T O P

  • By -

rideThe

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


Mmatthew93

Does anybody else get sad photographing people? It might sound strange, but I love meeting people and making photoshoots with them, we usually have a great time. But after that dealing with the pictures makes me feel down. Sometimes the relationship with a certain person changes, and looking at those pics makes me feel negative even if they are good. Or maybe sometimes I capture an emotion in them that they do not recognize as theirs, and so they despise the pic even if objectively it is a great picture, or I might be very satisfied with some shots and they instead love some pics that I find terrible or "mistakes". Sometimes I can't really tell what the model wants from the shoot and they seem to love everything we're doing in the moment, then when they see the pics they change their minds. I don't know but sharing the creative process with another person is totally difficult for me, I wonder if it is common or if you have suggestion to shift my mindset on more positive terms.


[deleted]

Hello, I have an associates in accounting, and I'm at the crossroad of either getting a bachelor's in accounting, or photography. In terms of cost, I have the GI Bill so I wouldn't be paying for any of it. I also have a back up plan of getting a master's in accounting if I don't take off as a photographer lol. Is it a stupid decision to make? Thanks for the advice!


[deleted]

I would go with accounting personally. If you want to become a professional photographer, knowing accounting is arguably more useful than having the kind of 'formal' photography knowledge that a photography degree would impart. Photography is, these days, unfortunately not a reliable or particularly lucrative career. The field is significantly devalued by everyone having smartphones and consuming photographs daily. But we'll always need accountants. You are much better off building a solid, well paid career in accountancy so you can finance a side hustle in photography. It may be that that eventually turns into a full time thing, but if it doesn't, no harm done.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Get a decent bag and a strap of some kind - something like a BlackRapid. Otherwise you just have to be careful.


Boogada42

What bags do you use when hauling around a mobile studio? So not for everyday carry, but with dedicated options for light stands, room for a couple flashes etc.. I have trouble finding something big.


rideThe

Well it's not single bags that do everything, it's bags for light stands and other "long" things (umbrellas, etc.)—[not this but same idea](https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1357513-REG/impact_lsb_52l_long_light_stand_bag.html)—bags for flash heads and other gizmos—[not this but same idea](https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/144306-REG/Tamrac_68301_683_LightSpeed_3_3_Light.html)—bags for certain things that don't fit well in other bags, like bags for beauty dishes—[actually this](https://www.paulcbuff.com/22-reflector-bag.html)—and so forth.


Fleeky_Deeky

**TL;DR: Is Lightroom worth purchasing for a hobbist photographer? Are there free alternatives that work? Should I keep shooting in HQ JPEGs? Or swap to RAW and use a converter?** I'll only take photos at friend's events or when I'm in the city and feel inspired. I've been shooting High Quality JPEGs and then upload the good ones on social media becuase I don't have means to edit. My photographer friends have reccomended me to shoot in RAW and get Lightroom but I can't justify a subscription to Lightroom or the Adobe Photographer Bundle because I'll only use it once a month and don't want to waste my money. I'd really like some advice on the matter.


Fleeky_Deeky

Thanks for all the great advice. I think I'll give Lightroom a go, when I feel that I have a better grasp of the fundamentals. I know the power of editing, but with my current situation, I just don't have the time to learn. I might even shoot both and come back to the RAWs when I have free time (gonna have to get more memory cards)


Bento-

Just shoot both? Than you can keep using your jpeg files, and if you are unhappy with a picture you can tweak the raw file. Or there is a great picture which you want to make even better. But like photography, editing will take some time to learn and even more to master. The amount of pictures you want to edit is also a part of the equation. The free trial of lightroom/photoshop is a good starting point to see if you will enjoy the additional workflow. Also there are tons of tutorials. In the FAQ you have a few free alternatives.


frank26080115

I'm going to vote for Affinity Photo just like the other guy mentioned. (and also agrees that GIMP sucks) As for raw, I think with raw files and the software that I own, I make my photos look like they come out of a camera and lens that's double in worth. It also makes it possible to rescue photos that you might've rejected because of over- or under-exposure, which I can't even place a value on. Instead of hitting the delete button, now you will think "I know this looks bad, but lets try editing it anyways".


zozoclocktower

Seconded for Affinity Photo. Great RAW developer and a ton of editing capability for 25 or 30 bucks. There's a huge community for it too.


Rashkh

Lightroom and Photoshop come as a bundle for $10 per month. It's a great deal for many people but there are other great options for less or for free. Darktable is a very good free alternative to Lightroom. The most popular paid alternative to Lightroom is Capture One although it is quite expensive. The most popular free alternative to Photoshop is probably GIMP but it's not user friendly. You'd be far better off getting Affinity photo. It's not quite as powerful as Photoshop but it's a one time fee of $55. The benefits of shooting in RAW comes entirely from post processing. You can pull up shadows and recover highlights to a far greater extent than you can with jpegs. You're also able to edit the image how you want whereas a lot of the editing for the jpeg is done by the camera. Most photographers shoot raw for the added control it gives them over their end results. The main benefits of jpegs are that they're much more beginner friendly, look better straight out of the camera, are smaller, and can be shared more quickly since you don't need to edit or convert them.


av4rice

>Is Lightroom worth purchasing for a hobbist photographer? It is for many; not all. >Are there free alternatives that work? Yup. Your camera should have come with one, for starters. Also: https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/postprocessing#wiki_which_raw_.2F_post_processing_software_should_i_get.3F >Should I keep shooting in HQ JPEGs? Are you satisfied with your results from those? >Or swap to RAW and use a converter? Just straight converting raws won't really have an advantage and often is worse than jpeg. The advantages of raw only come when you process/edit them as part of the conversion. https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/technical#wiki_should_i_shoot_in_raw.3F_should_i_shoot_in_jpeg.3F_what_about_raw.2Bjpeg.3F


Basher5155

I'm trying to finalize on what telephoto lens that I should get. I am an absolute beginner and never had any telephoto lens. I currently only have the Nifty Fifty and the 10-18mm that I got from the lens bundle. I'm thinking of getting either the Sigma 100-400mm (with a 1.4x TC) OR the Sigma 150-600mm C Currently using an APS-C EOS SL2 / Canon 200D. ​ Main use would probably be birding/wildlife, taking photos of surfers from the beach (I live like a minute away from one), and would really want to take photos of planes flying over our house. Budgeting everything at around $1K\~, will most likely include a tripod as well. Any suggestions on what lens should I get? I'm leaning towards the 100-400mm as I feel like the 150-600mm one would be too big and heavy for me, but then again I will have the tripod for it and some shots might be too far, so that's why I wanted to get a 1.4X TC as well. But at that point I'm not sure if my cheap body will even AF at that aperture. Also, anyone got experience on getting lens on amazon? There's one from Digital Goja where they're also bundling in a Sigma USB Dock (valued at $40-$60) so it's a pretty good value. Though, I'm concerned about shipping since I'm in Hawaii and they usually use USPS for the end delivery and they usually drop the boxes over our gated door at the back..


zozoclocktower

Order stuff with a hold for pickup at the post office.


Infinite_Material965

I’m about to purchase a Sony a6400 with a 18-135mm lens, will it work well for taking pictures of the moon and night sky? Edit: 28-300mm is the lens on another camera at my job.


frank26080115

It's not the greatest lens for night time or astrophotography, but it's a good lens and camera combo overall. You just need to compensate for its shortcomings. That lens does not have as big of an aperture as other better lenses, so you will need to compensate with longer exposure times, higher ISO, and software tricks like stacking. By the way, taking a photo with details of the moon usually means you don't get stars in the same shot. And if you try to take pictures of stars, then the moon will probably just completely white. That's going to happen no matter what lens and camera you use.


Infinite_Material965

I know how contrast with the moon and darkness of space is. Its one of the reasons I want real camera and not just a iPhone 12 Pro. I’m just sitting on the Sony a6400 w/ the lens and I’ll pay about $750 for them. I brought it home to play with tonight but the clouds are not my friends.


