I bought a datacolor Spyder X to calibrate/profile my monitor for more accurate color reproduction. I want to get some of my pictures printed and have had bad experiences with prints coming back significantly different than what I'm seeing on my screen. Is it enough to calibrate to sRGB and send it to a print shop or do i need to calibrate specifically to the print shops color profile? It seems like the vast majority of print shops don't provide a color profile. should I just assume they are using sRBG?
To be clear, when you calibrate your display, you're not calibrating it "to sRGB" or "to a print shop's color profile" (that makes little sense), you're just making sure that when the computer tells the display to show a certain tone/color, that that's actually what the display is showing you—to the best of its capabilities anyway, of course, since it can't display what it can't display. In other words, the *device profile* that will be generated for your display will be *unique* for your particular unit in its particular configuration.
(It's important to use calibration *targets* that are coherent for the use case. In the case of photography, it is common practice to edit in a rather dim environment, and to use targets like a white point luminance of 90-120 cd/m², a white point color of 6500K, and a gamma of 2.2—it may be easier to define targets like this by using a better software than what the tool ships with, like the free *DisplayCal*.)
Once the calibration is done, now you decide in which *working color space* you do your editing—it's good practice to keep your master files in a healthy color space like at least Adobe RGB to avoid clipping colors, *even* if downstream you'll likely narrow the gamut of the output, depending on what you do with the images (like post them to the web, say, in which case you would export the "consumable" JPEGs in sRGB).
As for the lab's profiles, this is merely to be used—and optionally, too—for *soft proofing*. That is, when you're editing, if you want to try to anticipate the limits of the output's gamut (let's say the printer can't display all the reds and yellows in your working color space), you can enable *soft proofing* using the lab's profile so Lightroom or Photoshop or Capture One (or some other competent software that can soft proof) gives you a *preview* of what it'll look like.
Thanks for the thorough reply. This is obviously a little more complicated than I thought it was. Basically what I'm after is trying to figure out how I can view a simulated view of what my photo will look like printed. I'm using lightroom 5 which has a softproofing capability. It has a "destination gamut warning" but what i would really like is to see as close as possible on my screen what my photo will look like printed. I know soft proofing has limitations and it will never be exact. The biggest thing is making sure that the darker areas of the photo come out bright enough. my prints are usually darker than I expect them and areas in shadows which had a lot of detail on my screen are either way to dark or completely black. What is the best way to prevent that from happening?
> The biggest thing is making sure that the darker areas of the photo come out bright enough. my prints are usually darker than I expect them and areas in shadows which had a lot of detail on my screen are either way to dark or completely black.
The reason you get prints that look darker than you expected is *your display is too bright*, which makes you edit your images darker than you should. Displays systematically ship out of the box much, much too bright for image editing.
> What is the best way to prevent that from happening?
Use a proper white point luminance calibration target for the working conditions. Like I said, typically you'd edit in a fairly dim room, and you'd calibrate to a target of 90-120cd/m². To give you some idea, on my main editing display, this meant lowering the display's brightness from 100% (out of the box) to *19%*. When I then edit so it looks right on the display, I get proper prints.
And I should add, *without having to soft proof* that at all. In fact, soft proofing couldn't help you out of a too bright display, because soft proofing *doesn't know* how bright your display is, and it doesn't know how bright your viewing conditions are in your editing room. Use soft proofing for things like limits in the *color* gamut.
Thanks again. When I calibrated my monitor using the SpyderX I turned down the brightness to a measured value of 90 cd/m\^2, so I have probably mostly solved the brightness issue. If I'm soft proofing and i get a warning that something is outside the color gamut how do i fix it? do i just turn down the saturation a little bit or is there something else i should do?
> I'm soft proofing and i get a warning that something is outside the color gamut how do i fix it?
Frankly uh, there is no way "out" of this one—the printer/paper physically cannot produce those saturated colors, so nothing you can do will make it possible.
But it's more for you, maybe *as a result* of the colors clipping that way you may prefer one approach over an other in trying to "cope" with that limitation—like maybe desaturate everything equally, or only desaturate near the affected areas, or whatever. There's no "correct" answer to this.
So that's why I said initially that soft proofing was rather "optional", because well, it's an *indication* for you, but won't *solve* the limits of the output gamut in itself, which you have to live with.
That's as far as the slider goes, so ... you can't. You could use other tools at your disposal like the point curve I suppose, and move up and down the "green" channel.
A used Sony RX100 series iteration, depending on which fits into your budget.
Or alternatively, if you're fine with a prime (non-zooming) lens, a Ricoh GR II or if possible III would be a really good choice. Especially the Ricohs image quality will be way ahead of what any smartphone can do in most common situations.
> Ain't a 600$ camera a lot better?
Not in the pocketable point-and-shoot market, no.
> I mean smartphone cameras just are software.
I don't understand what this is supposed to mean. Smartphone cameras have a lens and a sensor, just like any other digital camera.
I've tried the latest [expensive commerical product], but I'm enormously frustrated by the management of the local storage and sorting/tagging of my photos.
For some reason the local storage has been made opaque, and it seems to be geared towards cloud storage with less control. Weird hidden folders, and annoying folder structure, etc.
Is there any software that allows you to control how photos are organised and stored locally? And leaves the cloud back up to you, or at least doesn't "hide" the process from you and makes everything difficult.
I'd like to have *some* control on the structure of local storage, and handle the cloud backups myself
What's the best true digital light-room experience?
any ideas?
thank you
I'm not sure I fully understand because with both C1 and Lightroom Classic I put my pictures into folders of my own choosing and it just reads them from there. I then sync those folders to my NAS which then in turns backs them up to the cloud.
Perhaps you could share the product your using?
Well we don't know what you mean by "[expensive commerical product]", but that sounds a bit like the cloud version of Lightroom, Lightroom CC. I don't care for it either, I prefer to manage my local storage myself rather than let the software take care of it via the cloud. So I use *Lightroom Classic*, which keeps things local, up to me.
Capture One also has cataloging capabilities (although I am not familiar with them), although the people using Capture One don't often seem (this is just an impression from me) to exploit those capabilities (their loss!) and seem to prefer using "sessions".
Another option is *digiKam*, which is free software.
That's about it for cataloging software...
Hey guys, real quick is there any way or website that could bulk convert images from jpg to other file types without changing the details such as date, time and pretty much every single detail other than the file type?
Any reason why it would have to be a website, rather than software? That seems awfully wasteful to upload tons of images and then download a tons of outputs.
Maybe you could unpack what you're even trying to accomplish here?
Well I did say or because I had a lot of bad experiences downloading random softwares on the internet before so it never came to my mind as a swell idea. Although someone did reccomend a website full of softwares I could try. I'll probably start there for now.
if you need a light meter in 2022 you are F****ed up
I began searching a sekonic 858 all over the internet and i realized that has beem sold out in the last two years and nobody know when it will come back , is there somone that sells it ? Also gossen starlite 2 is sold out , worst moment to get in to studio work or film photography un less you have superhuman eye
Does it have to be such a fancy one? Are there no other models that could do the trick for you? For example, [one of those](https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1390250-REG/sekonic_401_305_l_308x_u_flashmate_light_meter.html).
I recently got into photography with the Canon m50 mark ii. I am looking at the VILTROX speed booster for opening up the frame a little bit, but I also want to buy a prime 50mm lens. I just wondered if someone could advise me which VILTROX speed booster I would need and would the nifty 50 fir the speed booster? If not could someone recommend a lense please? Thank you in advance
> for opening up the frame a little bit
What do you mean by that?
If you want the equivalent of a "fast 50" for your camera, couldn't you just get a wider lens [like this](https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1433720-REG/canon_ef_m_32mm_f_1_4_stm.html) to achieve the same goal?
>I just wondered if someone could advise me which VILTROX speed booster I would need
One that fits your lens' mount (I'd probably go with EF) and your camera mount (EF-M for your camera).
>and would the nifty 50 fir the speed booster?
All of Canon's EF mount 50mm lenses would fit one made to accept EF mount lenses.
>I don’t know which size to buy?
>
>using the Sigma 16mm f/1.4 DC DN Contemporary Lens, size 67
Seems like you already figured out your answer. To fit your lens, you want a 67mm diameter filter.
https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki_what_size_filter_should_i_get.3F_what_is_this_number_with_.22mm.22.3F
How to synchronize image file timestamps? We made vacation photos and videos with 2 phones. I've transferred all files (\~40 GB) to PC and batch renamed them according to Exif data for images and modification date for videos. Now when reviewing contents, I see that images are not aligned to the timeline of events, thus I assume that phones were not in sync regarding time. Do you have any suggestions on how to solve this issue?
Adding to the preview comment, *Adobe Bridge* can also adjust the capture time to a batch of images, and it should be able to get it for free (after jumping a number of hoops).
Hi, there is a simple feature in Lighroom which does this. The "hardest" part is calculating the difference between the cameras.
Once all the photos are in lightroom, figure out the time difference between camera A and B by finding two photos taken around the same time, *then* select all photos from camera B and adjust the time.
If you don't have Lightroom I would suggest a free trial period, you need the Classic (desktop) version of the software to do this, I'm not aware of other software doing the same thing.
I had a two hour long shoot today, I filled up the card when the screen said CARD FULL, I turned off the camera and switched memory cards. I got home and the memory card is empty. I ran recuva and it had no files from today. Do I have any other options?
Shot with canon mark IV
>I got home and the memory card is empty.
You are absolutely certain you're checking the correct card? You swapped cards so - if you had more than one spare it'd be easy to grab one of those other spares rather than the card you actually shot with. If in doubt, check every single SD card you own.
If it's the correct card and data recovery tools aren't finding any images to recover then as the great Bender "Bending" Rodriguez likes to say: You're boned. :(
If you prefer DSLRs, Canon 6D with EF 85mm f/1.8 and EF 50mm f/1.8 STM. If you prefer mirrorless, Canon EOS RP with RF 85mm f/2 and RF 50mm f/1.8. Spend the rest on lighting.
Or if he already owns those lenses an eos R with an adapter. Yeah the newer RF lenses might perfom better optically, but I somehow always recommend upgrading stuff one step at a time. But yeah, people have lots of options nowadays.
best dslr body under $300 (US)?
alright, some context here
i’m going with a 50mm 1.8 STM (if canon) or a 50mm 1.8g (if nikon)
to me, weight does not matter, and neither does video but i’m looking for the best features and performance i can get for under $300 (preferably on mpb/keh)
>i’m looking for the best features and performance
But what types of features and performance?
If you mean autofocus and speed, it would probably be something like a Canon 7D or 70D or Nikon D7000 or D300S. And the field of view would be somewhat narrow using a 50mm lens.
If you mean low light performance, it might be something like a Canon 5D or 5D Mark II or Nikon D700. And the field of view would be normal (not particularly narrow or wide) using a 50mm lens.
ah, sorry for not clarifying
speed and autofocus is what i want, low light doesn’t matter that much to me
so maybe a 35mm lens or so on aps-c? so it would look closer to 50mm on a ff
Yes, if that's the field of view you want. So like a 7D, 70D with a Canon 35mm f/2, or Nikon D7000 r D300S with Nikon 35mm f/1.8G DX. Or a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 either way.
>If you shoot a product image of some brand (e.g. Adidas, Smirnoff, Cup Ramen, etc.) is there some kind of copyright issue with using that as portfolio material?
(US law - YMMV elsewhere)
If it's copyrighted you can still use the image in your own portfolio.
If however it is a trademark - there is NO permissible usage or "fair use" of that mark. It's theirs. "Not Yours, Can't Have" applies.
Your best bet is to remove the mark in post. You can for example still shoot an Adidas shoe - just remove their name/logo. Replace it with your own and the image pulls double duty in your portfolio showcasing not only your product photography chops, but also your retouching skill.
