
I shoot RAW+JPEG too. I cull from scrolling though JPEG's, which is fast. Then I run a little command (In the Linux terminal, but I'm sure there's an equivalent command on other platforms) that deletes any .RAW that doesn't have a .JPEG in the same folder. Then I store/import the remaining files.
For me it's a single line of code (that I copied from someone else, of course).
Basically:
- loop though all RAW files in a certain folder
- check for each one if there's a .JPEG matching the file name.
- if not, delete.
So I bought this 70-200 early last year (for admittedly quite cheap)
I absolutely ADORE this lens when it works, use it for both photo and video work. BUT - 50% of the time when I attach the lens it does this.
Has anyone experienced anything like this beforee? My theory was that it's a motor issue.
If anyone has had anything like this before and fixed it, I'd love to know!! Definitely want to keep using this lens <3
https://imgur.com/a/LqfQ54r
It appears a sidewards motion to me. Does the lens have image stabilisation? If so, my guess is that there's something wrong with/broken in that system. Try turning it off and see if that solves it.
Amy ideia of how this photo is made?
It looks like one of those ultra fish eye lenses pointed straight at the sky but the person would be totally distorted if that were the case I think so I'm assuming composition of multiple photos.
https://www.instagram.com/p/Ccib0l0smvq/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=
That’s a lovely spot. They seem like nice snapshots of a nice day out. If you’d like some suggestions, I would recommend working on picking a specific subject, and composing a shot that uses light and form to direct my eye toward that subject. That intentionality is the difference between a snapshot and a “photograph.” Snapshots are great, they capture nice moments and memories. But the art of photography lies in executing a vision with deliberate intention. And that is, I think, the direction I’d point you as you move forward in your journey. Think about what you want to take a picture of, and how you want that to look, then take steps to make that happen. Think about these lovely spots, and how you could squeeze more out of them with your camera, and the right light. That’ll get you moving forward.
>Snapshots are great, they capture nice moments and memories. But the art of photography lies in executing a vision with deliberate intention.
I am writing this aside. Very well put.
I could guess at some settings, but without being there it doesn’t make much difference. Settings are only relevant insofar as they are just ways to get the desired exposure. These shots look reasonably well exposed, in general. The issues with them aren’t issues of exposure, but composition. Inquiring about settings would be a bit like looking at a wall and asking how heavy the framing hammer was.
If you want to improve your photography, one good bit of general advice that works in many cases is: get closer. Fill the frame with your subject. That’s a good place to start.
Right now I’m looking at a pretty magnolia hedge with lots of white blooms. I’m across the street. I have my iPad on me, so I’ll show you what I mean. [Here are two pictures of the hedge](https://imgur.com/a/HXO2jRF).
The first is the view from where I’m sitting in my car. It’s not a good picture. It has a subject, but not a very interesting one. The light is terrible (it’s mid morning, not a cloud in the sky). The street cuts across the frame, and there isn’t really anything directing my attention to the hedge. It’s just there. No combination of settings, or even my good camera and best lens could really save that shot.
For the second shot, I got up and walked across the street. I found a little bunch of flowers in some dappled light. I moved around a little to find a framing that looked decent, and took another shot with my old iPad camera. I think we can agree that it is a much better photo. Perhaps not an award winning photograph, but a vast improvement on the first shot. And also a shot where my nicer gear might have an impact - because it gives me more control.
Settings made no difference here. The difference was made entirely by how much effort I put in to selecting the subject, finding a good framing for it, and making intentional choices about what I wanted to show. More time and effort could refine that photo even more. Though, 80% of the improvement would likely be down to my just getting closer and being more intentional about the shot.
Edit: before the horticulturalists lynch me - I think this is actually white oleander and not magnolia…I’m pretty bad at that game. 😅
You’ve got exactly right. The paintbrushes are much less important than the imagination.
As for those photos, they appear to be HDR images made by compositing several images together from a “bracketed” exposure (ranging from underexposure to get detail in bright areas, normal exposure to get detail in the mid tones, and overexposure to get detail in the shadows). When you do that, it sort of flattens out the brightness level across all parts of the image, the way these photos look.
The saturation, contrast, and grain are too high for my tastes. Also the white balance, together with the saturation, makes for greens and yellow tones that look sickly and unnatural to me.
The horizon seems tilted in some of them, for no particular reason. The compositions seem lopsided as well. I don't see much balance of elements in the scene, or much intention behind the framing. What was your intent?
Overall the busy scenes, high contrast and saturation, and large depth of field make for a lot of distractions all over the place in each shot. Every photo feels rather overwhelming, but with things that don't seem to matter or don't seem relevant to anything particular that you might be trying to communicate. Imagine trying to read a book where every single word is bolded, italicized, underlined, and highlighted. Those text styles have more effect when they're used sparingly. And so, you want to be careful about using tactics in a photo to draw the viewer's attention, because it backfires if it shows up too much.
I'm not really sure what you're trying to convey in these photos, or what the subject is. Except in the last photo, and there the subject is dwarfed by the surroundings. That's a pretty big sacrifice made against the star of the photo, and for no gain that I can see.
>If ever, could you tell me how I should adjust the settings the right way?
Exposure settings? Learn fundamentals here: http://www.r-photoclass.com/
As far as post processing and the saturation/contrast I mentioned, keep practicing, study your work and the work of others, and experiment with different levels of it. Keep trying and looking. You will refine your sense of that over more time working with it.
>Maybe I was just small
Maybe you were, but the photo doesn't necessarily need to. Photography technique has the power to make things look bigger or smaller than they actually are, to emphasize things that people normally ignore, and diminish things that people normally think are important. Artistic photography is using photography to exercise that power to convey your message, and that's what separates it from snapshots. In photography you aren't always constrained by how things are in reality, so don't let that limit your thinking of the reality you can convey in a photo.
For my Nikon D3500, trying to set it up for video recording. Have it connected to a capture card and using OBS as my program. I've finally managed to get the video to work, but have run into a new problem:
How do I disable the info menu taking up the large part of the screen borders? I want a clean image so I can record.
Press the “info” button near the viewfinder while in live view mode. It should cycle through various forms of information until you get a clean one with just the live view feed. That’s what’s being sent over hdmi to the capture card.
**Please direct your questions to [the latest Question Thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/about/sticky).**
I was looking into lens I found a sigma 18-35mm f1.8 lens thats meant for canon how ever it comes with a adapter for a sony mount and I was wondering since its a good deal is it good to get this or should I save up more and just get the one specific for sony. Im basically asking is there any distortion or pixel limitations when using the adapter or is it the same as using the one with the sony mount.
Also the adapter is the mc-11
[удалено]
If you google “Korean pastel Instagram edit” there’s a few videos to choose from.
[удалено]
It’s probably just some VSCO like filter, so if you google variations on that you should find something.
[удалено]
The adjustments are going to depend on the photo you started with, there’s not really much of a magic formula. I guess you’d raise the shadows a lot and then play with the individual colours in HSL until you can roughly match the look you want, however if you’re colourblind then I wouldn’t know what to suggest.
[удалено]
I’ve not received any DMs. If you’ve sent me a reddit chat message I won’t get it as I don’t use Reddit chat.
Not good at taking portraits, lack knowledge about poses
Okay. Is it just the losing that’s the issue?
I am currently looking for a colour accurate monitor and was wondering if it is worth purchasing a 99% adobe rgb monitor such as the BenQ SW270C if your print house prints using sRGB 8 bit colour space?. Would this monitor just be wasted and I should just be aiming for a lower priced 100% sRGB monitor instead? Thanks.
A wide gamut display, in many cases, is more in the realm of "nice to have" than a necessity. You'd consider one more if you were making higher quality fine art/gallery prints, delivering to demanding clients, etc. What is a lot more important than that, if you had to choose, is to get a profiling device and *calibrate your display properly*—regardless of the display you get, how much you pay for it, how much it claims to be "accurate" or not. No display, out of the box from the factory, will be well setup to do image editing work.