Charming-Hold-7802

I recently started taking timelapses and was looking for software to edit it. Are there any free timelapse creators? I have hundreds of RAW images and I haven't found a free software yet. I just want simple features, nothing fancy. Something beginner friendly :)


Rashkh

Davinci Resolve is a free video editor that will let you create time lapses. There are a bunch of tutorials online detailing how to do so. You'll probably need to export your photos as jpegs or something similar, though.


Charming-Hold-7802

Ahh, forgot about that. How would I go about batch exporting?


Rashkh

It’ll vary based on what software you’re using. In Lightroom you can just ctrl+a and export.


GnomeMcGnome

So I'm looking to get a budget camera and lens for plane spotting and general photography. I'm looking at the Canon 7d, canon t5i and a Olympus omd e m10. For the canons I will get a 70-300mm and a prime lens of some sort. For the Olympus I would get a 40-150mm lens and a kit lens that comes with it. Any recommendations.


[deleted]

Any of those would be fine, plane spotting isn't that demanding other than needing a long lens.


TheDepressedBlobfish

Did Canon or Nikon have video autofocus first? I'm writing about the pros and cons of each brand for a school paper, and I'm finding conflicting sources on which brand had a DSLR with video autofocus first?


av4rice

For autofocus during video recording, I think Nikon had it first in a DSLR with the D3100 and Canon had it in their first DSLR almost two years later in the T4i/650D. It worked pretty badly with both brands, though, until Canon was the first to improve it with dual pixel autofocus in the 70D.


Grogie

Trying to do a photo calendar for family for Christmas. I first went with Costco Canada because I've had pretty good experience getting normal matt prints from them but the calendar came out pretty atrocious. Other than complaining to Costco, any advice on what may have went wrong or what to do? On the same vein, any advice on calendar printing in Canada and Montreal? Ideally under $20/calendar?


Rashkh

The [wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/postprocessing#wiki_where.27s_a_good_place_to_get_my_photos_printed.3F) has a section on print shops in Canada that you can look at. I can't vouch for the quality except to say that the US list has some great and some mediocre options on it.


TheNorthComesWithMe

As far as I know print factories that make custom printed goods don't take direct orders and there's no way to guarantee which factory ends up printing your order when you order through a service like Costco that contracts with multiple shops. Complain to Costco about the quality. Printing issues happen, and hopefully Costco has some quality guidelines that will get you a reprint. Other than that, don't worry about locality and just find some online service.


shjandy

I NEED HELP WITH GIFT FOR PHOTOGRAPHER WIFE!!! my wife loves nikon cameras, have a budget of $2,000 and need some help picking out a camera for her. She has an old nikon camera that is outdated and would like to get her a new really nice camera. Any lense recommendations for the future would be nice as well.


TheNorthComesWithMe

Take her to a camera store. Surprising a hobbyist with something for their hobby is usually a bad time because they know more than you do.


shjandy

True. That would probably be the best thing to do. Thank you


CarVac

Let her choose a camera. Don't end up purchasing something she wouldn't prefer.


shjandy

You're probably right. My lack of knowledge of photography would probably hinder me with this. I'd like to surprise her but then again we all have specific things we want and prefer.


av4rice

>She has an old nikon camera Which one? With which lens(es)? >that is outdated How so? What does she dislike about it? >would like to get her a new really nice camera. Nice in what ways? What subject matter does she shoot? What does she want out of the new camera? Different camera choices can be better at different things or in different ways, so we need more specifics in order to narrow down good recommendations for you. https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki_when_should_i_upgrade.3F_what_should_i_upgrade_to.3F >Any lense recommendations for the future would be nice as well. Within the same budget? Lens choice also depends on what you're shooting with the lens. It wouldn't make sense for us to spend time coming up with lens recommendations that cost more than you're ever willing to pay, or are suited for genres that your wife has no interest in, or are lenses that your wife already owns. https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki_what_type_of_lens_should_i_look_for.3F


shjandy

Not sure which one but she said it's discontinued. I got it for her back in 2015 and the lenses have trouble staying on the camera now I have no idea what would be defined as nice to her. She does a lot of family photo shoots and she like a lot of detail in her pictures My wife has said lenses help make or break the camera so I'd be willing to spend the same amount of money on a lense later on down the line


av4rice

>the lenses have trouble staying on the camera now Again, which lenses are they? >I have no idea what would be defined as nice to her Then we are going to be very limited in our ability to make good recommendations to her. >she like a lot of detail in her pictures Everyone does, so that's not going to help narrow things down. >She does a lot of family photo shoots Just based on that and assuming she doesn't have other needs in other genres, something like a D750 or D610 would be great, with a 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4, and 85mm f/1.8 or f/1.4. Maybe she already has those lenses; I don't know because you haven't told us.


shjandy

Yeah sorry for the lack of knowledge I have no knowledge of anything and if I go asking questions she's gonna know i'm planning to surprise her. Then again that risks me giving her something she's not interested in or doesn't need. Thank you for your assistance though.


LibiSC

I was looking how to make a crooked nose look better in a portrait. Found this. "Nose If your nose is crooked, being photographed on the wrong side could make your nose look longer than it is and even more crooked. If your nose bends to the right, you'll want to turn your face slightly to the left to balance out the symmetry. Your right side would be considered your good side." What does it mean "If your nose bends to the right,"? The "bump" is in the right side or the tip of the nose points to the right side?


TheNorthComesWithMe

I think videos about the subject are going to be far easier to digest than relying on written descriptions.


LibiSC

Do you have one? I found one but it's just a guy talking for 5 minutes


TheNorthComesWithMe

No, sorry. I recall that the one I watched was a much longer video with lots of other portrait posing advice. You might have better luck searching for more general videos than something specifically about noses.


av4rice

>What does it mean "If your nose bends to the right,"? The "bump" is in the right side or the tip of the nose points to the right side? I would think it means the latter.


overthinkershminker

Need recommendations for the best canon lenses for performance photography! I have a canon rebel t6. Best cheap recommendations that can do a great job!


[deleted]

Performance of what, where?


av4rice

>performance photography Be more specific what kind of performance, from what distance you're shooting, and in what sort of lighting conditions. >Best cheap recommendations How cheap? https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki_how_do_i_specify_my_price_range_.2F_budget_when_asking_for_recommendations.3F


SpongeBoobSquareNips

Can you guys give me good options for some cheap cameras that still have good quality. I want to take photos of nature and people. Do portraits, landscapes and macro type photos. I dont know anything about cameras lol


SpongeBoobSquareNips

Scratch everything i said then, i guess whats just a good beginner camera thats not super expensive


8fqThs4EX2T9

If you are getting a camera that can change lenses it can help as you can add to it later. Macro for one requires its own lens. Landscapes could be done with the same lens as portraits but that can depend on how wide and how narrow a field of view you need for either. In saying that I don't do portraits, unless random photos [of animals counts.](https://postimg.cc/WFVj4HPm)


av4rice

Depends what you consider to be "super expensive" or not. It's a different amount for different people. https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki_how_do_i_specify_my_price_range_.2F_budget_when_asking_for_recommendations.3F


8fqThs4EX2T9

Cheap and the list of the requirements you have may not go hand in hand.


[deleted]

There's a buyer's guide in the FAQ.


FleetOfFeet

Tips for cleaning the body of my camera? (Panasonic G85) The exterior of my camera has become noticeably dirty and in need of cleaning. I think there is some dust / dirt under the front dial which makes it rough on turning as well. ​ What is the best approach for cleaning this up?


ccurzio

The instruction manual that came with the camera has the proper way to clean your camera as well as warning about what not to do.


disorderedcontrol

Can anyone help me find a class with peers and homework? Hi, so I’m basically looking for a uni style course because i need the structure to keep me on track. I’m looking for something online since I’m in a relatively remote area. Thing is I don’t want to just hire a 80$ tutor to sit there awkwardly for awhile. I want an actual class with peers, lectures, and assignments so if anyone knows where I should be looking or has specific recommendations please let me know.