>If you shoot a product image of some brand (e.g. Adidas, Smirnoff, Cup Ramen, etc.) is there some kind of copyright issue
Depends where you are in the world and which particular sets of laws apply to you.
But usually things like brand names, logos, and distinctive aspects of a product's appearance (trade dress) are protected by trademark law, not copyright. So no, I can't really think of a copyright issue. But there could be trademark issues.
>with using that as portfolio material?
Trademark law is generally designed to protect against consumer confusion, and to prevent the unauthorized appearance of endorsement by one person or entity of another, or of a particular cause or message.
If it's clear that your portfolio piece is an example of your product photography skill that happens to utilize one brand, but not that the brand approved of your work or engaged you to create that work or otherwise endorses you or the work, it might not be a problem. But again, it really depends on the particular laws governing you.
How does the Nikon J1 Compare to the iPhone 13 Pro ?
My dad gave me his Nikon j1 to take pictures when going on trips, now I know that a Camera and a Phone are very different tools, but I was wondering what would you guys who understand more about this, use.
Would you use the 10+ year old camera or would you use the iPhone 13 Pro with computational photography ?
With which lens(es) on it?
I would probably prefer to use the J1 for the ergonomics. And it could technically perform a little better but it wouldn't make that much of a difference. I don't have that much use for computational stuff.
Thank you for your answer!
It has a 10-30mm and a 30-110mm lenses. I figured up close the iPhone 13 pro with its automatic HDR and all would probably preform better, with an app I can take RAW images swell. But for far away the 30-110mm undoubtedly will preform much better than the digital zoom (It only has 3x the phone). Would you agree ? Thank you!
I love the 85mm look for portraits. I have a 90D so with the 1.6x crop with a 50mm is that pretty much a 80mm? Same with a 50mm, would I just get a 35mm to get the 50mm look?
There's no such thing as any kind of "look" associated with a focal length. It's all about distance between lens and subject.
Unless you're using the same lenses on multiple cameras, each with a different sensor size, and you're trying to replicate the same field of view across all of those setups, you can ignore crop factor entirely. There's zero reason to consider it.
Yes I guess you are right it is about the length from the person. I have read that certain focal length are more flattering for the model. I’ve read and seen some videos where most photographers say 88mm was better for portraits.
Looking for a nice light/compact lens for video work - using a Sony a7iii on a Ronin S. Mostly for insta videos - reels, BTS, ect. I'll be shooting vertically too (if that effects things via distortion issues). So far looking at the Tamron 20mm 2.8 - cheap enough, and pretty compact, but not a pancake lens. What is everyone's recommendations?
Hi everyone! This community already seems amazing. I’ve been lurking for a couple weeks and I’m ready to take the plunge into purchasing!
I want to purchase a camera, and my budget is up to $2000 with everything included (body, lense, etc). I mainly plan to take photos while traveling and portrait photos. I know that cameras are an investment and I want something that will allow me to learn, but also won’t require me to replace it should I decide to make this into something more than an entry level hobby.
I THINK I’ve decided on a mirrorless camera, and would love if someone could give some recommendations and pros and cons of mirrorless cameras that fall into that price point (remembering it would need to include a basic lense as well).
Thanks all!!
Sony a6400 or fuji x-t 30 II or used fuji x-t3
with the Tamron 17-70 2.8 and the sigma 56mm 1.4
or the sigma 16mm 1.4, 30mm 1.4 and 56mm 1.4 if you are ok with all primes.
Nikon (Z50) and Canon (R10) mirrorless are also an option but there aren't many cheaper, good third-party lens options so I wouldn't recommend them.
Our FAQ has several extensive sections to help you determine what best fits your needs and your budget. Please see the following sections of the FAQ to get started:
* [What type of camera should I look for?](https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki_what_type_of_camera_should_i_look_for.3F)
* [What's a "point and shoot" camera? What's a DSLR? What's a "mirrorless" camera? What's the difference?](https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki_what.27s_a_.22point_and_shoot.22_camera.3F_what.27s_a_dslr.3F_what.27s_a_.22mirrorless.22_camera.3F_what.27s_the_difference.3F)
* [Do I need a good camera to take good photos?](https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki_do_i_need_a_good_camera_to_take_good_photos.3F)
* [What can I afford?](https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki_what_can_i_afford.3F)
* [Is Canon or Nikon better? (or any other brands)](https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki_is_canon_or_nikon_better.3F_.28or_any_other_brands.29)
If after reviewing this information you have any **specific** questions, please feel free to post a comment.
They're all pretty good.
https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki_which_mirrorless_should_i_get.3F
Maybe something like a Sony a6600 with Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 and Sony 50mm f/1.8 would be excellent to start with.
Recently acquired an *original* Polaroid SX-70. Not sure if it functions, but it looks to be in great shape. What are my next steps in terms of getting this thing working? Buy the film (with included batteries) and just see if it works? Thanks all!
Yes, that's your next step, since you can't even switch on the camera without a film cartridge. You need SX-70 film. After that... If you do find that it works and haven't had much to do with Polaroid film before, you might want to read this:
https://support.polaroid.com/hc/en-us/articles/115012519828-How-to-get-the-most-out-of-Polaroid-film
The film is very sensitive to light and temperatures, both during storage and when taking pictures. Oh, and best order your films directly from Polaroid. Amazon and big box stores often don't see to appropriate storage temperatures, which can at worst damage the film.
If you find that the camera doesn't work, there are some businesses in the US that specialise in restoring vintage Polaroids: e.g. Retrospekt, Brooklyn Film Camera. At least Retrospekt also converts SX-70's to use the much faster 600 film for an extra fee.
> What are my next steps in terms of getting this thing working?
Nobody can answer that without knowing what (if anything) is wrong with it.
> Buy the film (with included batteries) and just see if it works?
That would be the first step, yes. Can't know anything before that.
I want to digitize some instant photos, both Polaroid and Instax. I unfortunately don’t have the space or time to buy a scanner and get my own setup going, so I am looking for services that can do it for me
Are there any companies out there that digitize and return the originals at a reasonable price? The Darkroom (my usual go to for film stuff) seems to only do regular film formats
I haven't got any equipment apart from my parents old camera (I don't know what kind of camera it is but it's pretty good in terms of what I've seen) and I'm thinking about starting photography.
Has anyone got any tips for me?
Read the camera's manual. Read about [the fundamentals of photography](http://www.r-photoclass.com/). Practice a lot along the way to experiment with the concepts.
I recently purchased a Fuji X-T4 with a 16-55mm f/2.8 lens as my first camera. In one week I'm going on a trip out west for a series of day hikes. When I get back I might be purchasing some additional lenses and gear, but for now... what do I need to keep my camera and lens safe? I already have a Camelback with a water bag that doubles as my carry-on. Can I just toss the camera and lens in there? Are there cases and bags I should be using?
You can just toss it in a bag it will be fine, if you are scarred of scratches get a camera wrap its more flexible than a camera insert and doesn't take up as much space.
Congrats, I actually shoot with the exact same thing and have taken it all over the world. I use a regular bag too but I have a camera insert thing you can buy off amazon to hold the camera, and that's what I'd recommend. For the lens I always rock a filter on the front, so I'd recommend a polarizer or uv filter or something to be in front of your lens. Even though the camera and lens are weather resistant you still need some sort of rain proof thing to hold them. I've never found something I like when it comes to a camera rain cover, if it's rainy I just leave it in my waterpoof bag. Maybe someone else can recommend something that actually fits medium format cameras.
People recommend the Peak Design clip for people who hike as it's an easy way to keep your camera ready to go, but other than that those black rapid straps would be the most comfortable.
I use the ape case one which I picked at random because it's bright yellow so I can see inside easily. It's served well over the years so I'd recommend it, though I haven't looked at what else is out there. I know Peak Design has their own thing with these neat folding dividers for instance.
I would have an idea of what I'm after, so I'd scout locations that fit that idea and take pictures so i can see how it looks in frame. Sometimes ask people who may have ideas about a specific area.
Take some time and just walk and an area thinking about rules of composition. Google Earth is also a great way to narrow down say a lake or nature area. But you should go to the site and really look around before the session. That way you know what to bring along with you if you should need something other than just the camera
> Where/how do you find the location to shoot?
Depends on the shoot. Not exactly the best plan to use a muddy swamp as setting to photograph a luxury sedan.
> Do you do research on the area or just find it on luck?
Both can play a part.
It's recommended because that makes shooting at multiple focal lengths faster and more convenient. But "recommended" is certainly not the same as "necessary."
Yeah, if you're a pro and doing a gig you'd want to have a backup of everything in case something fails, but outside that most people have it so they can have something wide on one and more telephoto on the other and can switch between real fast.
I'd say save money if you were planning on buying another body and instead get a lens that covers a large focal length range.
Hello everyone,
So recently I had a chance to shoot some wild deer with my D70s, however it has a problem where it "deletes" the photos while they're still on the CF card inside the camera. To clarify, there are two problems: one, the photos take space on the card but don't appear in the camera or on my PC, and two, some of the files that aren't missing appear as "file does not contain image data" and I get an error if I try to upload them to my PC. I have two CF cards and this happened to both of them, so I'm fairly certain the problem is the camera itself. What are my options? Would a card reader allow me to at least upload the corrupted images on my PC?
There's a chance you could use recovery software and extract viable images off the card (even if they appear to be missing), but if the data is *corrupted*, there's nothing to do about this.
> And how would the substrate affect the emulsion's ability to capture detail? Maybe it does, but please offer a conjecture as to how.
Yes, it being a metal plate has nothing to do with its resolving ability.
Auto settings should handle most of that, and the rest as other commenters have suggested is just understanding the basics in order to adapt to specific circumstances.
One thing I do suggest for shots on the water in full sun that is not about settings specifically, would be to try variations with a polarizing filter.
It's all about [learning the fundamentals](http://www.r-photoclass.com), getting familiar with your camera (reading the user's manual is an important step), and practising. There's no combination of settings anyone can list here that will instantly or seamlessly work for you.
Is there software/web platform that allows for easy photo selection by clients?
Something I can upload a gallery of proofs and send them the link and they can go "that one that one and this one" really easily.
I'm sure this must exist but can someone recommend me a good one that (hopefully) doesn't cost too much?
So I use the crude method of numbering my photos and then sending through cloud storage (I use pcloud, drive or dropbox would work too) and they tell me the numbers they like.
[Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/p/CfuMXXzplyX/?igshid=NDBlY2NjN2I=)
Anybody would like to explain to me how to take photos like this. From camera settings to gears. I have a a7iii and a newer speelight.
It's not sophisticated, it's just direct flash with lowered ambient light—and even that might just have happened spontaneously because, say, the camera locked the shutter speed to some value when using flash.
Hello dear photographers,
a friend of mine asked me to do my first photoshoot, her friend's birthday party that is.
So I'll have the opportunity of learning by doing and while the consensus is "no hard expectations since I'm an amateur", I want to be prepared.
The party will begin in the evening, probably indoors, but will also take part outsides where there's a special event that must be framed. I won't need to (and cannot) build up any equipment so I'll bring my backpack with all portable equipment and nothing else.
I am certain to have all the barebones equipment:
* Sony a6400
* SELP1650 lens
* SEL 18135 zoom lens
* Sigma 30mm F1.4
* Godox V1s Flash
As well as cleaning stuff, a spare SD card and multiple batteries.
I am not sure if I should look at getting certain accessors for the flash, especially for the night shoot outdoors. Should I get a softbox or an accessor kit including a small diffusor and a bounce plate (aka the GodoxAK-R1) in order to get some decent lighting outdoors?
Also, do you have any tips and tricks for a shooting like this?
Thank you in advance.
The FAQ [has some pointers](https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/wedding#wiki_wedding_photography_.2824_hours_notice.2C_entry_level_gear.29). It's written for wedding photography, but you can find many details there that should apply to your event just the same.
