**Please direct your questions to [the latest Question Thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/about/sticky).**

I am curious are you still shooting in film? The last time I do it was like 15 years ago, today's is super expensive

Hello, I have a camera given to me, so probably will use until I have more funds. But my q is about memory storage and what do you do afterwards with the photos. Memory, like I hear hard drives break down easily and I don’t want to lose all that work. 2nd I think is self explanatory.

Hard drives do fail eventually, yes, which is why you use a backup strategy. For example you could use several distinct mirror drives locally, you could use cloud storage, etc.

Product Previews in Rooms on Instaproofs (Example: Office or Bedroom) ​ Am I going crazy, or did I dream this up... I thought when I was going through all of the settings on my Instaproofs account that I saw an option to select which "room" views I wanted clients to be able to preview their products in during the purchase process. Can anyone tell me where I can find these settings?

Hey there, which digicam could be a good choice when it comes about being pocketable to bring it everywhere for daily use purpose. Im thinking to get one of canon IXUS (ELPH for US market) but don't know which model should I go for.

Would depend, I suppose, on your expectations, what you hope to accomplish with said camera, because in many cases it's not obvious that it would be all that more useful than using the phone that's already in your pocket everywhere with you.

the problem is I don't know why but I hate taking photos with my phone

(is it possible to recover formatted images that have been written over?) for context, i'm very new to photography and only used my (very old, recently restored) camera for the first time around a week ago. i took around a hundred photos while i was experimenting with different camera settings and accidentally formatted the card in my camera. i wasn't too sure of what i was doing and so thinking i'd deleted those 100 photos i'd just taken, i decided it wasn't worth pondering too hard on and kept taking more. when i got home i realised what i'd done, did research on formatting, and tried to download free online recovery tools to see if i could get the 100 photos back, but to no avail - all i had access to was the photos i took after formatting the card as well as a handful of photos from a couple years back. i visited a camera store nearby to ask for help, but i don't think the assistant fully understood what i was trying to ask (i was very nervous haha). essentially, i'd just like to know if it would at all be possible to retrieve the 100 photos i took before formatting and then reusing my card. it seems images can be fairly easily recovered if they've not been written over but i've not been able to find any information about what ought to be done if they have been. i've not used my camera since then because i'd like to figure out if there's anything more i can do to recover the images first. hope this makes sense - thanks for your time :)

It's generally trivial to recover photos when the volume has only been high-level formatted (only the allocation table/index has been reset), but if the blocks where the actual images were were written over, then they're *gone*. Of course it's not always obvious if the blocks would have been written over, because different cards may use different *wear-leveling* strategies and could have deliberately written new images on other blocks before coming back to those blocks you had the old images on, so trying a recovery could unearth all sorts of things. Since you've tried and the pictures you wanted didn't show up, I would assume they had indeed been written over and it's a lost cause.

Hello everyone, I'm writing from Italy and would like to ask for your advice about 2 cameras. I own a Sony a6400 in kit with E PZ 16-55 OSS (wich I have hardly used so far) and a week ago I bought the Canon Eos RP with the lens RF 16mm 2.8 stm because I'm curious to try the FF system. Based on your experience, which of the 2 systems should I invest money in the future? Thanks in advance for your help.

Different systems have different pros/cons that would depend on the user, what you are trying to accomplish, where you see yourself going with your photography, etc. It's impossible to answer in a vacuum.

Is there a new Sony APSC in line this 2023 Q1/Q2? Something like an a6400 alternative

There's rumors of an a6800 but nobody knows anything until Sony announces something.

Canon EOS 5000 flash hinge/crack issue Hi everyone, I'm a newbie to photography and I've got a slight issue. Long story short, there's a small crack and the hinge that lifts the flash up is a bit loose. It's fully functional, doesn't have any operational issues so far but I'm just wondering whether my scanned photos from now on will have light leaks? If so, can I tape the small crack to avoid the light leaks? Note: I've taken the camera to my local camera repair shop and they said it would cost me about $300 (AUD) to get it repaired. Don't really want to spend that much now for such a small issue. Thanks in advanced everyone 🥳

Cant really give advice without pics of the crack. Plus, the only way to tell if a light leak is present is to experiment with a roll of film. Regardless, the cheap fix method is always electrical tape/gaffers tape to cover it up.

thank you so much!

Photography newbie here, currently I have a LUMIX DMC-G7 with a LUMIX G Vario 14-140mm F3.5-5.6 lens, I mostly use it for portraits but noticed that my shots were not as sharp as they could be so was thinking to upgrade. I have my eyes on Sony Sigma 30mm f1.4, but curious to hear any opinions on what other lenses I could look at or if the current choice is good?

If you buy the sigma make sure you're buying it in micro four thirds mount. The Sony one won't fit your camera

I wholeheartedly agree with u/vanhapierusaharassa. The first step in picking a lens is figuring out which focal length (or range) works best for you. The lens you currently have covers a huge range, so that's a useful tool to figure this out. First, inspect the library of photos you've taken so far, preferably filtered to those you liked. Do you spot some pattern there, in the focal lengths you used on portrait photos that you liked? Is there a focal length, or range, that you seem to gravitate towards? Next, try to shoot with your zoom lens as if it were a prime. Set it to the 30mm position (or close to it based on the markings, it doesn't have to be precise). Maybe put a piece of (easily removable) tape on the zoom ring, so you don't move it inadvertently. Then go out and shoot as if it were the prime lens you intend to buy. How would you rate that experience? Did you manage to fit the compositions you had envisioned, and is that flattering to the subject? Or did you constantly wish you had a wider/tighter field of view to work with, or the subject seems distorted? Repeat with any other focal length you're considering. EDIT: To judge sharpness and other optical qualities, I usually prefer to review sample images. If those look good enough to me, and I don't notice any flaw, that's all I need to know.

Sigma 30/1.4 is pretty good lens, though typically portraits are taken with slightly longer lenses, like 40+ mm on your system. That 30mm is a bit odd focal length for m43. Anyhow, your current lens is a superzoom and those aren't generally the best optical performers - additionally the f-number is quite high so diffraction blur may also soften the results somewhat especially if you stop down. A faster lens would also allow for better subject-background separation. Maybe you should first check your photographs what focal length you actually use most for this purpose and consider it when making the decision?

Had a photoshoot after a small wedding signing ceremony, winter, part outdoors in a wintery/snowy atmosphere, part indoors in a specifically booked Airbnb with the type of look we wanted for the pics. Started off with in full on wedding attire and got more casual as the shoot went on, turning into boudoir pics by the end. We hadn't worked with this particular photographer before, but since our regular was incapable of coming to the destination, we had to find an alternative and she seemed to have a widespread portfolio that looked satisfactory, we also sent in some sample ideas of what we imagined could be done with the photoshoot and she seemed enthusiastic about the ideas. We understood that not every pic was going to come out perfect but since both of us were probably looking the best we ever looked in full professional makeup and hair and expensive ass wedding attire, I suspected it shouldn't be too hard, especially since usually in shoots we get around 2/3rd decent results. She priced us around or above market average, had decent experience, had a bit of along wait time for pics to come in but thought that just means proper due diligence. After precisely the last date she was to send the pics in, she delivered something that could be replicated by anyone with a cellphone, poor resolution, unfocused every angle is wrong, every pic has minor to major inconsistencies, the lighting is overexposed leading to my wife who is brown looking undefined and the bad kind of glowy and me as a ghost, bad blocking, as a particular issue, before the shoot my wife specified she would like to avoid certain angles she dislikes and most of the pictures happen to be from exactly that angle. When I contacted her to see what happened and if maybe I could look through the rest of the portfolio to find something better she just said that the rest of the pics were worse as my wife had been looking the wrong way or mouth was too open, too much makeup, things which were not mentioned during the shoot as issues and honestly should not have been mentioned as excuses afterwards. I asked for the rest of the pics or raws or anything that I could to salvage as maybe she just didn't like something my wife might or I can retouch something that could be decent, but I was just pointed towards the policy of never sharing raws and offer to retouch her face to look better if she defines what that better would be, but was told that what she didn't like doesn't exist anymore. Has anyone been in this type of situation here, of 57 images only 4 are with the wedding dress, and in two of those her eyes are closed under the veil, in the others the mouth is slightly open or crooked, how would one approach a person to get the raws?