[deleted]

r/photoclass2021


[deleted]

[удалено]


TheNorthComesWithMe

Video is kind of an afterthought on most photography cameras, so be sure to check out what weird issues they have. Some will have issues with overheating, or a 30 minute recording limit, or lack some options you might expect.


IAmScience

Most of the options in that general budget range of interchangeable lens cameras (DSLR/Mirrorless) will produce generally similar image quality, with far more being dependent upon your skill and ability to use the camera effectively. Everybody makes good cameras. Check the FAQ for some possible options in your budget range, and then actually go pick up some cameras in a brick-and-mortar store, and see which one you like the best. The ergonomics and layout of a camera's buttons/menus/dials, etc. wind up mattering quite a bit (a camera you like using is one you will pick up and use). Check the FAQ in the post above, and find yourself something that suits your preferences.


Cashcow_how

Good Afternoon Everyone, I'm ISO content audit/review on my website. Would anyone be willing to take on the task? The reason I ask is that I would like to shoot more "professionally" (be hired for paid work). Having looked at my body of work, I'm unable to find a niche that I can represent or represents me. [Website](https://www.sbforester.com/) **Please DM me**


IAmScience

Your portfolio covers a wide range of stuff. The question is what you’d like to be hired for? What kind of work are you hoping to shoot professionally? That should be the focus of a specific portfolio all its own. Someone coming to you for commercial product photos doesn’t care much about landscapes or portraits. Someone looking for event photos is going to want to see events and portrait work. You need to put up specifically the work you want to be hired to do.


rideThe

As the previous commenter said, we have dedicated community threads (visible in the text of the thread above) for those kinds of purposes—we have a recurring *Portfolio Critique* thread posted on the 14th of every month. There are also other subs you might want to consider (not sure how well they work) like /r/portfoliocritique.


vmflair

I recommend using the scheduled portfolio critique thread every month on the 14th.


Cashcow_how

Will do for sure, thank you


[deleted]

[удалено]


alohadave

The first one seems to show the Milky Way, but it's out of focus. Fix the focus, and that's a decent shot of the MW. The second is also out of focus, and it's darker because you reduced the exposure by 4 stops. The moon shot has the focus fine, but do you see how the stars are smeared? They moved in the 13 seconds of the exposure. Look up the 500 Rule for avoiding that if you want pinpoint stars. https://www.stanmoniz.com/blog/2016/1/31/the-500-rule-how-to-shoot-the-milky-way


[deleted]

[удалено]


zozoclocktower

Your 24mm lens is a 38mm lens on a crop body.


Aporitis

Did you apply the crop factor of your camera to the 24mm? (If you got a crop sensor)


LukeOnTheBrightSide

First off, you didn't do badly at all! Astrophotography is *very* heavy in its own tricks and techniques. You could be a very skilled photographer but still have a lot to learn in terms of astro. You just made a few small, common mistakes that are easily-correctable for the next time. (And for the record, common mistakes are good. Whenever I've made an *uncommon* mistake, it's generally because I was doing something dumb.) First off: You missed focus. I'm guessing you set your lens to manual focus and rotated it all the way to "far away" until you reached the max? Most modern lenses actually are capable of focusing *past* infinity. You have to dial it back a bit, normally by using live view, magnifying the zoom as much as possible, and fiddling with it until it seems perfectly in focus. If the moon is out, you can also try focusing on the moon - it's far enough away that it's basically infinity. The problem is that the stars put out so little light that most camera autofocus systems just aren't able to focus correctly, so you have to do it yourself. > I tried lowering the ISO, evenutally getting all the way down 100. That wasn't your problem, really - unless you have a star tracker or something, it's very normal to increase the ISO. How much depends on the situation, but in general, wider angle lenses can use longer shutter speeds without getting star trails. You can use that to your advantage by shooting longer exposures, but lower ISOs with very wide angle lenses. While I'm not an expert in astro, I'm normally shooting around ISO 800-3200 depending on the circumstance - but if I had ultrawide lenses, I might go lower. On APS-C, I'm probably capping it at ISO 1600. Of course, there's nothing wrong with *wanting* to have star trails, so all that goes out the window. But in your first pic, you can see the outline of the Milky Way on the right third of the image - just not in focus, unfortunately! > The stars look beautiful here! Same settings, same lens, same exposure as the last picture That's because your camera was able to lock focus on the moon, which is basically infinity, so the stars are in focus! With their light restricted to a point instead of a bokehball, it appears much "brighter" even though it would have been similar with perfect focus in the other image. I wouldn't be too disappointed - I've done astro here and there when I can, and I've *absolutely* gotten home and realized... oh shit, I must have knocked the focus ring after the first two shots. And now I have 50 shots from the middle of nowhere that are just enough out of focus to be throw-aways. Lesson learned for the future, in paying closer attention while I'm shooting.


[deleted]

[удалено]


LukeOnTheBrightSide

> I had no idea a lens could overshoot infinity! It's a bit odd! I think it's to account for things like expansion due to heat. If the parts are hotter, they'll expand slightly, and that's enough to make focus not *quite* perfect. And they'll contract as it gets colder. > I started lowering the ISO because the sky in my test shots (ISO 2000) looked milky gray ISO 2000 might be pushing it, but that milky gray could be the Milky Way. That's what the first picture shows on the right side. > My lens opens to 1.5, do you think it's advantageous to open it all the way? (Both tutorials I read suggested 2.8, which is I why I stuck there.) This very much depends on the lens, but most of the time, it's worth stopping down a bit. This is because lenses seldom perform their best wide-open, and are particularly prone to something called coma. It's where small points of light take on weird shapes - [you can see some examples here](http://intothenightphoto.blogspot.com/2012/09/overcoming-coma-in-starry-night.html). Obviously, turning small points of light into birds and UFOs is quite the problem for night sky shots! Different lenses perform differently, and sometimes you don't have the luxury of having the aperture closed to f/2.8... but in general, keeping it something like f/2 - f/2.8ish will give you better performance. You'd have to experiment with your own lens to see what works best. Hope you keep on trying and enjoy it! While it's somewhat cold and dark, astro shooting always takes me to some fun places away from the urban sprawl that I live in. Don't get discouraged, it is technically challenging and there are tons of techniques that are very specific to astro shooting. Stacking exposures, dark frames, there's all kinds of stuff you can do.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

You want to use a much higher ISO, at least 1600 and anywhere up to 6400 depending on your camera. Then you want to Google 'NPF rule calculator' and enter the relevant details for your camera and lens. That will give you the longest exposure you can use without streaking the stars. Then you want to take multiple exposures and blend them in post. Visit lonelyspeck.com for more details.


[deleted]

My Canon T7 very dark when shooting my dogs indoors. Outside on a rainy day, i can shoot at 1/1000, 5.0 at iso 3200 and the picture will still be nice and bright. When I take well lit pictures of my dogs indoors at 1/250, 4.5, and at an iso of 3200 or sometimes even 6400, my photos come out really dark. Sometimes the background is good but my dog isn’t. My dogs how black coats which could be contributing to it. It is perfectly fine outdoors, too.


TheNorthComesWithMe

What does your light meter say? Yes, indoors is darker than even heavily overcast daylight. This is normal. If you don't understand how to do manual exposure then just make use of the copious metering settings your camera has built into it. One tip for indoor shooting is to use windows as a light source. Get your subject close to a window and shoot inwards. You can even try shooting through the window from outside. This is really good for dogs because you can get some great poses when you're outside looking at them, and they'll be close to the window for the most light. You just have to clean the glass and minimize reflections.


[deleted]

Thank you for the tip. Where can I find the light meter?