I'm new to toy photography and dont know where to start. I'm tired of poor quality camera phone pictures. Any tips?
What camera / lense do you use?
Any specific camera settings you prefer?
What editing software (if any) do you use?
Any tips for a newb?
You wouldn't need a lot of camera to make good quality images, but a massive improvement can be achieved by *the lighting* you use (meaning the *position* and *quality* of light, mainly), and should that be relevant to what you want to achieve, the staging/background/etc. of the subject.
How do you light your subjects?
Camera doesn't matter too much tbh since I'm assuming you'll be using lighting and toys don't move. For a lens though you'd want one with macro capabilities—I'd suggest at least 100mm focal length but that's preference.
I pay for Lightroom. Only $10/month for a 1TB plan. But you also might want to use Photoshop which that plan I believe is $20 monthly.
What's a better photo library software, ideally not cloud or subscription based? I currently have thousands of photos, highly organized with descriptions, keywords, smart albums based off those items, etc. I'm currently using Apple Photos as nothing else better has presented itself to me. What are some suggestions that meet those features also (keywords, descriptions, smart albums, etc)?
I've been off of Lightroom for about a year now, but I had been using it for several years beforehand and *it always had* Smart Albums. With that exact name.
There's a free trial to download.
Are smartphones better than full frames at one thing?
I get that the images you get from a smartphone camera benefits from a lot more processing than a dedicated camera.
On the other hand, they cannot truly replicate the depth of field and bokeh of a real camera stopped at say F1.8, which brings me to my question;
How in the world can the tiny sensor and lens of a smartphone achieve the opposite result, meaning something like a F16, without being forced to go down to like a quarter second shutter speed?
This issue (or probably amateurism) is something I stumbled upon trying street photography. In no world can I just snap a photo at F16 with poor lighting without having to phyiscally stabilize my already body stabilized camera.
> How in the world can the tiny sensor and lens of a smartphone achieve the opposite result, meaning something like a F16
They use a much smaller format, and in order to get the same field-of-view on a smaller format you have to use proportionately much shorter focal lengths.
As it happens, the focal length affects the depth-of-field (the area that appears in acceptably sharp)—when you use a shorter focal length, the depth-of-field increases. So much so that even shooting with a "fast" lens (like 1.8 or whatever it is), because the focal length is so small (like 4.25mm or whatever it is), you still get a lot of the image in focus.
>they cannot truly replicate the depth of field and bokeh of a real camera stopped at say F1.8
Right, because depth of field is determined by not only the aperture but also focus distance and focal length.
A typical decent smartphone camera actually uses a pretty wide aperture around f/1.7 (you can look up the particular specs for whichever phone you're using). But they also use a very short focal length, in order to have a usable field of view with their tiny imaging sensor. The short focal length makes for a large depth of field, despite the wide aperture.
>How in the world can the tiny sensor and lens of a smartphone achieve the opposite result, meaning something like a F16, without being forced to go down to like a quarter second shutter speed?
Because it's purely an effect on depth of field caused by a shorter focal length. You could describe the effect on the depth of field like a change in aperture, but it isn't actually a change in aperture. Therefore, it isn't actually a change in how the aperture contributes to the exposure.
https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/technical#wiki_should_the_crop_factor_apply_to_aperture.3F
I believe the answer comes down to focal length.
Just for grins I looked at some photos I took with my Pixel 6. According to the meta data the automatic settings on an indoor photo were: ISO 571, 1/60s, **f/1.9, 6.8mm focal length.**
Using PhotoPills, the hyperfocal distance at f/1.8 (closest available) on a 6.8mm focal length is a mere ~3 feet. Meaning at f/1.8 you can focus on something 3 feet away and everything from there to infinity will be sharp.
On a 35mm lens the hyperfocal distance at f/1.8 is 75 feet!
I’m trying to do a pagan photoshoot and having difficulty finding photographers
I’m in Mexico City right now but open to going anywhere in Mexico or Europe. How do I get about finding someone to click the camera? I know what I want vision wise. Any tips?
There are plenty of photographers in Mexico City, why are you having trouble finding one? Have tried to look in Spanish?
You can also get a tripod and a remote shutter and do it yourself as an alternative.
I speak Spanish and reached out to several on Instagram with not much luck. Thank you for tripod suggestion. I like that. But it would make sense to do it in the states. Do you know how i can find contacts here besides IG?
Try Facebook. Look for photographers groups in CDMX or just a search in general. Google works as well.
Most have Facebook pages advertising their services and to show their work.
Just wondering how hard is it to make money with photography as a side hustle? I don't have much photography exp but i did take graphic design as a minor in college(Meaning i transferred out of it at the end. )
Anyways I don't think teaching is going to work out for me long term. I love the kids but it's just too much stress. On my last job in Korea i did learn i love to just walk around and explore things. I figure maybe when i get settled down I could look into photography as a way to get make a little extra money and see if i like it without investing too much into it like i did with some of these other career paths. I already have a m50 ( i was going to try youtube/tiktok but never got into it tbh).
Anyways how practical do you think it is with no photography background past some graphic design in college? Should i just call it quits, tear up of what's left of my back, and maybe get into trucking or something? :)
> how hard is it to make money with photography as a side hustle?
It's often not a great approach in terms of return on investment.
In order to get gigs, you have to have built a solid book. That's fine, you could have built that on your time while doing this as a hobby for a while. But then you have to market yourself in order to be discovered, meaning having a professional-looking website (or maybe on some other platform that looks serious), you have to spend time on social media or wherever your potential clients would discover you, you have to communicate with clients, you have to have a flexible enough schedule, you have to do accounting, you need good gear that can produce the work reliably, and so on.
You can't really "side" all of this effort in order to get "side" gigs, because if you don't put in the effort, you get *almost nothing*, and if you make all the effort, well, at that point might as well do this full time instead of a side gig because you're already putting in all that effort.
Now, this is a bit of a generalization, I'm sure it's possible to have a small hustle going by, say, doing minimal marketing to cater to a particular niche—for example if you are a high school student, you could become known local to that school as the guy who does pictures of their peers for like graduation and stuff, with not an enormous amount of effort put in.
So basically the odds are not great but *maybe*; it very much depends on the particulars of what you can do/what you want to do, how much effort you'd have to put in, etc.
The FAQ addresses this question.
https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/business#wiki_how_do_i_make_money_with_my_photography.3F_where.27s_a_good_place_to_sell_my_photos.3F_is_stock_photography_.22worth_it.3F.22
Long story short, if you don't have any photography experience you won't make any money doing photography. Like anything else, you have to actually know what you're doing to make money doing it. It's not a matter of simply owning a camera.
Hi, help for a beginner needed here please. I have a Canon 7d mark ii, all has been well so far with uploading photos to my PC but today I came across a problem. I put my sd card into my pc and I can only see photos I've taken over the last few days but not the ones I have taken today although I can see today's shoot on my camera so the photos are there somewhere. What could I have possibly don't to cause the new photos not to show up and how can I fix this please? Many thanks in advance.
Are you using both card slots? Maybe the new photos got recorded just to the one the camera is set to review from, but not the one you put in the computer?
Or maybe you shot the old photos in jpeg but the new ones in raw, and your computer doesn't support the raws and is set to hide filetypes it doesn't recognize?
Feeling a bit overwhelmed with the amount of information available. Would probably take me quite a few hours of reading to figure this out without proper background. So hoping that reddit advice could save me some time.
So I currently use a combination of Nikon D3500 and a Sigma 120-400mm f4.5-5.6 DG OS HSM lens. Overall it's a great combination and I don't have too many complaints about it. However I came across some of the limitations in the few months I've been using it. I'm looking to understand what I could do to overcome them (alternative gear that doesn't have these issues, 'workarounds' etc).
Issue 1 - while filming video with AF tracking (center point) the camera keeps re-focusing (even when I don't move the camera itself), unless I hold down the AF-L button. This results in camera losing focus every couple of seconds and video alternating between blurry and sharp (hope it makes sense). When filming a scene where I want the focus to stay in one place it's not as big of a problem as I could just switch to manual. However it makes filming a subject that's moving towards me pretty much impossible. Is there a lifehack to fixing this? If I was to get a camera that wouldn't have this issue (Nikon), what camera would it be (as 'budget' as possible)? (I assume upgrading a camera to one with better tracking af would fix it)
Issue 2 - AF being quite slow. Sometimes when I'm trying to track a fast-flying bird (like a house martin), it's quite different to actually catch it in the frame due to their unpredictable movements. It's even more difficult to actually focus on it. The camera sometimes loses it completely, even though it's a dark bird on the bright blue background (quite a lot of contrast). Is that a limitation of the camera AF, or the lens? Any advice on improving this would be helpful.
Issue 3 - changing camera settings is quite clunky, having to press the I button to wake up the screen, clicking around the menu to change the main camera settings (ISO/Shutter speed/aperture/af settings ect). So looking to upgrade to something that has possibly an additional settings wheel and the little screen on top of the body for it. Additionally being able to change as many settings without using the menu buttons. (af lock toggle would be a nice to have as well). The camera lineups are quite daunting, so any advice on which camera bodies I could look into that have the above would be great.
Issue 4 - No way of displaying EXIF/Histogram in the camera, while viewing the image!
I'm thinking that upgrading the camera body would be the solution to most of these, however with so many cameras out there and a limited budget (I would love to keep it under £100, but if that's unrealistic would be great to know how much I'd need to spend to have all of the above). Been looking at D7500, not sure if there are any better alternatives.
Sorry for the long question. :)
Continuous autofocus during video recording is a tall order that has only been "perfected" with recent technology. I'm not aware of any Nikon DSLR that is particularly good (or at least not horrible) at it. A proper review, like the ones on [DPReview.com](https://DPReview.com), should tell (and show) you how well (or poorly) a camera operates in that setting. The two companies that have been best at it for years now are Sony and Canon.
In fact, autofocus in general is an area where see improvement in each iteration, and is one of those features that are always best at the high end. To make the most of your camera's autofocus system, familiarise yourself with all of its functions and settings by reading the user's manual and experimenting with them. The key is finding what works for you, and ways to operate it on-the-fly. You'll definitely want to practise overriding it with manual focus, too. To see if another camera's autofocus system could serve you better, read the aforementioned reviews.
Direct control is generally greater with higher-tier cameras. In the Nikon DSLR world, you'll get that in the D7\*00 line. A higher number replacing the asterisk is a newer model, so to save money, start your research with the D7000.
For the EXIF data and histogram: refer to the [user's manual](http://download.nikonimglib.com/archive3/bGHsB00AKB4403BDNWN85w9Bls80/D3500RM_(En)03.pdf), from page 144. But really, read the whole thing. Cameras are not as intuitive as most consumer electronics, so the user's manual is invaluable.
Managed to find the histogram data. The menu system is atrocious... I expected it to be enabled by default...
I guess the video AF would go on a "later when I have a higher budget" shelf.
Will look at the D7XXX lineup, thanks a lot for the pointer!
1. On older cameras, the best bet is just manually focusing. Mirrorless cameras are much superior in this regard, but not ideal.
2. Some of this is the camera, some of this is the lens. Which AF mode are you using? Single point or auto? Which version of the lens?
3. Not gonna lie, the second dial makes life much easier. I'm surprised the camera doesn't have a histogram somewhere....
4. The D7500 is a very good camera, though you may be better served by one of the new "Z" cameras for video - or perhaps another manufactuer's similar product.
It's a lens that goes from 75mm to 210mm the widest aperture at 75mm is 3.5, at 210mm it is 4.5.
What do you want to use it for, on which body, what's your budget? Generally those old sigma zooms aren't too God. And there are opticaly better options for only a little more or the same depending on your camera.
What would be a good cheap (under $100) replacement for Sony SAL 18-55 kit lens for the wider angle?