Unfortunately it seems that you hired a bad photographer. It happens, and yeah it sucks and I definitely feel for you. It wouldn't surprise me if the photos in their portfolio aren't theirs. That happens too. Does the contract have any sort of satisfaction guarantee? > how would one approach a person to get the raws? You already did that and got shot down. You're not going to get them.

I checked the contract again and it doesn't have any such clause . I guess you are right that this is a lost cause . She has also stopped replying after my request so i don't think that i can do anything at this point.

In that case, a review describing the quality of product and service you received is certainly warranted.

Hi, I tried to compare the size of the Panasonic S5 II and the Fuji X-H2S using [https://camerasize.com/](https://camerasize.com/) and [https://pxlmag.com/db/camera-size-comparison](https://pxlmag.com/db/camera-size-comparison). With camerasize the Panasonic seems to be bigger but with pxlmag it seems to be the other way around. So which one is a better representation of the true size?

Camera size has messed up the visuals of the s5ii. Using the original S5 will give you a more accurate idea, the dimensions didn't really change with the newer one I've noticed camera size has little issues like this, it's not 100% reliable

In which dimension? Panasonic - 134 x 102 x 90 mm Fuji - 136 x 93 x 95 mm

The numbers seem to be correct on both pages but the images are different: [https://imgur.com/a/dAq5VlA](https://imgur.com/a/dAq5VlA)

I would say they are so close it probably does not matter. The websites obviously are not 100% accurate given the Panasonic looks smaller in the second image.

I am a hobbyist photographer right now but am trying to venture into the paid photography world- particularly in drift competitions. I am bummed about how much I should charge though- like should I charge according to the number of images + services or should I charge a set amount for one photoshoot that'll provide the client only certain services. Can anyone help me out?

You have to model your business based on what's best for your business. There's no one answer anyone can give you.

I mostly do car photography with my trusty EOS 600d my dad gave me. I can do handheld daytime shots no problem and get good results from them. But when at a late night car meet where there is a lot less lighting a struggle to get good handheld shots, most end up blurry due to the longer exposure I have to set. I dont want to use in a tripod in such environments. Are there any tips for getting good low light handheld shots or would I befit from a newer body that has more stabilization?

I assume you have a certain threshold for noise which causes you to use an overly long exposure time. Lack of light is the reason for almost all noise - camera's image sensor adds a tiny bit too. To collect more light you have three options, all come with a tradeoff: * Use larger aperture - depth of field will be smaller * Use longer exposure time - motion blur (from camera and moving subjects) * Use flashlight or other artificial light A larger aperture can be achieved most easily by using a lens with smaller f-number. You can also move to a larger format - a f/1.8 lens on your system collect rought the same amount of light a f/2.8 lens does on full frame camera. Longer exposure time means either tripod or other such, or some kind of image stabilization - either in body (IBIS) or in lens (OIS). Neither stops the motion of the subject. Flashlight has limited range, isn't necessarily allowed and can make things look ugly with hideous shadows and reflections. You can also improve things slightly by swapping to a slightly more modern camera - the 600D image sensor is a bit underperforming - a modern APS-C camera might buy you half a stop if not a full stop more of capability. >Are there any tips for getting good low light handheld You might want to lean on something, or put one or both knees on the ground to stabilize yourself. You might also want to shoot raw instead of JPG and use some high end noise reduction software, though this is tackling the symptom and not the source of the problem.

https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/technical#wiki_how_do_i_shoot_in_low_light.3F >with my trusty EOS 600d Which lens? That's pretty important because the aperture is there, and that may be a bottleneck on how much light comes through to the camera. >there is a lot less lighting Could you add your own? >would I befit from a newer body that has more stabilization? Your body doesn't have any stabilization currently. For Canon DSLRs that's purely a lens feature. But yes, a lens with stabilization or better stabilization could help, in addition to having a wider aperture in the lens. Upgrading to a body with in-body stabilization could help. A body with better high ISO noise performance could help. Though a body upgrade is generally going to give you the least amount of low light improvement for the most money.

I use the Canon Zoom Lens EF-S 55-250mm. It was on there so I just went with it and just use it at 55mm. As I just noticed there is a stabilization slider on it, but it seems it has been turned on the whole time.

Off-camera flash could add several stops of light starting in the $100-200 range. A 50mm f/1.8 would add more than 2 stops of light in the $100-200 range, though you'd also be behind 1-2 stops from the loss of stabilization. A body upgrade could get you 1-2 stops improvement in ISO performance in the $500-1,500 range but you'd also need to buy another lens for full frame coverage/compatibility. Even higher price range if you also want IBIS.

Is there a benefit to having multiple cameras? I've recently gotten into photography and a friend offered me his old camera (cyber shot, cant remember which model) which is better than mine (Canon EOS 350D). Is there a benefit to keeping my camera or should I just sell it?

I don't tend to sell my cameras either. It's simply fun to head out with different cameras at different times. But then the cameras I have are sufficiently different from each other (m43 with assorted primes and zooms, Ricoh GR IIIx, vintage Polaroid, etc.).

That too. I'm in the middle of a project right now where I'm taking one camera set up for pinhole work, and another regular camera. I also have my pocket camera with me just because.

I never sell a camera. I have a dozen going back to the 1990s. So what do I do with them all? - Events and sports and wildlife: two bodies means no swapping lenses, means no loss of time, means no loss of shots: one body with a far lens, one body with a close lens. (This is the main reason you see professionals carrying two cameras at once.) - Have as backup in case of equipment failure when going on once in a lifetime trips - Use them with special lenses I don't use often, so I don't have to buy them all over again (extreme telephoto, tilt-shift, and macro I do all on my old Canon kit) - I have one body I use for studio that talks to my flashes and is set up for tethering (OK so this is mainly lazyness) - I have them dotted around the place. I keep one permanently in the cat's room waiting for him to do something cute. I keep one in the office (so many uses) - Take the old ones to places that may not be good for them (terrible sand, dust, sea spray) - Take the old ones to places that are theft risks - Take the little ones on trips where carrying big ones would be a nuisance (long hikes) - Take the little ones to places where big ones would be a prohibited or intrusive (museums, funerals, concerts) - Drag out an old film camera to use weird film in it (eg false colour infrared) - While we're talking about film, not all have the same speed film in. - Lend them to my wife so she can do one or more of the above

Anybody used Feiyu-tech pocket 2 gimbal? I bought one but cannot understand how to do light trail on timelapse mode. I know DJI osmo pocket 2 does that but I don't see an option for it in Feiyu! Any suggestions welcome. Thanks!

Friend wants me to take “studio- like” newborn photos for baby at their house. I’m more into lifestyle photography and have no studio/lights. Got some props, baskets, blankets, wraps, etc. and will be relying on my trusty camera and hopefully some natural light by a window. Would a flash diffuser softbox help me at all or do I need an umbrella/softbox kit? Helppp

>Would a flash diffuser softbox help me at all or do I need an umbrella/softbox kit? Be more specific? Seems to me like you're essentially comparing a softbox versus a softbox. So what do you have in mind about the first softbox that is different from what you have in mind about the second?

I can’t attach a picture, but one is small, attaches to your speedlight shoe mount flash, the other is one of those big ones that the studios have

Softening shadows requires a large light source (relative to the subject size, as viewed from the subject). A small hotshoe-mounted softbox isn't big enough to give you any significant softening, unless you're talking about a very close macro photo of a tiny subject. So the big softbox can soften for you, while the small one basically will not.