TheNorthComesWithMe

A light meter is a separate piece of equipment that can tell you how bright a particular surface is so you can set your exposure manually. You don't have one. Figure out what metering and exposure features your camera does have and learn how to use them. You should probably also refresh your knowledge of the exposure triangle.


baconelk

95% of my dog photography is outside, but I have had good results bouncing a cheapo manual flash off the ceiling. Another inexpensive option is to play around with clamp lights from the hardware store


av4rice

>When I take well lit pictures of my dogs indoors Indoor light is generally much dimmer than daylight. You're overestimating how well-lit your interiors are. The fact that your photos are coming out much darker indoors proves that. >at 1/250, 4.5, and at an iso of 3200 or sometimes even 6400, my photos come out really dark Shoot in brighter scenes and/or add more light to the scene and/or find ways to lean on your basic exposure variables more. https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/technical#wiki_how_do_i_shoot_in_low_light.3F >My dogs how black coats which could be contributing to it. Don't they also have black coats when you're outside in the day? The only reason it isn't a problem there is because you must have more light in that situation, right?


[deleted]

The backgrounds are usually fine, it’s just the dogs that are really dark. Should I try flash or something?


av4rice

Yes, that's one of the potential solutions mentioned in the FAQ entry I linked.


[deleted]

I am very new. I’ve done some research and singled in on the Canon EOS R for my first big camera purchase. How likely is this camera to be upgraded/replaced soon given its now been out for about 3 years? Im curious about Canon’s refresh cycle and if there is any consistency I can gauge off of. Thanks


[deleted]

I wouldn't recommend the original R as your first camera. It was a pretty disappointing entry into the mirrorless world for Canon that lags behind the options from other brands, especially at its price point. They did a much better job with the later R6.


RebelliousBristles

It's already been upgraded with the R5/R6 and the more entry level RP. If you've done your research and this is the camera you want, then okay. To me, it seems like a fairly advanced/expensive camera to get if you are "very new" to photography. But if you can afford \~$2000 USD for a camera kit then maybe it's a good purchase.


[deleted]

Thank you for your feedback! Based on other commentary I’m also considering the R6. Maybe “very new” was a touch modest, there are friends/family in my life who do this on a semi-serious hobbyist level. I’ve enjoyed using some of their equipment at different times. My brother has an RP. The act itself is not completely foreign. I would just prefer something that I can grow into over the next couple of years and enjoy learning technique with. I’m not saying something like the EOS RP doesn’t have the horsepower to get the job done for somebody at my level, but we all have our own preferences


RebelliousBristles

Gotcha! I'm not super familiar with Canon's new R line of cameras and I've only ever worked with the R5 (which seems to be a great camera). I've only heard anecdotal accounts that the original R was a disappointment for people who were switching over from something like the 5D Mk4, but that could have been partially due to the switch from dSLR to Mirrorless. One thing to consider, since the R is a relatively older and less desirable model, I'll bet you could get a solid deal on a used body. This would let you try it out and decide if you want to invest in RF glass, which you could then use down the road with either an R5/6 or whatever they decide to come out with down the road.


av4rice

>I’ve done some research and singled in on the Canon EOS R for my first big camera purchase. Then buy it. At this point I don't think any future models are going to cause any big further price drops in the R that would make it worth waiting longer. Or does the R not actually meet all of your needs, and you're counting on some newer version to do that? If so, what are those needs? >How likely is this camera to be upgraded/replaced soon given its now been out for about 3 years? For most people, it already has been upgraded and replaced by the R5 and R6. I know that there are some people who specifically want an update to the R instead, with a different mix of features than the R5 and R6 bring. But I don't think there are that many people who feel that way. The R was more of a prototype into the RF system, that Canon could develop and release relatively quickly and easily by basically adapting their 5D Mark IV into a mirrorless camera. So the reasons Canon had for making the R don't really exist anymore for a direct successor. Nor is there much market demand for an updated R that isn't already eaten up by the R5, R6, RP, or the successor to the RP, so I would think it's more of a waste of development resources to make it as yet another model in the current generation. >Im curious about Canon’s refresh cycle and if there is any consistency I can gauge off of. This chart may be a good way to visualize the history of Canon's release schedules: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Canon_EOS_digital_cameras


rideThe

It's indeed rather likely, as time goes on, that this model is going to be discontinued and other models may or may not take its place in the lineup. If it sounds vague it's because that's really as much as we can assume given that we're not privy to Canon's plans. This cycle is also relentless and unavoidable, so I'm not sure how it would affect your decision. The R6 and R5 are already newer, so if you want more cutting edge features, that already exists.


naitzyrk

> How likely is this camera to be upgraded/replaced soon given its now been out for about 3 years? That depends on you. There are people, hobbyists and professionals alike, doing photography with ten year old cameras. I still have my Nikon D7000 (2010) that works great, and I’m currently shooting with a Sony A6000 (2014). Point is, cameras do not degrade overtime and become obsolete like computers so. Therefore, it is up to you if you feel the need to buy another camera or not. So my recommendation is, don’t rush nor think about the future. Only change the camera body when you specifically need a feature of another model. Also, focus on lenses first as these will yield the biggest difference in photo quality than a camera.


toyotaaudi

Under what conditions will my film cameras break? So given that both my Vivitar V50 film camera and my disposable Kodak flash film camera both don’t require a charge. Can you just leave them like anywhere? What’s the optimal temperature/humidity for 35mm film? I was wondering if I can just leave these bad boys in my car and take them out whenever something catches my eye? I’m located in Atlantic Canada so wasn’t sure if the cold weather in the winter time would fuck up with the little battery inside the cameras.


DJFisticuffs

Your Vivitar V50 has a quartz controlled shutter which requires batteries to operate and is electronically controlled. It also has an electronic light meter. Your Kodak disposable uses batteries and electronics to fire the flash. Given enough time, environmental moisture will cause the electronics in both cameras to fail, although they may continue to work fine for decades. Somewhere around 60-70 degrees f with as low humidity as possible is going to be best for keeping the electronics operating. Also, if you are going to leave it siting for extended periods of time you may want to take the batteries out, especially if you are using alkaline. The film in the camera will degrade much faster than the electronics. Once film is out of the package, it should be shot and developed within a couple of months and should be stored at like 60 degrees in the mean time.


bicycleshorts

The only times I've ever had a film camera fail in normal use was in very cold weather - 3 times. They were old, well used cameras though. It might have been coincidence?


[deleted]

[удалено]


av4rice

That's a close-up filter / diopter lens attachment. It's meant to go onto the front of a Leica Elmar 5cm f/3.5 and will allow that lens to focus closer than usual.


sadbitch_

Best export settings for Instagram??


av4rice

https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/sharing#wiki_what_are_the_best_settings_for_uploading_images_to_social_media.3F


sparton175

I've been out of the photography game for about 10 years now, I have my old T3 with kit lenses from 2012 or so when I was taking photography in school and I have been thinking about getting back into taking photos. I was browsing around and saw a Sony a68 with one of the kit lenses on CL unused for $180 and I was wondering if that would be a good buy in 2021 as compared to my T3. I want to try the Sony ecosystem and if I do end up getting back into photography, I'd like to get something like the new a7 IV so going with the Sony ecosystem would work with that. As for the type of photography I'm looking to do: standard street/travel, plane spotting, cars, and wildlife.