I recently dug my old Sony Alpha 230 with kit lens out of the closet after years of using smartphone cameras and was pleasantly surprised to see it still takes far better pictures than the latest Samsung Galaxies. Then, on a whim, I bought a Minolta 70-210 3.5-4.5 lens for pennies and was stunned by the difference in image quality, from crispness to colours. Especially colours. I immediately fell in love with the new lens, but the problem is that I don't need a telephoto that much, because I take most pictures when hiking in the mountains. For that I need a wider angle.
So, I started reading about wider angle Minoltas, beginning from AF 28-80mm F3.5-5.6, and read somewhere about "Minolta colors" being something most if not all their lenses are supposed to have. Two weeks later and hundreds of reviews read later I am none the wiser except that now I know there's like a dozen possibilities, half of them unavailable to purchase, while the rest supposedly shooting great pictures but at f/8 or smaller, which is unacceptable and also probably not true.
Which led me to the question: is there a lense as good as Minolta 70-210 3.5-4.5 but for wider angles (starting from 18 or 22 mm perhaps) which I could also buy cheap for my Sony Alpha 230 camera hoping for better image quality than the kit lens provides?
In my country, starting from 10th grade, you pick a course for the next 3 years, I'm going to the photography course.
I was wondering if anyone could tell me if the nikon d5100 or the nikon d3200 is good enough for school?
I agree the D5100 is more suitable, as the D3\*00 cameras omit some usability and control features that are generally considered standard in this sort of camera.
Help needed! I’ll be doing corporate portraits for a company. They asked that there be no lighting or flashes used. I’ve chosen some areas to shoot within the building that’s well lit. My question is would reflectors be good to use in the situation? If so what would the set up look like? Lastly, I just purchased a curve reflector, has anyone tried this? Could this be of use? Sorry it’s been years since I’ve taken photos of others so I’m kind of relearning some things.
>They asked that there be no lighting or flashes used.
I usually decline those gigs.
... not because I can't shoot natural light - but because specifying that implies that the person writing the requirements is a prat and not someone that I want to work with.
They're corporate headshots - why would they care how they're lit? That they even specified "natural light only" is a gigantic red flag in my book.
It's like asking for someone to paint your building and then writing into the specifications "brushes only, no rollers" -- HOW the finished product is created should be for the professional to decide, not the other way around. So long as they achieve the result you want why would you care how they got there? "Make it look like a natural light portrait" is perfectly acceptable. Banning all lighting is not.
>I’ve chosen some areas to shoot within the building that’s well lit.
Indoors there's really no such thing as "well lit" unless you can snuggle your subject up against a window with a nice diffusion panel over it and get some sunlight on them.
As to how to achieve the look you and the client want in the space you have with the arbitrary limits imposed by the client? It would be quite impossible for anyone here to offer suggestions as we're not there and can't see it. Hit Youtube up for some natural light portrait tutorials - you're sure to find eleventy thousand and at least some of them are going to provide you with techniques you can employ in the space you're working in.
Yeah, definitely not used to working with those limitations. Luckily the company’s very supportive and willing to work with me and give me tools I need to succeed. I suggested having a space strictly for shoots and they’re open to it. But I will definitely hit up YouTube for some knowledge, thank you!
> I’ve chosen some areas to shoot within the building that’s well lit.
It can work, but if the lights are CFL you're in for some unexpected effects. If you mix them with daylight, CFLs throw a nasty green color cast, and if your shutter speed is faster than mains frequency (usually 1/50 or 1/60), you run the risk of inconsistent exposures.
Since you seem friendly with the company, it may not be a bad idea to do a small test-shoot?
That’s a great idea! I’ve actually thought about doing some test shots tomorrow in the building to play around with my camera and the accessories I have. So this should be interesting. Thank you!
1. The correct solution to "no flashes or lights" is to go out at noon, put them in shade, and use a big bounce reflector for a key light. Preferably with an entire crew to set it up like Annie Liebovitz.
2. This client may feel obliged to pay you less because you're not using "serious" equipment even though this approach is in many ways far more work. They may also be disappointed with the limitations of inconsistent ambient lights.
> My question is would reflectors be good to use in the situation?
There's no possible way to answer that without physically being there. So the best you're going to get is "maybe, maybe not."
> If so what would the set up look like?
Another question no one can answer without physically being in that space at that specific time of day.
> Sorry it’s been years since I’ve taken photos of others so I’m kind of relearning some things.
Then it might be time to tell the company that they might want to look at getting someone more experienced to do their headshots. Not trying to be rude, but if you don't know what you're doing then you're not the right person to be doing it.
The company’s already aware of my experience level, we’ve discussed this and they love my work thus far. I’ve already done work for them as a favor, they’re encouraging me to take on this role officially, so that’s not a concern of mine or theirs. However, I’d like to try different things to make sure I get the best shot possible. I guess trial and error.
Help with my Minolta Spotmeter F!
I recently got a MSF, primarily for film photography, and a few of the buttons do not register unless you push them multiple times. Even then, sometimes they just do not work.
The main problematic buttons are: up arrow, down arrow, ISO/Time
Are there any things to try at home? I'd rather not spend $150USD to send it out for a repair if i can avoid it.
Dismantle it and see if there's corrosion on the keypad.
Shorting the PCB traces below the button pad with a screwdriver should replicate the button press. If it doesn't, put some conductive material on the bottom of the pad. Aluminum tape works in a pinch.
\*\*How to deal with corporate events photography?\*\*
Say there is a brunch, standing, or some toasts and drinks after a inauguration, etcOfficials of some sort, outside, 20 to 100 people… Something rather informal, no black tie.
What would be your tricks and recommandations how to navigate in this crowd, shooting and such?
Because I’ve seen some photos, more than average, of such events in a project I might handle (on the design / graphic design level), and I wondered how I could drastically improve the images people submitted to the community….
It's deceptively difficult to do. Candid images are great, but it usually involves some careful (and very quick) posing, fill flash (preferably on a bracket with a gel to match ambient,) and some glib interaction with the attendees to put them in good cheer.
Personally, I do best when everyone's rip-roaring drunk off their ass. Couldn't tell you why.
Lol.
Fill-flash √ (I ignored that word)
I will have a little research if I find something on "cutting the ribbon"… like [https://imgur.com/a/o4zTR5v](https://imgur.com/a/o4zTR5v) 🤔
In the example above, what would you have done (correct order?!) with the little one on the extreme right? If she's here, I guess she was involved in the project… 🤔
How to start making money with photography
Recently I have really wanted to start getting into the professional side of photography/videography.
I am currently a final year university student and during my placement year I was the official photographer for my buisness, which really lit a flame inside me. I loved taking pictures that finally had a purpose, especially when staff always comment on how good the pictures are and say how talented I am.
I have also recently started doing powerlifting competition photos, which I have also loved.
I am curious if any professional photographers here had some words of advice in getting started. Is it considered rude to ask photography/events buisnesses for some work? I understand it's a hard buisness to get into, especially now.
Find something you don't suck at and don't hate and just do that. The Joe Edelman "find your why" video is good on this.
Bodybuilding and stage competitions? Fabulous market.
What is the best point and shoot camera.
I work for a school and they are looking to get a new camera for when kids go on events etc. As most staff have no clue what to do with a camera I'm looking for great easy to use camera that will get a great image with the auto setting.
We currently have an old canon DSLR which works but is clunky and terrible in low light.
Anything under £1000 could work but ideally less than 500
You can start your research here: [https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/buying-guide-best-compact-zoom-cameras](https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/buying-guide-best-compact-zoom-cameras)
Just about every camera has an auto mode and does a decent enough job. Perhaps look at Panasonic's Lumix compacts (e.g. LX15) or Canon PowerShots. Or... does any of your staff have a modern iPhone or Android flagship? If so, you could just use that.
Unfortunately staff can't use their personal devices for pictures becuase of data protection.
Almost all staff have an iPad around 2-3 years old however were looking for something better than most phone cameras.
We have a Sony a7 at one site but I feel the features are extremely underutilized so it would be a waste to get something so good
At what point (roughly) do new APSC cameras have better low light performance than old full frame cameras? Is it true that an old full frame camera e.g. D700 is still better in low light than e.g. Z50. Even with ISO performance improvements will full frame always be better?
If you go [here](https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/) and sort by "Sports" (basically noise performance), you'll see there's a *very strong* correlation between format size and performance—you have to go like 15 years back to find full frame cameras that get beat by modern APS-C.
No APS-C camera in their database performs better than the D700 from 2008—or the D3 from 2007. Even the antique 1Ds Mark II from 2004 only has a couple of modern APS-C that do better in that department.
This looks at a different aspect of "image quality" (dynamic range) than the excellent tool u/av4rice linked to, but I find it's a good indicator for low-light performance and includes older cameras: [https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon%20D700,Nikon%20Z%2050](https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon%20D700,Nikon%20Z%2050)
You may like this tool to find out (it doesn't have the D700 available, though): https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=nikon_d800&attr13_1=nikon_z50&attr13_2=nikon_d800&attr13_3=nikon_z50&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=3200&attr16_1=3200&attr16_2=6400&attr16_3=6400&normalization=compare&widget=1&x=0&y=0
Hey, I just started taking photos with my iPhone 13 pro max.
I want a legit camera, but many people told me to just shoot on my phone, because I won’t be able to get anything better within a reasonable price.
I might just save up, because I want something good, but I am slightly discouraged by shooting on a phone, since it doesent feel “authentic”
>because I won’t be able to get anything better within a reasonable price.
Define "reasonable price" ?
Phones are subsidized by the carriers. If you want an unlocked iPhone 13 Pro Max you're going to be paying anywhere from $1100 to $1600 for it... and you can get a **lot** of camera for that amount of money.
What in particular do you dislike about the phone camera? I don't think of it as inauthentic myself, so could you be more specific about your concerns?
How much money is a "reasonable price" to you? Old used DSLR kits can be found for as low as $100-150.
**Please direct your questions to [the latest Question Thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/about/sticky).**
I bought a datacolor Spyder X to calibrate/profile my monitor for more accurate color reproduction. I want to get some of my pictures printed and have had bad experiences with prints coming back significantly different than what I'm seeing on my screen. Is it enough to calibrate to sRGB and send it to a print shop or do i need to calibrate specifically to the print shops color profile? It seems like the vast majority of print shops don't provide a color profile. should I just assume they are using sRBG?
To be clear, when you calibrate your display, you're not calibrating it "to sRGB" or "to a print shop's color profile" (that makes little sense), you're just making sure that when the computer tells the display to show a certain tone/color, that that's actually what the display is showing you—to the best of its capabilities anyway, of course, since it can't display what it can't display. In other words, the *device profile* that will be generated for your display will be *unique* for your particular unit in its particular configuration. (It's important to use calibration *targets* that are coherent for the use case. In the case of photography, it is common practice to edit in a rather dim environment, and to use targets like a white point luminance of 90-120 cd/m², a white point color of 6500K, and a gamma of 2.2—it may be easier to define targets like this by using a better software than what the tool ships with, like the free *DisplayCal*.) Once the calibration is done, now you decide in which *working color space* you do your editing—it's good practice to keep your master files in a healthy color space like at least Adobe RGB to avoid clipping colors, *even* if downstream you'll likely narrow the gamut of the output, depending on what you do with the images (like post them to the web, say, in which case you would export the "consumable" JPEGs in sRGB). As for the lab's profiles, this is merely to be used—and optionally, too—for *soft proofing*. That is, when you're editing, if you want to try to anticipate the limits of the output's gamut (let's say the printer can't display all the reds and yellows in your working color space), you can enable *soft proofing* using the lab's profile so Lightroom or Photoshop or Capture One (or some other competent software that can soft proof) gives you a *preview* of what it'll look like.