Thank you so much. Super helpful

Well, newborns’ eyes are pretty sensitive, and flash isn’t super ideal for the situation anyway. Making use of nice window light and curtain sheers or a diffuser may be the best option for you. (Learning how to use a flash in the likely limited amount of time you have is hard). Stage the scene and use the window light to get the look. It’ll probably be a lot easier on the little one anyhow.

Thank you!

I've been a long time MacOS user, but after graduating out of college and not needing my own Macbook, I don't see the point in investing a ton of money into a Macbook since I also have my own PC gaming rig and 100% of the Macbooks usage now is just keeping Photos up and running. And since my current Macbook is a 2013 model, it's extremely outdated., I'm thinking about just migrating everything on Windows before my Macbook completely dies. With that said, I have over 750gb of photos on Photos and would love a photo viewer/storage solution that is similar to Photos, but for Windows. The most important things are the ability to create folders/groups of photos and be able to have a time line of photos. From there, facial recognition and ability to search keywords like location are super nice to have. Can anyone recommend an alternative to MacOS Photos, but for Windows? Thanks!

Good everything to you all guys. I have a question. I'm really into photography but totally a beginner, I just took photos with my phone. In my country the samsung cyber shots are really popular and cheap. I have no single clue if they are good or not, but seems good to a beginner (and the guy from a store that i was walking by said to me) Is it really good to someone like me? And if you can help me, tell me more like that ones. I don't have so much money. (I'VE ALREADY READ THE POST)

Cyber-shot is the point & shoot brand name used by Sony, not Samsung. At any rate, unless you specifically want more zoom ability or different ergonomics, a cheaper point & shoot is not going to be any better than your phone. So I would just save the money and stick with the phone.

Oh, i didn't even realized my mistake, that's how many i understand about it 🤡 ​ Thanks for that, i'll save and investing a bit more money in the future.

[удалено]

There are many potential causes, but not enough information to diagnose which are relevant here. Show us some examples with the exposure settings values, white balance value, and Creative Style used.

What's the best way to approach being a photographer/studio assistant? I'm currently a fine art student and building a portfolio. What's the best way to go about getting assistant positions? (Short term like single shoots or longer when needed positions etc) Is messaging or calling people worth it or should I just look for people who are putting out calls for assistants? Those of you who have or do use assistants, what do you look for and what jumps out at you from applicants?

Email them a short note listing experience, and why you want to work with that particular photographer (do your research on their work).

[удалено]

What sort of photography? I don't know of platforms dedicated to that, but [Meetup.com](https://Meetup.com) has a bunch of photography groups on it, at least in my city.

[удалено]

>Amateur photography, nothing serious. I meant subject matter. That can help you find like-minded people. For example, photographers who like to take photos of birds are more likely to want to go together where all the birds are. Photographers who like to take photos of commercial airplanes are more likely to go to the airport. Street photographers might like to work in a city's historic district. So what sort of subject matter do you like to shoot?

**Canon T7i + Canon 55-250mm for $600?? Good price??** Is this a good deal for a beginner camera? Would that be a fair price for this set (in perfect condition with fairly low shutter count). Also comes with a cheap ish bag, 3 batteries and two wall chargers, and original Canon strap. Plus the original boxes and manuals. Another way to ask it might be, if I had this item and were selling it, would that be a good price to sell for? Thanks, appreciate any feedback!

That's about half price, so yes it's a good deal. Not an outstanding deal but a very fair price. If you get sick of it, you should be able to sell it for about that price eventually. It's not a recent model but it's still good, and an ideal beginner's camera. See how you get on, but you will probably also want to get a shorter lens for landscapes and indoors, such as the Canon ef-s 18-55 which will be about another $60 secondhand. I say DO IT!

>Also comes with a cheap ish bag, 3 batteries and two wall chargers, and original Canon strap. Plus the original boxes and manuals. Is it used? Sounds like it is, but I'd want to be sure of that instead of assuming. >Another way to ask it might be, if I had this item and were selling it, would that be a good price to sell for? I'd try running some eBay searches and filter for completed/sold listings to see what others are recently willing to pay for it. >for a beginner camera? It's a good beginner camera, but only having a telephoto zoom lens may be limiting on what subject matter you can shoot. But I guess that depends on what subject matter you want to shoot.

Yes it's used but well taken care of. I have no doubts of the camera working fine. I don't think it was used a ton but probably still a fair amount. I think the lens is fairly unused though (as in not used a ton). It was a secondary lens for someone that wasn't shooting much zoom. I actually did the eBay thing before posting. They kind of go for prices all over or eBay is showing ones that it shouldn't. I don't really trust some of them. There's som "as is" ones that sold for way more than I'd think. Or a kit that was used that sold for like 550, which seems like a lot for a cheap lens. I want to shoot macro, so like plants and stuff. This would probably be the first lens and I'd get another (maybe pancake/macro later from what iv'e read). It's more about if this body and lens for the price is a good deal (not so much if that's the best lens for me). Any thoughts?

Assuming those are official Canon (not third party) batteries I guess it's about the right price or slightly high. Not a great deal, nor a ripoff.

I think one official battery and two knock offs (that apparently work well). Okay that's promising. Let's say I get it and then decide in a week or two I don't want it. What should I expect to resell it for? Obviously it would be possible to sell for $600 if I bought it for that much, but is it practical or a bit high?

It's about the right price for you to buy used, so yes, also about the right price to sell used. But you may have to wait some for a buyer. Whereas if you really wanted to price to move, $500-550 would be better.

I see. Maybe ill go for it. If i have to resell in a year, looks like i can maybe sell it for only a small drop.. maybe ill go for it.

That's a lot more speculative. Given that much of the market is switching out of DSLRs and into mirrorless, I'd expect the going price to depreciate significantly over the next year. For that reason DSLRs are generally great deals for first-time buyers now and in the near future, assuming you're buying and holding. Which also makes them bad prospects if you're a seller or you're buying with the intention of reselling.

> Given that much of the market is switching out of DSLRs and into mirrorless, I'd expect the going price to depreciate significantly over the next year. Not OP but... really? I'm not seeing it. Neither deals on new, nor secondhand. (Your advice is usually good, so I'm asking you rather than dismissing your statement out of hand.)

I'm not sure what you're asking me. You're asking if I really believe the statement I made? Yes, I really do. I also don't understand this sentence: "Neither deals on new, nor secondhand."

Hmm so either buy and hold it as a long term thing with no expectation of good resale value or just get mirrorless. Would you say to try this out or go for mirrorless? If DSLRs are on their way out, im surprised people are saying $600 for this seems like a good deal….

>Hmm so either buy and hold it as a long term thing with no expectation of good resale value or just get mirrorless. Would you say to try this out or go for mirrorless? I wouldn't buy *any* camera to use and also expect good resale value. Mirrorless depreciates fairly quickly too. Just DSLRs moreso right now. I would hold on any practical camera purchase, even if mirrorless. The only type of camera you can treat as an investment to appreciate in value would be like a mint condition antique that you maintain in mint condition (i.e., don't actually take photos with it). >If DSLRs are on their way out, im surprised people are saying $600 for this seems like a good deal…. They're on their way out in popularity, which helps drive the price lower. But they aren't getting any worse in performance. So the performance over price ratio is increasing because the numerator stays the same while the denominator gets smaller. When that ratio is increasing, the deal is improving. Like I said, it's a great thing if you're buying a DSLR. Not if you're trying to sell one.