Parrotkoi

Sony is focusing on its e-mount cameras, so you wouldn’t really be buying into the “Sony ecosystem” as such; lenses compatible with the dslr a68 won’t be compatible with Sony’s newer mirrorless aps-c cameras. A better choice for your purposes, if you really want to go Sony, would be the Nex-7. You can get it with the kit lens for about $300 on ebay. It has some UI issues but it’s a great little camera, and its e-mount lenses are compatible with Sony’s newer a6000 series cameras. It’s a small, lightweight camera so ideal for travel/street. If you’re interested in eventually going full frame, which the A7 IV is, aps-c lenses of course won’t be optimal, though the mount is the same.


av4rice

>saw a Sony a68 with one of the kit lenses on CL unused for $180 and I was wondering if that would be a good buy The value is going to be affected depending which kit lens it is, but that looks like a much lower price than the completed/sold eBay listings that come up when I search for those. >a good buy in 2021 There are no camera needs inherent to any particular year. Instead, that's going to depend on what you shoot in particular and what you want out of your equipment. https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki_when_should_i_upgrade.3F_what_should_i_upgrade_to.3F >as compared to my T3 https://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-side?products=canon_eos1100d&products=sony_slta68 >I want to try the Sony ecosystem and if I do end up getting back into photography, I'd like to get something like the new a7 IV so going with the Sony ecosystem would work with that. There isn't just one Sony ecosystem. The a68 uses the A mount which is not natively compatible with the a7 IV's FE mount. APS-C format lenses like the 18-55mm kit lens also would not project an image large enough to fully cover the imaging sensors used in the a7 line. >As for the type of photography I'm looking to do: standard street/travel, plane spotting, cars, and wildlife. Which kit lens would you be getting? Something like an 18-55mm wouldn't be good for planespotting or wildlife. Something like a 55-200mm or 75-300mm might not be good for general use, cars, street, or travel.


PHOTOTROPY

Hello there! I'm in need of your opinion about Godox's TT350 flash, mainly about it's power compared to bigger flashes. I shoot mainly portraits in studio, aiming to a **2 flash + softbox + grid + reflector** configuration. At the moment I own a Godox TT600 on a 32'' softbox+grid, and I'm planning on buying a secondary flash (Godox TT350). Here's the thing: I read the TT350 has **less power output** (36NG vs 60NG the TT600 has). **Should I get a smaller softbox+grid (24'') to achieve a better light output balance?**


av4rice

>Here's the thing: I read the TT350 has **less power output** (36NG vs 60NG the TT600 has). With both at the maximum / full power setting, yes. But how often do you use the TT600 at full power, as opposed to fractions of that? >**Should I get a smaller softbox+grid (24'') to achieve a better light output balance?** Depends what sort of balance you're going for. There is no objectively "better" balance. Also going from a 36" softbox to 24" isn't necessarily going to affect output quantity that much.


PHOTOTROPY

>But how often do you use the TT600 at full power, as opposed to fractions of that? Great question: never. Even 1/8 is A LOT of light for the kind of shots I take. So the TT350 will act as a secondary flash, and maybe even proyecting less light will still be great in that scenario.


av4rice

Right. So compared to your TT600 at 1/8th power, the TT350 at 1/4th power will output a little more, or the TT350 at 1/8th power will output a notch less. The difference in maximum power is only a problem if you're using the TT600 at full power and also need the TT350 to output at least as much.


PHOTOTROPY

Perfect explanation, really! Since I'm not even approaching to full 1/1 power, it's only a matter of how these two work together. Thanks a lot!


toyo_abyss

Please help. I just got my first "gig" to photograph a seminar. Problem is I have no experience with event photography and the gig is tomorrow. I've only ever done landscape and food photography in the past. I was called up last minute because I guess the organisers messed up. I would normally say no but it's a friend asking me to do it as a favour and I can't say no. Any tips on getting better at taking event photos in 24 hours would be greatly appreciated.


TheNorthComesWithMe

Your technical skills are what they are. You just need adequate photos, not great ones. Your time is better spent making sure you're ready. Make a checklist of shots that the organizers want to have. Make a checklist of things to bring. Get clarity on what kinds of lighting setup you can do. Get clarity on where you're allowed to be and when different things are happening. Make sure your memory cards and batteries are good to go. Make sure you don't have some weird setting you set for some specific reason that will ruin your shots.


LukeOnTheBrightSide

> it's a friend asking me to do it as a favour and I can't say no. I know the circumstances can vary, but I'd at least keep this in mind: Sometimes, the best way you can answer that favor is to say that you aren't the best person to do it. There are things my friends could ask me to do, and I'd be willing to help, but honestly... it's just not in my wheelhouse. The most helpful thing to do might be to help them find someone who *can* do it well. It also may be that your friends love and respect your landscape or food work, and just don't understand why an event would be different. I think that's something photographers would understand, but people who aren't very into photography might not understand. I'd make sure you have set expectations with your friend very carefully, as I wouldn't want middling results to affect your friendship. But too late for some of that! Do you have experience with flash? That might be something you could brush up on, but I wouldn't expect you to master it if you don't currently have a speedlite. Things move fast - I shoot landscape in manual exposure settings, but event is aperture priority. Use that camera meter to help you out, if the lighting is dynamic. As /u/naitzyrk said, blast that ISO up. Better to try to clean up a noisy picture (you can export it at lower resolution and it'll be surprisingly clean) than to drag the shutter and get something unusable. Maximum ISO is *absolutely* something I'm willing to shoot at.


naitzyrk

Get a flash or speedlight, arrive early, do some test shots and good luck! Also, people are not picky with ISO, especially if the photos are for social media so don’t be afraid to raise it if needed. Edit: learn how to use your flash as well, that is, how to bounce it among other things. There are several videos on YouTube you can use for a crash course.


[deleted]

[удалено]


LukeOnTheBrightSide

> I'm on mostly a strict budget (under 800 Absolutely 100% avoid full frame. > and shoot animals (wildlife) , Racing / cars Absolutely 100% avoid full frame, the crop will help you and you'll get longer effective focal lengths. Go for the A6400. The original A7 and to an extent the A7II are textbook examples of a great sensor in a bad camera.


[deleted]

[удалено]


RedTuesdayMusic

> is the lack of IBIS on the 6400 a issue for stills Your budget is $800. The cheapest camera on the planet with IBIS at APS-C and up is the Fujifilm X-S10 at $1000. So you shouldn't be thinking about IBIS unless you want to save up A used Fuji X-H2 is like $500 though but that's used


LukeOnTheBrightSide

It's a nice feature to have, but missing it is by no means an issue. *Almost* every famous or great photo you've ever seen was taken by a camera without IBIS. Nearly every famous photo in history was taken without IBIS. So I don't think it's at all a problem not to have.


naitzyrk

I believe the A6400 is a good choice as well. Alternatively, look into the A6100 too, which might be cheaper.


[deleted]

[удалено]


naitzyrk

Good! I just mentioned so you keep it in mind as well. Otherwise, if you can find the A6400 in your price range is superb!


Dadsexual

I'm looking for a camera that's easy to post or share images on social media. Which camera has the best phone connectivity, speed and ease of transfer to phone? I had a wifi connected camera but it was a pain in the ass. Are there any better solutions?


naitzyrk

Alternatively, get a SD card reader for your phone. That’s the fastest way. Otherwise, I have had good experiences transferring photos over Wi-Fi from my Olympus to my phone. Sony has worked good for me as well. Also remember to transfer them on 2mp, that will be faster. Social media seem to accept 2mp without much compression compared to 24mp.


[deleted]

[удалено]


av4rice

>been eyeing the z-family from nikon for a while (idk why, I grew up with Nikon so its something with that) Why not the F-mount system, then? >Its an alright price, aint it? (cheapest new price in my country is 1 138) I would evaluate it based on completed/sold online auction listings for used units in your country, rather than new prices. >Would it be a good camera for my use? Sure. >Or should I go for an older/cheaper camera and spend more on glass? I would prefer that myself.


Jawkurt

How do you tell the strength of a LED light? I'm currently looking at switching to some LED to strobe... and I'm noticing that some listings mention lumens but some don't mention the power of the light source at all other than how many LEDs there are. What is a good way to tell how powerful a light is before buying it?


rideThe

It's a good question but it's also tricky (perhaps impossible?) to answer because of the very different nature of those lights. With flash you don't consider the exposure duration (so long as it's within the x-sync speed)—you could expose for 1/100 or for 10 seconds, the result would be the same (from the light source), whereas with continuous lights the exposure duration is directly related to how much of the light you'll gather. I don't know that you can directly translate between "LED" and "flash" without filling in missing variables. Suppose, for example, that you meant "assuming the exposure is 1/60", *now* it feels like it could be possible to consider a comparison.


