Jump to content

Photography Equipment & Software Thread


rundll
 Share

Recommended Posts

One of the great open secrets of the internet - Flickr is full of amateur porn, most with not a shred of artistic merit to hide behind.

Yet I've never worked anywhere that it's been blocked, unless they have some cunning method of blocking the, uh, non-kitten content (I've never tried to look at THAT at work).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When my son was born, we upgraded our Flickr account to Pro and started doing regular updates for our overseas relatives. Initially the photos were open to everyone, but we soon noticed that certain photos had a massive number of views - in the thousands - where as only a half dozen or so relatives should have been looking. Certain keywords seemed to be the cause, especially 'bath' and 'baby'. So there are obviously people, and by people I mean massive paedophiles, who use baby photos on Flickr to get their freak on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's rather disturbing... you know if you go to the stats you can see where the referrals are coming from, i.e. search engine, within Flickr, etc.

My friend just showed me this entertaining website You Are Not a Photographer showing the horrific results of people who think they're pro but aren't!

There's an ace quote on there too:

"A photographer went to a socialite party in New York. As he entered the front door, the host said 'I love your pictures - they're wonderful; you must have a fantastic camera.' The photographer said nothing until dinner was finished, then: 'That was a wonderful dinner; you must have a terrific stove." - Sam Haskins

Thanks for the advice about the GF1 versus GF2. I did try to go for the GF1 again because of the manual controls and battery life... unfortunately the insurance company can't get it from the suppliers, looks like it's been discontinued :( So, new GF2 should be arriving tomorrow, I'll post impressions here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was only offered the GF2 (I'm claiming back on insurance after my GF1 was nicked). If I was given the choice I'd probably still go for the GF2 because the GF3 has no hotshoe and the flash is better on the GF2. As I'm looking to learn more about external flashes and other things I can stick on the hotshoe, it's better for me to have that over the lighter GF3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My friend just showed me this entertaining website You Are Not a Photographer showing the horrific results of people who think they're pro but aren't!

Sweet holy Jesus! :lol:

I wouldn't even try to kid myself or anyone else that I'm a good photographer but I'm bookmarking that site so whenever I look at my stuff and decide to bin something, I can go and have a look and feel a bit better about myself.

I was only offered the GF2 (I'm claiming back on insurance after my GF1 was nicked). If I was given the choice I'd probably still go for the GF2 because the GF3 has no hotshoe and the flash is better on the GF2. As I'm looking to learn more about external flashes and other things I can stick on the hotshoe, it's better for me to have that over the lighter GF3.

Fair points and they seem to be the common complaints about the GF3 - the GF2 does seem to give more flexibility for the things you're after whereas the GF3 seems (I hate to say it) dumbed down a little.

Reason I asked is that I think I'm about to go on a new gear splurge (against my better judgement).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reason I asked is that I think I'm about to go on a new gear splurge (against my better judgement).

From the reviews I've seen of the GF range, although they are really good cameras, and to begin with the GF1 was the best micro-four thirds cam out there, I think the other brands are rivalling and beating Panasonic now at the compact SLR game. For example the Sony and Canon offerings have advantages and from the sounds of things offer better image quality. However the GF range is more user friendly and it seems there's some really good lenses you can get for it. I wouldn't immediately lump for a GF if I had the choice: take the time to do some research, many of the GF reviews do direct comparisons to the competitors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of announcements from Sony today, including the 24MP mirrorless NEX-7 and three new E-Mount lenses, but the one I’ve been waiting for, being an A700 owner, is the A77. As rumoured, Sony have gone all out on the spec:

24MP (APS-C) sensor, 2.4 million dot OLED viewfinder (size equivalent to the 100% coverage viewfinder in the full frame A900), 12FPS, 1080p/60 video with full-time phase detect AF, GPS, tilt/swivel rear LCD... Was launched alongside a rather nice looking 16-50mm f2.8 lens too.

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/sonyslta77/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That sensor in the NEX-7 going to make the ones in micro four thirds cameras look very very old. They were already ahead in terms of pixel count and noise levels, I really hope panasonic and olympus realise they need to up their game. I hope the aforementioned 'GF1 successor' is an improvement in this regard. Not sure what the point of so many pixels is on an aps-c camera, are there even any lenses out there sharp enough to make that worthwhile?

When is the olympus 45mm f/1.8 going to be released? I want one already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24MP seems escessive. But I'm not sure who they are targeting.

Why not go for 12-18MP and increase sensitivity & dynamic range? We can make larger prints than almost anyone will need from digital files but we still don't have sensors with a dynamic range equivalent to B&W film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24MP seems escessive. But I'm not sure who they are targeting.

People who buy things that say Sony on them and like big numbers.

Although to be fair, I think that 12mp is pretty low really for a camera where you're taking pictures quickly and are more likely to need to correct things with a crop. I crop more on the GF2 than I do on the 5D2 for that reason, which is rather annoying...

EDIT: Although "don't be a cack-handed spacker, Rev" is an equally good fix, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

...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?

The above is some time ago, but the canvas printing company I linked to has just created a rather interesting way of selling your photos or other digital art on canvas from their site. You can now apply for becoming an "artist" through their site, send in a couple of examples, and if you are "good enough", they'll let you upload your stuff (currently up to 12 works) to their stock photography database: http://www.sumopix.com/da/artists/browse

The great thing is that you then set a commission percentage, calculated from the price of the canvas print itself, that simply gets added to the price the customer pays, should he/she choose to order a print of one of your images. At the end of the month, the total accumulated commission is then payed out to your account. So it's basically without economic risk, as you won't need to actually buy example works in advance, customers can select size and format themselves (although you can lock this down), and you get your work showcased directly on the manufacturers website - and you retain full copyright over any stuff you upload.