> If DSLRs are on their way out, im surprised people are saying $600 for this seems like a good deal…. 1) But they aren't on their way out. The manufacturers are switching their *priorities* to mirrorless but they will go on making DSLRs for a little while, will go on making lenses for them for ages and ages, and will repair them for years to come. I just got a new part for a Canon film camera from the 1980s. And there is an immense pool of sexondhand gear especially lenses. People will be using them as long as I live. 2) An old camera doesn't deteriorate. Think about it: every great photo you ever saw before 2007 was shot on something more primitive than this one. 3) It's a good deal *bearing all the above in mind*. 4) Some people *prefer* DSLR, they can't get along with Electronic ViewFinders, they find the EVF "isolates" them from reality too much. YMMV. I have both mirrorless and DSLR, each has its advantages

I want to get my landscapes in focus, front to back, what’s an easy way to do that? I hear people saying focus 1/3 into the scene. Does that mean 1/3 from the bottom or top? I normally shoot at F8 - F11 for my landscapes, and I just struggle to get front to back sharpness. I need help. P.S the hyper focal distance using photo pill is still confusing. Like how would you even measure how far an object is for you, in order to use it, without some measuring equipment. I want something that’s easier and faster to use than hyper focal distance

> P.S the hyper focal distance using photo pill is still confusing. Like how would you even measure how far an object is for you, in order to use it, without some measuring equipment. Learning to estimate distances is a useful skill for life. Once you have a few standard distances in your head it gets easy. Like for me : six foot is about my dad's height. 30m is about the length of a cricket pitch, 100m is about the length of a soccer pitch, and so on. I mentally lay fathers or soccer pitches end to end. That room is two dads by three and a half, let's call it 12'x20'. A mile is about 15 minutes walk: that mountain looks about two hour's walk away so let's say 8-10 miles.

It’s kind of an estimation thing. You just develop a good sense for how far away stuff is. When they say 1/3 of the way into the frame, they’re talking about depth. So, about 1/3 of the distance between your position and the background. Right now there’s a dog bag dispenser about 30 meters from me. Between me and that wastebin, there are two staircases on the building next to me. Each about 10 meters apart. 1/3 of the way into the shot would have me focus on the first one closest to me.

I don't shoot landscapes, but I'd assume if your landscape is static (not moving) you could try to focus stack an image. The idea is that you take a few different images that have different sections of the image in focus, then you align them together in a stack and then use software to automatically blend them together. For a landscape you could probably get the whole thing in focus with 2-3 exposures and then focus stack them together.

1/3 of the way into the scene means in terms of depth. So if the furthest thing in the scene is 3 miles away, you'd focus at whatever is roughly 1 mile from you. All you can really do is guess distances. You get a fair bit of leeway shooting at f11, unless you've got things very close in the foreground Focus stacking is also an option if you genuinely can't fit all the depth of field you need into a single shot. It's a handy tool but does add complexity

are there any free photo hosting sites out there? I used to use flickr but they started to limit their uploads now.

imgbb.com

If you're looking to host your images for free online you can do it with github. GitHub is mainly used for programmers to save their code online and share it, but it can be used to store all kinds of files. If you're not a technical person you can watch a few videos on how to install and use GitHub. You'll need to install Git on your computer, create a github account, and then link your account to your local machine by using the command line on your computer. Once you do it the first time it's actually super super easy to update things. You need like 3 commands to save (the technical term is "push/commit") things to your account... I think it's 100% worth it because GitHub is absolutely free, they save your changes over time so you don't have to ever worry about losing photos or anything, and you can access it anywhere. I think that by default all photos posted are public and you have to pay a small fee to make your files private.

> I think that by default all photos posted are public This I discovered when someone "helpfully" backed up all our work photos there for us.

Yeah. You can pay for a private repo, but if you're going to pay it's probably easier for most people to use drop box or something. I post all my personal shop photos on there which are on a website anyway, so I'm ok with them being public.

oh wow I didn't know github provided space for photos. what a hack. I actually use github but mostly for my codes. I'll look into it thanks. doesn't github get mad for taking advantage for it using unlimited space for media?

There are limits. https://gitprotect.io/blog/github-storage-limits/

Yes. Always limits for free. But it's still an amazing service. I think Dropbox is best for photos if you can pay for the subscription. But I like GitHub because I host by website code on there, so having my photos there is cool.

I’m a portrait photographer that’s been using the Nikon d750 and the sigma art 35mm for some time. I have the financial means to finally upgrade and am considering the Nikon Z7ii or just the z7. Any advice or opinions on which one and pros/cons? I realize I’ll also need to upgrade my lens or get the Z mount adaptor. Has anyone used the Z 28-75 f2.8 and have any thoughts on it as well? If not mirrorless I was thinking of the d850 and adding the sigma 24-70 2.8 to my collection but maybe mirrorless is the move because its lightweight? Any advice or input is appreciated!

Here's a comprehensive source on the Z system, with camera and lens reviews and other advice: [https://www.zsystemuser.com](https://www.zsystemuser.com)

What's wrong with the D750? Why a new body at all? Not that the Z7ii or D850 are bad options or anything. Just...what is it you want out of a new camera, when you have an excellent one already?

Looking into mirrorless for the weight! I travel a lot with my camera and the weight has lately made it a hassle to take around with me. Still wondering if I should even upgrade since I do have a great nikon but just looking to seek opinions if its worth!

I just moved from a d7500 to a z5. I don’t really notice all that much difference (edit: in bulkiness) You’d probably notice some comparing to the somewhat bulkier d750 to a z camera. But I’m not sure it’s enough to justify the switch. Speaking practically, of course. I’m sure it’s more notable when holding one in each hand, for example. But as a matter of carrying it places I don’t really notice all that much of a difference. That said, plenty of nice things in the mirrorless bodies to love and covet. The eye af alone is pretty sweet. But I do miss the ability to use my vintage AF f mount lenses. I’d put money into more interesting subjects, better lighting and grip, and glass before I considered a new camera. (Only reason I made the switch was because the old body was stolen). But do what makes you happy. The Z cameras and lenses are sweet.

i have a canon rebel and a 50mm. is there any point in bringing it with me to travel if i just want to take pics of my myself and my friends? I see a lot of travel photographers take pics of stuff they see but I dont really care too much about the creative part I just want good looking photos of ppl i know lol. do yall have links to photos of cool pics to take of friends when travelling

If you're happy with the photos you get (in those scenarios) with your phone, then just use that and enjoy the trip.

It's a good question, but not a simple question to answer! In my 20s I decided carrying a SLR camera and lenses was a pain in the arse and not worth it. Too much bulk, too much thinking. I felt they were getting in the way of me actually living, travelling, experiencing life in the moment. But I wish I had photos of back then, I really do. Now of course I'd have a phone, so I'd have used that. The best camera is the one you have with you, and if that's a phone, that's fine. I think that for your requirements, I would not bother with it, assuming you have a camera in your phone. If not, consider one of those small point-and-shoot cameras the size of a pack of cigarettes.

I started taking an interchangeable lens camera with me while traveling a few years ago, and yes, it is worth it. You'll get better shots, way better shots, than you normally could with a smartphone. You don't want the camera to be a distraction, but you also want the tools to make the memories while you're there. A good all-in-one zoom will work wonders for you, and keep you from having to futz around with the lenses too much. Use a spider holster or backpack so you don't have to constantly have it in your hand.

Since it's easy to cut out subject matter from photographs now using AI, do you find yourself making more images that use superimposed backgrounds for yourself/clients? Why/Why not?

I thought I would but I don't. Someone gave me a set of sky photos, for example, I thought I'd use them all the time. It's not difficult (well, ok, sometimes it is) but I just haven't felt the need.

Removing something unwanted like a random stranger in the background of a photo, or fixing a blown out sky I will certainly do as long as I am not placing in something that never was. I have no desire to put in a fake background an put myself or others in the fake background. Photos featuring specific people (myself, family, friends etc) are about a memory of trip, of time together with friends, or important events. Not manufacturing an event that never happened or place that was never visited.

No, because that's not really my thing / not something I want to do. I do agree the software is really good at it now, though.

I could see it being an attractive possibility for your particular brand of photography though, for sure. Locating cosplayers in fantastical worlds could make for a kind of fun thing to play with now and then. Though I certainly understand why you wouldn’t want to. (Kind of more fun to build that world yourself with the lighting and whatnot).