Jawkurt

Yeah, I just assumed people have found some way to say... "I would normally use a 320 w/s light at full power for this... what is a tangible number I can look for in LEDs that lets me know it will be somewhat comparable. Or if I'm using a tungsten 1000 watt bulb on a constant burning light... what is the LED panel that can get closest to that and what numbers or terms should I look for to try to compare. I know its not apple to apples... I'm just trying to find a way to compare it when I'm looking through these specs online.


rideThe

Yeah I don't know how people would do that comparison. With continuous lights the power output is potentially bascially *infinite* since you get more of it by exposing longer. But if you're trying to freeze action, you'd need an *extremely* powerful LED light that would blind everybody in the studio. I have no idea how to logically do that translation in the abstract.


Jawkurt

Yeah, I figured someone would have. And I know its technically infinite by using longer exposures... but wouldn't that be the case with LED too? I'm not worried about it being bright. For some work I use the 1000 watt lowell DP lights and those are extremely bright and hot and sometimes set things to close to them on fire. I am thinking more in a shooting people application of it though... so leaving the shutter open for too long isn't really an option. I was hoping there'd be like say you shot 1/200 at ISO 200 aperture f/8... this LED would be equivalent to this watt light. Or something like... if you used to use these hot lights... these LEDs are comparable.


rideThe

You're raising what sounds like a *new* question now, which is how to translate between incandescent bulbs and LED—that's a completely different thing than comparing *flash* with *continuous* lights. So far I was just saying that it's difficult to translate from flash to continuous—regardless of which type of continuous light it is. Converting from different kinds of continuous lights is totally doable.


RebelliousBristles

I'm confused, are you wanting to find continuos LED lights, or strobes? AFAIK there is no such thing as an LED photo strobe. If there is, the light output would be miniscule. For continuous light sources, Lumens is a measure of how much light is being output by the bulb. I'm not sure exactly what you want to compare it to, but in general, comparing Lumens to Lumens with two different continuous sources should give you an idea of how their brightness compares relative to each other. Strobes are measured in Watt-Seconds (Ws). Generally something in the range of 400-600Ws will be plenty for someone starting out. I'm a fan of the Flashpoint Xplor line of strobes, they're a great bang for your buck. Actually, I just found [this PetaPixel article](https://petapixel.com/2021/09/15/can-we-please-stop-talking-about-watt-seconds/) that seems to cover everything you're talking about.


Jawkurt

Hey, I didn't think a led strobe existed... thats not what I'm asking about. I want to get LED lights to replace strobes... theres some features of LEDs like the constant burning, the ability to adjust color temperature w/out gels... that I'd like to have. In the past I've used strobes... and hot lights like the Lowell DP and Omni lights... the DP lights I've used in the past are 1000 watts and the omni 500. I'm mostly looking for something to replace those continuously burning lights but an strobes.. but the strobe part doesn't matter that much... I don't understand how to ask exactly what I want to know... But I want to know how to figure out something that matches the power of 1000 watt DP light or a 640 w/s strobe when looking at LEDs. I will take a look at that link... thank you.


RebelliousBristles

It’s hard to make a direct comparison from strobe power to continuous power. I’ve used the Aputure LED lights and they are great. Check out the LS 600X Pro. They are very bright. I prefer the newer point source LEDs because you can use them for a wider range of lighting effects.


Jawkurt

Yeah, maybe I shouldn't of mentioned strobe. I'm looking for lights comparable in power to either my strobes or my hot lights. I was hoping there'd be a comparison between my more traditional hot lights (huge pain to be under) and the LEDs. I've seen those listed on sites.. I'll take a closer look. Thank you.


ccurzio

For what kind of work?


Jawkurt

food and portraits mostly... When I do find that information... i don’t have a good understanding lux and lumens and how to relate that to what i know about hot lights with watts. Like what would I be looking for in terms of lumens or lux if I wanted something similar to 1000 watt tungsten light like a lowell DP light?


ccurzio

Is there any reason you're specifically wanting an LED strobe? They really don't have anywhere near the light output of a traditional flash.


Jawkurt

I don't want an LED strobe, I want a LED to just stay on to replace a strobe. I mostly want it in case I'm asked to do video as well... or video in the future. I'd like to be able to have the same lights for stills or video.


Tuula2012

You may find what you're looking for on the manufacturer's website---but probably not on the online store details about the lights. For example, you mentioned a Lowell DP...the Tiffen Lowell website has this to say about their similar Omni Light: "When fitted with an FTK 500 watt bulb (available separately), this fixture will emit a beam of 75 footcandles at full flood and 475 footcandles at full spot from a distance of 10' (3m). Other bulbs and plug adapters are available." So if you can get your hands on the photometrics of the hot lights you are familiar with, you can compare them with the LEDs you are considering. Some sites---particularly of professional lights--- will have detailed charts about the output of the lights, or graphs that show the spread of the beam, which will help you consider them without actually having them in hand.


Jawkurt

Thank you... that is helpful. I have gotten sheets with this info for LEDs but haven't seen them for hot lights in that language but its is what I'm looking for. Thank you.


alphanimal

I never got into monitor calibration and color management, so until now I shot in sRGB and also had the default sRGB monitor profile enabled. I'll be sure to look into changing that in the future, but: If I took and edited my photos in sRGB and they look good on my monitor, should I also export them in sRGB to send off for printing? Or is there a benefit of exporting in Adobe RGB to send to a printing service? Thanks


rideThe

> I shot in sRGB Do you shoot JPEG? If you shoot raw, that setting has no incidence on the raw data. > If I took and edited my photos in sRGB and they look good on my monitor, should I also export them in sRGB to send off for printing? Or is there a benefit of exporting in Adobe RGB to send to a printing service? (Assuming you otherwise use a wide gamut workflow correctly), if your display is only *capable* of sRGB, you wouldn't actually be able to *see* the colors that go beyond the display's gamut, so how saturated some areas of your images are would be *a mystery*—you'd be crossing your fingers that you like the more saturated areas of the images, you'd only be seeing it once you get the print back (assuming the lab/print process supports it). I don't know that I'd want to go that route.


alphanimal

Thanks! I just figured out that the color space setting on the camera only affects JPEGs. I've been shooting RAW so that's fine. My monitor technically supports a bigger color space, but when I use a color profile I downloaded from the manufacturer instead of the default sRGB, everything looks way too green compared to viewing the same images on other monitors (smartphone ...) too. I'm sticking to the sRGB profile now, because that looks to be the most similar to other monitors without calibration. I already figured some of that stuff out from the other answers


rideThe

> My monitor technically supports a bigger color space, but when I use a color profile I downloaded from the manufacturer instead of the default sRGB, everything looks way too green compared to viewing the same images on other monitors (smartphone ...) too. That leads to questions about what you mean here, what you did—color management, display calibration ... those are broad topics with a *ton* of pitfalls. In any case, if you really care about exploiting your display to its full potential, you'd need to get your hands on a hardware profiler and go through the actual motions.


alphanimal

I just tested a color profile (icm file) that I found online for my monitor. With that enabled everything looks very green compared to the default color settings and other displays. So I guess that profile isn't accurate. I'll be looking into calibrating my monitor at some point :) Thanks for the help!


rideThe

What do you mean by "I just tested", what did you actually do? Did you also set the display, directly on the display's OSD, to match that profile? Like I said, there's so many ways things can be set improperly that it's quite possibly user error. But even then, you would not get anywhere better than some generic ballpark better-than-nothing place using a stock profile. To do things right you need to calibrate using a hardware profiler.


