Also a quick question for all of you. Is there any solution to the issue of reliably displaying images in a browser? My problem is that if I process a jpeg and post it normaly it will display far darker and more contrasty in most browsers but if I process it to take this in to account and the image is viewed in a colour managed browser the image will look washed out. This isn't so important for forum use but when I'm putting images up on my website it's a pain in the ass.
Should I be looking at embedding colour profiles or playing images through some other application, maybe even a different file format? Also if there isn't a solution who should I process the image for? Colour managed browsers or non-colour managed browsers?
It has been a while but I had similar problems with my website. IIRC I solved the problem by doing all work in sRGB and then when I saved the final image for web I would remove the color profile.
I'm sure you know that you should never save anything as aRGB for web consumption. I'm assuming you are referring to using sRGB or no profile, right?
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
This is kind of a rookie question, but I've had this problem for a little while, and its gotten really noticeable. My camera is ridiculously dirty.
I have no idea why. I try to keep everything clean. I've wiped down every surface I could find on my camera (inside and out) and those specks still appear in the exact same places in every picture I take. I'm missing something. I'm not doing something right.
This is kind of a rookie question, but I've had this problem for a little while, and its gotten really noticeable. My camera is ridiculously dirty.
I have no idea why. I try to keep everything clean. I've wiped down every surface I could find on my camera (inside and out) and those specks still appear in the exact same places in every picture I take. I'm missing something. I'm not doing something right.
Advice?
Did you clean the sensor with a sensor cleaning kit? Does this happen in the same spots with a different lens on there?
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Yeah, if you've already checked the front and back elements of your lens, use the mirror lock-up feature (I'm pretty sure the D80 can do this) and take a look at how your sensor looks. Just be all kinds of ridiculously careful with how you handle your camera like this, because you really really don't want to get fingerprints on your mirror or sensor.
That's sensor dust. Dust on the rear element of your lens will not show in a photograph in most instances. Your sensor needs to be cleaned. You can probably get around this for the time being by shooting at wide apertures. The dust becomes more defined at narrower apertures. Also, once you do clean your sensor, try and be careful about when and where you change lenses to avoid trapping more dust, and never leave the body out without a lens or a body cap on it.
The first step would be to use a rocket blower to see if you can free some of that dust from your sensor. Don't use canned air as that often has particulates in it that will pile up on your sensor and may make the problem worse.
I've used the 3 Kit with great success on my D700. It's pretty simple and the risk is low unless you attack it like an ape.
Okay, I haven't posted in a while, but here are some things CC is going to probably hate:
First Two = Holga 120WPC Holga WPC Ektar II by Ryan M Long Photography, on Flickr
Don't do it. A heap of different cameras helps nothing. Most of the time I spend too much time thinking about what camera I want to bring with me. Also, 35mm just looks too skinny now after square and 6x7.
After I finish my wedding season in 2012, I'm really considering selling all of my camera gear and picking up just a Leica M6 and a Nex 7/M8, a Voigtlander 50mm f/1.1 and maybe a 35mm and calling it good.
So yeah, this thread seems to have fizzled out but I thought I might go ahead and pep it up with a question. Thrilling. I know.
Does anyone happen to know of a service or something that can text you that day's weather, chance of rain, sunrise time and sunset time? I think that would be real handy for me for chasing down sunsets and such. Does something like that happen to exist? I can barely find the fucking sunrise and sunset time on weather.com which is kind of silly.
What is the photo thread's opinion on ND or circular polarizing filters? I suspect that i'm not serious enough about photography (or serious enough about the types that need those filters) to invest in a filter collection. Is there a reasonable way to emulate them digitally?
So yeah, this thread seems to have fizzled out but I thought I might go ahead and pep it up with a question. Thrilling. I know.
Does anyone happen to know of a service or something that can text you that day's weather, chance of rain, sunrise time and sunset time? I think that would be real handy for me for chasing down sunsets and such. Does something like that happen to exist? I can barely find the fucking sunrise and sunset time on weather.com which is kind of silly.
http://ifttt.com/ can do exactly what you're looking for. You can make a custom rule that texts you all that stuff. Give it a shot.
What is the photo thread's opinion on ND or circular polarizing filters? I suspect that i'm not serious enough about photography (or serious enough about the types that need those filters) to invest in a filter collection. Is there a reasonable way to emulate them digitally?
What part of the effect are you trying to emulate? You can use these filters to do different things.