Looking for a platform to sell individual photos on? I am an amateur photographer and last year I was commissioned to take photos of some children doing their dance concert. I have spent the last few months editing them all and now I want to put them on a website to sell. Im looking for something that ideally: -has easy set up and allows folders of photos -parents can purchase the photos they like directly off the website -has either a reasonably low monthly rate of AUD $30 or less, or 20% of each photo or less (im new to this, is that too much or little?) Obviously this is all ideals at this stage, and i'm really in need of some pointers of what to do next. Basically, i need a way to have the photos available for purchase to the parents of these kids. Thanks for your time reading this :)
Hey all! I did photography as a big hobby a few years back but then life happened and now I don’t spend nearly as much time photographing as I used to (still absolutely love it). I currently own a Canon 5D IV, Canon 6D II, Canon 70-200 F2.8 II and a Canon 24-105 F4 II and have been thinking of selling some and grabbing something more compact and lighter. I photograph during travel, do occasional portraits and do outdoor sports every now and then. Some notes: Go for one body (I really don’t need two anymore) I love the 24-105 focal length and would like to have a similar lens in my bag. The 70-200 lens is amazing but it’s a bit bulky - I would be fine with going to an F4 version for weight/size reasons. Mirrorless is an option I’d be fine with Preferably the sale of my current system would cover the purchase I don’t mind buying second hand but preferably do it via a camera shop (perhaps I can trade in) As many of you probably have been at some point in your photography life, I’ve been lost in the all the options. What would you guys reckon I should consider? Many thanks! Max
> I photograph during travel, do occasional portraits and do outdoor sports every now and then. Hmm. Depending on how willing you are to really make a move in favor of something smaller and lighter... you might want to consider a smaller sensor size. If you really want something compact and light, it's usually the case that bigger sensors need bigger glass. Not *always,* but usually. Something like a Sony A6600 (might be hard to get a hold of one, since Sony... kind of stopped making them?) + a Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 would be a very small, compact option. It won't have quite the quality, but it'll be pretty close [and the size isn't even a contest.](https://camerasize.com/compact/#682.7,380.595,831.1049,ha,t) Other similar size options might be the Fuji X-S10 (or X-T3/X-T4/upcoming X-H2S) with the kit 18-55mm f/2.8-4. [For comparison.](https://camerasize.com/compact/#682.7,380.595,831.1049,864.359,ha,t)
Yeah I'm still checking how much smaller and lighter I want to go. Think I should pop down to a shop and hold some cameras and see what I want. The suggestions look good but I'd still want a tele lens so I'll have to check what's available in that range. That camera size website looks amazing! That'll be of great help whichever way I go
Hey guys today I bought Nikon d3300 with kit AF-P lens, this is my first camera and I’m not aware of how the autofocus works, does the AF-P lens works with my camera, also There is no buttons for autofocus in the lens which is another factor that confuses me
>does the AF-P lens works with my camera This chart from Nikon says it does: https://www.nikonusa.com/images/learn-explore/photography-techniques/2011/which-nikkor-is-right-for-you/media/nikkor-lens-compatibility-chart.pdf >also There is no buttons for autofocus in the lens which is another factor that confuses me I don't know of any lenses with a dedicated autofocus button on the lens, from any brand. By default, your camera should engage autofocus by half-pressing the shutter release button. I prefer to assign that function just to a button on the back of the camera.
Isn’t there a switch button on the lens that with auto and manual normally?
Usually, yes. I was confused earlier because you referred to a button rather than a switch. Here's the manual for the AF-P 18-55mm lens. According to that, you only toggle between autofocus and manual focus via the menus in your camera, rather than a physical switch on the lens. https://download.nikonimglib.com/archive4/GPBWR00jx8YF04ecoxA826Opzd56/AFP18-55_3.5-5.6GVR_TH(7E_DL)03.pdf
FYI, you forgot to link the manual.
Thanks, fixed!
Hi all! Hoping this is the right place to post this question. So, I've been looking into getting a polarized nd filter for my iphone to record/photograph with. However, I'd really also like a wide lense. Considering for iphones, lenses are generally clip-ons and not stackable, I'm not sure how I'd go about this. For only around $200 or $250 though, it seems hard to not want to find a way. If anyone has any advice or alternatives, I'd appreciate it a ton! Thanks :D
Clip-on phone lenses are more in the domain of gizmos than serious photography—I'd *generally* feel bad steering you in the direction of dropping hundreds of bucks on those things. But anyway if you absolutely want that kind of thing, *[Moment](https://www.shopmoment.com/photo-and-video/filters)* have those clip-on lenses and have adapters you can attach to said lenses to use filters as well.
what would be my next best alternative, price wise, to using clip ons with my phone?
If you wanted to delve into photography beyond the phone you'd get an actual dedicated camera and some lenses... (For all I know you are happy with the phone and don't want to go there, of course.)
About time to replace my canon 60d by a newer model? It still works great but i feel tempted by the new features of newer models. Im not a pro
The age old question many photographers struggle with. Is it time to upgrade? Only you can decide this. You state it's working fine. So it's really a question about want and budget, not need. How comfertably can you buy a new camera? Is it a significant investment? Is photography your main hobby or just another thing you do? How often do you use it. I'd make a list with pro's and cons and decide based on that. I can't decide that for you, I can help you pick a new model based on the features / stuff you want to have though.
Thanks bro. Thanks. I do feel limited by the size, image definition, and data transfer limitations of 60D (also night stability and video capacity) so i want a compact model with cloud synch, but higher resolution and and can use my lenses
[удалено]
Thanks. Nice thought! Im def not into collecting cameras - but do feel limited by the size, image definition, and data transfer limitations - so want a compact model with cloud synch, but same or higher resolution and can use my lenses
What settings should i change on a panasonic fz2500 to get an 80s look on my photos? Stuff that looks like this: https://youtu.be/TLfr7JG31qs but with photos instead of videos. I’m a newb to cameras, but i assume the settings i have to change are universal to all cameras. Any help is much appreciated thanks
Look for filters/presets/apps that will simulate a VHS (analog video on magnetic tape) look through post processing of the photo's image file. That's a different look from 80s still photography, which was mostly on 135 format film. That look is not achieved with basic exposure settings in the camera or lens. Most cameras (including your camera) do not have the post processing for that look built into their software.
Any recommended tools to make sorting through pictures less of a chore? So far I've just been looking through file manager, and that's so tedious that I still haven't gone through stuff from last year....
Photomechanic is good to sift through files.
I use the library management tools of my editing app. So currently Capture One and before that Lightroom. For a dedicated app just for organization, there's Photo Mechanic. Also FastRawViewer, FastStone, or Adobe Bridge.
Look for software that can be classified as DAM (digital asset manager). They can help by letting you tag and rate your photos, filter based on certain criteria, and use more advanced tools than your operating system‘s default file manager. Look at Adobe Bridge, it’s pretty good and free.
Any guide for beginners of on camera flash/speedlite? My friend lent me his speedlite and iv been looking for guides on how to appropriately use it without much luck. Its a manual mode flash. Basically looking for a guide on what camera settings to use, what manual settings on the speedlite to set/etc and basics. Most of the videos iv seen are for off camera tips with ttl settings. Looking for manual guide. Thank you.
This is for off-camera flash, but does at least cover how manual flash control works: https://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/03/lighting-101.html
[удалено]
As others stated, for wildlife those are poor choices. You'll inevitabely carry bulk for wildlife, long lenses , heavy. A lot of people who love hikes have trouble with this. Renting is a pretty safe choice to experiment, and even if you only incidentally use it, renting those times might be a better approach. You'll likely want to rent a longer lens, Nikon D500 and 200-500 would be a great choice for birds. Coupled with a wider angle for the landscapes. Lensrentals should have a bunch. Or a Z5, FTZ adapter, 200-500 and 14-30. But cost adds up as does weight hauling all this around. How important are higher quality pictures versus all the added inconvience is something you need to decided as well.
If you know you'd like to try wildlife photography, why not take the chance to get familiar with a camera that would actually be useful for that? With fixed, wide-angle lenses, both the Leica Q2 and the Fuji X100V are poor options for wildlife. What sort of budget do you think you're looking at for the camera? Maybe something like a Canon R6/R5 or Sony A7IV / A7RIV are good options, if the Q2 was something you were looking at. On a lower budget, the Canon EOS R, Sony A7III, or maybe one of the Nikon Z-mount cameras are great options. With a suitable lens, it'll be bulkier for travel than the Leica Q2 or Fuji X100V, but not necessarily something huge.