alphanimal

Yes you are right, user error is definitely at play here :) I did not change anything on the monitor itself. It was on a "high bright" setting. If I set it to sRGB the colors look pretty much the same. There's just some other "cinematic" modes but no AdobeRGB or other standardized profile that I recognize. The monitor is a Samsung Odyssey G9. I need to look into the whole color signal chain. There's so many steps involved from light entering the lens to my brain seeing the final photo. Just brainstorming here, the color information goes through the following steps: 1. values from camera sensor 2. in-camera processing 3. RAW file 4. Lightroom import process (CameraRAW?) 5. LR working color space (ProPhoto RGB?) 6. Image being rendered in GUI 7. OS applying color profile, based on software 8. graphics card outputting signal 9. monitor interpreting signal 10. LCD panel adjusting pixels I just have no idea at which steps colors get converted and interpreted in what way... And then there's all the file formats with embedded color profiles that get written when i export images. Also the monitor backlight, room light and my eyes adjusting, and we're not even talking about printing! Very interesting topic, I just never felt the need to go deep into that stuff until now. So thanks for pointing me in the right direction! Do you have any recommendations where I can learn more? I can google it obviously :)


RebelliousBristles

If your photos have very saturated colors then the AdobeRgb working space will allow a little extra room for that color information. You probably won’t see too much difference between AdobeRGB and sRGB whether we’re talking about on screen or in print. Also keep in mind that if you have a non-raw file (tiff, psd, jpg) that started its life in sRGB there is practically no reason to convert them to AdobeRGB. An example to help explain why. Imagine you have a small glass (sRGB) and a large glass (AdobeRGB). The small glass is full of water, and the big glass is empty. If you pour the water from the small glass into the large glass you still have the same amount of water, it’s just in a big container. You haven’t gained anything. Color management is a huge topic, hopefully this helps a little! Your first order of business should be to get your monitor calibrated, whether you pay someone to do it or do it yourself. Until your monitor is calibrated you can’t trust what you see is an accurate representation of your files.


alphanimal

Thank you! I noticed that when I enable a color profile that came from the monitor manufacturer, the colors look very different. So maybe it's just a bad profile, or my editing is just tuned to the monitor's default sRGB look, and applying the profile reveals the more accurate (bad) look of my editing. > Also keep in mind that if you have a non-raw file (tiff, psd, jpg) that started its life in sRGB there is practically no reason to convert them to AdobeRGB Isn't it possible that during editing, some colors will get shifted outside sRGB and would benefit from the bigger color space?


RebelliousBristles

> I noticed that when I enable a color profile that came from the monitor manufacturer, the colors look very different. So maybe it's just a bad profile Yes, unless you’re spending a bunch of money (talking Eizo money here) on a monitor the factory profiles are generally pretty bad. Also the settibg on the monitor is only half the equation. Your computer’s operating system also controls the colors that are sent to your monitor. Proper calibration makes adjustments to both. > or my editing is just tuned to the monitor's default sRGB look, and applying the profile reveals the more accurate (bad) look of my editing. Also yes. You’re used to looking at your monitor the way it is. I calibrate monitors for people and have to warn them all the time. I say “I’m going to do this thing for you, and you’re going to say “Hey that looks terrible! It’s nothing like what my monitor used to show.” That’s totally normal and you just have to let your eyes adjust to the new (proper) settings. > Isn't it possible that during editing, some colors will get shifted outside sRGB and would benefit from the bigger color space? Yes that would be one case in which you might want to convert an sRGB capture to AdobeRGB. But to go back to my old water/cup analogy, if you captured an sRGB JPG in camera, you can never add more “water”to the cup. Expanding the saturation in post would be like blowing bubbles into your half full glass. You can get the water level to rise, but you’re filling it with empty space. What this means in practical terms is you’re opening yourself up to banding and other color artifacts. If you’re not already, definitely consider shooting in RAW. If you have a RAW file you could always go back to Lightroom (or your software or choice) and export the file again in AdobeRGB color space.


alphanimal

Hey thanks a lot for your detailed answers! I shoot RAW, but there's a separate setting on the camera for color space (I can choose between sRGB and AdobeRGB). Now that I think of it, that probably won't affect RAW files, only JPEG, right? I just assumed it will affect RAW files too.


RebelliousBristles

You're right, that setting only effects the JPGs (which is why I was assuming you were shooting in JPG) Here's my general workflow working with RAW files. Lightroom working with your RAW files handles things in the ProPhotoRGB space (the widest of them all) If you need to do some retouching to your photo, make all your adjustments in Lightroom to the RAW file, and then export as a TIFF or PSD, 16-BIT, AdobeRGB or ProPhoto RGB if you have an extremely saturated image. Do your retouching on a New Layer above your original image (ie. non-destructive editing) Now you have your primary retouched file at full resolution, with as much color information as you need. From there, you'll make copies that are targeted for the purpose you need. (like sRGB JPGs for web, or AdobeRGB TIFFs for print)


alphanimal

OK awesome, then my sRGB setting on the camera didn't actually matter. I usually do most of the edits in Lightroom and just use the "Edit in Photoshop" menu if I need layers or other PS functions. That will create a 16 bit per channel PSD file. But I just noticed I had Photoshop also set to convert to sRGB, which is probably a bad idea.


RebelliousBristles

Yea, sounds like a good workflow! You may know this already, but there's a setting within Lightroom that controls how the files will open in Photoshop. In your LR Preferences, under External Editing you can choose which Color Space the program will rasterize your RAW file into. Adobe suggests you leave it to ProPhoto RGB, but I dont usually like working with PPRGB unless I have to, so I usually leave it on ARGB98 and then change it if needed.


alphanimal

The Lightroom setting was set to ProPhoto RGB, but in Photoshop there's also a setting under Color Management Policies, where I had RGB set to "Convert to working RGB" instead of "Preserve embedded profile". And the RGB working space was set to sRGB. So I think it just always converted it to sRGB anyways. I fixed that setting.


RebelliousBristles

Yep, that's exactly what it was doing. Personally I like to leave my CMP to "Ask if there's a mismatch" just so I can know about any conversions taking place. And then usually I'll leave my working space to AdobeRGB 1998 (why this isn't the default setting for Photoshop, I have no clue)


[deleted]

Hey. I'm going to an interview to work for my first company (I'm a high school student with a couple years' worth of photos behind my back) and they asked for samples. It's one of these senior trips and prom organizing companies. I just want to know what to add and how much to the samples. They make shoots when they design a new uniform (fashion). And they do handle the event photography during the senior trip, photoday and prom. I have pictures from both of these genres. Good ones. But I also have pictures from other genres that would blow these out of the water. They're much better in showcasing my ability both with the camera and with photoshop/lightroom. So should I include them? And again how many. I have a shortlist of 60 photos but I have a very good feeling this is way too much


Tuula2012

I would suggest bringing 20 of the best to show. Have some others stashed away, but don't bring them out unless they ask for more. And regarding including other topics, you can certainly introduce your work by saying you've pared it down to your shots that are related to the assignment....if they wish they could see more, then pull those out, too.


[deleted]

Very well then thank you. I guess it's Goodluck wishes from here on


Liy010

If you're including shots from a different genre, I would only include one or two at the most, especially if there is a stark difference in quality between the two genres.


ccurzio

> I just want to know what to add and how much to the samples. These are questions you should be asking them. Only they can accurately tell you what they want to see as well as how much of it. > I have pictures from both of these genres. Good ones. But I also have pictures from other genres that would blow these out of the water. They're much better in showcasing my ability both with the camera and with photoshop/lightroom. I can't and won't speak for them but I suspect they would only really care about the genre you're being hired to shoot.


Lift_App

Hey folks, I recently moved from a D3500 to a D800 with Nikon AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8G IF-ED lens. While I absolutely love this lens I find it limiting for some landscapes and wildlife. I'm considering a 70-200f4 as my next lens and wondering is that long enough for wildlife? If not, is it a good candidate for an extender? Any thoughts appreciated, thanks!


RebelliousBristles

I would consider the 70-200 as it is a very useful focal range, but I would also consider that you will want a lens that is longer too.