Weeeell my understanding is that ND filters are primarily used for landscape or outdoor stuffs where the sky is washed out if the ground/subject is properly exposed. I've encountered this problem, but since I take pictures of a whole bunch of stuff it seems more efficient to correct the few affected shots in post if possible.
Circular polarizers I understand less about. It eliminated reflections from different sources based upon how it is rotated, correct? Is that all it does? Is that a raelly useful thing for .. things? I can see it being good for product shots, I guess.
What I'm asking is, what level of necessity do these things carry? Should any moderately serious photoperson have at least one set, or should I have a set for each lens I have, or are they limited-use tools?
Not enough pictures this page, so here's a tree. hazmato, on Flickr
Weeeell my understanding is that ND filters are primarily used for landscape or outdoor stuffs where the sky is washed out if the ground/subject is properly exposed.
That sounds more like a job for a gradient filter, which can darken a bright sky and make it more in balance with the rest of a shot. A neutral density filter makes the whole scene darker. It lets you use wider apertures in bright light, like if you wanted the shallow depth of field of an open f/1.8 aperture but you couldn't do a fast enough shutter speed to keep the bright scene from overexposing.
The other common ND filter use is to let you do longer shutter speeds in brighter scenes, so you can for example turn a fountain into water streaks even in broad daylight.
Polarizing filters can do a few things. They do make the whole scene darker, simply because they're filtering out light coming in at certain orientations. They can also darken a sky into a deeper blue. The reflection thing is really nifty, and you can see the same effect happen with polarized sunglasses. Reflected light is generally oriented in one direction, so by rotating your polarizing filter you can eliminate specifically that reflected light, letting you eliminate car window reflections, let you see clearly past the surface of still water, things like that.
If you're doing product shots of cars or something, I could see a polarizing filter being handy, but most of the time product shots will benefit from investments in lighting.
Weeeell my understanding is that ND filters are primarily used for landscape or outdoor stuffs where the sky is washed out if the ground/subject is properly exposed. I've encountered this problem, but since I take pictures of a whole bunch of stuff it seems more efficient to correct the few affected shots in post if possible.
Circular polarizers I understand less about. It eliminated reflections from different sources based upon how it is rotated, correct? Is that all it does? Is that a raelly useful thing for .. things? I can see it being good for product shots, I guess.
What I'm asking is, what level of necessity do these things carry? Should any moderately serious photoperson have at least one set, or should I have a set for each lens I have, or are they limited-use tools?
They are limited use, but they are useful if you find yourself wanting the actual effect they create. They both fall into the category of "These are the only way to do this, but when used in those situations it is typically more clear that you're using the filter." That's different from an effect that you can emulate in Photoshop, and it's beyond tweaking, but you also can't "undo" the effects.
As wonderpug states, ND filters are for simply reducing the light coming into the camera. If you are shooting very long exposures on a tripod and want to blur movement, you will need to use ND filters.
Circular polarizers are essentially sunglasses for your camera. Incidentally, if you have a non-SLR, you can just put polarized sunglasses in front of your point & shoot and get a very similar effect. It makes your blues more blue and it reduces glare, giving shots that are bright a more even look. And, just like polarized sunglasses, it also can make water clear(er) and so on. They're usually about a hundred bucks for a good one, so they're not super expensive and they are unique, but it's better to have filter size adapters rather than buy one filter for each lens. Note that they don't do anything for reflections, only glare, but they do offer a nice evening of color.
Note that they don't do anything for reflections, only glare, but they do offer a nice evening of color.
I'm not familiar enough with circular polarizers to know what they offer, but traditional linear polarizers do affect reflections, as in this example:
Yeah, I'm not an optics/physics nerds so that's just pass-through from what I've read. I've noticed a change in my circular polarizer but I figured I was just seeing some kind of glare that looked like reflection.
And yeah, to answer the original question, you can rotate them to change the effect, although it's subtle. Like, if you're looking at a body of water, you can definitely tell when you're eliminating the glare.
So, I was thinking about using some Xmas money to pick up a starter DSLR. I don't have a HUGE budget, so I doubt I'll be able to pick up something new. I really have no idea what's what when it comes to the used market.
So, I was thinking about using some Xmas money to pick up a starter DSLR. I don't have a HUGE budget, so I doubt I'll be able to pick up something new. I really have no idea what's what when it comes to the used market.
Any advice?