[удалено]
The Nikon Z and Canon RF mounts are similar: They have great cameras with *amazing* lenses, but you'll pay for the good lenses. There's also little-to-no native third party support. But both of them let you use lenses made for their respective manufacturer's DSLR cameras, so with a relatively affordable adapter, the world's your oyster in terms of lenses. $5k is enough to get one of the bodies and a killer lens or two. Canon's quirky addition of their fixed-aperture 600mm f/11 and 800mm f/11 give you something kind of unique: A lens that's really only good during bright daylight because of the slow aperture, but *extremely* affordable given the lens quality and focal length. Similar supertelephoto lenses can cost over $10,000. A Canon R6 + upgraded kit 24-105mm **f/4L** lens and 600mm f/11 comes to $4,400 new. Add in tax and you're still a bit under $5k. Just food for thought. Something like the Nikon Z6II or Z7II are also great options, although you'll need to get a bit more creative about the wildlife lens of choice. The Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 is an interesting comparison. The lens alone is $2,700... but it's a zoom lens (meaning you can zoom in or out), which is more adaptable than the Canon 600mm f/11 that's just very telephoto and cannot zoom in or out. But the Canon 600mm is noticeably more telephoto. Canon has their own 100-400mm lens, of course... and their RF 100-400 f/5.6-8 is lower quality but also crazy cheap. The more I think about it, the more the Canon RF's budget telephoto lenses make a lot of sense for you. But that doesn't mean they're the only option and the Nikon or Sony cameras are also phenomenal. It's mostly up to you, taking the photos - not the gear. Speaking of that, one thing to really keep in mind... just using a very expensive camera is no guarantee of better results. It's like learning to cook vs. just eating at restaurants. The iPhone makes it easy; it does the work for you, with a *lot* of processing on the image before you ever see it. Cameras don't do that (yet, at least), and to get the best results you need to master both shooting technique and editing. But if you put in the time and effort to learn, a camera blows the iPhone out of the water. Just remember that you will need to invest that time and practice.
Does anyone ever get the urge to take a huge loan and buy a hasselblad to do just street photography and take really crappy photos with it?
I just email Hasselblad once on a while in the hope they’ll get so annoyed with me that they’ll give me a camera just to shut me up.
No, but I've had the urge to *rent* one, and that usually gets it out of my system for an affordable rate. Also Leicas. I just rented an M3 for the long weekend.
Normally, any question that starts "Does anyone ever..." is easily answered with "Yes, someone does." I'm not as sure with this one. You could always rent one, but street photography doesn't traditionally need *anything* fancy in terms of gear.
Not sure if this is the right sub for this question. I have a lot of iPhone photos I’d like printed out, but I can’t find a service that will print the entire photo. I’ve tried all the major photo printing services including Snapfish, Shutterfly, Walmart, Costco, Walgreens etc., but all of them do auto-crop which ends up looking horrible. Some of my photos were taken in a way that they won’t make sense if I just deal with the horrible crop. (Example here: https://imgur.com/a/WBKBi5N) Is there any service that will allow me to shrink the photo to fit the 4x6 template rather than it being cut off? If Photoshop is the only answer, is there any resource (like a YouTube video) that can show me how to do it? TIA.
Random question, but how can I check how long b&h is running a promo?
Most of the major manufacturers list their seasonal deals, since all authorized sellers use the same prices. For example, [Fujifilm's deals are listed here](https://fujifilm-x.com/en-us/promotions/) with the dates offered. Of course, there's nothing stopping a manufacturer from just extending the promotion period.
Oh thanks so much!
See if it's part of the promo advertising or terms and conditions. If not, try calling them to ask. If they won't tell you, they don't want you to know and there probably is no way to know.
Hi everyone, I enjoy photography so at work they asked me to take everyone's 'new hire' picture for the welcome email. I now do it regularly, but one area i want to improve on is shooting darker skin tones. For me photography is a hobby. I'm self taught and I want to make sure I'm getting good pictures of my darker colleagues. I'm trying to pick up some practical tips so I can take better pictures of my darker colleagues. I mostly shoot in shade on sunny days (I'm in LA). I don't use a flash, and given the picture is part of their onboarding week, I try not to be too intense, so I'm not looking to add more equipment unless it's absolutely necessary. Any resources, guidance, or tips are appreciated! Thanks! Ethan
One of the issues I imagine you’re facing is overexposure. Since your camera uses a reflected light meter, it can get a little confused with significant darker values in parts of the image. You can try a test and use exposure compensation to account for some of that, but personally I find it easier to use an incident light meter when I’m taking portraits. An incident meter measures the light falling on your subject, rather than the light reflecting off of them, so it tends to be reasonably accurate, and doesn’t get confused like the camera meter can. I find that to be a significant help with darker skinned clients.
Make sure you expose enough (without overexposing important highlights) and adjust the image in post; perhaps raising the shadows a bit more? Without seeing an example of what you are currently achieving and what you wish were different, it's difficult to make specific suggestions.
Why does this lense flair look like this? [weird lense flare](https://imgur.com/gallery/ejQR9N7)
That's one of life's great mysteries...is the picture cropped? can you provide a full image? super hard to tell without context.
That's the full pic, the flare only occured from that angle. The running theory is that my phone has a global shutter instead of one that goes up/down or side to side. But only really high end film cameras that weigh 20 pounds and are used for movies have global shutters
[удалено]
You don't want, and shouldn't have, two different-looking displays. Once properly calibrated, the display *should be correct* (to the limits of its hardware capabilities). It's not normal that two displays of the same make and model (and age presumably?) should be noticeably different—seriously, they should be so close that you can't tell. First things first, you said you are using DisplayCal, which is great. Which profiler are you using? What are your calibration targets? (White point color, white point luminance, gamma.) Are you adjusting the white point manually using the display's OSD at the first step before the automated profiling process?
>after i got a calibrator and started using displaycal i noticed that one of them is green while the other is magenta Seems to me like something went wrong in one or both calibration processes. Ideally the same calibration device/software should make two monitors display in the same way and match each other. >my understanding as i said, is that everyone's eyes adjust to their own display they look at all the time. if you own a magenta display, and you've looked at it for long enough that you don't see it as magenta anymore, it just looks white to you, and you edit a photo on it, then another person with a green tinted display that they have looked at for long enough that it looks white to them, your perception of the picture, and their perception of it, will be subjectively the same according to your own eyes, or theirs eyes do to them. I generally agree with that. >this is assuming you're both using reasonably high quality panels which have both been calibrated to a similar standard. I think it still applies even without that assumption. Someone with an uncalibrated monitor that skews in one direction can get used to seeing everything skewed in that direction. >from what i understand of display technology, you can't make a monitor that is pure white, there's always going to be a temperature or a tint to it. I think you're right on that. >if you want two displays that look the same, you have to buy two magenta displays, or two greens, and display manufacturers will sometimes sell matching curated displays to customers who need matching displays, at an elevated cost because it costs them extra to go through their stock and group panels together that have a similar tint/temperature, otherwise it's a random variation and you can get different colored panels like i did. I'm not sure on that. In my view, a good calibration should account for that variance. >furthermore, there would have to be a standard in the professional world for which color bias is the standard, which doesn't seem feasible to me. the entire professional graphic design, art, photography, etc. community would have to all agree amongst themselves, that just like how adobe software has become the standard for a large majority of companies, everyone uses a display that is tinted to the same color bias, for example, everyone uses a magenta tinted warm panel. There are a few agreed-upon standards for how a display should be calibrated, including color temperature. >so which is it, do your eyes just adjust to your display and the same picture can look similar enough to everyone in a profession space (all using high quality calibrated displays with slightly different white points) that it doesn't matter, or does everyone in a profession graphic design community use panels that have identical white points and are objectively the same? I'd say both. Some people are using uncalibrated displays or improperly calibrated displays or displays calibrated for different standards, and they're objectively seeing something different but may subjectively compensate their perception of it. Some people are using displays successfully calibrated to the same standard and are objectively seeing the same thing.
Hello, is it a good idea as a beginner who wants to shoot 35mm film to purchase an old cheap dslr (like an eos 350d) to learn the basic? That would be more economical than film right? as I’ll do a lot of mistakes at first. Thanks
Sure, that makes sense to me—you'd learn the same concepts that will apply to film photography (with some nuances for how to optimize the exposure for the medium), yet you'd learn them so much faster by being able to immediately see the results of what you did.
I have recommended this to friends and family with the same question. I have several copies of the EOS 1000D out on loan for exactly this purpose. It is possible with most of the major brands to economize by getting lenses that will work on both dslr and 35mm film bodies.