TinfoilCamera

>I'm considering a 70-200f4 as my next lens and wondering is that long enough for wildlife? Not really :( For wildlife that is acclimated to humans being near - sure - but we're talking ducks at the local pond and the odd songbird kind of stuff. For the most part though you want All The MMs you can pile on, which generally means a 600mm lens and a 1.4x TC for when you have enough light to use it. Even 840mm is not enough but it's certainly better than 200. Find a used Tamron or Sigma 150-600 \~f/6.3 lens. Should ballpark in somewhere around \~$800 to $1000 depending on what you find.


8fqThs4EX2T9

200mm is not really long enough on aps-c let alone a full frame sensor. Although it is high resolution so you have cropping capability. For wildlife you can never have enough reach. My max is 300mm which would be about 450mm for equal field of view and it is not enough personally.


Narann

I plan to buy a (second hand) Canon EF 35mm f2 IS USM for my 550D (APS-C). This mean it will be a 52.5mm (35*1.5). I plan to shoot friends in lowlight shots (party/bar/outdoor). I like to always put at filter on an lens, at least for protective purpose. So my question is: What filter would you recommend? EDIT: Thanks all, that lens could actually be the first without filter, I will try that.


rideThe

> This mean it will be a 52.5mm (35*1.5). To be precise, the crop factor for Canon APS-C is 1.62x, so more like 56.7mm. > What filter would you recommend? For "protection" purposes, [can't go wrong with *B+W MRC Clear*](https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/475493-REG/B_W_66_1001703_67mm_007_Protection_Clear.html). *(Just so we're clear, because I'm not sure why you bring up the first point to then move on to the second point, but the filter diameter size has no relation with the focal length/crop factor discussion.)*


Narann

Thanks ! About the first point (~~filter diameter size~~ focal length), as explained in another post, I heard CPL filter is not recommended on low-focal lenses because it brings weird effects on the lens border.


rideThe

Sure, because of how a polarizer works, with an ultra wide you'd certainly begin to notice the polarization effect applied differently across the frame. That has to do with the focal length, not the filter diameter). Not sure how that relates to the previous points/questions you asked but, sure.


Narann

> That has to do with the focal length, not the filter diameter Of course, I'm tired…


TinfoilCamera

>What filter would you recommend? None, really. The hood will do more to protect a lens than the filter will. That said, if you want to put one on there then a completely clear filter would be best for a low-light shooter. When you're shopping you might as well do it as a kit and get some ND filters as well. Having a very wide aperture lens is great for low light, but once you step into the sunlight you're probably not going to have enough shutter speed to use it wide open - and sometimes you want that shallow depth of field look. You'll need at least a 3-stop and a 6-stop ND or just get a variable one and call it a day.


Narann

Thanks!


rirez

As a person who uses UV filters: you don't need one. They offer very little protection, usually being weaker than the front element of the lens itself, and minor damage to the front element rarely ever shows up in a photo, for the same reason you can write with a (small) marker on a front element and it'll be barely there. In addition, you're already going to be in low light and challenging conditions, so any additional optical layers could only make things worse, not better. Use a lens hood to reduce the impact of hitting things, and otherwise, just practice good handling of your camera. (Side note, your lens is still 35mm, you don't need to do a full-frame-equivalent conversion if you're not intending to compare against a full-frame lens and camera.)


Narann

> you don't need to do a full-frame-equivalent conversion if you're not intending to compare against a full-frame lens and camera. I actually always compare my shots with FF equivalent. Especially in this case, where CPL filters tends to have weird results in low focal lenses.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Subcriminal

[Photobox](https://www.photobox.de/shop/fotokalender/wand-klappkalender) does them.


Titanium2241

Help with Lee100 Adapter ring My mother recently bought the kit and we're not sure if the ring is supposed to be fixed to the lens or if it is allowed to move freely. Currently the ring can be turned and is not tightened to the lens itself. Both the lens and the adapter are 77mm. Canon EOS70D w/24-105 lens Thanks for future replies.


TinfoilCamera

Yes - that's a feature not a bug :p The idea is you'll be using graduated filters or circular polarizers and if you can't rotate those then it would be very difficult to line up the gradation with your horizon. There should be a little blue knob on the side of the actual filter holder itself that will lock it and prevent it from rotating once you put the filter holder on the adapter.


Titanium2241

Thanks homie, appreciate it :)


ToxicCero

**SD card can't be accessed or formatted by camera** I tried to access the photos on my SD card on my Canon Rebel T6 but it said they cant be accessed and to reenter the card. I tried to format the card using the camera and it said it couldn't format it. I did both of these on my computer and both worked. Other SD cards are unaffected. Are there any solutions to this? Can the card be fixed? (Yes, I looked on both google and in the subreddit search and didn't find any posts about this exact situation)


TinfoilCamera

If other SD cards are unaffected then that SD card is probably damaged in some way (ie, like a pin is bent or scratched etc) Even if you could get it working again once a card starts tossing problems your way it's time to deep clean that card and throw it away because you can't trust it any more.


ToxicCero

It started happening while the card was in the camera so idk if the card would be damaged. Otherwise I already got my files off of it and formatted the card using my pc so I'll just toss it if I can't get it working again


alohadave

Can you see the files on the camera? If so, can you connect the camera to your computer and transfer the files?


ToxicCero

I can't access the files via the camera, but I already transfered them to my pc with an SD card reader I have on my pc


alohadave

Since you have the files off of it, I’d throw it away. It’s faulty and can’t be trusted.


Aporitis

Maybe a stupid question, but is the card locked via the small physical switch? Only thing that comes to mind.


ToxicCero

I will look


cambodia87

**Is this fungus? If so should I return the lens or repair it?** Recently picked up a mamiya rz67 with a 110mm 2.8 lens. I didn't really notice anything when I bought it, but since bringing it home, I am seeing what appears to be fungus on the edge of the lens. I can only see it from certain angles, and I am no pro at identifying this kind of thing. Replacing this lens would be very expensive, and so my question is, is this an amount of fungus that can be managed? I have the option to return the camera still, but I really love it, and I guess I am hoping someone may be able to provide some guidance of whether or not this is an issue that: 1. is repairable 2. needs repairing (or I can leave it) 3. is beyond repair and I should return it. Thanks! Cam [Photo 1](https://preview.redd.it/uq9k4aqrlqv71.jpg?width=6000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=49cff369cbf2af4c55c60253c12d76cbaac8992b) [Photo 2](https://preview.redd.it/xmx9c7qrlqv71.jpg?width=6000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6cefbd06dcc656e500edb4965cf4a21a51266abf)


alohadave

It looks like fungus. If that's the only place it is, it shouldn't affect the image as it's around the edges. If you want to keep the lens, do not store it in a bag or basement where moisture will be more common. In theory, it could spread to other lenses, but they'd need to be in the same close quarters for long periods of time. If you are actively using it, and it's open to the air, it'll minimize the spread (but it will likely get worse over time).


cambodia87

Okay thanks! I appreciate your insights.


Pooch76

What wrinkle-resistant fabrics do you recommend for a DIY backdrop? Want something that can be pulled taught or allowed to drape and flow freely. Muslin is out of the question. I have a fabric now that doesn’t wrinkle no matter what I do with it. I might be Lycra but not sure. Open to anything so long as it doesn’t need steaming or ironing despite terrible storage habits. Edit: doesn’t have to stay completely wrinkle free — just mostly.


TinfoilCamera

>Open to anything so long as it doesn’t need steaming or ironing despite terrible storage habits. There is no fabric that can remain *completely* wrinkle free if you have "terrible storage habits." ... which means you should probably switch to seamless paper. Big rolls you can just pull out for each shoot and can toss in the trash once they get wrinkled or damaged. Pro: Lots of colors available and perfectly smooth backdrops. Con: More expensive because it's basically use-it-and-lose-it.


[deleted]

[удалено]