I only have experience with Canon, so I can recommend the Xti Rebel (known in other places as Canon Eos) series. In holland you can get a used 400d for ~300€ including a lens.
The D40 and D60 are older bodies but they'll still take great pictures. They're the lowest tier Nikon SLR models. The D80 is the next tier up, and is the older equivalent of the D90. The D90 is more recent and sold like hotcakes, so there's a chance the used market on those may be really good right now from people upgrading to the fancy new D7000.
keh.com has a giant online catalog of used camera bodies and lenses you can browse to get a sense for price, even if you don't buy from them.
So, I was thinking about using some Xmas money to pick up a starter DSLR. I don't have a HUGE budget, so I doubt I'll be able to pick up something new. I really have no idea what's what when it comes to the used market.
Any advice?
The Pentax K-r is a great current generation pick for people who want to get into photography. The camera is actually pretty damn good so if you have the opportunity to grow, stick some fine lenses on it and you will do well. I put a few $1,200 lenses in my camera bag and I am having a hard time justifying upgrading my body- at least, for the moment. It's got a little bit of everything. Noise performance in low light conditions is very good, and the camera sensor itself is stabilized- meaning any lens you put on the body is then stabilized which helps you out if your shutter speed starts to dip and you are hand holding the camera.
Other manufacturers make stabilized lenses which really sucks for beginners because then you have to begin choosing between a $200 telephoto lens and a $600 telephoto lens. One with stabilization and one without. Pentax also pretty aggressively prices their lenses which is the most important part of the camera. Plus, unlike the D40 and D60s, you are getting an up to date camera body.
They are great cameras and I don't think you can go wrong either way, but the learning curve is more like a paved road with the Pentax IMO.
I've been ret-conning photos again till I can get some free time with this Thanksgiving Break and found this one work out well. Was trying to salvage a self-portrait shot for future website use.
Hmmm... hadn't considered anything other than a Canon or Nikon.
Interesting. Thanks for suggesting it.
They all make very good hardware. All will have the manual controls that put you in the driver seat. I've just seen some folks at art school get hung up and get frustrated since their camera might try and do an 'auto depth of field' option or something- like they tried designing it for 30-something year old mom's but retained all the manual controls too.
The Pentax doesn't come with any gimmicks to distract. I like the clean interface and the sensor based stabilization is nice for both classic lenses and also being kind to your wallet. A lot less people have Pentax cameras which means if you want to borrow/rent lenses, or ask someone on the street how to do something, it probably isn't going to happen. That being said, since the damn thing is so clean and easy to operate, maybe you don't need all that fluff to get in the way of basic camera theory.
and you can use all of the lenses. all of them.
Since m4/3 lenses are obnoxiously expensive I've just been buying sub-$50 FD glass for my GF2, but i kind of wish I had bought a K-mount adapter instead.
So I've just splashed out on a Sony a290 DSLR (managed to get a standard kit for £260!), with a circular polarizer. Pretty pleased with it, but I'm also a total photography novice - I'm planning on going on a course in Jan, but until then are there any decent photography guides for amateurs you would recommend?
It's been a while since I've gone shooting, but I got a chance to take a nice wilderness hike outside of Albuquerque over Thanksgiving:
I'm an HDR newbie to begin with, and what little skills with HDR software I had have long since atrophied, but I'm pretty happy with how my initial stab at fiddling with the HDR buttons and dials turned out.
I'm excited. I've come into the possession of an old Nikon d70 in great shape. Up until this point I've been using mostly my point and shoot ever since my old Pentax 35mm SLR died.
I'm excited to get back into taking some shots that are more than family photos and stuff I wouldn't dare show anyone. (not blaming the camera, blaming my motivation)
Mostly just huntin' monsters.
XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
Jeez, I really do think I could make such good use out of a Pentax K-5. The ergonomics are practically perfect for my hand and I like the boxier look since it makes it look more like an SLR. For the most part, the body runs around $1,000. Trouble is, it is somewhat due for an update but of course like all camera companies, Pentax has kept their lips sealed real tight. I suppose I could try and somehow scrounge up $1000.
Maybe I should run off some huge prints and try to peddle them off.
Posts
It has been a while but I had similar problems with my website. IIRC I solved the problem by doing all work in sRGB and then when I saved the final image for web I would remove the color profile.
I'm sure you know that you should never save anything as aRGB for web consumption. I'm assuming you are referring to using sRGB or no profile, right?