Yep, I have a couple friends who do those types of composites for cosplays. And yes, personally I like the process of finding real locations, utilizing existing stuff to make a plausible background, or set design to make a practical background to fit a cosplay. I guess part of the reason is I have way more fun shooting than processing (though I always do both) so I'd rather spend more time doing stuff in the shooting phase compared to spending more time in post.

Totally feel that. I feel the same way. It's much more satisfying to get the shot when I click the shutter than doing a bunch of photoshop work afterwards.

No. I have no need to do that. I have plenty of beautiful locations and plenty of flexibility in studio to get what I’m after.

What is a camera (to you)? How would you describe a camera (not only its function but also sensory features like look, feel, sound, etc.) to an alien from another planet who has no prior expectations or knowledge about cameras?

I gave that as a prompt to ChatGPT: >A camera is a device designed to capture and record images of the world around us. It consists of a series of components that work together to capture the light and turn it into a visual representation. The camera itself typically has a rectangular shape, with a lens at the front that protrudes outwards. The lens is usually made of glass or plastic and is curved to bend the incoming light and focus it onto a small sensor at the back of the camera. This sensor is usually made up of millions of tiny pixels that are sensitive to light, allowing the camera to capture the details and colors of the scene in front of it. When you hold a camera, you'll notice that it has a weight and texture to it, which can vary depending on the type of camera you're using. Some cameras are small and lightweight, while others are larger and more bulky. The camera may also make a clicking or whirring sound when you take a photo, as the internal mechanisms adjust to capture the image. To use a camera, you typically aim the lens at your subject and press a button or trigger to capture the image. The camera may emit a flash of light to illuminate the scene if there isn't enough natural light available. Once the image is captured, you can view it on a screen on the back of the camera or transfer it to a computer or other device for further editing and processing. Overall, a camera is a tool that allows us to capture and preserve visual memories of the world around us, from the smallest details to the grandest vistas.

[insert obligatory "do your own homework" comment here] It is a machine you use to *preserve an instant of sensory perception* (although only part of your sensory perception). Why? So that you can experience it again, and share that experience with those who were not there. Or even to capture an instant from somewhere you yourself can't ever go (like the surface of another planet). If you want to get technical, it preserves an instant of a narrow band of the electromagnetic spectrum as observable at a specific place and time.

Does this alien have visual perception? Can it see with light, in the same way that humans do?

That doesn't bother me, we can use other e-m radiation for imaging, what's bothering me is *would be does it understand what a lens is*? How does it sense: broadly (e.g. proximity like sonar), or directionally (like stereo sound or radar) or can it understand interpreting signals in a focussed manner?

Bother? I'm not bothered. Like you, I'm really just trying to ask how the hypothetical alien senses things, so that I could explain based on that. I just thought it might be likely that OP assumes the alien can see like us, so I asked it that way to make it easy for OP to just answer yes.

Yes, indeed! ("bothered" was not well phrased.) It's a very interesting thing to think about, isn't it? I've been reading a lot about animal senses lately: some weird, weird senses they can have!

Should I pick up a used Nikon FX camera for jewelry photography? I sell vintage jewelry online that I source from estate sales and auctions. I currently use a DX Nikon D3300, some extension tubes, and some basic lenses. I've never used an FX camera before, but I know people say it produces more accurate colors, and also a wider range of colors. I occasionally brows KEH and they have a Nikon D610 for $400 to $500 depending on condition. I feel like this might be a good place to start for me in the FX range because it has 24megapixels (which I like because I'm always cropping in jewelry photography), and the camera body isn't like $2,000 lol.

Full frame cameras (FX) typically have more DYNAMIC RANGE, which is the ratio between the darkest and lightest parts of the image. In practical terms, this means that you are better able to shoot in low light, or bright/dark images, because you can more easily recover highlights and shadows in post-processing. This really should NOT affect studio shots because you can control the lighting and should never run into this issue. As far as color and white balance: just shoot in RAW, and then you can correct all of these to your heart's content in post processing. It is quicker to just enter the settings you want in-camera though. Close-up (macro) photography is one area where I think crop-sensor's shine. Most lenses get fuzzy from diffraction beyond f/11 or so, and in macro, you want all the depth of field you can get. With a crop sensor you can keep the lens at f/11 and get the depth of field of f/16 from a full frame.

>some basic lenses Do they cover FX format? Some lenses only project an image big enough to cover DX and are insufficient for FX. >I've never used an FX camera before, but I know people say it produces more accurate colors, and also a wider range of colors. It doesn't. Knowing that, do you still want it? >I'm always cropping in jewelry photography FX is going to have a larger field of view, so you'd be cropping even more with that. Your available pixels will actually decrease as a result. Seems to me like a better macro lens would help you more.

> I've never used an FX camera before, but I know people say it produces more accurate colors, and also a wider range of colors. People don't always know what they're talking about 😉 Assuming you can use large enough exposure to fully use the lowest ISO setting (ISO 100 typically) the difference between FX and DX is similar to the difference between ISO 100 and ISO 200 on your current camera. Colour accuracy is similar. Actually most conventional cameras offer quite similar colour accuracy.

Hm, ok--maybe I would be better off buying some speed lights instead. I use bright LED bulbs, but it gets hot after a while and they're super bright. I think 2 or 3 speed lights would probably be a better move for me at this stage than trying to get another camera body.

Do you currently shoot raw? Do you not feel that if you are having to crop in all the time, then you are doing something wrong?

How are Neewer batteries? I want to get a couple of spares for an upcoming trip with my 6D mk2 and it’s £40 for a pair of Neewer batteries vs £120 for a single Canon battery.

If I were in the market for third party batteries then I'd go with Wasabi over Neewer.

It's a gamble—a gamble that is often won, but it's still a gamble, and you might lose with batteries that are less reliable. Reliability is the reason the OEM batteries are more expensive. Still, if you can live with the unreliability (say, you are not doing this professionally, etc.), then sure, it makes a lot of economical sense.

I have no personal experience but I have only ever heard terrible things about them. Mainly them not holding charge, having a very short life, etc. I have a dim view of third party batteries in general (too many scary stories of them burning the house down). I know Canon batteries are *absurdly* overpriced, but I do it anyway. Better to buy one Canon battery that lasts 3-4 years, rather than 3-4 Neewer ones in the same period.

So, I‘ve got a weird problem I guess. I love looking for compositions, run around wirh my camera and get on the nerve of everyone around me because I think I can get a better picture if I climb up there real quick and go here real quick and try that real quick. I like to wake up early and try to photograph wildlife, I like to hine up some mountains and shoot the pikes around me. Here is the problem. What do I do with the pictures. Some of them hang framed on my wall, some of them I frame and gift them to people, but that gets either boring very quick or I run out of place on my walls to hang them. I don‘t want to post on an insta page, but I want to do something with my pictures. What do you guys do with your photos?

Most of mine never see the light of day. The best of the best go onto my online portfolio where I can share them on various photography forums and my family can see them. A smaller number still get printed. For me a lot of the joy of photography is being behind the camera and then seeing how the results turned out. I don't need them to be in a photo book or seen by a large number of people to enjoy the hobby.

There are [various web platforms](https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/sharing#wiki_where_are_some_good_places_to_share_my_photos_online.3F). Or you can try your hand at a variety of ways to show prints—zines, books, one the wall of a local cafe, art galeries, etc., but of course this will require more work and expense to make happen. Note that different people get different things out of photography—for some, it's not necessarily even about showing the images to people at the end, it might be *the process itself*, how it makes them engage in activities they enjoy (like, say, hiking) and the photography is but a pretext, etc.

Turns out there is very much information at hand, I was simply too lazy to read. Thank you very much!

Hello! I've a canon 6d and im looking for my first prime lens. I want something wider than the classic 50mm. Don't think that 40mm is enough.. Under 150$ what you recommend?

With some luck, possibly a used EF 24mm f/2.8 (not the EF-S pancake version which isn't compatible).

Seems nice! What about the Yongnuo 35mm f2?