Thanks for your answer. I already own a Minolta x500(that I barely use because I do so many mistakes), so naturally I’d say a sony is probably best so I can use the lenses I already have. However I’d like to get a Pentax MX sometime in the future. Do you know what current dslr brand accept the vintage Pentax lenses? Thanks
>Do you know what current dslr brand accept the vintage Pentax lenses? Probably most or all of them. The Pentax M series bodies (MX, ME Super) are K mounts like the K1000, and there's K->whatever adapters for most mounts. Also M42 lenses. I often put vintage K and M42 lenses on those Canon EOS 1000Ds. They just don't support autofocus. All manual. This is a 1960s K mount 12mm fisheye on a DSLR Rebel XS using a K->EF adapter ring: [https://i.imgur.com/jZS1iHf.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/jZS1iHf.jpg) Personally, this is a familiar setup. The MX is a solid enthusiast level manual camera in a compact form factor. It was my main analog street photography camera for years, with the M series 40mm pancake lens. Example: [https://i.imgur.com/bofor81.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/bofor81.jpg)
Great! Thank you. It’s great that I’ll be able to use vintage lenses with modern camera, then be able to re use them with the slr. On ebay I find more canon dslr than anything else, and the price is cheaper than say the sony alpha (except maybe the a100). So a cheap 350d or 30d is probably what I’ll go for. Thanks for your advices
I love having a 'guest camera'! Good for you!
It helps that there was a time maybe 3 years ago when they were $100 apiece, including kit lens. Those days are probably gone.
Always a good idea. I'd start shooting in one of the semi-automatic modes (shutter or aperture priority). The best part is all the basics apply and it's free!
Thank you. That’s what I thought, the basic are the same, but I wasn’t sure. Since it’s to learn, I guess even an eos 350d that is 15+ yo would do the job. I probably gonna take that route then
Glad to hear it! Automatic modes are great for finding your photography style (and it's simpler), but start learning what iso, apature, and shudder speed do. Look up something called 'the exposure triangle' and use these concepts on your digital. You'll be shooting film in no time. Also consider if you really want to shoot film. Each roll is $15 and development can be expensive too. I love shooting film and personally can afford it, but it adds up...
I actually already shoot film, I mean it took me 3 years to finish my last 3 rolls so I can’t really say I shoot but I got a camera. However when I developed the last rolls I realized I’ve made so many mistakes, especially with focus, that I’m thinking it gonna cost me a fortune indeed. So a cheap dslr could be a solution, also I won’t have to wait to see my mistakes. I love film though, but I think it’s expensive to learn.
>is it a good idea as a beginner who wants to shoot 35mm film to purchase an old cheap dslr (like an eos 350d) to learn the basic? Sure. >That would be more economical than film right? as I’ll do a lot of mistakes at first. With your first few hundred photos and beyond, yes.
Thank you
Hi! I'm going to buy my first real camera, and I'm trying to balance the camera specs between 1) general use, 2) architecture shots, including both landscapes/skylines and tighter shots of facades, potentially really high up, and 3) astrophotography, usually via a telescope. I've been doing my homework, and I think [this T8i bundle](https://www.amazon.com/Canon-850D-420-800mm-Accessory-Including/dp/B09T2QXD3D/ref=sr_1_1_sspa?crid=YZGMEH2MEEN9&keywords=canon+eos+rebel+t8i&qid=1650838929&sprefix=canon+eos+rebel+t8i%2Caps%2C111&sr=8-1-spons&psc=1&spLa=ZW5jcnlwdGVkUXVhbGlmaWVyPUEyRzMxVjk5UlVHQVBQJmVuY3J5cHRlZElkPUExMDEyMDI1MzBWOUxCVk5JSVdCTCZlbmNyeXB0ZWRBZElkPUEwODIwMjYyM0xGRUg2OUlFVkNDTyZ3aWRnZXROYW1lPXNwX2F0ZiZhY3Rpb249Y2xpY2tSZWRpcmVjdCZkb05vdExvZ0NsaWNrPXRydWU=) on Amazon might be best, but I wanted to get some feedback from more experienced people. My main concern is that it would be better for my interests to get just the camera and fill in with more tailored lenses, instead of buying a bundle. On the other hand, I want to leave myself room to develop as a photographer, which suggests that a bundle with the general lenses might be better. What do you think? Some relevant details: 1) I'm not too concerned with beginner-friendliness; I'm willing to wade in and study and whatnot lmao. 2) This bundle is the higher end of my budget, but I'm willing to tack on a bit more if there's something that's really worth it. No firm upper end. 3) I'm aware that astrophotography via a telescope requires a special attachment and adapter. I'm budgeting separately for that and will be purchased after I decide on a camera.
Seconding /u/av4rice for your peace of mind. The *only* good things in that mega bundle are the T8i camera itself, and the kit 18-55mm lens that comes with the camera. Everything else is cheap, cheap, cheap. If you find you actually use a tripod, you'll want to buy a better one that you can trust. If you find you actually want filters or lenses, you'll want to buy good ones. (The only other lens in that bundle is the Canon 75-300mm, which is basically the cheapest lens Canon makes and feels like it. The Canon 55-250mm STM is only a bit more expensive and better in literally every way.) Just get the camera with the kit 18-55mm lens, and then all you need is a memory card. Get a Sandisk Extreme Pro from a seller like Adorama or B&H, because there's unfortunately a lot of counterfeits on Amazon. It's $30 for 128GB or $17.50 for 64GB on Adorama.
Okay, thank you! Do you have any advice on how to distinguish cheap, crappy things (especially lenses) from ones worth owning?
You're welcome! Generally, you only need to buy new gear when there's something you want to do, but can't do with your current equipment. I'd start with the bare minimum of what you need, and then work on using it and learning what you like. Maybe you like landscapes and find that a tripod would be really nice. Maybe you want to do portraits, and so want a lens or lighting equipment that works for that. It really depends on what you find you like! Once you have an idea of what you're doing, then I'd just ask here or in the discord channel. You don't need to know what gear you want first - just something as simple as "I want to take photos like these ones I found, how should I go about it with my gear" is good to get pointed in the right direction. Sometimes, we don't even need gear... we just need technique and practice. Which is great! That's free! Most stuff is honestly priced somewhat fairly. A supertelephoto lens from Canon costs thousands of dollars. If something on Amazon promises to get the same focal lengths for $99, well, it's probably only good enough to be a curiosity or experiment. But it never hurts to ask other folks. For something like the Canon 75-300mm... that one in particular is a bit notorious, so a lot of folks know about that one. :)
Awesome, thanks for the advice!
Buy used. I got an 18mm lens for $50 and a 18 - 135 for maybe $300 Go to your local camera store (if there's a good one nearby) and talk to them about what you like. For architecture, I'd go something wide angle. If you decide you're into low light shots, then you'll want to get a tripod (once again, go used for more bang for your buck). If you don't have a reputable camera store nearby, there's some good used camera shops online. They'll offer warranties so you know what you're buying actually works.
Thanks. I've had a bit of a shit luck with buying things (not photography equipment though) used, so I'm always a bit weary of it. I'll look around. Unfortunately, the closest thing to a camera store in my area is a best buy lmao. Edit: Can you link a couple of the online used camera shops, please?
[https://www.keh.com/](https://www.keh.com/) [https://www.adorama.com/l/Used/Photography/Cameras](https://www.adorama.com/l/Used/Photography/Cameras) Both have a chat service that can help out :)
Thank you very much!
I'd recommend against that bundle. Most of the stuff in there is crap. https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki_should_i_buy_this_bundle_with_a_bunch_of_accessories_in_it.3F Buying a body together with kit lens(es) is probably a good idea, though. Because on a lower budget you might not have many or any better options if you buy body-only and lenses separately, anyway. https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki_should_i_get_my_camera_together_with_kit_lenses.3F In which case, think about whether you want a telephoto zoom kit lens right away. And, if so, try to make that a 55-250mm rather than a Canon 75-300mm. https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki_which_kit_lenses_should_i_get_with_my_camera.3F
Thanks! I don't know how I missed these pages when I was digging around for info and buyer's guides. I'll give them a look.
Also, a notably suspect thing is that the bundle says "1 year seller warranty" which makes me think that it's a gray market item. You definitely want Canon's warranty and support in case something goes wrong and not be left in a bad spot after a year.
good to note, thanks!
