***DSLR/Photography MegaThread***

UnholyGoalie said:
I never really alter my pics in PS or LR. I've experimented a bit, but my opinion is if you alter the pic much it goes from photography to graphic design. Plus I also think if you need to touch it up in PS, then you ain't got it. That said, there are cool things you can do aside from just simple cropping and adjusting. Maybe someday I'll figure out how to do those things.

Just came back from a trip to Ireland.

429 by The Black Cloud, on Flickr
Click to expand...



With either of those programs you could get all the intricate detail of those stone objects without having to blow the blue sky out. If you don't want to "cheat" a strong flash and a polarizer can do the same thing in camera. This might even make a good multi-exposure HDR.
 
Well, haven't had much time to go through my photos from Mono Lake and the area around it but here's one that came out nice (I thought). For some reason though, the colors are off on the upload. It's less purpley and more blue sky and the clouds actually have more orange in there. Not sure why that happens but I seem to see it on occasion.

monolake.jpg


I'll post some more as I get a chance to go through them some more.
 
Very nice pic.

SmytheKing said:
...For some reason though, the colors are off on the upload. It's less purpley and more blue sky and the clouds actually have more orange in there. Not sure why that happens but I seem to see it on occasion.
Click to expand...

This is most likely due to color management. What color space are you saving out at? Anything other than sRGB and chances are it will render incorrectly in your browser.

The issue is this, for 8 bit spaces, each channel can contain a value of 0 through 255. So if for a given pixel the red channel is 255, and the green and blue channels are 0, that pixel is red. No problem so far. The question is, how red is that red? 255,0,0 in sRGB is a different red that 255,0,0 in Adobe RGB. The sRGB gamut is pretty small, it was designed do that the vast majority of monitors and printers could reliably reproduce the whole range of colors in the sRGB gamut. So sRGB's pure red, 255,0,0, is not as red as say Adobe RGB's red. There are more colors in the Adobe RGB color space, so the most red you can have in sRGB space (255,0,0) is mapped to 245,0,0 in Adobe RGB space, leaving room for more red reds.

In color managed images, they carry a little tag which tells a color managed application which color space it use to render the image. If you were working in something like Lightroom or Photoshop, their default behavior is to work in a color space which is not sRGB. If you export out of a color managed application without setting the output to sRGB, you will see it render incorrectly in a non color managed application (Internet Explorer, Firefox, etc.), while looking OK in a color managed app.

----
Couldn't find the resource that I wanted about color management, but this one isn't bad:

 
Last edited:
VF said:
Very nice pic.



This is most likely due to color management. What color space are you saving out at? Anything other than sRGB and chances are it will render incorrectly in your browser.

The issue is this, for 8 bit spaces, each channel can contain a value of 0 through 255. So if for a given pixel the red channel is 255, and the green and blue channels are 0, that pixel is red. No problem so far. The question is, how red is that red? 255,0,0 in sRGB is a different red that 255,0,0 in Adobe RGB. The sRGB gamut is pretty small, it was designed do that the vast majority of monitors and printers could reliably reproduce the whole range of colors in the sRGB gamut. So sRGB's pure red, 255,0,0, is not as red as say Adobe RGB's red. There are more colors in the Adobe RGB color space, so the most red you can have in sRGB space (255,0,0) is mapped to 245,0,0 in Adobe RGB space, leaving room for more red reds.

In color managed images, they carry a little tag which tells a color managed application which color space it use to render the image. If you were working in something like Lightroom or Photoshop, their default behavior is to work in a color space which is not sRGB. If you export out of a color managed application without setting the output to sRGB, you will see it render incorrectly in a non color managed application (Internet Explorer, Firefox, etc.), while looking OK in a color managed app.

----
Couldn't find the resource that I wanted about color management, but this one isn't bad:

Click to expand...

That's an excellent explanation that you gave there. I'm like 100% sure that's what is happening. You learn something new every day. I'll have to check on that. I guess that if I'm working in LR and want to post it somewhere that I just have to accept that or is there a way to get it working appropriately?
 
The usual kit lens (the one that would have come with the camera) would be the EF-S 18-55mm. If this is the case, the 75-300 is a great deal longer. Here is a site that has a little tool that lets you slide though zoom ranges to get an idea of what the look like: Focal length comparison tool, Tamron USA

As for if it is a good buy, is she is happy with the quality of the kit lens, the build of the 75-300 is about the same.
 
