Jump to content

Photography Equipment & Software Thread


rundll
 Share

Recommended Posts

Has anyone here got experience of selling their shots on canvas for example? I went to an abandoned Pepsi factory in Cambodia and got some quite arty shots - friends have commented that they could see it on a living room wall etc. Anyone got experience of doing this?

I've gotten a few shots printed on canvas - including a recent one that I've got in my own living room - really does something extra compared to "ordinary" photo prints:

LR-Web-9813.jpg

(It's 100cm x 60cm, with border and a clear coating - cost about 180€)

Other examples of people doing interesting stuff with canvas prints can be found here (in danish though), might help with inspiration if you end up making a sort of gallery: http://www.sumopix.com/da/del-ideer?action=show&do=gallery

Main problem might be that I find it's a bit more expensive to print on canvas than most people might realize - and you having to make money on it too, doesn't make it better. You might try cutting a deal with your canvas printer - see if you can get some percentage off if you make repeated orders of the same shot?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Following my mildly disastrous timing on the GF2, £438 has just landed in my account for selling the Sigma 12-24mm. Considering how badly anything with Sigma on it holds value, that is a good fifty quid or so more than I expected, so that's something at least.

Samyang 14mm my choice of lens for that sort of thing now. Real swings and roundabouts as to which is the better lens, but the one I paid £250 less for seems the sensible one to keep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) "Cheap" L lenses at Argos online:

http://www.argos.co.uk/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Search?storeId=10001&catalogId=1500002901&langId=-1&searchTerms=EF

The reduced ones are all the cheapest around. Not quite cheap enough for me to rashly buy one (thankfully) but if anyone is in the market, get in now.

2) I bumped into them on Hotukdeals. Predictably there is one of those fist-bitingly awful "photographers" showing off to the "haters" what a 35mm 1.4 can do and dropping some wisdom:

Just upgraded my body to a 40D. Wish I could afford this!

When people say its a fast lens what do they mean by this?

It has a large aperture (f1.4) therefore you can get faster shutter speeds even in low light conditions.

Not quite' date=' when people say its a 'fast' lens its means it locks onto a subject (providing you have selective AF on) and gets the focus just right.

The canon 50mm F/1.8 isn't a fast lens, its really slow compared to this.

[/quote']

There aren't words, really. And, as if that wasn't enough to make you throw your camera in the sea just to avoid any chance of being associated with him, his blog shows some of the wedding work he's done. I'm not going to be a total bitch and link to it, I'm going to be a total bitch and link to a google result for it so it doesn't track back here as obviously:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=http%3A%2F%2Fkenghaywong.co.uk%2Fblog%2F%3Fp%3D322&meta=

You can judge for yourselves, but he deserves the last words. To quote him again:

There was a blue tone effect and high ceilings. That technically made it difficult to bounce light off but I managed to get capture some great captures of the night.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't find anywhere with the 1,4 35mm in stock. Also bit teeth gnashing as I got the 10-20 for 700 a few months back :(

And I know it's cheap so that's the point of buying it now, but I wonder if I shouldn't upgrade my 550d to the 5d mkII for the bigger sensor before getting another lens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably hypothetical now as it was in stock last night, but definitely lens now - it's a really bad time to buy a 5d2 with its upgrade (probably) only just around the corner.

Remember you'd have to bin any EF-S lenses you've got though (like the 10-22mm, unless you want to go at it with pliers at least).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm, cinema 5d don't seem to think there's much hope of any new video features on it, which is what I'll use it for more or less exclusively. How soon is it coming as I guess either way it means the mk ii is going to get cheaper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There aren't words, really. And, as if that wasn't enough to make you throw your camera in the sea just to avoid any chance of being associated with him, his blog shows some of the wedding work he's done. I'm not going to be a total bitch and link to it, I'm going to be a total bitch and link to a google result for it so it doesn't track back here as obviously:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=http%3A%2F%2Fkenghaywong.co.uk%2Fblog%2F%3Fp%3D322&meta=

Dude must be really short as there's maybe half a dozen shots at or above head height. My housemate has just started getting into wedding photography and she's far and away better than this dude and seems able to do it without any ridiculously expensive kit (though she's picking stuff up all the time).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm, cinema 5d don't seem to think there's much hope of any new video features on it, which is what I'll use it for more or less exclusively. How soon is it coming as I guess either way it means the mk ii is going to get cheaper.