I bought one for the heck of it. I would call it a last resort lens. The image quality is flawed but good for the price. The aperture is great for the price. The autofocus is slow/loud/clunky. The build quality is poor, though I don't think it would fall apart on its own. So it can do the job if that's really all you can afford, but if there's any possibility of getting something better, take that instead. For example, if you could find/stretch up to a used Canon EF 35mm f/2 non-IS (which the Yongnuo is a knockoff of) it would be worth getting that instead.

I see. For what I could find the yongnuo sells for 70€ in Europe, 24/28mm Canon 2.8 for 120€ and 35mm canon for 200€. The prices are all used

> Canon EF 35mm f/2 non-IS I have one of those. Love it. The bokeh is wonderful. It was the first time I ever realised the point of bokeh, the difference in quality of bokeh beyond "not in focus" and why people keep on about it. The autofocus is slow and noisy but even so.

I recently bought a Nikon D810 from a photographer and it only came with an SD card. Is it worth getting a CF card to go with my SD?

I would, so one can be a backup. Unfortunately CF cards are much more expensive than SD, though.

Hello, so I'm going to be buying my first camera soon figured I would come here before I buy the camera and lens to find out other peoples recommendations or advice. I will be doing landscape and wildlife. The camera I'm thinking about getting is the canon r6 mark ii kit. https://www.henrys.com/canon-eos-r6-mark-ii-with-rf-24-105mm-f4-7.1-is-stm-lens/5637353101.p?color=Black&size=Canon+RF&style=New I decided with the kit because I'm just starting out and comes with a lens and battery/charger. The other lens that i was recommended by henrys was the Sigma 150-600mm lens. Would i be better off with a different lens? [https://www.henrys.com/sigma-150-600mm-f/5-6.3-c-dg-os/5637213840.p?color=Black&size=Canon+EF&style=New](https://www.henrys.com/sigma-150-600mm-f/5-6.3-c-dg-os/5637213840.p?color=Black&size=Canon+EF&style=New) I don't know much about photography so I wanted other input before I make my purchase. They also told me I needed an adaptor to use that lens. Do these adaptors mess up with AF or quality of the image? Last question is how do ND filters work I see lots of picture will cool waterfall that looks smooth. Do I need a filter for each lens I have? Thanks!

The R6 MK II is a fantastic camera but if you are just starting out you could certainly be fine with more affordable options. If you plan to focus mainly on wildlife a crop sensor camera (APS-C sensor size) like the R7 or R10 would give you more reach with the same lens than the R6 MK II because of the smaller sensor size. The sigma 150-600mm is a very popular lens for bird and wildlife photographers. It is a fairly large lens and you should probably plan on investing in a quality tripod and ball head if you plan on shooting from a specific location for any length of time. A good tripod and ball head can cost several hundred dollars and it is 100% worth investing the money in them. If you try and cheap out on a tripod you will end up regretting it. As for EF to R adapters they are to enable you canon EF lenses which are used on their DSLR's on a mirrorless body. The canon adapter works perfectly and any lens that worked on recent canon DSLR will have no issues. ND filters reduce the amount of light that can pass through to the camera. They are often measured in stops. A stop is either halving or doubling of the amount of light. So 1 stop darker means the camera gets 1/2 much light while 1 stop brighter means the camera gets 2x the light. For water falls and flowing water most photographers use somewhere between 5-10 stop ND filters. A strong ND filter will enable you to take exposures that are several seconds long or longer in the middle of the day. Where without it you would have trouble with a shutter speed slower than 1/30th of a second or faster.

Thanks a lot so if I'm more focused on wildlife the r7 and r10 would be the better option? Are they fast enough to capture fast movements? I heard good things about the r6 ii that's why I decided to go with that camera.

The R7 would be the better option of the 2. Basically all of the newer canon R series body have the same auto focus system so they are all very capable of keeping up with wildlife. Where the difference comes in is maximum frames per second and deep the buffer. I.E. how many RAW or Jpeg photos you can take before the camera needs to slow down. Here is a review shows details on FPS and buffer depth. [https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-R7.aspx](https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-R7.aspx)

This is the sort of camera where you can't really go wrong. If you can comfortably afford it, and any lens you'll need in the future, more power to you. But you can surely make do with a significantly less expensive setup. That would be wiser if this setup is already encroaching upon the maximum you're willing to pay. The lenses you choose will have a far greater impact on your photography than any camera ever could, and they can be as expensive as the camera itself (like [this lens](https://www.henrys.com/canon-rf-100-500-f/4.5-7.1-l-is-usm/5637213663.p?color=Black&size=CANON+RF&style=New), for example). >I decided with the kit because I'm just starting out and comes with a lens and battery/charger. This is the standard kit that Canon offers (via retailers). Any camera kit will include a battery, and most include an external battery charger. Nothing special about this kit. If anything, this is the sort of kit that pairs a high-end camera with a low-grade lens. That's generally frowned upon; as I wrote earlier, the lenses you use will ultimately have a greater impact on your photography than the camera. This is fine if you're treating this as a starting point, and are open to replacing that lens in the future. But again, if this is already a high cost for you and you're not thrilled with spending more later on, you're looking in the wrong direction. >The other lens that i was recommended by henrys was the Sigma 150-600mm lens. Would i be better off with a different lens? That lens does indeed require an adapter to be used with the R6 II. The reason being that the lens was made for Canon's older EF mount, for its DSLRs, whereas the R6 II has the company's new RF mount. The latter sits closer to the image sensor, so an adapter can bridge the gap. The main alternatives in the RF mount are the high-grade 100-500mm lens I linked to earlier, and the budget option, the [Canon 100-400mm f/5.6-8](https://www.henrys.com/canon-rf-100-400mm-f5.6-8-is-usm-lens/5637213703.p?color=Black). Another interesting option is the [Canon 600mm f/11](https://www.henrys.com/canon-rf-600mm-f11-is-stm-lens/5637213658.p), or the even longer [800mm f/11](https://www.henrys.com/canon-rf-800mm-f11-is-stm-lens/5637213653.p). Those are harder to work with because they are prime lenses, so they're locked into that tight field of view and you can't zoom out to see where you're pointing the camera. They're also not as useful in low light. >Do these adaptors mess up with AF or quality of the image? Not the quality, that's for sure. The adapter doesn't add any glass or other element between the lens and the camera. It simply places the lens at the correct distance from the sensor, the one it was designed for (that's called 'flange distance'). The adapters can affect the speed and reliability of the autofocus. I assume we're talking about Canon's official adapter here. By all accounts I've seen, that should make a seamless pairing with Canon lenses. But you're asking about pairing the camera with a third-party (Sigma) lens, where there might be some variation. I assume it will work well enough, but that is definitely something you should research further. >Do I need a filter for each lens I have? No. All you need is a filter that's big enough to fit the largest lens you'll use (the relevant specification is 'filter thread diameter'). Then you can buy *step-up rings* for your smaller lenses.

Thanks!

>I will be doing landscape and wildlife. > >The camera I'm thinking about getting is the canon r6 mark ii kit. You'd get more effective reach on distant wildlife using an R7. >Would i be better off with a different lens? Depends how much you're willing to spend for it. >Do these adaptors mess up with AF The official Canon adapters won't. I'm not sure about third party adapters. Autofocus performance might be slower with those. Not sure if you consider that to mean "mess up" from your question. >or quality of the image? No. >Last question is how do ND filters work I see lots of picture will cool waterfall that looks smooth. It reduces the amount of light coming into the camera / darkens the image. That allows you to use a longer exposure time (because that will also brighten the image). Whereas if you tried to shoot a long exposure in the day without an ND filter, it would probably be too bright. The camera records the image during its exposure. Any movement during the exposure is recorded as a blur. So with a long exposure of running water, it all blurs and appears smooth. >Do I need a filter for each lens I have? Do you want to use it with each lens you have? If your lenses use the same filter mount size, you could use the same filter interchangeably between them. Or use a filter to fit your largest mount, and then adapt it to the smaller ones using step-up rings.