Thanks! Yeah, she loves her camera, it was last years gift, she just wants more zoom. Thanks for the link, it's very helpful!!!
 
Had to take some pics of my house for a listing, so I wanted very natural looking HDRs so windows / sky wouldn't be blown, but I could still see in shadows. I have never really been a fan of HDR software, but then starting looking into doing it in Lightroom. Turns out, if you also have Photoshop, it is pretty kick ass. I was amazed at how natural they looked, and still retained contrast to make an interesting image. Highly, highly recommend this combo if you need HDRs that don't jump out and punch you in the face:

Lightroom Video: A New HDR Feature in Lightroom 4.1 ? Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Killer Tips Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Killer Tips
 
I just picked up a canon pocket camera for those times that I don't pack the big boy and still want pics better than a phone cam. Should be fun.
 
Hey guys, looking for a little advice from the crew.

I'm wanting to diversify a little and get more well rounded and into taking portrait type photos for people. I've lined up a few friends to let me practice on them and learn what to do, but I wanted to ask you guys if you've had any trial and error tips for me. Focal ranges, styles, settings, etc. Just some things that could help me not keep missing and getting them right from the start. I mean, I know a lot of it is trial and error, but just some general guidelines or things to look out for would be great. At the moment I'm trying to find my footing so, any and all tips are welcome.
 
We're staying in Burbank, just looking for a little bit more room and, well, to avoid your friendly 7:00am wake-up calls (although I am grateful that I can discern between a 737-700 and 300, mostly by sound, however I don't yet have the 800s down yet ;) )

As for the portraits, the "standard" setup is usually 85-135mm on a full frame camera. For lighting, a very common recipe is short side lighting (especially for female subjects as it can be a slimming trick). If you have a model who is standing square to camera, then you rotate them a bit, the side of the model that is away from camera is the short side (because the nose is making the side of the face away from camera appear shorter than the broad side, which is the side of the model now facing camera). So you place your key light on that side of the model: Broad and Short Lighting in Portrait Photography - YouTube So, key on short side, fill on the other, sometimes a hair light to separate them from the background.

This of course is all just the plain pasta with red sauce recipe. The real trick is finding what you like and what you find interesting. I think that even before you get to your models, doing the same thing on a doll can be helpful, because then you can shoot thousands of frames and the doll could care less. People tend to get board, but do make for much more interesting photos. If you are going to keep them for a while, might not be a bad idea to have wine or other things to keep them jovial.

The other tip I would add is, start with one light, make sure you know what it is doing and it is pleasing before you add another. When you add another, turn of your first light until you see exactly what your second light is doing. When you have it looking the way you want, turn the first light back on, see how they look together. I think adding light very slowly in this manner makes it a bit easier to understand what each one is doing. Play with diffusers, distance between light and subject to see what it does, and of course angle and power.

Good luck with it. Post what you take :) Have fun.
 
Last edited:
VF said:
We're staying in Burbank, just looking for a little bit more room and, well, to avoid your friendly 7:00am wake-up calls (although I am grateful that I can discern between a 737-700 and 300, mostly by sound, however I don't yet have the 800s down yet ;) )
Click to expand...

Glad to hear you're staying local, Sam. You don't have to worry about figuring out which of our 737's are -800s, because you won't ever see one in regularly scheduled service through Burbank. They're too long for the parking spaces!

I need a photography outing soon...
 
FBJ said:
Glad to hear you're staying local, Sam. You don't have to worry about figuring out which of our 737's are -800s, because you won't ever see one in regularly scheduled service through Burbank. They're too long for the parking spaces!

I need a photography outing soon...
Click to expand...

we should do an LGK street photo walk!


r4m (8) by Qm?ngous, on Flickr
 
Luc SkyBomba said:
we should do an LGK street photo walk!
Click to expand...

LGK trip to Imperial Hill!!

Taxiway Alpha: Imperial Hill

Seriously, though...I've wanted to take a late, late evening/early morning photo trip downtown lately...primarily to try and capture some interesting night architecturals. The problem is that I don't care to do it solo due to the potential for having all my gear stolen at gunpoint. A big group of us could have a fine time, though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Now Chirping

  • No one is chatting at the moment.

Share this page

Back
Top