It'll have everything that the 7D does (frame-rates, specifically) but anything else depends on whether they decide to debut a new processor with it. I think they might.

And I think it'll be announced any time soon, for release in the autumn. I thought they might try and get it out for September for fashion week(s) but that seems fairly unlikely now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It'll have everything that the 7D does (frame-rates, specifically) but anything else depends on whether they decide to debut a new processor with it. I think they might.

Didn't they add most of that through firmware updates on the 5d II anyway? Having said that, I'd be surprised if there wasn't some significant improvements on the video side with the Mk III. I have been waiting in the hope of picking up a II cheaper but just know I'll want the III once it's announced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't they add most of that through firmware updates on the 5d II anyway? Having said that, I'd be surprised if there wasn't some significant improvements on the video side with the Mk III. I have been waiting in the hope of picking up a II cheaper but just know I'll want the III once it's announced.

It got a lot better, but not identical. The big one is that the 7D has 60FPS options at 720p, but there are a few other options around that too. The 5D2 only had 30fps to start with, but it got 23.97 after a while.

I think the 5D3 with 60FPS 1080p is probably a fairly safe bet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've finally taken the plunge and upgraded from my old Pentax Super ME to a 600D with the standard lens and I was considering getting a filter for protection. Either the Hoya PRO1 Digital Protector or UV variant and I was wondering where people stood on them. Are they worth it? How much do they degrade the image quality, if at all? Are UV filters even needed on digital cameras?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've finally taken the plunge and upgraded from my old Pentax Super ME to a 600D with the standard lens and I was considering getting a filter for protection.

Are UV filters even needed on digital cameras? - Nope.

Hoya PRO1 Digital Protector or UV variant and I was wondering where people stood on them. - I wouldn't stand on them, I don't think they're built for that. I tend to not bother with them due to reasons that don't really stretch beyond tightness.

Are they worth it? Probably. It depends how you use your camera really, but if you're going anywhere dusty* or you're a bit of a klutz they're worth every penny.

How much do they degrade the image quality, if at all? A good one won't be noticeable. A bad one might a bit - the Hoya you mentioned should be fine though. Be careful you get a genuine one though, fakes kick around a fair bit.

*There is a complicated argument saying they are a bad thing in this situation, to do with the dust being more likely to end up in the camera as it can't escape...But I'm not totally sure it totally adds up to be honest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like scrambling around abandoned places and poking my camera near interesting looking muddy things. So perhaps getting one would be for the best. The UV filter and the clear version are the same price, so would there be any benefit to having the UV one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like scrambling around abandoned places and poking my camera near interesting looking muddy things. So perhaps getting one would be for the best. The UV filter and the clear version are the same price, so would there be any benefit to having the UV one?

I'd get the UV one in case you ever end up using a film camera with a conveniently sized lens that can take it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you sure about that? When taking long distance landscape shots, where there's lots of haze in the air dulling the impact of mountains in the distance, I notice a real difference with a UV filter on the front. I had no idea they were viewed as irrelevent for digital cameras.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you sure about that? When taking long distance landscape shots, where there's lots of haze in the air dulling the impact of mountains in the distance, I notice a real difference with a UV filter on the front. I had no idea they were viewed as irrelevent for digital cameras.

They...sort of can, but it's largely by accident*. UV is invisible, so cutting it out makes no difference to what you're seeing, but when it is hazy the water in the air splits the light so much that there is a lot of violet in the air (as opposed to ultra violet) which is visible and some of that does get cut out. If the filter was doing what it should be though none of that would be cut out as it isn't UV.

In such a situation you really want a sky/haze filter (which is slightly pink, which blocks UV but also takes the edge off the blue haze and makes it warmer). In some varieties of the situation a polariser might be a better choice, but a sky filter definitely would give the effect you're describing "properly".

(In 90% of cases, you could just use photoshop afterwards, mind.)

EDIT: But the actual point of a UV filter is/was to prevent light getting down your lens and damaging the film behind it. That can't apply to sensors, so they do nothing there which is what I was really answering when I said they do nothing.