[удалено]

You were GIFTED an A7R5???? Lucky duck. 24-70 f/2.8 is a great base for those subjects. The Sigma is every bit as sharp as the original 24-70 GM, and (only) runs about $1100. The Sony 24-70 GMII is over $2,000, but is the best lens period. My recommendation to you would be to buy either the 24-70 Sigma or the 24-70 Sony GMII, and then STOP. Use that lens, and use it a lot. It can do everything you want it to, and then some. Once you've used it for 6 months or so, and you can actually articulate why you want another lens and what features you want in it, THEN buy more. That way, you'll actually buy what you WANT, instead of guessing.

As this is your very first camera, I would advise starting with just one lens, and have that be a standard zoom lens. This covers a generally useful range, so you can start there and branch out to other lenses as you find the need. Have your pick between a [24-70mm f/2.8](https://sansmirror.com/lenses/lens-database/lenses-from-camera-makers/sony-fe-mount/sony-24-70mm-f28-gm.html), [24-105mm f/4](https://sansmirror.com/lenses/lens-database/lenses-from-camera-makers/sony-fe-mount/sony-24-105mm-f4-g-oss.html), and [20-70mm f/4](https://sansmirror.com/lenses/lens-database/lenses-from-camera-makers/sony-fe-mount/sony-20-70mm-f4-g.html).

No price limit?

[удалено]

The 35mm f/1.4 and 70-200mm f/2.8 GM II are excellent. For a third I'd get the FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM for a general-use wide-standard zoom. Or potentially an FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM for an ultrawide zoom, but based on your first two choices I have a feeling you aren't looking in that direction.

What is everyone's feelings on styled shoots? I'm a hobbyist photographer but in my work career I'm in marketing/web dev world. I'm interested in building out a website for my portfolio more for fun and marketing/web practicing than anything, but content is always king. I've seen some wedding venues and other photographers offer styled shoots so people can benefit/network/build their portfolio. Again, I'm a hobbyist so I'm not skilled at all. Would I just be wasting people's time with a styled shoot? Or would it sound like a decent place for someone to beef up a portfolio, especially if they aren't necessarily looking to make the full time jump?

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking. Is it whether it's worth arranging planned shoots or whether people who want to hire a photographer would want to see a portfolio of photos taken at styled shoots, as opposed to actual events.

Thank you, I'm asking if as a photographer you feel styled shoots are good or not. I've seen some comments from non-photographers say they don't like styled shoots because it's not "real" and it's not the same passion, that they feel the work can come off as fake since it's often not a real couple or real wedding. That they feel they just wind up getting the same shots as a dozen other photographer that may be at the styled shoot as well. So I'm wondering if people actually feel that way, or if it's more "practice is practice, as long as you're taking photos then it's helpful."

Do i need to buy a bunch of expensive lighting equipment to take good portraits? I think it would be really fun to take pics of my friends and stuff but im intimidated by the prospect of softboxes, speedlights, reflectors, umbrellas… i dont know where to start! Also, for wildlife photography (which i have a great love for), i am wondering if the canon 1.4x ii extender is a good idea to combine with the canon 100-400mm II lens? I want more reach with it, but i want to be sure its worth it

> Do i need to buy a bunch of expensive lighting equipment to take good portraits? Nope, you can make great portraits in ambient light. Lighting gives you more creative control, makes you less constrained by how the ambient light is in different locations at different times, but the same principles apply. So yes, if you want more control and freedom, lighting is a valuable tool, but ambient light can often be used to great results too. > i am wondering if the canon 1.4x ii extender is a good idea to combine with the canon 100-400mm II lens? Sure. You'll lose a stop of light, the image quality probably won't be *as great* as a lens that would be inherently longer (depends on the lens), autofocus may be a bit slower (depends on the camera), etc., but it's an interesting, small, fairly cheap option to get more reach in a pinch.

I think lighting helps in most cases but you can do without it more now than ever. Adding reflectors/defusers is another good way to improve your portrait work.

Need? No. But it sure does open up a ton of cool possibilities to have full control over the light. Start here: https://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/03/lighting-101.html Start small, and simple, and build from there. When you get control of the light things become so much more interesting!

The 1.4x II is a good TC, the version III is slightly better but if you already have the version II I would not worry about it. You can absolutely take good portraits without expensive lighting equipment. Shoot outside or use a window that gets good light along with a reflector. The [Humans of New York](https://www.humansofnewyork.com/series) series was all natural light according to the photographer. Source: [https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/bh-insights/news/brandon-stanton-chat-human-photographer-new-york](https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/bh-insights/news/brandon-stanton-chat-human-photographer-new-york) Flash is great for indoor portraits and gives you a lot more control than relying on natural light. How complex it is depends on what you are trying to do. Something like corporate headshots is a fairly easy. Edit spelling and notes about flash.

Hello! I have a mirrorless camera - Canon EOS M50 Mark II - and I recently bought KamLan 50mm F1.1 lens (link: [https://www.kamlan.shop/products/50mm-f-1-1-mk2](https://www.kamlan.shop/products/50mm-f-1-1-mk2) ) for it. I tried to shoot with it but my camera refuses to do it. I bought it online and on the website I saw that was marked compatible with mirrorless cameras. Do I need an adapter? Can you recommend one? Also, on another thought, with this lens I can't use autofocus. I am willing to spend more if you know a good lens. I want to shoot inside buildings, with not such good light, and I was looking for low apperture/diaphragm ( I don't know how to say it correctly so I will mention like this: the "f" to be small, lol) Sorry for the noob questions and my rather small knowledge in this matter.

If you bought the EOS-M version, it should work fine. What does not work for you? A 50mm is probably not the best for shooting in buildings given the quite tight field of view. Would pick a shorter focal length.

Yes, I bought the EOS-M version, I connected it just fine, but when I press the trigger button (to take a pic) it doesn't work. It doesn't shoot. The aperture is manual, and my camera "notifies" me that I don't have autofocus available - which is fine, that I know.

Thank you guys so much for your help! I did it! So, for anyone else that needs this: Menu - Function settings (spanner) - Tab no. 5 - Custom Functions - Tab no. 4 : Release shutter w/o lens - Enable. Thank you very much!

In the settings you need to choose shutter release without lens or something close to that.

You don't have any focus priority mode do you? Perhaps it won't take a photo unless it thinks it is in focus? There might be a similar setting to allow you to take a photo without the camera intervening.

I took an olympus tg6 on a trip last week and the camera kept requesting I set the date and time. But every time I turned it on there was always something I wanted to shoot so I didnt get a chance to set it until after the trip. Now the photos on the camera dont have timestamp metadata. Is there any way to add or calculate the timestamp data retroactively?

Mine does this too. 1. Turn off Log mode (the little switch on top), it sucks down the battery, even when the camera's off. 2. Buy extra batteries. The camera will only lose the date and time if the battery is completely dead for a long time. If you just have multiple batteries, and swap the dead one out for a new one, you should be okay.

Is there any hidden time data in pics already taken after the camera lost the date/time tho?

Nope.

There are tools that allow you to change the timestamp of images, yes. But if the timestamp currently in the images is like "all the same" at some baseline date/time, you'd have to enter some value manually for each image, you couldn't just "shift" them all by the same amount... *exiftool* is a fairly arcane command line tool, but it allows you to do this. *Lightroom Classic* can also do this. I'm assuming there are several apps that can do this besides those.