I have no idea why. I try to keep everything clean. I've wiped down every surface I could find on my camera (inside and out) and those specks still appear in the exact same places in every picture I take. I'm missing something. I'm not doing something right.
Advice?
Did you clean the sensor with a sensor cleaning kit? Does this happen in the same spots with a different lens on there?
The first step would be to use a rocket blower to see if you can free some of that dust from your sensor. Don't use canned air as that often has particulates in it that will pile up on your sensor and may make the problem worse.
And don't feel bad, most DSLRs will need a sensor cleaning from time to time if they're used regularly. If you're a do it yourselfer you can just go ahead and clean it at home with a kit like this: http://www.amazon.com/Digital-Survival-KIT-Sensor-Eclipse/dp/B000PNGM18/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1319909462&sr=8-1
I've used the 3 Kit with great success on my D700. It's pretty simple and the risk is low unless you attack it like an ape.
Okay, I haven't posted in a while, but here are some things CC is going to probably hate:
First Two = Holga 120WPC
Holga WPC Ektar II by Ryan M Long Photography, on Flickr
Pumpkin Patch by Ryan M Long Photography, on Flickr
Yashica 124
Rainy Week by Ryan M Long Photography, on Flickr
Rainy Week III by Ryan M Long Photography, on Flickr
Pentax 67
Boston Weekend-4 by Ryan M Long Photography, on Flickr
Boston Weekend-3 by Ryan M Long Photography, on Flickr
Boston Weekend by Ryan M Long Photography, on Flickr
Ryan M Long Photography
Buy my Prints!
now i must buy all of those cameras
3DS: 0447-9966-6178
After I finish my wedding season in 2012, I'm really considering selling all of my camera gear and picking up just a Leica M6 and a Nex 7/M8, a Voigtlander 50mm f/1.1 and maybe a 35mm and calling it good.
Ryan M Long Photography
Buy my Prints!
Yep
The first one has a interesting subject with the dress up against that sign, but it seems to be lost in the rest of the scene, IMO.
Does anyone happen to know of a service or something that can text you that day's weather, chance of rain, sunrise time and sunset time? I think that would be real handy for me for chasing down sunsets and such. Does something like that happen to exist? I can barely find the fucking sunrise and sunset time on weather.com which is kind of silly.
http://kottke.org/11/10/accurate-short-term-weather-prediction
Edit: just noticed it's a Kickstarter for exactly what you want. Bit of a tease, that. Sorry! :P
Steam BoardGameGeek Twitter
3DS: 0447-9966-6178
http://ifttt.com/ can do exactly what you're looking for. You can make a custom rule that texts you all that stuff. Give it a shot.
What part of the effect are you trying to emulate? You can use these filters to do different things.
Circular polarizers I understand less about. It eliminated reflections from different sources based upon how it is rotated, correct? Is that all it does? Is that a raelly useful thing for .. things? I can see it being good for product shots, I guess.
What I'm asking is, what level of necessity do these things carry? Should any moderately serious photoperson have at least one set, or should I have a set for each lens I have, or are they limited-use tools?
Not enough pictures this page, so here's a tree.
3DS: 0447-9966-6178
That sounds more like a job for a gradient filter, which can darken a bright sky and make it more in balance with the rest of a shot. A neutral density filter makes the whole scene darker. It lets you use wider apertures in bright light, like if you wanted the shallow depth of field of an open f/1.8 aperture but you couldn't do a fast enough shutter speed to keep the bright scene from overexposing.
The other common ND filter use is to let you do longer shutter speeds in brighter scenes, so you can for example turn a fountain into water streaks even in broad daylight.
Polarizing filters can do a few things. They do make the whole scene darker, simply because they're filtering out light coming in at certain orientations. They can also darken a sky into a deeper blue. The reflection thing is really nifty, and you can see the same effect happen with polarized sunglasses. Reflected light is generally oriented in one direction, so by rotating your polarizing filter you can eliminate specifically that reflected light, letting you eliminate car window reflections, let you see clearly past the surface of still water, things like that.
If you're doing product shots of cars or something, I could see a polarizing filter being handy, but most of the time product shots will benefit from investments in lighting.
They are limited use, but they are useful if you find yourself wanting the actual effect they create. They both fall into the category of "These are the only way to do this, but when used in those situations it is typically more clear that you're using the filter." That's different from an effect that you can emulate in Photoshop, and it's beyond tweaking, but you also can't "undo" the effects.