All in all it seems like a win-win-win situation for company, artist and customer - although the market for stuff like that in Denmark probably isn't exactly huge. Apparently I'll soon find out though, as I've managed to get accepted - even though I don't have any delusions about being able to quit my day-job and live on the commissions anytime soon :P

I don't know if they're open to international artists btw, but they have an English version of their site, so might be worth a shot if anyone's interested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a very weird issue with black & white photos taken on my XZ-1, is anyone able to help?

Basically they look really noisy if I view them in a browser or in Paint Shop Pro, but they look fine if I preview them via Windows:

Image2.jpg

The actual JPEG is here (2.5 megs):

http://pjpk.net/P8250118.JPG

Black & white pictures that I put on Flickr last week - eg https://secure.flickr.com/photos/pkpjpk/6070390895/in/photostream#/photos/pkpjpk/6070095943/in/photostream/lightbox/ - look fine in the browser.....but now if I open that file in PSP or the browser it looks all noisy!

Completely baffled....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is, if I download a photo I took last week off flickr (http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6193/6070095943_4c2f3747dc_b_d.jpg) it doesn't look noisy in PSP, a browser, or the Windows viewer. But if I open that same file, off my camera, it looks really noisy in everything but the viewer.

If that makes sense...

I think it is just the different programs having a different way of shrinking to fit the view. Zoom to 100% with the original in them all and I'm sure they'll look very similar. That flickr one is tiny in comparison to the original.

Related, Lightroom 3 is amazing at reducing noise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey guys,

I went out yesterday with my camera and shot some RAW photos for the first time. I've imported them into Lightroom and see that the exact same options are available as if I had just imported a JPEG. I'd fiddle around with exposure and all other settings etc, but can't see what I'm able to do that I couldn't do with a JPEG. Any tips?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if you have Photoshop, one trick i do before sending stuff to print is to:

1. duplicate the original layer

2. go to Filters, choose Other > High Pass and move the slider to between 1 and 1.5 pixels - just enough to highlight the edges. apply

3. in Layers, choose Overlay from the Layer Appearance thingy, y'know, the Normal / Multiply drop down. and knock the opacity down to around 30%

this sharpens the image without damaging the original and give you a smoother effect than the jaggies created with the regular Sharpen filter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is Lightroom automatically set to lightening images or something?

I'm shooting in RAW and every time I finish an import and then try to view the images for the first time, the little `Loading` dialogue box appears over the photo for a few seconds and then, when it's done, there's a very visible colour shift towards lightening the image.

It seems to do this to all images regardless of the camera used and I'm a bit confused as to why - anyone know or is there anything I can check to see if I've cack handedly turned an option without realising it? Is there a `make your shots look shit` setting in there somewhere? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its simply swapping from the preview that's generated at import to the actual file. You notice it because the preview isn't full sized (unless you tell it to) and is stretching it to whatever size you've got set, iso you go from the stretched skightly blury import to actual file, if that makes sense.

Don't forget that ever single program out there has a slightly different interpretation of raw files. Each raw file is different from the next and the manufacturers don't typically release the details to anyone, meaning each software company has to reverse engineer the raw file for that specific camera. That's also why you'll sometimes get less noisy pics in manufacturers own raw browsers than something like photoshop( until you filter out the noise)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Makes sense, thanks.

I've bought myself a (very) early Xmas present this week with a Panasonic GF3. Great little camera, but you really appreciate just how well supported the bigger names like Canon and Nikon are when it comes to stuff like Lightroom and Photoshop. Despite just putting out a release candidate to read the GF3's RAW files, none of the Panasonic profiles seem to be supported for anything - the lenses nor the colour profiles. Though as said, I can't help but wonder if that's due to manufacturers being secretive with their details rather than Adobe's doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Makes sense, thanks.

I've bought myself a (very) early Xmas present this week with a Panasonic GF3. Great little camera, but you really appreciate just how well supported the bigger names like Canon and Nikon are when it comes to stuff like Lightroom and Photoshop. Despite just putting out a release candidate to read the GF3's RAW files, none of the Panasonic profiles seem to be supported for anything - the lenses nor the colour profiles. Though as said, I can't help but wonder if that's due to manufacturers being secretive with their details rather than Adobe's doing.

It's the same for every camera when it comes out. It needs to be reverse engineered by Adobe which can take a random amount of time.

Panasonic are friendly with Adobe at the moment though due to the free LR3 offer, so I'm sure it'll be sorted ASAP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

was offered some old nikkor lenses by the in-laws earlier.

The 2 smaller ones are for an enlarger I believe. But with some adaptors they seem usable on a modern DSLR as shown here. My link

Example pictures taken with it

Not sure how I would focus though...I guess by moving the camera forwards and backwards.

The 80-200 Tokina is pretty shafted as there seems to be mould growing inside it but the 50mm f2 nikkor-h is in great condition. It gets a very nice write up here. So I think I'll buy a cheepo nikon > canon adaptor for it and give it a go.

Almost a shame I recently bought the canon 50mm 1.8.

post-967-002417300 1314686113_thumb.jpg

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.