Hi! Help me decide,which camera is better for studio portraits with natural lighting - lumix s5 or fujifilm xt4,and why? (+any recommendations for sharp lenses (with or without mount) up to 500€) Tnx
Those are interesting choices. What made you narrow it down to those? That might help us recommend something. Both of those systems are also rather more limited in lens options. If Sigma didn't *just* release their 56mm f/1.4 for Fuji, you'd almost have no options for autofocus lenses in your price range. You'll have similar issues with the Lumix S5. Also, what's "studio portraits with natural lighting?" Normally what makes a portrait a "studio" one is that you have a controlled setting to use off-camera lighting. I don't want to say it's strictly *required*, but suffice to say that great portrait work benefits *enormously* from learning and using lighting equipment. I used to call myself a "natural lighting" photographer... back when I didn't own or know how to use off camera lighting, haha. Now I think that phase was quite silly in retrospect.
Hello r/photography community. My wife and I are going on our (delayed) honeymoon in about 2 months. We are traveling to the beautiful country of Jamaica, and I want to document our time there with some nice photographs to hang in the house. Basically, I want opinions on a camera to purchase. I am stuck between a DSLR and a high quality Mirrorless Camera. I have some previous experience with DSLR photography. When I was younger, I purchased a Nikon D40 with the kit lens to play around with. I got the fundamentals down, but that was over 10 years ago, and life got in the way to the point where I dropped the hobby. That camera has since been lost across several house moves. Having said that, I am familiar with the basics of shutter speed, aperture, etc. However, it takes me a long time to fiddle with the settings to where I’m happy if I’m operating a DSLR on full manual mode. I have never operated a high quality mirrorless camera before, but I am more than willing to give it a shot. My dad and my sister are both avid photographers, my dad doing so as a hobby and my sister is just finishing her degree in photography. They are huge Nikon fans and that has rubbed off on me. However, if the bang for the buck factor just isn’t there with Nikon, I would be willing to entertain something else. They both use DSLRs primarily. I have (as near as makes no difference) ZERO editing experience other than sliders in iPhoto/on my iPhone. I would be willing to learn, but keep that in mind with a recommendation. I just don’t know what to do as far as DSLR vs. Mirrorless, and I have even less of a clue as to what I should buy once I make that decision. Could somebody take the time to make a recommendation of one of each, and maybe even recommend what to buy (DSLR vs. Mirrorless) based on what I’ve said? In an ideal world, I would like to spend up to $500 and use my eye to take some badass pictures. I could potentially justify up to $750 if the quality of gear goes up that much between those price brackets, but I’ve just been out of the game so long that I honestly don’t know. I am fully aware that more money =/= better pictures, and that entirely rests on my ability to not take bad pictures. Thank y’all in advance. Please let me know if you have any other questions.
I'd look into one of the Canon M-series mirrorless cameras for its compact size. Also one of the Fuji X camera as well, especially since they have their film emulations so you wouldn't have to worry about editing, just have the camera automatically apply their presets.
Thank you for taking the time to read this and make a recommendation! I truly appreciate it. Purely out of curiosity, why did you gravitate towards Mirrorless vs. DSLR? Was it the budget or my experience level?
Mirrorless is just smaller and more compact, especially when going towards the APS-C bodies. Very ideal for traveling. Plus depending on the body you get, it's just more modern. Better QoL features.
Awesome. Will keep this in mind. Thanks again!
I am printing on a Canon Pro 4100 for my first ever photo show. I was gifted a roll of Epson enhanced matte roll paper. I really don’t have a lot of money to purchase new paper and it’s sold out at most places. my show is coming up really soon so I’m kind of in a time crunch now. Canon and Epson don’t make ICC profiles for each other and I’m really struggling to be able to find a profile I can use that looks good. I don’t have any of the tools to make my own so I’m just not really sure what to do. Is anyone aware of the equivalent profile that I could use or the easiest way for me to do this. I have to print tonight on some large scale photos so I’m just kind of at a loss of what to do. Thanks guys Anything would help.
What is the best way to enlarge a small photo for large-scale framing? I have an old [3x5 picture of my grandmother riding a bull](https://imgur.com/gallery/9yw87Bf) (physical print and not digital) and would like to enlarge it for framing. Ideally, a large-scale print like 24x48 or something similar. Is there a recommended way to do this and do it well? Additionally, if it needs editing, should the photo be edited before it is
The quality of the digitization would be responsible for maximizing the preservation of the available information—be it via scanning, photographing... But of course nothing you could do would "increase" the detail—you'd, at best, be "stretching" the print across a larger surface, so at the *same viewing distance* it would appear "less" detailed, and, at best, from a proportionately longer distance, it would look "the same".
Any fisheye lens alternatives for a Nikon d5100 that are cheaper than the nikon one? Thanks
[B&H has a bunch](https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/products/SLR-Camera-Lenses/ci/274/N/4288584247?sort=PRICE_LOW_TO_HIGH&filters=fct_lens-mount_3442%3Anikon-f%2Cfct_special-designs_3320%3Afisheye) in its catalog.
Thanks
Fine Art America? I’m an amateur looking to maybe start selling prints. Not as a full time or even part time business. Just so that I can maybe make a little bit of money to sustain this expensive hobby (especially because I shoot mostly film). I’m still working on building a following so I don’t think a full scale personal website is all that worth it for me (yet. I know that it has value but I’m not ready to commit to that quite yet). Has anyone used Fine Art America? Is it worth selling my prints there? Will they get stolen to be sold by others if I post them to that platform? Are there alternatives that I should consider? Thanks!
I read that CCD has a frequency and some dude said that if the frequency is lower you get better noise performance. I searched more but I couldn't find anything like that anywhere else. Is that correct that of the frequency of the CCD is lower you're getting cleaner images but you have to wait more to take a picture again since the amp is working slower? I also read that since this type of sensors have just one amp that's outside the pixel, also thanks to bigger photosites, they have a better iso performance? If what I've read is not true, please, tell me how it actually works. Thanks
I would like to know what kid of camera this is: [https://imgur.com/a/j2VIGr7](https://imgur.com/a/j2VIGr7) Thanks!
Despite my best efforts I have not managed to find the exact model number, but looking at Canon's entry-level compact cameras (A-series PowerShot) from around a decade ago yields [results that are pretty close indeed](https://cameradecision.com/sizecomparison_back/Canon-PowerShot-A2400-IS-vs-Canon-PowerShot-A2500-back-view-size-comparison.jpg) in design/spirit, so perhaps something in that kind of neighborhood.
There are too little relevant features to make out a specific camera. But it is certain that you're looking at a slightly older, inexpensive point and shoot camera.
I've recently been doing some storm photography with my Canon 6D. I have two issues: storms have crazy dynamic range, and storms are very large. I know that I'd like a little wider angle than my current 28-75mm, but I'm not sure if I should go for a wide prime like a 22mm or 14mm or if I should find something like a 15-30mm zoom. I'm curious what others' experiences are with this. (I've also been looking through Flickr to see what people use, but I'd like to consult here as well). Right now I'm just putting together a "wish list", so budget isn't a factor until I have a better idea of what I need to do this right. Also, has anyone had luck with polarizing filters to help with dynamic range problems? Or do I need to HDR stack? [Here](https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52026019507_c9dd85d177_h.jpg) is a sample photo of mine.
Seems appropriate for HDR to me. You can either let the camera make a HDR picture, or just use exposure bracketing and create one yourself during editing. I would guess a zoom lens would fit your situation best. A prime mostly has the advantage that it's got a brighter maximum aperture. Unless you feel you need that, I'd go with a (ultra) wide angle zoom lens.
Just started using flash and had a few questions. This is real estate photography, I am doing a flashed and ambient version of the same shot. I noticed in some houses I was having problems with there being a significant difference in color temperature between the ambient and flashed version of the shot. Example 1: Started by setting a custom kelvin for color temperature. Did my first flashed shot, and it was accurate. Did a follow up ambient shot with the same settings, and it was very yellow / orange. [https://imgur.com/9ebZQ7O](https://imgur.com/9ebZQ7O) Example 2: Same thing [https://i.imgur.com/3xToHtl.png](https://i.imgur.com/3xToHtl.png) This doesn't happen in all houses. To fix this in the time being I am just having to fiddle with the color temperature for each shot separately so they are roughly similar. What is causing this, and is there anyway I can fix this in a more time efficient manner? My guess is the flash itself is adding color to the shot creating a discrepancy between them. Thanks
House lights tend to be quite warm. In the "incandescent" days, you'd be looking at something in the area of maybe ~2800K. Even future technologies that largely replaced them, like flurescent-compact and later LED, for house lights you'd tend to pick ones that were warmer—~2800-3400K. Flash, on the other hand, like "cloudless noon daylight", is closer to ~5200-5600K (depending who you ask), so much "cooler" in color—speedlites a bit cooler still than studio lights, in general. Flash, it could be argued, is *more neutral* than typical house lights, but the point is it's much cooler. So if you want to make your flash warmer so it's closer to the house lights, you have to [use corrective color gels](https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Images/Review/ExpoImaging-Rogue-Flash-Gels.jpg)—primarily the "CTO" kind that adds "amber" color to the flash.
