Jump to content
rllmuk
rundll

Photography Equipment & Software Thread

Recommended Posts

On 07/09/2019 at 16:37, PopeSmokesDope said:

What do you mean by sort through?

 

Culling all the shit ones (out of focus, etc). All the software I've tried that can view RAW files are not exactly quick, like they are with JPEGs.

 

 

On 07/09/2019 at 19:32, TurningMonster said:

Photo Mechanic is probably what you want, it's $140 though. There's a free trial on their site.

 

Have you used this then? I saw it mentioned when I was looking around, but it's rather expensive for the job I'd like it to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven’t personally, I don’t ever really shoot the volume to justify it, however I know it’s pretty much the industry go to for people shooting weddings, events, etc. Capture One has a neat feature where you can turn on a focus mask for quickly identifying if a picture is in focus or not, but the program as a whole is anything but quick. What about Bridge, could that help? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 quick questions:

 

What are the best 'value' options when wanting a wide aperture prime for micro 4/3? Somewhere around 20mm I guess.

 

Where can I look second hand that will dispatch quickly? I only really know mpb.

 

I use an Olympus OM and the kit lens is great but I want a bit more depth of field, f2.8 at least.  I have two vintage lenses with converters but the lack of autofocus is resulting in at least 50% of shots slightly out of focus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 has been around forever, can be had cheaply second hand, and is tiny and pin sharp. Focus is a bit slow on Olympus bodies though, and there are some banding issues with Olympus 16mp sensors (depending on which OMD you have). I use one on my Pen-F (20mp) and the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.

 

Avoid the old old Olympus 17mm f/2.8, it's shit. The newer f/1.8 has its fans, but I've never got on with it - lovely colours, but can't compare with the other primes for sharpness, and I hate those stupid screw-on metal hoods.

 

The old Pana Leica 25m f/1.4 is cumbersome but takes beautiful photos with wonderful colours and contrast. Makes a weird rattlesnaking sound on Oly bodies, though, and probably isn't that cheap still. I sold mine and I miss the images it made, but nothing else about it. But Lord, I miss those images. The Olympus 25mm f/1.8 (which I have now) is technically very good, but for some reason I've never really bonded with it in the same way - colours not as nice*. Should be cheaper, though. I've never tried the cheaper Pana (non-Leica) 25mm f/1.7.

 

The Olympus 45mm f/1.8 is a wonderful lens and very cheap, but it's a bit of a specialist focal length - best for portraits.

 

* Note that this is a totally unfair comparison between taking photos in NZ and the UK

 

TL;DR - get the P20 f/1.7 if you can live with the slow AF and it doesn't band on your sensor.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the best decent entry level camera, either SLR or micro 4:3? I've been looking to get a camera for months but haven't bitten the bullet yet. I'm thinking of picking up a Nikon 3500 this weekend. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alexlotl said:

Avoid the old old Olympus 17mm f/2.8, it's shit.

 

Disagree, I think it's fine. It sounds like a 90's af film camera when it focuses, but apart from that I have no issues with it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ste_S said:

 

Disagree, I think it's fine. It sounds like a 90's af film camera when it focuses, but apart from that I have no issues with it.


Fair enough - I was perhaps a bit harsh on a lens I’ve never owned, but it has an awful reputation and I’ve never been impressed with real-world shots by it either. Seems thoroughly outgunned by the P20. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Alexlotl said:

The Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 has been around forever, can be had cheaply second hand, and is tiny and pin sharp. Focus is a bit slow on Olympus bodies though, and there are some banding issues with Olympus 16mp sensors (depending on which OMD you have). I use one on my Pen-F (20mp) and the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.

 

Avoid the old old Olympus 17mm f/2.8, it's shit. The newer f/1.8 has its fans, but I've never got on with it - lovely colours, but can't compare with the other primes for sharpness, and I hate those stupid screw-on metal hoods.

 

The old Pana Leica 25m f/1.4 is cumbersome but takes beautiful photos with wonderful colours and contrast. Makes a weird rattlesnaking sound on Oly bodies, though, and probably isn't that cheap still. I sold mine and I miss the images it made, but nothing else about it. But Lord, I miss those images. The Olympus 25mm f/1.8 (which I have now) is technically very good, but for some reason I've never really bonded with it in the same way - colours not as nice*. Should be cheaper, though. I've never tried the cheaper Pana (non-Leica) 25mm f/1.7.

 

The Olympus 45mm f/1.8 is a wonderful lens and very cheap, but it's a bit of a specialist focal length - best for portraits.

 

* Note that this is a totally unfair comparison between taking photos in NZ and the UK

 

TL;DR - get the P20 f/1.7 if you can live with the slow AF and it doesn't band on your sensor.

 

Thanks for all that, very helpful information.

 

8 hours ago, Ste_S said:

 

Disagree, I think it's fine. It sounds like a 90's af film camera when it focuses, but apart from that I have no issues with it.

 

I'll look into it more as the Olympus is way cheaper second hand than the Panasonic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Agent L said:

I'll look into it more as the Olympus is way cheaper second hand than the Panasonic.

 

Market forces at work, I think.