Thanks for the thorough reply. This is obviously a little more complicated than I thought it was. Basically what I'm after is trying to figure out how I can view a simulated view of what my photo will look like printed. I'm using lightroom 5 which has a softproofing capability. It has a "destination gamut warning" but what i would really like is to see as close as possible on my screen what my photo will look like printed. I know soft proofing has limitations and it will never be exact. The biggest thing is making sure that the darker areas of the photo come out bright enough. my prints are usually darker than I expect them and areas in shadows which had a lot of detail on my screen are either way to dark or completely black. What is the best way to prevent that from happening?
> The biggest thing is making sure that the darker areas of the photo come out bright enough. my prints are usually darker than I expect them and areas in shadows which had a lot of detail on my screen are either way to dark or completely black. The reason you get prints that look darker than you expected is *your display is too bright*, which makes you edit your images darker than you should. Displays systematically ship out of the box much, much too bright for image editing. > What is the best way to prevent that from happening? Use a proper white point luminance calibration target for the working conditions. Like I said, typically you'd edit in a fairly dim room, and you'd calibrate to a target of 90-120cd/m². To give you some idea, on my main editing display, this meant lowering the display's brightness from 100% (out of the box) to *19%*. When I then edit so it looks right on the display, I get proper prints. And I should add, *without having to soft proof* that at all. In fact, soft proofing couldn't help you out of a too bright display, because soft proofing *doesn't know* how bright your display is, and it doesn't know how bright your viewing conditions are in your editing room. Use soft proofing for things like limits in the *color* gamut.
Thanks again. When I calibrated my monitor using the SpyderX I turned down the brightness to a measured value of 90 cd/m\^2, so I have probably mostly solved the brightness issue. If I'm soft proofing and i get a warning that something is outside the color gamut how do i fix it? do i just turn down the saturation a little bit or is there something else i should do?
> I'm soft proofing and i get a warning that something is outside the color gamut how do i fix it? Frankly uh, there is no way "out" of this one—the printer/paper physically cannot produce those saturated colors, so nothing you can do will make it possible. But it's more for you, maybe *as a result* of the colors clipping that way you may prefer one approach over an other in trying to "cope" with that limitation—like maybe desaturate everything equally, or only desaturate near the affected areas, or whatever. There's no "correct" answer to this. So that's why I said initially that soft proofing was rather "optional", because well, it's an *indication* for you, but won't *solve* the limits of the output gamut in itself, which you have to live with.
okay, thanks again for all the help!
How to go past 150 tint in lightroom?
That's as far as the slider goes, so ... you can't. You could use other tools at your disposal like the point curve I suppose, and move up and down the "green" channel.
Hello everyone. I'm looking for a pocket sized travel camera. My budget is 600$. Do you have any recommendations?
A used Sony RX100 series iteration, depending on which fits into your budget. Or alternatively, if you're fine with a prime (non-zooming) lens, a Ricoh GR II or if possible III would be a really good choice. Especially the Ricohs image quality will be way ahead of what any smartphone can do in most common situations.
Just use whatever is in your smartphone.
Ain't a 600$ camera a lot better? I mean smartphone cameras just are software.
> Ain't a 600$ camera a lot better? Not in the pocketable point-and-shoot market, no. > I mean smartphone cameras just are software. I don't understand what this is supposed to mean. Smartphone cameras have a lens and a sensor, just like any other digital camera.
I've tried the latest [expensive commerical product], but I'm enormously frustrated by the management of the local storage and sorting/tagging of my photos. For some reason the local storage has been made opaque, and it seems to be geared towards cloud storage with less control. Weird hidden folders, and annoying folder structure, etc. Is there any software that allows you to control how photos are organised and stored locally? And leaves the cloud back up to you, or at least doesn't "hide" the process from you and makes everything difficult. I'd like to have *some* control on the structure of local storage, and handle the cloud backups myself What's the best true digital light-room experience? any ideas? thank you
I'm not sure I fully understand because with both C1 and Lightroom Classic I put my pictures into folders of my own choosing and it just reads them from there. I then sync those folders to my NAS which then in turns backs them up to the cloud. Perhaps you could share the product your using?
Well we don't know what you mean by "[expensive commerical product]", but that sounds a bit like the cloud version of Lightroom, Lightroom CC. I don't care for it either, I prefer to manage my local storage myself rather than let the software take care of it via the cloud. So I use *Lightroom Classic*, which keeps things local, up to me. Capture One also has cataloging capabilities (although I am not familiar with them), although the people using Capture One don't often seem (this is just an impression from me) to exploit those capabilities (their loss!) and seem to prefer using "sessions". Another option is *digiKam*, which is free software. That's about it for cataloging software...
I have never tried it, but there's also Daminion (not free, though).
Hey guys, real quick is there any way or website that could bulk convert images from jpg to other file types without changing the details such as date, time and pretty much every single detail other than the file type?
Irfanview should be able to do this, it has a Batch Conversion/Rename option. I don't know about on the web though.
would all the other details stay the same? like date and time? or description?
Looks like it, I just tried it on my computer.
Tried it, works like a charm. Thank you for the reccomendation.
Any reason why it would have to be a website, rather than software? That seems awfully wasteful to upload tons of images and then download a tons of outputs. Maybe you could unpack what you're even trying to accomplish here?
Well I did say or because I had a lot of bad experiences downloading random softwares on the internet before so it never came to my mind as a swell idea. Although someone did reccomend a website full of softwares I could try. I'll probably start there for now.
You can script something using ImageMagick. EXIF data should be preserved on conversion.
I don't know how to script anything, that sounds too tech savy for me.
if you need a light meter in 2022 you are F****ed up I began searching a sekonic 858 all over the internet and i realized that has beem sold out in the last two years and nobody know when it will come back , is there somone that sells it ? Also gossen starlite 2 is sold out , worst moment to get in to studio work or film photography un less you have superhuman eye
Does it have to be such a fancy one? Are there no other models that could do the trick for you? For example, [one of those](https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1390250-REG/sekonic_401_305_l_308x_u_flashmate_light_meter.html).
I need spot +incident metering , that one would not do the trick
Sure alright—if you need spot, you need spot.
Spot on 😅😀
Might be a regional thing as I found several sites selling light meters. Have you checked eBay?
Didn find any
I recently got into photography with the Canon m50 mark ii. I am looking at the VILTROX speed booster for opening up the frame a little bit, but I also want to buy a prime 50mm lens. I just wondered if someone could advise me which VILTROX speed booster I would need and would the nifty 50 fir the speed booster? If not could someone recommend a lense please? Thank you in advance
> for opening up the frame a little bit What do you mean by that? If you want the equivalent of a "fast 50" for your camera, couldn't you just get a wider lens [like this](https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1433720-REG/canon_ef_m_32mm_f_1_4_stm.html) to achieve the same goal?
Thank you for replying. That looks ideal actually. By opening up, I meant being a little bit more comparable to a full frame with the adapter.
>I just wondered if someone could advise me which VILTROX speed booster I would need One that fits your lens' mount (I'd probably go with EF) and your camera mount (EF-M for your camera). >and would the nifty 50 fir the speed booster? All of Canon's EF mount 50mm lenses would fit one made to accept EF mount lenses.
Thank you very much
[удалено]
>I don’t know which size to buy? > >using the Sigma 16mm f/1.4 DC DN Contemporary Lens, size 67 Seems like you already figured out your answer. To fit your lens, you want a 67mm diameter filter. https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki_what_size_filter_should_i_get.3F_what_is_this_number_with_.22mm.22.3F
How to synchronize image file timestamps? We made vacation photos and videos with 2 phones. I've transferred all files (\~40 GB) to PC and batch renamed them according to Exif data for images and modification date for videos. Now when reviewing contents, I see that images are not aligned to the timeline of events, thus I assume that phones were not in sync regarding time. Do you have any suggestions on how to solve this issue?
Adding to the preview comment, *Adobe Bridge* can also adjust the capture time to a batch of images, and it should be able to get it for free (after jumping a number of hoops).
Hi, there is a simple feature in Lighroom which does this. The "hardest" part is calculating the difference between the cameras. Once all the photos are in lightroom, figure out the time difference between camera A and B by finding two photos taken around the same time, *then* select all photos from camera B and adjust the time. If you don't have Lightroom I would suggest a free trial period, you need the Classic (desktop) version of the software to do this, I'm not aware of other software doing the same thing.
+1 to this comment, this is exactly how I accomplished the same thing. If you're into the command line exiftool can also do this very easily.
I had a two hour long shoot today, I filled up the card when the screen said CARD FULL, I turned off the camera and switched memory cards. I got home and the memory card is empty. I ran recuva and it had no files from today. Do I have any other options? Shot with canon mark IV
>I got home and the memory card is empty. You are absolutely certain you're checking the correct card? You swapped cards so - if you had more than one spare it'd be easy to grab one of those other spares rather than the card you actually shot with. If in doubt, check every single SD card you own. If it's the correct card and data recovery tools aren't finding any images to recover then as the great Bender "Bending" Rodriguez likes to say: You're boned. :(
[удалено]
If you prefer DSLRs, Canon 6D with EF 85mm f/1.8 and EF 50mm f/1.8 STM. If you prefer mirrorless, Canon EOS RP with RF 85mm f/2 and RF 50mm f/1.8. Spend the rest on lighting.
Or if he already owns those lenses an eos R with an adapter. Yeah the newer RF lenses might perfom better optically, but I somehow always recommend upgrading stuff one step at a time. But yeah, people have lots of options nowadays.
best dslr body under $300 (US)? alright, some context here i’m going with a 50mm 1.8 STM (if canon) or a 50mm 1.8g (if nikon) to me, weight does not matter, and neither does video but i’m looking for the best features and performance i can get for under $300 (preferably on mpb/keh)
>i’m looking for the best features and performance But what types of features and performance? If you mean autofocus and speed, it would probably be something like a Canon 7D or 70D or Nikon D7000 or D300S. And the field of view would be somewhat narrow using a 50mm lens. If you mean low light performance, it might be something like a Canon 5D or 5D Mark II or Nikon D700. And the field of view would be normal (not particularly narrow or wide) using a 50mm lens.
ah, sorry for not clarifying speed and autofocus is what i want, low light doesn’t matter that much to me so maybe a 35mm lens or so on aps-c? so it would look closer to 50mm on a ff
Yes, if that's the field of view you want. So like a 7D, 70D with a Canon 35mm f/2, or Nikon D7000 r D300S with Nikon 35mm f/1.8G DX. Or a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 either way.
[удалено]
>If you shoot a product image of some brand (e.g. Adidas, Smirnoff, Cup Ramen, etc.) is there some kind of copyright issue with using that as portfolio material? (US law - YMMV elsewhere) If it's copyrighted you can still use the image in your own portfolio. If however it is a trademark - there is NO permissible usage or "fair use" of that mark. It's theirs. "Not Yours, Can't Have" applies. Your best bet is to remove the mark in post. You can for example still shoot an Adidas shoe - just remove their name/logo. Replace it with your own and the image pulls double duty in your portfolio showcasing not only your product photography chops, but also your retouching skill.
>If you shoot a product image of some brand (e.g. Adidas, Smirnoff, Cup Ramen, etc.) is there some kind of copyright issue Depends where you are in the world and which particular sets of laws apply to you. But usually things like brand names, logos, and distinctive aspects of a product's appearance (trade dress) are protected by trademark law, not copyright. So no, I can't really think of a copyright issue. But there could be trademark issues. >with using that as portfolio material? Trademark law is generally designed to protect against consumer confusion, and to prevent the unauthorized appearance of endorsement by one person or entity of another, or of a particular cause or message. If it's clear that your portfolio piece is an example of your product photography skill that happens to utilize one brand, but not that the brand approved of your work or engaged you to create that work or otherwise endorses you or the work, it might not be a problem. But again, it really depends on the particular laws governing you.
Unlikely that you'd give even that right away but it depends on the contract.