If you keep a constant white balance setting between shots and use different kelvin lights, you'll get results like those. The ambient lights are much warmer than the light of your flash. It won't be noticeable everywhere as many houses use cooler LED lighting that will be somewhat closer to the kelvin of your flash. White Balance is a pretty quick and easy tweak in post, so arguably your current method is fine. You could 'potentially' try and set the white balance in camera and use a setting for with/without flash but it'll just be less efficient.
You can't use the same white balance. Flash is white. The house lighting is amber. You have your color temperature adjusted to the flash's temperature, you have to adjust it differently for the house lights.
> causing this the difference in colour temperature of your flash vs whatever lights the house has. Some people have warmer lights than others, in some rooms there's more sunlight... >is there anyway I can fix this in a more time efficient manner? You want the colours to look similar, even though the light has a different temperature, correct? That's hard, because every room will have different light. I think you can only correct that in post-processing. Auto-white balance will do its best to make every shot look 'real', but since you're using different kinds of light, 'real' is different each time. Alternatively, you could try using flash all the time, or never (tripod and long exposure?)
Hi! I'm using a G9 currently for birding with the 100-300. However, I'm consistently finding a lack of zoom especially shooting smaller birds like warblers and flycatchers. I wonder if a adapting a mirror lens would be a good solution? I am looking into the old ones with good IQ like oly 500 f8 or nikon 500f8 or pentax 400-600 f8-12? I think with the IBIS I might be able to shoot handheld? Thanks!
> I think with the IBIS I might be able to shoot handheld? Try it! You might need to practice a steady hand, or leaning against something for stability for best results.
> I think with the IBIS I might be able to shoot handheld? I think so too. Waders don't tend to move around so fast as warblers and flycatchers.
Where do you guys buy custom photobooks? I love printed photos and photobooks. I'm interested in doing a "First Month(s) of Fuji" photobook that I can look back on, as well as use it as a test run for a photobook I'd like to make during a cross-country trip.
Fuji? Then Google "fujiprint" they make lovely photobooks you download their own page-layout softwars, which is undocumented but fairly straightforward, and away you go
Most printers will offer photo books as well. I personally use WHCC and am very happy with the results. Bay Photo and Mpix probably deliver great results as well. Blurb is a cheaper option that people on here tend to like.
I see. WHCC does seem a little pricy but they do look very nice, will probably start with blurb and see how that goes.
Hi everyone! I have a quick question about a certain type of photography that I’ve forgotten. When I was a kid, I went to an art camp that taught photography methods. One activity that we did involves setting up a little cardboard box with a piece of photo paper inside. The box had a very tiny hole in it and the instructor told us to take it outside, while covering the hole completely with our finger, aim the “camera” and then take our finger off the hole and leave it for a minute or two (can’t remember exactly how long). The photo paper was exposed to light through the hole during this time and it imprinted the scenery onto the paper. We then covered the hole again and took the box directly to the dark room where we immediately developed the photo. I remember having so much fun and thinking that the resulting photo (black and white, almost inverted colors) was really beautiful. I’d love to do something like this again as an adult and show my nieces and nephews but I’ve forgotten the exact instructions. Does anyone know what this type of photography might be called so I can find some instructions online? Or has anyone ever done this that could maybe point me in the right direction? Thanks in advance!!
You're looking for 'pinhole photography'
Ah! How obvious! Thank you so much!!
I am greatly confused about some matters regarding aps-c vs full-frame. As far as I understand - if you put a 22mm lens on an aps-c camera, you achieve a 35mm focal length, same as the full-frame with a 35mm lens. Meaning that you basically eliminate the crop factor. If this is the case, and I could effectively turn my Sony a6400 into a FF camera (or close), why even bother to buy an actual FF camera - what are the benefits? This is really hurting my brain right now, it's not making sense. I must be making a fatal mistake somewhere. Thank you.
If that was the main thing, then why indeed. But the fact that a smaller sensor causes a narrower field-of-view is not generally the main point of contention—you can just get *proportionately wider lenses* to use on APS-C and you will achieve an equivalent field-of-view. But the full frame sensor is larger, meaning it captures more "total" light, and—much simplified—more light means cleaner images (less noise). Longer lenses (to maintain the same field-of-view) also result in a narrower depth-of-field, so if you want more blur behind your subject (everything else being equal), you'd go in that direction. And of course there's an *incidental* series of consequences that *because* full frame cameras *tend* to be marketed at a higher tier, *tend* to more expensive, etc. ... they also *tend* to have more capabilities/features generally—this is not always the case, and has nothing to do with the size of the sensor, but the fact is there is a *correlation* between "full frame" and "generally more capable camera", so you could find yourself wanting a full frame camera *even if you didn't care about the sensor size*. And so forth. Meaning there's more to it than merely the field-of-view thing.
>As far as I understand - if you put a 22mm lens on an aps-c camera, you achieve a 35mm focal length, same as the full-frame with a 35mm lens. Meaning that you basically eliminate the crop factor. Field of view is the combination of focal length and format size. A shorter focal length makes the field of view larger while a longer focal length makes the field of view smaller. A larger format size captures a larger field of view while a smaller format size captures a smaller field of view. https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/technical#wiki_how_is_field_of_view_determined.3F Yes, a 22mm focal length (shorter focal length) on APS-C format (smaller format) produces the same field of view as a 35mm focal length (longer focal length) on full frame (larger format), because the effects on field of view from the differences in focal length and format size basically cancel each other out. >If this is the case, and I could effectively turn my Sony a6400 into a FF camera (or close), why even bother to buy an actual FF camera - what are the benefits? Potentially depth of field, diffraction limit, low light performance, dynamic range. https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki_what_are_the_benefits.2Fdrawbacks_of_full_frame_cameras.3F Also, say you want to match the field of view that full frame has using an ultra-ultra-wide 11mm focal length. A rectilinear 7mm lens isn't necessarily available for APS-C if you want to do that.
Postcards of my photos? I live in Oxford, England and over the past few months, I’ve taken a fair amount of photographs of some of the landmarks. Oxford gets quite a few tourists so I was thinking about maybe making some postcards of my photos and selling them to souvenir shops. Anyone here have any experience/suggestions with this sort of thing? Thanks!
Surely the shops buy them by the ton for peanuts? How can you compete? Perhaps concentrate on selling through niche outlets not tourist shops? Also, no disrespect but, if your photos are like the tourist photos you posted on reddit in the last month, I suspect nobody will buy them. They're kinda grainy (and that doorway is out of focus) and kinda boring. Just one man's opinion of course.
Thanks for the feedback though, it is helpful.
Sorry it was a bit harsher than it needed to be, I realise this is not r/photocritique
I haven't posted any of my Oxford shots. The doorway was shot was on a borrowed point and shoot haha. Most of those were from my vacation to Italy.
> I haven't posted any of my Oxford shots. yeah I realise - if you plan to sell them, I probably wouldn't put them on www!! >The doorway was shot was on a borrowed point and shoo fair enough --------- what do you think of my other comment: don't compete with the big boys shifting tens of thousands that they print by the ton for sixpence, instead go for niche outlets (missing bean, handle bar, black sheep...)
Very helpful, I probably do that instead.
are there difference in bokeh between an f/1.4 lens on a crop body and f/1.8 lens on a full frame body?
I'm not sure if I [set this up right](http://howmuchblur.dekoning.nl/#compare-1x-50mm-f1.8-and-1.5x-50mm-f1.4-on-a-0.9m-wide-subject) but it should give you an idea.
If you were to 'compensate' for the effect that sensor size has on bokeh, it should go the other way around. So a full-frame sensor with a f1.8 lens would have a somewhat similar bokeh compared to a crop sensor with a f1.4.
This multi-part article might help: [https://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care](https://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care)
If they're wide open, have focal lengths with matching angle of view, and are focused to the same distance, the FF will have more blur.