As wonderpug states, ND filters are for simply reducing the light coming into the camera. If you are shooting very long exposures on a tripod and want to blur movement, you will need to use ND filters.
Circular polarizers are essentially sunglasses for your camera. Incidentally, if you have a non-SLR, you can just put polarized sunglasses in front of your point & shoot and get a very similar effect. It makes your blues more blue and it reduces glare, giving shots that are bright a more even look. And, just like polarized sunglasses, it also can make water clear(er) and so on. They're usually about a hundred bucks for a good one, so they're not super expensive and they are unique, but it's better to have filter size adapters rather than buy one filter for each lens. Note that they don't do anything for reflections, only glare, but they do offer a nice evening of color.
I'm not familiar enough with circular polarizers to know what they offer, but traditional linear polarizers do affect reflections, as in this example:
Yeah, I'm not an optics/physics nerds so that's just pass-through from what I've read. I've noticed a change in my circular polarizer but I figured I was just seeing some kind of glare that looked like reflection.
And yeah, to answer the original question, you can rotate them to change the effect, although it's subtle. Like, if you're looking at a body of water, you can definitely tell when you're eliminating the glare.
Any advice?
PSN: Beltaine-77 | Steam: beltane77 | Battle.net BadHaggis#1433
The D40 and D60 are older bodies but they'll still take great pictures. They're the lowest tier Nikon SLR models. The D80 is the next tier up, and is the older equivalent of the D90. The D90 is more recent and sold like hotcakes, so there's a chance the used market on those may be really good right now from people upgrading to the fancy new D7000.
keh.com has a giant online catalog of used camera bodies and lenses you can browse to get a sense for price, even if you don't buy from them.
The Pentax K-r is a great current generation pick for people who want to get into photography. The camera is actually pretty damn good so if you have the opportunity to grow, stick some fine lenses on it and you will do well. I put a few $1,200 lenses in my camera bag and I am having a hard time justifying upgrading my body- at least, for the moment. It's got a little bit of everything. Noise performance in low light conditions is very good, and the camera sensor itself is stabilized- meaning any lens you put on the body is then stabilized which helps you out if your shutter speed starts to dip and you are hand holding the camera.
Other manufacturers make stabilized lenses which really sucks for beginners because then you have to begin choosing between a $200 telephoto lens and a $600 telephoto lens. One with stabilization and one without. Pentax also pretty aggressively prices their lenses which is the most important part of the camera. Plus, unlike the D40 and D60s, you are getting an up to date camera body.
They are great cameras and I don't think you can go wrong either way, but the learning curve is more like a paved road with the Pentax IMO.
Here's a two lens kit for the K-r for $650- brand new. The price will drop $100 when you add it to the cart.
As far as image quality, a few from my collection.
Any pointers?
Interesting. Thanks for suggesting it.
PSN: Beltaine-77 | Steam: beltane77 | Battle.net BadHaggis#1433
They all make very good hardware. All will have the manual controls that put you in the driver seat. I've just seen some folks at art school get hung up and get frustrated since their camera might try and do an 'auto depth of field' option or something- like they tried designing it for 30-something year old mom's but retained all the manual controls too.
The Pentax doesn't come with any gimmicks to distract. I like the clean interface and the sensor based stabilization is nice for both classic lenses and also being kind to your wallet. A lot less people have Pentax cameras which means if you want to borrow/rent lenses, or ask someone on the street how to do something, it probably isn't going to happen. That being said, since the damn thing is so clean and easy to operate, maybe you don't need all that fluff to get in the way of basic camera theory.
Since m4/3 lenses are obnoxiously expensive I've just been buying sub-$50 FD glass for my GF2, but i kind of wish I had bought a K-mount adapter instead.
3DS: 0447-9966-6178
It can be a slight or a huge advantage. ^_^
My Portfolio Site
I'm an HDR newbie to begin with, and what little skills with HDR software I had have long since atrophied, but I'm pretty happy with how my initial stab at fiddling with the HDR buttons and dials turned out.
I'm excited to get back into taking some shots that are more than family photos and stuff I wouldn't dare show anyone. (not blaming the camera, blaming my motivation)
XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
Scott Kelby's Books (or just start with volume 1)
Understanding Exposure
Do not attempt to click those images to LOOK INSIDE.
Maybe I should run off some huge prints and try to peddle them off.