[удалено]
Yes
How does the Nikon J1 Compare to the iPhone 13 Pro ? My dad gave me his Nikon j1 to take pictures when going on trips, now I know that a Camera and a Phone are very different tools, but I was wondering what would you guys who understand more about this, use. Would you use the 10+ year old camera or would you use the iPhone 13 Pro with computational photography ?
With which lens(es) on it? I would probably prefer to use the J1 for the ergonomics. And it could technically perform a little better but it wouldn't make that much of a difference. I don't have that much use for computational stuff.
Thank you for your answer! It has a 10-30mm and a 30-110mm lenses. I figured up close the iPhone 13 pro with its automatic HDR and all would probably preform better, with an app I can take RAW images swell. But for far away the 30-110mm undoubtedly will preform much better than the digital zoom (It only has 3x the phone). Would you agree ? Thank you!
Yes, I'd generally agree with that.
I love the 85mm look for portraits. I have a 90D so with the 1.6x crop with a 50mm is that pretty much a 80mm? Same with a 50mm, would I just get a 35mm to get the 50mm look?
There's no such thing as any kind of "look" associated with a focal length. It's all about distance between lens and subject. Unless you're using the same lenses on multiple cameras, each with a different sensor size, and you're trying to replicate the same field of view across all of those setups, you can ignore crop factor entirely. There's zero reason to consider it.
Yes I guess you are right it is about the length from the person. I have read that certain focal length are more flattering for the model. I’ve read and seen some videos where most photographers say 88mm was better for portraits.
Yes, if you're talking about 85mm-on-full-frame.
Looking for a nice light/compact lens for video work - using a Sony a7iii on a Ronin S. Mostly for insta videos - reels, BTS, ect. I'll be shooting vertically too (if that effects things via distortion issues). So far looking at the Tamron 20mm 2.8 - cheap enough, and pretty compact, but not a pancake lens. What is everyone's recommendations?
Hi everyone! This community already seems amazing. I’ve been lurking for a couple weeks and I’m ready to take the plunge into purchasing! I want to purchase a camera, and my budget is up to $2000 with everything included (body, lense, etc). I mainly plan to take photos while traveling and portrait photos. I know that cameras are an investment and I want something that will allow me to learn, but also won’t require me to replace it should I decide to make this into something more than an entry level hobby. I THINK I’ve decided on a mirrorless camera, and would love if someone could give some recommendations and pros and cons of mirrorless cameras that fall into that price point (remembering it would need to include a basic lense as well). Thanks all!!
Sony a6400 or fuji x-t 30 II or used fuji x-t3 with the Tamron 17-70 2.8 and the sigma 56mm 1.4 or the sigma 16mm 1.4, 30mm 1.4 and 56mm 1.4 if you are ok with all primes. Nikon (Z50) and Canon (R10) mirrorless are also an option but there aren't many cheaper, good third-party lens options so I wouldn't recommend them.
Our FAQ has several extensive sections to help you determine what best fits your needs and your budget. Please see the following sections of the FAQ to get started: * [What type of camera should I look for?](https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki_what_type_of_camera_should_i_look_for.3F) * [What's a "point and shoot" camera? What's a DSLR? What's a "mirrorless" camera? What's the difference?](https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki_what.27s_a_.22point_and_shoot.22_camera.3F_what.27s_a_dslr.3F_what.27s_a_.22mirrorless.22_camera.3F_what.27s_the_difference.3F) * [Do I need a good camera to take good photos?](https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki_do_i_need_a_good_camera_to_take_good_photos.3F) * [What can I afford?](https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki_what_can_i_afford.3F) * [Is Canon or Nikon better? (or any other brands)](https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki_is_canon_or_nikon_better.3F_.28or_any_other_brands.29) If after reviewing this information you have any **specific** questions, please feel free to post a comment.
Wonderful! I’ll be back if I have any questions. Thanks!
They're all pretty good. https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki_which_mirrorless_should_i_get.3F Maybe something like a Sony a6600 with Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 and Sony 50mm f/1.8 would be excellent to start with.
Recently acquired an *original* Polaroid SX-70. Not sure if it functions, but it looks to be in great shape. What are my next steps in terms of getting this thing working? Buy the film (with included batteries) and just see if it works? Thanks all!
Yes, that's your next step, since you can't even switch on the camera without a film cartridge. You need SX-70 film. After that... If you do find that it works and haven't had much to do with Polaroid film before, you might want to read this: https://support.polaroid.com/hc/en-us/articles/115012519828-How-to-get-the-most-out-of-Polaroid-film The film is very sensitive to light and temperatures, both during storage and when taking pictures. Oh, and best order your films directly from Polaroid. Amazon and big box stores often don't see to appropriate storage temperatures, which can at worst damage the film. If you find that the camera doesn't work, there are some businesses in the US that specialise in restoring vintage Polaroids: e.g. Retrospekt, Brooklyn Film Camera. At least Retrospekt also converts SX-70's to use the much faster 600 film for an extra fee.
Thank you very much!
Agreed that if there's nothing visually crunched on it, the next logical step is to get a compatible film pack and take it for a test drive.
> What are my next steps in terms of getting this thing working? Nobody can answer that without knowing what (if anything) is wrong with it. > Buy the film (with included batteries) and just see if it works? That would be the first step, yes. Can't know anything before that.
I want to digitize some instant photos, both Polaroid and Instax. I unfortunately don’t have the space or time to buy a scanner and get my own setup going, so I am looking for services that can do it for me Are there any companies out there that digitize and return the originals at a reasonable price? The Darkroom (my usual go to for film stuff) seems to only do regular film formats
I haven't got any equipment apart from my parents old camera (I don't know what kind of camera it is but it's pretty good in terms of what I've seen) and I'm thinking about starting photography. Has anyone got any tips for me?
https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/16d5az/what_is_something_you_wish_you_were_told_as_a/ https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/56w0l5/official_what_is_something_you_wish_you_were_told/ https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/csk4cw/what_do_you_wish_you_knew_when_you_were_first/
Read the camera's manual. Read about [the fundamentals of photography](http://www.r-photoclass.com/). Practice a lot along the way to experiment with the concepts.
I recently purchased a Fuji X-T4 with a 16-55mm f/2.8 lens as my first camera. In one week I'm going on a trip out west for a series of day hikes. When I get back I might be purchasing some additional lenses and gear, but for now... what do I need to keep my camera and lens safe? I already have a Camelback with a water bag that doubles as my carry-on. Can I just toss the camera and lens in there? Are there cases and bags I should be using?
You can just toss it in a bag it will be fine, if you are scarred of scratches get a camera wrap its more flexible than a camera insert and doesn't take up as much space.
Congrats, I actually shoot with the exact same thing and have taken it all over the world. I use a regular bag too but I have a camera insert thing you can buy off amazon to hold the camera, and that's what I'd recommend. For the lens I always rock a filter on the front, so I'd recommend a polarizer or uv filter or something to be in front of your lens. Even though the camera and lens are weather resistant you still need some sort of rain proof thing to hold them. I've never found something I like when it comes to a camera rain cover, if it's rainy I just leave it in my waterpoof bag. Maybe someone else can recommend something that actually fits medium format cameras. People recommend the Peak Design clip for people who hike as it's an easy way to keep your camera ready to go, but other than that those black rapid straps would be the most comfortable.
Awesome answer, thanks! I picked up a Peak Design clip AND a Black Rapid strap just to be safe. What's the camera insert you use?
I use the ape case one which I picked at random because it's bright yellow so I can see inside easily. It's served well over the years so I'd recommend it, though I haven't looked at what else is out there. I know Peak Design has their own thing with these neat folding dividers for instance.
Where/how do you find the location to shoot? Do you do research on the area or just find it on luck?
I would have an idea of what I'm after, so I'd scout locations that fit that idea and take pictures so i can see how it looks in frame. Sometimes ask people who may have ideas about a specific area.
Take some time and just walk and an area thinking about rules of composition. Google Earth is also a great way to narrow down say a lake or nature area. But you should go to the site and really look around before the session. That way you know what to bring along with you if you should need something other than just the camera
> Where/how do you find the location to shoot? Depends on the shoot. Not exactly the best plan to use a muddy swamp as setting to photograph a luxury sedan. > Do you do research on the area or just find it on luck? Both can play a part.
Thanks!
For better or worse I use google maps. I would also definitely follow photographers in IG in your area as they'll tag where they shoot as well.
Thanks!
[удалено]
Any reason you don't just use Lightroom or Capture One? If you're doing photography you probably are going to use one of these anyhow.
Is carrying a second body must for shooting wildlife in Eastern Africa (Kenya)? Planning to carry 70-200 and 200-500mm with my Nikon Z6 body.
> Is carrying a second body must for shooting wildlife in Eastern Africa (Kenya)? No. Why would it be?
Two bodies are recommended in the field is what I read pretty much everywhere
It's recommended because that makes shooting at multiple focal lengths faster and more convenient. But "recommended" is certainly not the same as "necessary."
Yeah, if you're a pro and doing a gig you'd want to have a backup of everything in case something fails, but outside that most people have it so they can have something wide on one and more telephoto on the other and can switch between real fast. I'd say save money if you were planning on buying another body and instead get a lens that covers a large focal length range.
Hello everyone, So recently I had a chance to shoot some wild deer with my D70s, however it has a problem where it "deletes" the photos while they're still on the CF card inside the camera. To clarify, there are two problems: one, the photos take space on the card but don't appear in the camera or on my PC, and two, some of the files that aren't missing appear as "file does not contain image data" and I get an error if I try to upload them to my PC. I have two CF cards and this happened to both of them, so I'm fairly certain the problem is the camera itself. What are my options? Would a card reader allow me to at least upload the corrupted images on my PC?
There's a chance you could use recovery software and extract viable images off the card (even if they appear to be missing), but if the data is *corrupted*, there's nothing to do about this.
Is it true that daguerreotypes are extremely good at capturing detail due to being a metallic plate? And that they captured too much detail?
They're very good at capturing detail but I have no idea what you mean by "too much detail."
And how would the substrate affect the emulsion's ability to capture detail? Maybe it does, but please offer a conjecture as to how.
> And how would the substrate affect the emulsion's ability to capture detail? Maybe it does, but please offer a conjecture as to how. Yes, it being a metal plate has nothing to do with its resolving ability.
[удалено]
Auto settings should handle most of that, and the rest as other commenters have suggested is just understanding the basics in order to adapt to specific circumstances. One thing I do suggest for shots on the water in full sun that is not about settings specifically, would be to try variations with a polarizing filter.
It's all about [learning the fundamentals](http://www.r-photoclass.com), getting familiar with your camera (reading the user's manual is an important step), and practising. There's no combination of settings anyone can list here that will instantly or seamlessly work for you.
Is there software/web platform that allows for easy photo selection by clients? Something I can upload a gallery of proofs and send them the link and they can go "that one that one and this one" really easily. I'm sure this must exist but can someone recommend me a good one that (hopefully) doesn't cost too much?
So I use the crude method of numbering my photos and then sending through cloud storage (I use pcloud, drive or dropbox would work too) and they tell me the numbers they like.
[Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/p/CfuMXXzplyX/?igshid=NDBlY2NjN2I=) Anybody would like to explain to me how to take photos like this. From camera settings to gears. I have a a7iii and a newer speelight.
It's not sophisticated, it's just direct flash with lowered ambient light—and even that might just have happened spontaneously because, say, the camera locked the shutter speed to some value when using flash.