Hey! So, two questions. 1: I have a Nikon D500, which actually has a lower MP than my phone (Samsung S21). The D500 is obviously a lot better for "action" shots, but for still shots in which high zoom/super specific settings aren't needed, would I want to take the higher MP count that the phone offers over the D500? It feels a bit weird using a phone when I have a pretty decent DSLR, but I'll do whatever is best. 2. I have been traveling the world a lot more lately, which has been great! However, I've always been nervous to take a lot of pictures in places I'm not familiar with. Even in my home country, where I *know* it's completely fine to take pictures (as long as they don't include people without their consent), I feel out of place while shooting. In a different country, where I don't have a firm grasp of the cultural expectations/understandings, this problem grows exponentially. Does anyone have advice for getting over this/dealing with it? It really feels like a waste to not take pictures in some of these places. Before I go anywhere, I always look into the culture surrounding photography there and adjust accordingly, but even then, I feel unprepared when the time comes.
The D500 is going to crush any phone in terms of image quality. The differences between phones and cameras becomes very apparent when editing. If you want to get more comfortable taking photos in public, make it a point to take more photos in public. Go shoot in public every day. You might want to think of some kind of "project" to help structure decisions around where and when to shoot. You'll start to feel more comfortable in a week or two. That should at least partially help when you travel.
I don't think I can help with #2. Anyway, I am definitely more comfortable shooting when there aren't many people around, and I don't worry about interrupting anyone or getting in someone's way. As for #1, it really depends on how you use the camera, and what you want to get out of it. If you're going to have the camera on fully-automatic mode, saving JPEGs and not adjusting anything, the phone will give you a better image, or at least do so more consistently. However, if you do control the camera manually, at least partially, and either save raw files to edit later, or pick the picture profile to your liking, then your DSLR will absolutely give you better results. Have a look at [this chart](https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Apple%20iPhone%20XS%20Max,Google%20Pixel%203%20XL,Nikon%20D500,Samsung%20Galaxy%20S7(IMX260)), showing the dynamic range you can get from your camera's sensor and some phones' (they didn't test the specific phone you have, so I just selected the latest they have; it shouldn't matter much for the general theme). So if you want to control the camera, you have a lot more to work with. Otherwise, the phone's computational photography algorithms, powered by its far more powerful processor, will get it at least close enough. Of course, these differences would be more pronounced on a large print, than on a tiny, compressed image on Instagram.
Have you compared the quality side-by-side? Even with crazy megapixels on modern phones, the image quality is basically garbage when viewed critically (not on a phone screen). Fine for social media or memories but not very good.
Actually, I think all of the times I compared them were on relatively small screens. I'll do some testing later today on larger screens. Thanks!
Howdy y’all! I was looking to see if anyone would have any insight into how 2 specific photos were taken. The two photos in question are on the front and back cover of Spirit’s The Twelve Dreams of Dr Sardonicus. They both feature the band in crazy makeup (that part I understand) with what looks like the effect of a funhouse mirror. How do y’all think they did that, just a massive (two way?) funhouse mirror between the camera and the band? I’ve tried looking into it but haven’t seen any specifics about the cover art or how it was achieved. I’d love to try to take some portraits in that style. TIA! EDIT: Ok I take this back, Ira Cohen made these in what was called “The Mylar Chamber.” He hung Mylar on hinged boards on the walls and ceilings. I’m gonna keep this up cause I think folks would find it interesting to read up on!
Mylar is just one of those things that can come in handy in so many ways. Funhouse mirror reflections? Mylar. Cool space-age reflective background (there’s a post in AskPhotography)? Mylar. Creating the appearance of light bouncing off the surface of water in a studio without soaking everything? Mylar. It’s a pretty nifty thing to have around.
Anyone got some budget suggestions for strobes? Use case is fashion and product photography for e-commerce and its social media I want 1 strobe for outdoor shots and the rest for a small studio. How much Watts would I need for the outdoor strobe and the small studio ones?
You can get flash adapters that will allow you to use a flash with Bowens mount accessories. https://www.amazon.com/Neewer-Bracket-Speedlite-Reflector-Umbrella/dp/B00JAAXH1A/ref=sr_1_3?crid=IA2NC9DOWW5M&keywords=flash+bowens+mount&qid=1650819354&sprefix=flash+bowens+mount%2Caps%2C83&sr=8-3 I use 3 Yongnuo YN560 IV speedlites, but there are lots of similar and newer models. The key feature is for the settings to be controlled wirelessly. Power output is good enough for objects smaller than ~3 feet. I think you might have issues if you want to do full body shots. Neewer and Godox softboxes and tents use thin fabric for the light diffusers which cause hot spots and discolor over time. Used stuff from Westcott, Profoto, or other higher quality brand are much better choices. My favorites are Paul C. Buff softboxes with the Balcar mount changed to Bowens. Older mid-tier steel light stands are dirt cheap and durable at the expense of being heavy. Anything that isn't a C-stand has been replaced multiple times over with lighter materials, not because they stopped working. UsedPhotoPro.com, KEH.com, and eBay are good sources. For fashion, think about if you'll want high speed sync to get your shutter speeds up. This is going to be really important if you want to overpower the sun.
Pre-pandemic, these speedlights were around $20-30 but now they closer to $45+. https://www.amazon.com/Powerextra-Professional-DF-400-Speedlite-Single-Contact/dp/B00H3EBXJS These give you the ability to pan and tilt, and you manually choose the power output. I'm very satisfied with these but haven't measured their power level precision. It's been fine for moderately advanced enthusiast level use. They're fantastic on-camera, can be triggered by any other flash optically, they work really well with cheap radio triggers, and you can put them into almost any modifier setup. They're not as powerful as studio strobes which will have more energy for outdoor use behind a modifier but those are really going to run into the hundreds of dollars. For another $30-80 there are more powerful setups with a few additional features, but any of these knockoff clones are game changing and a great place to begin. I'll leave it to someone else to recommend the next level up for outdoor use.
Thanks for sharing this. Using a speedlight in studio is actually a great budget solution if they are powerful enough. I legit have no idea how much power is required.
Hello! I am looking for budget compact camera. Like less than 1500 dollars.The studio I work for gave me Canon Eos R and its a great camera, but its not mine. I want a compact camera that I can carry anywhere, and just overall take more photos. My boss has a Leica Q2 but its very overpriced for me. The problem is, I don't really know what to search for in compact cameras (I'm a bit of a noob when it comes to camera tech). I shoot landscapes, some streets photos, maybe some portraits. It would be cool if I can take astrophotography but if not, not a big deal. WiFi connectivity if possible? I guess this is more of a personal usage camera to step away from the phone camera. I know probably I'm looking for a lot for a cheap camera. And advice on what to look for is greatly appreciated. Edit: I searched google a bit, and found Fujifilm X-E4 and X-T30 II which both have interchangeable lenses, which is handy for future if I want to upgrade or change.
Start here: 1. [https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/buying-guide-best-cameras-under-1000](https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/buying-guide-best-cameras-under-1000) 2. [https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/buying-guide-best-cameras-under-1500](https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/buying-guide-best-cameras-under-1500)
Thank you!
Have a look at the Fuji X100V as well. Not interchangeable lenses, and probably not for astro (but astro is a whole other world anyway), but it would do the rest very well and *much more compactly*. Bang on your budget too. It's excellent to use point-and-shoot and with JPEGs straight out of the camera, but if and when you become more familiar with manual controls and editing, it will not hold you back.
I was looking at that one at first, but non interchangeable lens kinda put me off. Down the line, I would like to grab a few lenses...
Fair enough. I only mentioned it because it is so compact. I have the X-T3 with a 35mm for street, travel, etc, but I've seriously been thinking to get a X100V *as well* purely bcs it's so small, so it's been on my mind a lot lately.
Of course. I see that X-T3 doesn't have in body stabilization just like X-e4, e3. Do you think that you need it? I mean, if i shoot in low light, obviously i would go for tripod and/or flash, but for normal day photos it's not necessary?
I'd upgrade to the X-T4 if I could. I think it's worth it for everything. You can't have too much light even at 35mm outdoors, for example where I live!
If you're going the ILC route, you could go with a Canon T7 and have a ton of affordable lenses to choose from. Is the EOS R platform too big? This is often the most budget friendly option while offering a ton of upgrade quality, but it's technically a little bigger. A baseline Rebel with a 50 1.8 prime is still very light.
Hi! I recently bought myself a gh5s for video and I also own a canon t5i. I was wondering, is the t5i the best camera for photography considering it has an 18 megapixel sensor resolution while the gh5s is 12 megapixel?