 

The Native Lens Showcase threads on mu-43.com are useful for scoping out which lenses are decent* : https://www.mu-43.com/forums/native-lens-sample-image-showcase.80/

 

*or are owned by decent photographers, which is not necessarily the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/10/2019 at 16:57, Fargo said:

What's the best decent entry level camera, either SLR or micro 4:3? I've been looking to get a camera for months but haven't bitten the bullet yet. I'm thinking of picking up a Nikon 3500 this weekend. 

 

Never got the Nikon in the end. I was looking at mirrorless cameras instead and I really like the Sony a6000. I know it's old and will be replaced shortly with the a6100 but I can get one with a 16-50mm & 55-210mm Lenses for just under 700 quid. Anything else I should consider before I pull the trigger? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Fargo Buy it second hand.  CEX in particular seem to be awash with A6000 at the moment and offer a two year guarantee with them. You can get one with the 16-50 for £290.

Alternatively the A6300 with 16-50 is £530 second hand

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Ste_S said:

@Fargo Buy it second hand.  CEX in particular seem to be awash with A6000 at the moment and offer a two year guarantee with them. You can get one with the 16-50 for £290.

Alternatively the A6300 with 16-50 is £530 second hand

 

Never thought of CEX. I've actually found the a6100 for a great price online so I'm going to go with it and buy a 55-210mm lens separately. 

 

https://www.e-infin.com/eu/item/4028/sony_alpha_a6100_mirrorless_digital_camera_+_16-50mm_lenses_(black)

 

https://www.e-infin.com/eu/item/2275/sony_e_55-210mm_f4.5-6.3_oss_e-mount_lens_sel55210_(black)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone recommend paper stock; matt finish around 180 gsm, Amazon have Epson Supplies paper A3 Matte Heavyweight (which is around 170ish) and I'm sure I used this at Art School. Will be running through a commercial Konica Minolta printer at my work. ATM not looking for mega quality paper, just something to experiment with.

 

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve finally paid out for a Creative Cloud subscription after using Photoshop CS versions for years and years. I’ve never bothered with Lightroom before, just ACR+PS. So - quick question.

 

Should I be using Lightroom CC or Lightroom Classic (I’m still not convinced I need Lightroom at all but will give it a try).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 20/07/2019 at 06:16, petrolgirls said:

Shooting a car commercial at the moment. This is an Alexa Mini on the end of a russian arm mounted to a reflection free Porsche Cayenne. Nice little camera car. 

 

5321856A-6447-458F-A657-2295E957E3E4.thumb.jpeg.429daee1d0a5969e88c097a8df023046.jpeg

 

 

 

Sad update to this picture. I went on a shoot recently with some of same the crew who I shot with here. They told me this camera car was used in a shoot a few weeks prior. They were losing light and the director desperately wanted to get a 'drive by' (where the camera car and the hero car drive straight towards each other - one goes left, the other right, a fairly standard car shot). Ordinarily you would rehearse this slowly a couple of times but due to the fading light they decided there wasn't time. No-one's sure where the communication broke down but the camera car went left but the Russian arm operator assumed they were passing right - consequently the arm was on the wrong side of the camera car and went straight through the driver of the hero car - killing him instantly. The guys knew the driver really well and watched while the fire brigade and doctors tried to get his body out of the crashed vehicle. They were still really angry about it all - not surprisingly. It's ridiculous how many completely avoidable deaths and serious injuries have been caused by directors chasing the last scraps of light. 

  • Empathy 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/12/2019 at 21:02, Monkeyspill said:

I’ve finally paid out for a Creative Cloud subscription after using Photoshop CS versions for years and years. I’ve never bothered with Lightroom before, just ACR+PS. So - quick question.

 

Should I be using Lightroom CC or Lightroom Classic (I’m still not convinced I need Lightroom at all but will give it a try).

 

I'd go with Classic. More control and you'll probably get more tutorials for Classic.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, milko said:

Can you do something with 'select color' and slowly move a slider? Sorry for being all vague, I should probably check before posting.

That’s what I’ve been doing but thought there must be a more precise way. It’s odd that it’s not there (if it’s not).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd open up a Levels Adjustment Layer which will then show you a histogram. If you then hold the option key down (Ctrl on Windows at a guess) and pull in the sliders at the ends slowly you'll see which pixels are darkest and lightest pop into view first.

 

There may be quicker ways but that's how I've always done it.

 

 

Screenshot 2020-01-19 at 11.25.35.png

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That seems a bit better. But I was hoping for a way to keep the lightest pixels highlighted. I’m trying to colour correct negative scans using levels by setting the lightest pixel as white, the darkest (usually the frame so easy to identify) as black then fiddling with neutral grey until it looks “right.” It’s a bit fiddly but I can’t find a better way of doing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd visually line up with the levels histogram - should be reasonably clear where your black and white points are. This would be so much easier if Photoshop had vectorscopes, waveforms and parades but Adobe are hopeless when it comes to giving Photoshop decent tools so I wouldn't hold your breath. Resolve does this beautifully and is free. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Monkeyspill said:

That seems a bit better. But I was hoping for a way to keep the lightest pixels highlighted. I’m trying to colour correct negative scans using levels by setting the lightest pixel as white, the darkest (usually the frame so easy to identify) as black then fiddling with neutral grey until it looks “right.” It’s a bit fiddly but I can’t find a better way of doing it.

 

Why not just split tone in Light room? You can correct the colours of the highlights an shadows seperately.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
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

  • 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.