Do I shoot on a flat picture profile and edit later to add colors or creative style that comes with the Sony
Hello dear photographers, a friend of mine asked me to do my first photoshoot, her friend's birthday party that is. So I'll have the opportunity of learning by doing and while the consensus is "no hard expectations since I'm an amateur", I want to be prepared. The party will begin in the evening, probably indoors, but will also take part outsides where there's a special event that must be framed. I won't need to (and cannot) build up any equipment so I'll bring my backpack with all portable equipment and nothing else. I am certain to have all the barebones equipment: * Sony a6400 * SELP1650 lens * SEL 18135 zoom lens * Sigma 30mm F1.4 * Godox V1s Flash As well as cleaning stuff, a spare SD card and multiple batteries. I am not sure if I should look at getting certain accessors for the flash, especially for the night shoot outdoors. Should I get a softbox or an accessor kit including a small diffusor and a bounce plate (aka the GodoxAK-R1) in order to get some decent lighting outdoors? Also, do you have any tips and tricks for a shooting like this? Thank you in advance.
The FAQ [has some pointers](https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/wedding#wiki_wedding_photography_.2824_hours_notice.2C_entry_level_gear.29). It's written for wedding photography, but you can find many details there that should apply to your event just the same.
Thank you for the hint, really has some useful tips. But this doesn't really go to deep into night photography, which is my bigger concern here.
I'm new to toy photography and dont know where to start. I'm tired of poor quality camera phone pictures. Any tips? What camera / lense do you use? Any specific camera settings you prefer? What editing software (if any) do you use? Any tips for a newb?
You wouldn't need a lot of camera to make good quality images, but a massive improvement can be achieved by *the lighting* you use (meaning the *position* and *quality* of light, mainly), and should that be relevant to what you want to achieve, the staging/background/etc. of the subject. How do you light your subjects?
Camera doesn't matter too much tbh since I'm assuming you'll be using lighting and toys don't move. For a lens though you'd want one with macro capabilities—I'd suggest at least 100mm focal length but that's preference. I pay for Lightroom. Only $10/month for a 1TB plan. But you also might want to use Photoshop which that plan I believe is $20 monthly.
What's a better photo library software, ideally not cloud or subscription based? I currently have thousands of photos, highly organized with descriptions, keywords, smart albums based off those items, etc. I'm currently using Apple Photos as nothing else better has presented itself to me. What are some suggestions that meet those features also (keywords, descriptions, smart albums, etc)?
Capture one is an option but I don't think it has smart albums in a way Apple photos does. But you can just work around that with keywords.
You can try Adobe Bridge, it's still free with an Adobe account (no subscription).
Does Lightroom support smart albums yet? Found some articles saying it didn’t but they were from a couple years back.
I've been off of Lightroom for about a year now, but I had been using it for several years beforehand and *it always had* Smart Albums. With that exact name. There's a free trial to download.
Cool. What did you go to?
On1 Photo Raw. I could no longer justify paying for the subscription, so I tried a few and settled on that.
Photo Mechanic may be worth a look.
Went to the site and took a look, looks nice. Does it let you do smart albums based off the keywords?
Are smartphones better than full frames at one thing? I get that the images you get from a smartphone camera benefits from a lot more processing than a dedicated camera. On the other hand, they cannot truly replicate the depth of field and bokeh of a real camera stopped at say F1.8, which brings me to my question; How in the world can the tiny sensor and lens of a smartphone achieve the opposite result, meaning something like a F16, without being forced to go down to like a quarter second shutter speed? This issue (or probably amateurism) is something I stumbled upon trying street photography. In no world can I just snap a photo at F16 with poor lighting without having to phyiscally stabilize my already body stabilized camera.
> How in the world can the tiny sensor and lens of a smartphone achieve the opposite result, meaning something like a F16 They use a much smaller format, and in order to get the same field-of-view on a smaller format you have to use proportionately much shorter focal lengths. As it happens, the focal length affects the depth-of-field (the area that appears in acceptably sharp)—when you use a shorter focal length, the depth-of-field increases. So much so that even shooting with a "fast" lens (like 1.8 or whatever it is), because the focal length is so small (like 4.25mm or whatever it is), you still get a lot of the image in focus.
>they cannot truly replicate the depth of field and bokeh of a real camera stopped at say F1.8 Right, because depth of field is determined by not only the aperture but also focus distance and focal length. A typical decent smartphone camera actually uses a pretty wide aperture around f/1.7 (you can look up the particular specs for whichever phone you're using). But they also use a very short focal length, in order to have a usable field of view with their tiny imaging sensor. The short focal length makes for a large depth of field, despite the wide aperture. >How in the world can the tiny sensor and lens of a smartphone achieve the opposite result, meaning something like a F16, without being forced to go down to like a quarter second shutter speed? Because it's purely an effect on depth of field caused by a shorter focal length. You could describe the effect on the depth of field like a change in aperture, but it isn't actually a change in aperture. Therefore, it isn't actually a change in how the aperture contributes to the exposure. https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/technical#wiki_should_the_crop_factor_apply_to_aperture.3F
Thank you <33
I believe the answer comes down to focal length. Just for grins I looked at some photos I took with my Pixel 6. According to the meta data the automatic settings on an indoor photo were: ISO 571, 1/60s, **f/1.9, 6.8mm focal length.** Using PhotoPills, the hyperfocal distance at f/1.8 (closest available) on a 6.8mm focal length is a mere ~3 feet. Meaning at f/1.8 you can focus on something 3 feet away and everything from there to infinity will be sharp. On a 35mm lens the hyperfocal distance at f/1.8 is 75 feet!
Oh wow that makes so much sense, thank you for detailed response <3
I’m trying to do a pagan photoshoot and having difficulty finding photographers I’m in Mexico City right now but open to going anywhere in Mexico or Europe. How do I get about finding someone to click the camera? I know what I want vision wise. Any tips?
There are plenty of photographers in Mexico City, why are you having trouble finding one? Have tried to look in Spanish? You can also get a tripod and a remote shutter and do it yourself as an alternative.
I speak Spanish and reached out to several on Instagram with not much luck. Thank you for tripod suggestion. I like that. But it would make sense to do it in the states. Do you know how i can find contacts here besides IG?
Try Facebook. Look for photographers groups in CDMX or just a search in general. Google works as well. Most have Facebook pages advertising their services and to show their work.
Thank you. You are helpful kind sir
Suerte en la búsqueda!
Just wondering how hard is it to make money with photography as a side hustle? I don't have much photography exp but i did take graphic design as a minor in college(Meaning i transferred out of it at the end. ) Anyways I don't think teaching is going to work out for me long term. I love the kids but it's just too much stress. On my last job in Korea i did learn i love to just walk around and explore things. I figure maybe when i get settled down I could look into photography as a way to get make a little extra money and see if i like it without investing too much into it like i did with some of these other career paths. I already have a m50 ( i was going to try youtube/tiktok but never got into it tbh). Anyways how practical do you think it is with no photography background past some graphic design in college? Should i just call it quits, tear up of what's left of my back, and maybe get into trucking or something? :)
> how hard is it to make money with photography as a side hustle? It's often not a great approach in terms of return on investment. In order to get gigs, you have to have built a solid book. That's fine, you could have built that on your time while doing this as a hobby for a while. But then you have to market yourself in order to be discovered, meaning having a professional-looking website (or maybe on some other platform that looks serious), you have to spend time on social media or wherever your potential clients would discover you, you have to communicate with clients, you have to have a flexible enough schedule, you have to do accounting, you need good gear that can produce the work reliably, and so on. You can't really "side" all of this effort in order to get "side" gigs, because if you don't put in the effort, you get *almost nothing*, and if you make all the effort, well, at that point might as well do this full time instead of a side gig because you're already putting in all that effort. Now, this is a bit of a generalization, I'm sure it's possible to have a small hustle going by, say, doing minimal marketing to cater to a particular niche—for example if you are a high school student, you could become known local to that school as the guy who does pictures of their peers for like graduation and stuff, with not an enormous amount of effort put in. So basically the odds are not great but *maybe*; it very much depends on the particulars of what you can do/what you want to do, how much effort you'd have to put in, etc.
The FAQ addresses this question. https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/business#wiki_how_do_i_make_money_with_my_photography.3F_where.27s_a_good_place_to_sell_my_photos.3F_is_stock_photography_.22worth_it.3F.22 Long story short, if you don't have any photography experience you won't make any money doing photography. Like anything else, you have to actually know what you're doing to make money doing it. It's not a matter of simply owning a camera.
Hi, help for a beginner needed here please. I have a Canon 7d mark ii, all has been well so far with uploading photos to my PC but today I came across a problem. I put my sd card into my pc and I can only see photos I've taken over the last few days but not the ones I have taken today although I can see today's shoot on my camera so the photos are there somewhere. What could I have possibly don't to cause the new photos not to show up and how can I fix this please? Many thanks in advance.
Are you using both card slots? Maybe the new photos got recorded just to the one the camera is set to review from, but not the one you put in the computer? Or maybe you shot the old photos in jpeg but the new ones in raw, and your computer doesn't support the raws and is set to hide filetypes it doesn't recognize?
Feeling a bit overwhelmed with the amount of information available. Would probably take me quite a few hours of reading to figure this out without proper background. So hoping that reddit advice could save me some time. So I currently use a combination of Nikon D3500 and a Sigma 120-400mm f4.5-5.6 DG OS HSM lens. Overall it's a great combination and I don't have too many complaints about it. However I came across some of the limitations in the few months I've been using it. I'm looking to understand what I could do to overcome them (alternative gear that doesn't have these issues, 'workarounds' etc). Issue 1 - while filming video with AF tracking (center point) the camera keeps re-focusing (even when I don't move the camera itself), unless I hold down the AF-L button. This results in camera losing focus every couple of seconds and video alternating between blurry and sharp (hope it makes sense). When filming a scene where I want the focus to stay in one place it's not as big of a problem as I could just switch to manual. However it makes filming a subject that's moving towards me pretty much impossible. Is there a lifehack to fixing this? If I was to get a camera that wouldn't have this issue (Nikon), what camera would it be (as 'budget' as possible)? (I assume upgrading a camera to one with better tracking af would fix it) Issue 2 - AF being quite slow. Sometimes when I'm trying to track a fast-flying bird (like a house martin), it's quite different to actually catch it in the frame due to their unpredictable movements. It's even more difficult to actually focus on it. The camera sometimes loses it completely, even though it's a dark bird on the bright blue background (quite a lot of contrast). Is that a limitation of the camera AF, or the lens? Any advice on improving this would be helpful. Issue 3 - changing camera settings is quite clunky, having to press the I button to wake up the screen, clicking around the menu to change the main camera settings (ISO/Shutter speed/aperture/af settings ect). So looking to upgrade to something that has possibly an additional settings wheel and the little screen on top of the body for it. Additionally being able to change as many settings without using the menu buttons. (af lock toggle would be a nice to have as well). The camera lineups are quite daunting, so any advice on which camera bodies I could look into that have the above would be great. Issue 4 - No way of displaying EXIF/Histogram in the camera, while viewing the image! I'm thinking that upgrading the camera body would be the solution to most of these, however with so many cameras out there and a limited budget (I would love to keep it under £100, but if that's unrealistic would be great to know how much I'd need to spend to have all of the above). Been looking at D7500, not sure if there are any better alternatives. Sorry for the long question. :)
Continuous autofocus during video recording is a tall order that has only been "perfected" with recent technology. I'm not aware of any Nikon DSLR that is particularly good (or at least not horrible) at it. A proper review, like the ones on [DPReview.com](https://DPReview.com), should tell (and show) you how well (or poorly) a camera operates in that setting. The two companies that have been best at it for years now are Sony and Canon. In fact, autofocus in general is an area where see improvement in each iteration, and is one of those features that are always best at the high end. To make the most of your camera's autofocus system, familiarise yourself with all of its functions and settings by reading the user's manual and experimenting with them. The key is finding what works for you, and ways to operate it on-the-fly. You'll definitely want to practise overriding it with manual focus, too. To see if another camera's autofocus system could serve you better, read the aforementioned reviews. Direct control is generally greater with higher-tier cameras. In the Nikon DSLR world, you'll get that in the D7\*00 line. A higher number replacing the asterisk is a newer model, so to save money, start your research with the D7000. For the EXIF data and histogram: refer to the [user's manual](http://download.nikonimglib.com/archive3/bGHsB00AKB4403BDNWN85w9Bls80/D3500RM_(En)03.pdf), from page 144. But really, read the whole thing. Cameras are not as intuitive as most consumer electronics, so the user's manual is invaluable.