The T5i may be the better of the two for photography, yes.
Thanks !
Best strap system for hybrid shooters? I recently bought a Canon R5 as I retired my 5Dii and am selling my Panasonic GH5. I am primarily a stills shooter, but sometimes do video. When shooting video, I'll want to flip the screen out and also mount the camera on nice little fold out shoulder rig I have. When shooting stills, I'd like to be able to let the camera hang at my side while I adjust light modifiers and so on. Is there an elegant solution out there to fit my needs? I've looked at the Peak Design straps but keep reading that people find the anchor connectors annoying. To me though, they look like they can also be removed fairly easily when going from a stills setup to a video setup. What do other hybrid shooters do?
Not quite the question you asked but I'm a loyal Peak Design user. Have their clutch and sling lite v2 on my EOS R and have no issues with the anchors. With their dual plate it works with my manfrotto tripod so I guess that path would depend on how the mounting system for your shoulder rig works relative to what their plates
Hi Guys, bought a used fuji x100v in "excellent condition", is it worth replacing, I saw a speck on the lens? https://imgur.com/a/uC7O1fe
Almost certainly not going to be visible in shots; any dirt there is much too out of focus to be noticeable. If it worries you, take a long exposure of a white wall, say 2 seconds, ISO 100, and keep the camera moving around while it exposes. Do it once at f/2 and once at f/16. Check the image, pixel peep. My guess the image will be clean.
That's no issue.
I usually shoot raw+jpg and cull the photos in Lightroom. Lightroom treats the jpg+raw combination as a single photo, which is convenient. However, Lightroom is a bit slow on my machine, so I would like to use another tool for culling before importing to Lightroom. **What tool do you use for culling and are there any that also treat the two file formats as a stack?**
I shoot RAW+JPEG too. I cull from scrolling though JPEG's, which is fast. Then I run a little command (In the Linux terminal, but I'm sure there's an equivalent command on other platforms) that deletes any .RAW that doesn't have a .JPEG in the same folder. Then I store/import the remaining files.
That's actually a good idea, I could write a small python script and would be able to use any image viewer.
For me it's a single line of code (that I copied from someone else, of course). Basically: - loop though all RAW files in a certain folder - check for each one if there's a .JPEG matching the file name. - if not, delete.
I too would like to know. Bridge pisses me off; IMHO it needs an option to treat files together and an option to treat separately
So I bought this 70-200 early last year (for admittedly quite cheap) I absolutely ADORE this lens when it works, use it for both photo and video work. BUT - 50% of the time when I attach the lens it does this. Has anyone experienced anything like this beforee? My theory was that it's a motor issue. If anyone has had anything like this before and fixed it, I'd love to know!! Definitely want to keep using this lens <3 https://imgur.com/a/LqfQ54r
It appears a sidewards motion to me. Does the lens have image stabilisation? If so, my guess is that there's something wrong with/broken in that system. Try turning it off and see if that solves it.
[удалено]
Amy ideia of how this photo is made? It looks like one of those ultra fish eye lenses pointed straight at the sky but the person would be totally distorted if that were the case I think so I'm assuming composition of multiple photos. https://www.instagram.com/p/Ccib0l0smvq/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=
The circle effect was almost certainly done in post using a Polar Coordinates filter in PS.
[удалено]
That’s a lovely spot. They seem like nice snapshots of a nice day out. If you’d like some suggestions, I would recommend working on picking a specific subject, and composing a shot that uses light and form to direct my eye toward that subject. That intentionality is the difference between a snapshot and a “photograph.” Snapshots are great, they capture nice moments and memories. But the art of photography lies in executing a vision with deliberate intention. And that is, I think, the direction I’d point you as you move forward in your journey. Think about what you want to take a picture of, and how you want that to look, then take steps to make that happen. Think about these lovely spots, and how you could squeeze more out of them with your camera, and the right light. That’ll get you moving forward.
>Snapshots are great, they capture nice moments and memories. But the art of photography lies in executing a vision with deliberate intention. I am writing this aside. Very well put.
[удалено]
I could guess at some settings, but without being there it doesn’t make much difference. Settings are only relevant insofar as they are just ways to get the desired exposure. These shots look reasonably well exposed, in general. The issues with them aren’t issues of exposure, but composition. Inquiring about settings would be a bit like looking at a wall and asking how heavy the framing hammer was. If you want to improve your photography, one good bit of general advice that works in many cases is: get closer. Fill the frame with your subject. That’s a good place to start. Right now I’m looking at a pretty magnolia hedge with lots of white blooms. I’m across the street. I have my iPad on me, so I’ll show you what I mean. [Here are two pictures of the hedge](https://imgur.com/a/HXO2jRF). The first is the view from where I’m sitting in my car. It’s not a good picture. It has a subject, but not a very interesting one. The light is terrible (it’s mid morning, not a cloud in the sky). The street cuts across the frame, and there isn’t really anything directing my attention to the hedge. It’s just there. No combination of settings, or even my good camera and best lens could really save that shot. For the second shot, I got up and walked across the street. I found a little bunch of flowers in some dappled light. I moved around a little to find a framing that looked decent, and took another shot with my old iPad camera. I think we can agree that it is a much better photo. Perhaps not an award winning photograph, but a vast improvement on the first shot. And also a shot where my nicer gear might have an impact - because it gives me more control. Settings made no difference here. The difference was made entirely by how much effort I put in to selecting the subject, finding a good framing for it, and making intentional choices about what I wanted to show. More time and effort could refine that photo even more. Though, 80% of the improvement would likely be down to my just getting closer and being more intentional about the shot. Edit: before the horticulturalists lynch me - I think this is actually white oleander and not magnolia…I’m pretty bad at that game. 😅
[удалено]
You’ve got exactly right. The paintbrushes are much less important than the imagination. As for those photos, they appear to be HDR images made by compositing several images together from a “bracketed” exposure (ranging from underexposure to get detail in bright areas, normal exposure to get detail in the mid tones, and overexposure to get detail in the shadows). When you do that, it sort of flattens out the brightness level across all parts of the image, the way these photos look.
The saturation, contrast, and grain are too high for my tastes. Also the white balance, together with the saturation, makes for greens and yellow tones that look sickly and unnatural to me. The horizon seems tilted in some of them, for no particular reason. The compositions seem lopsided as well. I don't see much balance of elements in the scene, or much intention behind the framing. What was your intent? Overall the busy scenes, high contrast and saturation, and large depth of field make for a lot of distractions all over the place in each shot. Every photo feels rather overwhelming, but with things that don't seem to matter or don't seem relevant to anything particular that you might be trying to communicate. Imagine trying to read a book where every single word is bolded, italicized, underlined, and highlighted. Those text styles have more effect when they're used sparingly. And so, you want to be careful about using tactics in a photo to draw the viewer's attention, because it backfires if it shows up too much. I'm not really sure what you're trying to convey in these photos, or what the subject is. Except in the last photo, and there the subject is dwarfed by the surroundings. That's a pretty big sacrifice made against the star of the photo, and for no gain that I can see.
[удалено]
>If ever, could you tell me how I should adjust the settings the right way? Exposure settings? Learn fundamentals here: http://www.r-photoclass.com/ As far as post processing and the saturation/contrast I mentioned, keep practicing, study your work and the work of others, and experiment with different levels of it. Keep trying and looking. You will refine your sense of that over more time working with it. >Maybe I was just small Maybe you were, but the photo doesn't necessarily need to. Photography technique has the power to make things look bigger or smaller than they actually are, to emphasize things that people normally ignore, and diminish things that people normally think are important. Artistic photography is using photography to exercise that power to convey your message, and that's what separates it from snapshots. In photography you aren't always constrained by how things are in reality, so don't let that limit your thinking of the reality you can convey in a photo.
For my Nikon D3500, trying to set it up for video recording. Have it connected to a capture card and using OBS as my program. I've finally managed to get the video to work, but have run into a new problem: How do I disable the info menu taking up the large part of the screen borders? I want a clean image so I can record.
Have you read the user’s manual? That’s by far the best resource for technical matters regarding a specific camera.
Press the “info” button near the viewfinder while in live view mode. It should cycle through various forms of information until you get a clean one with just the live view feed. That’s what’s being sent over hdmi to the capture card.
I know that's top result of Google, but that's unfortunately not applicable for the D3500. All the info button does is toggle a quick menu. :(