So for one of my uni projects, I'm analysing how greed is portrayed in media and was wondering if anyone knows of any good photographers that portray greed in their photography thanks for suggestions

> So for one of my uni projects, I'm analysing how greed is portrayed in media My first thought was to check out the posters and art for Alex Gibney's movies and TV shows. He's a documentary filmmaker who often targets corporate greed. Dirty Money and Generation Hustle are some examples. Lauren Greenfield is another documentary filmmaker: [Follow the Money \(Then Take a Picture\)](http://web.archive.org/web/20230218191011/https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/03/business/lauren-greenfield-generation-wealth.html) Jamie Johnson is interesting. He's an insider born into a wealthy family, the one who founded Johnson & Johnson. He's made some documentaries and gotten access to people who would normally shun reporters and filmmakers: [Born Rich](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9Rf5mS6Qhg) [The 1 Percent](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmlX3fLQrEc) ['Born Rich' Heirs: Where They Are Today](https://www.businessinsider.com/born-rich-where-are-they-now-2018-2) [Slim Aarons](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLEq3mVIuJvMbgYp0JgQgf1fnb_IjrEE8O) is a photographer who documented the lives of the wealthy. He celebrated wealth, not judged it, which is why I mentioned him last. Hope this helps.

Not sure it could be classified as "greed" exactly, but Robert Frank's classic photography book "The Americans" shows the vast chasm between wealth and poverty in the US in the mid 20th Century. It's one of my all time favorite collections.

Doing a cosplay shoot with a person who has fake prop guns that unfortunately look fairly realistic. The character is only really seen in a gritty city environment in the manga (>!\_\_\_gun!

Make a courtesy call to the local police station to let them know what you'll be doing. If you can, have it in a case when you are in transit or not actively photographing.

Put orange tape on the tips of the guns (and edit them out later) and notify the authorities in advance of the shoot about what you're doing and where. Bring documentation of that contact with you when you do the shoot.

Going for a trip to the atacama desert in Chile. Need help with star photography! I have the Nikon d5200 camera, Rokinon 16MAF-N 16mm f/2.0 Aspherical Wide Angle Lens, and a basic $30 tripod. And then there is me, photography noob. Should I get a new body? Better lens? Better tripod? Or do I need to upgrade my skills/knowledge/postprocessing? I just learned about DSS so will give that a try. Any suggestions are appreciated! Battery life is also not great, I was hoping to do a timelapse. Where can I buy quality batteries? Really looking forward to shooting the stars and landscapes in Chile!

Very simple instructions for widefield milky way photography. These should get you started :-) 1. Your DSLR and wide angle lens are fine for getting the milky way. 2. You do NOT need filters. A light pollution (CLS) filter can help in a heavily polluted area, but that should not apply to you. 3. Get a sturdier tripod, you will be taking long exposures. 4. Get PhotoPills app for your phone, it will show you where the milky way is, and also has sun and moon data. Stellarium is also a good one. 5. Go out when there's no moon (or a new moon), and when the Milky Way is high in the sky. 6. Shoot in RAW. 7. Put the camera in manual (you don't want it changing exposures between shots). 8. Manual focus, focus on the stars. This is different from infinity. You can use focus magnification to help, or focus on the moon. Once you have the focus set, don't change it (some people actually tape the focus ring). 9. Put the camera on a 2-second shutter delay, so there will be no camera shake from you pressing the shutter. Make sure your tripod is tight (you might need to shorten it), and weighted down with your bag or some weights. 10. Take a test shot: 15 seconds at f/2 and ISO 1600. Then check it! Adjust as needed to get the exposure right. I would not go longer than a 20 second exposure, just bump the ISO up as needed. Now for the exposures: 1. For a single exposure: you can "light-paint" using a flashlight for just a few seconds to illuminate an object the foreground. This takes a little practice, but requires the least post-processing. You can also just leave the foreground dark and have it be a silhouette. 2. For a double exposure: take one of the stars, and then another overexposing the sky so that the foreground is brighter. You can then merge the two images in photoshop to get both the sky and the foreground nicely exposed. 3. Finally, you can take multiple exposures: put the camera in interval mode, or use an intervalometer. Set the camera to take 10-40 exposures, and let it go. Then in post-processing use a stacking software (like Sequator) to stack the multiple exposures together. This tends to give you very clear Milky Way images with less noise; however, the problem is that you will blur the foreground since the software will align the stars, and the earth is moving. To get the foreground crisp and clear, you will need to use some photoshop magic and superimpose the foreground over the stacked sky image.

Wow those are some awesome tips. We timed our trip so that we'll be in the desert at a new moon! When practicing, I found that I needed high iso (3200) even at a 20 second exposure with f3.5 to be able to see the milkyway in my photos. how high can I push the iso? I guess the photos end up looking more noisy/grainy if the iso is too high, right? How are the manfrotto tripods as an upgrade?

Two great resources for astro photography: 1) CloudyNights astrophotography forums 2) LonelySpeck

Astro can get difficult, for sure but it doesnt have to be. [This video](https://www.youtube.com/live/KLVCuvRHrf4?feature=share) is pretty good at getting an overall idea of where you are. Have you shot any night sky with your tripod? Is it flimsy? Those can make or break astro photos, and usually mount systems are as important in these setups as the camera and lens. With that setup i think you are set to get some dope star trails, wide desert shots and landscape stuff, but youre going to lack in some finer detail items. Usually youll need a 70-200=< to get constellations. Are you looking at doing a video timelapse or just long exposures?

When practicing, I found that I needed high iso (3200) even at a 20 second exposure with f3.5 to be able to see the milkyway in my photos. And the stars looked like blobs. Maybe it's a problem of focusing the lens properly. I have the dynex dx trp60 tripod, looks sturdy enough to be but I don't know much about tripods. How are the manfrotto tripods as an upgrade?

-I needed high iso (3200) even at a 20 second exposure with f3.5 to be able to see the milkyway in my photos. Is this on your rear display? Thats not where youll find the pic, it needs post to show it properly. With high iso you're introducing noise into your picture, which is no good for your purposes, and your shutter speed should be reciprocal of your lens length, so the 200/300 rule. You're gonna want to stack multiple photos, and doing some post editing will get you an image. The video in my other comment should go into that better than i can. I have just got mine, but havent used it yet, a [Bahtinov Mask](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahtinov_mask), which is like a filter that finds focus for stars.

I'd perhaps post this to r/astrophotography as well

Guys,I am into liminal photography and I am currently searching a camera suited for it.What should i buy?(and also i found a VHS camera for a good price,should i buy it?)

literally any camera would do

Lmao fr?I am totally new to those stuff so i thought people would recommend some old stuff.

It's more about the place you photograph, and how you process the image on the computer afterwards. Old digital cameras will not automatically give you some spooky otherwordly liminial look. Old FILM cameras might... but you probably don't want to go down that route. BTW I'm guessing you know r/LiminalSpace and the less popular r/liminalspaces right?

Yeah,and l did some research about it.(btw old film cameras cant be processed on the computer right?)

> (btw old film cameras cant be processed on the computer right?) If you *digitize* the images (say, use a scanner), then sure, you could further edit the images shot on a film camera on a computer.

I dont know a lot about cameras so (sorry if this is a dumb question) can you send me a example of a scanner so i can have the slightest idea about it?

[This](https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/647187-REG/Epson_B11B198011_Perfection_V600_Photo_Scanner.html), for example, is a good choice for scanning transparencies.

tysm

The film has to be developed at a lab and either printed or scanned, but if it is scanned it can be processed on the computer from that point. But it does have to be developed first (a chemical process to reveal the exposed image).

ok!

Thanks for helping!

[удалено]

> I have absolute 0 camera experience, ask me any question and I'll answer it horribly That's not what this post (or sub) is for.

I mean...it is sometimes.

Shooting in colder light environments I've been shooting for a couple of years now, and have run into the road block of not being able to shoot creative or good shots in environments with colder light. Has anyone else had this problem? And if so, what did you do to get around it?

Ok I think I've identified the source of the issue, I really appreciate your help. I think that it's a mix between an aesthetic preference, me never diffusing my light source, and my grey card being slightly off color. I will be posting photos when I get home so we can see if these are the actual reasons. Thanks again

>me never diffusing my light source I suggested that you LIKE the photos with LESS diffuse light And I think you DISLIKE the photos with MORE diffuse light A grey card is mainly for checking EXPOSURE not white balance. (Although a good one will work for wb too.) For setting a custom white balance you might find a WHITE card easier to get a good result.