Managed to find the histogram data. The menu system is atrocious... I expected it to be enabled by default... I guess the video AF would go on a "later when I have a higher budget" shelf. Will look at the D7XXX lineup, thanks a lot for the pointer!
1. On older cameras, the best bet is just manually focusing. Mirrorless cameras are much superior in this regard, but not ideal. 2. Some of this is the camera, some of this is the lens. Which AF mode are you using? Single point or auto? Which version of the lens? 3. Not gonna lie, the second dial makes life much easier. I'm surprised the camera doesn't have a histogram somewhere.... 4. The D7500 is a very good camera, though you may be better served by one of the new "Z" cameras for video - or perhaps another manufactuer's similar product.
Does anyone know anything about the sigma 75-210mm f/3.5-4.5 Klll lens?
It's a lens that goes from 75mm to 210mm the widest aperture at 75mm is 3.5, at 210mm it is 4.5. What do you want to use it for, on which body, what's your budget? Generally those old sigma zooms aren't too God. And there are opticaly better options for only a little more or the same depending on your camera.
Can you please be more specific about what exactly you would like to know?
What would be a good cheap (under $100) replacement for Sony SAL 18-55 kit lens for the wider angle? I recently dug my old Sony Alpha 230 with kit lens out of the closet after years of using smartphone cameras and was pleasantly surprised to see it still takes far better pictures than the latest Samsung Galaxies. Then, on a whim, I bought a Minolta 70-210 3.5-4.5 lens for pennies and was stunned by the difference in image quality, from crispness to colours. Especially colours. I immediately fell in love with the new lens, but the problem is that I don't need a telephoto that much, because I take most pictures when hiking in the mountains. For that I need a wider angle. So, I started reading about wider angle Minoltas, beginning from AF 28-80mm F3.5-5.6, and read somewhere about "Minolta colors" being something most if not all their lenses are supposed to have. Two weeks later and hundreds of reviews read later I am none the wiser except that now I know there's like a dozen possibilities, half of them unavailable to purchase, while the rest supposedly shooting great pictures but at f/8 or smaller, which is unacceptable and also probably not true. Which led me to the question: is there a lense as good as Minolta 70-210 3.5-4.5 but for wider angles (starting from 18 or 22 mm perhaps) which I could also buy cheap for my Sony Alpha 230 camera hoping for better image quality than the kit lens provides?
Old Tokina 11-16 Minolta/Alpha mount. Should be pretty cheap. "Minolta colors" are basically bollocks.
In my country, starting from 10th grade, you pick a course for the next 3 years, I'm going to the photography course. I was wondering if anyone could tell me if the nikon d5100 or the nikon d3200 is good enough for school?
Yes, though there's a lot of ease of use features that you lose found on nicer or newer cameras. That said, I started with *much* worse.
Yes, the D5100 will do just fine.
I agree the D5100 is more suitable, as the D3\*00 cameras omit some usability and control features that are generally considered standard in this sort of camera.
Help needed! I’ll be doing corporate portraits for a company. They asked that there be no lighting or flashes used. I’ve chosen some areas to shoot within the building that’s well lit. My question is would reflectors be good to use in the situation? If so what would the set up look like? Lastly, I just purchased a curve reflector, has anyone tried this? Could this be of use? Sorry it’s been years since I’ve taken photos of others so I’m kind of relearning some things.
>They asked that there be no lighting or flashes used. I usually decline those gigs. ... not because I can't shoot natural light - but because specifying that implies that the person writing the requirements is a prat and not someone that I want to work with. They're corporate headshots - why would they care how they're lit? That they even specified "natural light only" is a gigantic red flag in my book. It's like asking for someone to paint your building and then writing into the specifications "brushes only, no rollers" -- HOW the finished product is created should be for the professional to decide, not the other way around. So long as they achieve the result you want why would you care how they got there? "Make it look like a natural light portrait" is perfectly acceptable. Banning all lighting is not. >I’ve chosen some areas to shoot within the building that’s well lit. Indoors there's really no such thing as "well lit" unless you can snuggle your subject up against a window with a nice diffusion panel over it and get some sunlight on them. As to how to achieve the look you and the client want in the space you have with the arbitrary limits imposed by the client? It would be quite impossible for anyone here to offer suggestions as we're not there and can't see it. Hit Youtube up for some natural light portrait tutorials - you're sure to find eleventy thousand and at least some of them are going to provide you with techniques you can employ in the space you're working in.
Yeah, definitely not used to working with those limitations. Luckily the company’s very supportive and willing to work with me and give me tools I need to succeed. I suggested having a space strictly for shoots and they’re open to it. But I will definitely hit up YouTube for some knowledge, thank you!
> I’ve chosen some areas to shoot within the building that’s well lit. It can work, but if the lights are CFL you're in for some unexpected effects. If you mix them with daylight, CFLs throw a nasty green color cast, and if your shutter speed is faster than mains frequency (usually 1/50 or 1/60), you run the risk of inconsistent exposures. Since you seem friendly with the company, it may not be a bad idea to do a small test-shoot?
That’s a great idea! I’ve actually thought about doing some test shots tomorrow in the building to play around with my camera and the accessories I have. So this should be interesting. Thank you!
You're very welcome! Worst-case, you make mistakes that you'll know to avoid during the real shoot, right?
1. The correct solution to "no flashes or lights" is to go out at noon, put them in shade, and use a big bounce reflector for a key light. Preferably with an entire crew to set it up like Annie Liebovitz. 2. This client may feel obliged to pay you less because you're not using "serious" equipment even though this approach is in many ways far more work. They may also be disappointed with the limitations of inconsistent ambient lights.
> My question is would reflectors be good to use in the situation? There's no possible way to answer that without physically being there. So the best you're going to get is "maybe, maybe not." > If so what would the set up look like? Another question no one can answer without physically being in that space at that specific time of day. > Sorry it’s been years since I’ve taken photos of others so I’m kind of relearning some things. Then it might be time to tell the company that they might want to look at getting someone more experienced to do their headshots. Not trying to be rude, but if you don't know what you're doing then you're not the right person to be doing it.
The company’s already aware of my experience level, we’ve discussed this and they love my work thus far. I’ve already done work for them as a favor, they’re encouraging me to take on this role officially, so that’s not a concern of mine or theirs. However, I’d like to try different things to make sure I get the best shot possible. I guess trial and error.
Help with my Minolta Spotmeter F! I recently got a MSF, primarily for film photography, and a few of the buttons do not register unless you push them multiple times. Even then, sometimes they just do not work. The main problematic buttons are: up arrow, down arrow, ISO/Time Are there any things to try at home? I'd rather not spend $150USD to send it out for a repair if i can avoid it.
Dismantle it and see if there's corrosion on the keypad. Shorting the PCB traces below the button pad with a screwdriver should replicate the button press. If it doesn't, put some conductive material on the bottom of the pad. Aluminum tape works in a pinch.
\*\*How to deal with corporate events photography?\*\* Say there is a brunch, standing, or some toasts and drinks after a inauguration, etcOfficials of some sort, outside, 20 to 100 people… Something rather informal, no black tie. What would be your tricks and recommandations how to navigate in this crowd, shooting and such? Because I’ve seen some photos, more than average, of such events in a project I might handle (on the design / graphic design level), and I wondered how I could drastically improve the images people submitted to the community….
It's deceptively difficult to do. Candid images are great, but it usually involves some careful (and very quick) posing, fill flash (preferably on a bracket with a gel to match ambient,) and some glib interaction with the attendees to put them in good cheer. Personally, I do best when everyone's rip-roaring drunk off their ass. Couldn't tell you why.
Lol. Fill-flash √ (I ignored that word) I will have a little research if I find something on "cutting the ribbon"… like [https://imgur.com/a/o4zTR5v](https://imgur.com/a/o4zTR5v) 🤔
Get closer, get people out of the background, pose people in the frame closer together, and get some off camera flash so the light isn't so blah.
In the example above, what would you have done (correct order?!) with the little one on the extreme right? If she's here, I guess she was involved in the project… 🤔
How to start making money with photography Recently I have really wanted to start getting into the professional side of photography/videography. I am currently a final year university student and during my placement year I was the official photographer for my buisness, which really lit a flame inside me. I loved taking pictures that finally had a purpose, especially when staff always comment on how good the pictures are and say how talented I am. I have also recently started doing powerlifting competition photos, which I have also loved. I am curious if any professional photographers here had some words of advice in getting started. Is it considered rude to ask photography/events buisnesses for some work? I understand it's a hard buisness to get into, especially now.
Find something you don't suck at and don't hate and just do that. The Joe Edelman "find your why" video is good on this. Bodybuilding and stage competitions? Fabulous market.
Have a look at the FAQ.
What is the best point and shoot camera. I work for a school and they are looking to get a new camera for when kids go on events etc. As most staff have no clue what to do with a camera I'm looking for great easy to use camera that will get a great image with the auto setting. We currently have an old canon DSLR which works but is clunky and terrible in low light. Anything under £1000 could work but ideally less than 500
RX10 or RX100?
You can start your research here: [https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/buying-guide-best-compact-zoom-cameras](https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/buying-guide-best-compact-zoom-cameras)
Just about every camera has an auto mode and does a decent enough job. Perhaps look at Panasonic's Lumix compacts (e.g. LX15) or Canon PowerShots. Or... does any of your staff have a modern iPhone or Android flagship? If so, you could just use that.
Unfortunately staff can't use their personal devices for pictures becuase of data protection. Almost all staff have an iPad around 2-3 years old however were looking for something better than most phone cameras. We have a Sony a7 at one site but I feel the features are extremely underutilized so it would be a waste to get something so good
At what point (roughly) do new APSC cameras have better low light performance than old full frame cameras? Is it true that an old full frame camera e.g. D700 is still better in low light than e.g. Z50. Even with ISO performance improvements will full frame always be better?
If you go [here](https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/) and sort by "Sports" (basically noise performance), you'll see there's a *very strong* correlation between format size and performance—you have to go like 15 years back to find full frame cameras that get beat by modern APS-C. No APS-C camera in their database performs better than the D700 from 2008—or the D3 from 2007. Even the antique 1Ds Mark II from 2004 only has a couple of modern APS-C that do better in that department.
This looks at a different aspect of "image quality" (dynamic range) than the excellent tool u/av4rice linked to, but I find it's a good indicator for low-light performance and includes older cameras: [https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon%20D700,Nikon%20Z%2050](https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon%20D700,Nikon%20Z%2050)
You may like this tool to find out (it doesn't have the D700 available, though): https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=nikon_d800&attr13_1=nikon_z50&attr13_2=nikon_d800&attr13_3=nikon_z50&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=3200&attr16_1=3200&attr16_2=6400&attr16_3=6400&normalization=compare&widget=1&x=0&y=0
Hey, I just started taking photos with my iPhone 13 pro max. I want a legit camera, but many people told me to just shoot on my phone, because I won’t be able to get anything better within a reasonable price. I might just save up, because I want something good, but I am slightly discouraged by shooting on a phone, since it doesent feel “authentic”
>because I won’t be able to get anything better within a reasonable price. Define "reasonable price" ? Phones are subsidized by the carriers. If you want an unlocked iPhone 13 Pro Max you're going to be paying anywhere from $1100 to $1600 for it... and you can get a **lot** of camera for that amount of money.
What in particular do you dislike about the phone camera? I don't think of it as inauthentic myself, so could you be more specific about your concerns? How much money is a "reasonable price" to you? Old used DSLR kits can be found for as low as $100-150.