*I really hope someone with better science explains this better than I'm about to, as it's very much my understanding of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah all sensors these days have a UV protective barrier infront of the actual sensor. A lot of people shooting astrophotography get this removed by mad techy people to let more UV radiation from space in.

This is why you dont really need UV filters these days. BUT many many people use them just for protecting the front glass elements of the lenses these days. I don't use any protective filters on my lenses at all. After using a nikon 14-24 without protection because...well..it's retardedly stupid and massive - see below

nikon-14-24mm-20090501-115148.jpg

I just try to remain extra vigilant of my own stupidity. Plus i'm insured if the worst comes to the worst.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Had a play with a Nikon d5100 today and it's pissed me off a bit! Compared to the d3100 the colours look a lot better and objects sharper (despite using the kit lens). Is this just because the screen has a lot more pixels to display the image? Colours on mine (and the shops d3100) just looked so washed out in comparison. Hopefully it's just the difference in screens that display the pictures!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd put more money on it being a difference in how the JPGs are created than the screen. You might be right, but I'd say it is more likely extra sharpening and saturation being set-up by a cunning shop assistant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Had a play with a Nikon d5100 today and it's pissed me off a bit! Compared to the d3100 the colours look a lot better and objects sharper (despite using the kit lens). Is this just because the screen has a lot more pixels to display the image? Colours on mine (and the shops d3100) just looked so washed out in comparison. Hopefully it's just the difference in screens that display the pictures!

If it's been set to "vivid" you'd probably get that effect - check your colour balance setting if that's the kind of thing you like.

Other than that - just the screen.

What you get off your D3100 in "decent light" will be indistinguishable at print, or web, or screen size until you blow up to 100% using the kit lens.

And pretty much indistinguishable at 100% as well except for the additional pixels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just bought this:

31SmVeq97aL._SL500_AA300_.jpg

Amazon Link

and this:

31dTqLOhZJL._SL500_AA300_.jpg

Amazon Link

Both very cheap and cheerful so not expecting amazing quality but should be a bit of fun.

I've been looking at the welding glass 'big stopper' as well recently which is a piece of shade 10 welding glass superglued to a screw on ring adapter both of which can be bought from ebay for a few quid. People have been getting some great results with it and I love the whole frugal photography aspect of it.

Piston Heads Forum Link - Lots of Photos

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've got the new gear itch in a really bad way. I'm looking for something a bit more `travel friendly` than a full DSLR (as in, having something easier to carry around) so I've started looking at Micro 4/3 gear. Which my bank manager will probably tell me was a bad move.

Anyone here got a Lumix GH2 or have experience of using one for an extended period? I'm sorely tempted to splash the cash, but every review I keep reading seems to recommend it as a video setup first and stills second. I don't use the video on my 60D as I find it clunky as hell, but I would get into that more if it wasn't a pain. However, whatever I end up with will remain as a stills camera for its primary use.

I guess what concerns me the most is that everyone seems to automatically compare the GH2 to the 60D and say the performance is not as good in terms of noise. And there's then a nagging itch in my brain that if I get one, it's somehow going to be a `step down` which I'll regret. :wacko:

I think what I'm after is someone to grab me, give me a firm shake and then reassure me that I'm stupidly getting hung up on the noise assessments and over analysing things. Unless pixel peeping (which isn't generally my thing) am I actually going to be bothered? :mellow:

That's probably a terribly subjective question to be asking, isn't it? :doh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been looking at the welding glass 'big stopper' as well recently which is a piece of shade 10 welding glass superglued to a screw on ring adapter both of which can be bought from ebay for a few quid. People have been getting some great results with it and I love the whole frugal photography aspect of it.

Piston Heads Forum Link - Lots of Photos

That looks wicked, so good in fact that I've just gone a little ebay crazy...

I've just got a bit of welding glass, a 52mm filter adapter thing, a remote release switch & a tripod. I've gone for proper cheap stuff as I'm not sure how well it'll work, the whole lot came in at under £15! :) Updates & pics when it all arrives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The best way around it is to aim for b+w pictures rather than colour ones. To be honest it seems quite difficult to fix the colour cast, sometimes just too much colour information has gone* but it is impossible to tell on a b+w shot. Sometimes it even makes them look better, actually.

*If you are aiming for colour, take a shot before and after your long exposure without the filter on. That'll be really helpful in fixing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.