• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Ask me your photography questions!

Page 11 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Thanks for the responses, sorry it took me forever to get back here. I couldn't find this thread!

Originally posted by: virtuamike
Have you considered film? You can get a manual SLR and lens for cheap, and they make decent scanners for $100-150. Even with film and lab costs, it might be a practical alternative.
Click to expand...

I would definitely consider that. I'm not really actively looking at a camera now (I wish to spend the little money I have on other things atm) but if I ever do that'd probably be my best option.

RAW is overrated. The elitist digital photographers in here may scoff at me for saying that, but I and many others believe it true. There's a time and place for RAW, and that time and place is not "all the time and everywhere".
Click to expand...

Indeed, for most people it probably is. I'm probably the geekiest when it comes to colors though so I should be able to have some fun with it. I'm more into the technical aspect of it than the art aspect. It would just be nice to have some sort of lossless output. It seems silly to only be able to get at a compressed version of what you just captured. I mean, what about PNG? That would be cool too, if it's not quite as flexible as RAW. I realize that you probably lose quality all the time when you try and scan in analog photos, but I figure as long as it's a digital camera it should be digital all the way through and I should be able to look at what it captured 1:1. I know my photo composition skills suck, and if you add lossless compression and ugly noise filtering to them they will only get worse. 😉 I am fairly adept at image editing though.

My main thing against compression is that it uses psychovisual algorithms. When you edit the gamma curves enough, they don't trick the human eyes anymore. They come out loud and clear and are a blatant interference in your photo. It is impossible to isolate them.
 
if I wanted to take a midnight picture of a fuzzymommybunny under covers, what would be my best bet with a '5D'? 🙂
 
Originally posted by: xtknight
Originally posted by: virtuamike
Have you considered film? You can get a manual SLR and lens for cheap, and they make decent scanners for $100-150. Even with film and lab costs, it might be a practical alternative.
Click to expand...

I would definitely consider that. I'm not really actively looking at a camera now (I wish to spend the little money I have on other things atm) but if I ever do that'd probably be my best option.
Click to expand...

IMO it's not worth getting a second-rate scanner. Why? Because they produce poorer results and scanning takes a lot of time. All this time is wasted if you end up getting a better scanner down the road and re-doing all your scans. Been there, done that..

Two alternatives besides the obvious one of skipping film for digital capture.

(1) Get them lab-scanned together with processing. There are many places that will do this inexpensively at the time of processing. The scans are typically sharp and dust-free (often better than cheap home scanners in these respects). They're typically not large, but large enough for web/screen resolutions and perhaps 4x6 prints.

(2) Get a good dedicated film scanner. E.g. Nikon. Find something on eBay/Craig's/etc., to save money. Lot of people end up dumping film and scanning over time due to time and disappointment with results due to film grain, etc.

But, if you look at the results and the cost of (1) and (2) and your time combined together with the ever-decreasing cost of digital capture, I think you can only reasonably conclude that film for practical purposes is dead or at least smells funny.

Now, before you write me off as a digital bigot or something, note that I've been down this road, and own a high-end film scanner, several MF and 35mm film cameras, and went into digital capture fairly late and kicking.
 
I have only two cameras. One takes 127 film and the other takes 620.

Where can I find film for them? I've looked many places.
 
On the 3d thing try jiggle gifs. No crossed eyes, no staring into the distant future, no sexy glasses needed. Just two frame animated gifs.


Now onto the question for the OP. Why did Kodak stop making Extar (Royal Gold) 25 and doesn't the whole company deserve to BURN IN A LAKE OF FIRE for doing so? What are your thoughts?
 
Originally posted by: toekramp
best forums to look at other peoples work? i'm hooked on fredmiranda... any others?
Click to expand...

rangefinderforum.com for good RF/street photography
photo.net has some good stuff as well.
and deviantart.com is good.
 
Originally posted by: chrisms
How do you best avoid detection when taking pictures through people's bedroom windows?
Click to expand...

1. do it at night.
2. wear all black.
3. use a rangefinder - preset focus. point and click, barely any shutter sound.
4. hide in bushes, then walk away.
 
Originally posted by: PHiuR
Originally posted by: chrisms
How do you best avoid detection when taking pictures through people's bedroom windows?
Click to expand...

1. do it at night.
2. wear all black.
3. use a rangefinder - preset focus. point and click, barely any shutter sound.
4. hide in bushes, then walk away.
Click to expand...

ROFL @ you pervs!
 
I'm trying to decide between the Nikon D80 and the Canon 30D. Basically this kit or this kit?

It works for me because it's cheaper, and I don't really have enough canon lenses to be locked into Canon as of yet. ( I have a Canon EOS Rebel G 35mm SLR with two EF USM lenses - 28-55 (I think) and 70-300)

I like to have a zoom lens of some sort (i.e. a 18-135mm vs. a 18mm, a 50mm and a 135mm). Personal preference.

Nikon AF-S is pretty much the same as Canon USM IS, right?

The D80 appears to be smaller and lighter than the 30D, which works for me and my small hands. My main concern is the noise and image quality/sharpness at higher ISOs, but then I really should be avoiding high ISOs if at all possible. However, my dislike of flashes, especially built-in ones, ends up forcing me to high ISOs sometimes. DPreview doesn't compare the D80 images to the 30D images, unfortunately.

I *think* the 30D will have better image quality, but the D80 may be worth it due to less cost and more features. I don't really care about 10MP over 8MP.
 
the D80 has that really really nice viewfinder. I'm not sure if i will switch or not, but it's been tempting me. Unfortunately, I've had to push back when I can upgrade by several months 🙁
 
I see a lot of folks here recommending cheap lights for indoor stuff. The problem is that even low-end camera lighting solutions still cost around 300 bucks.

What can I do at home to reduce the yellow effect?
Anything I can buy at Walmart or Home Depot to help me out?

My cameras auto and manual white balance just wont do enough for me. Still get yellow in every shot.
 
Originally posted by: shortylickens
I see a lot of folks here recommending cheap lights for indoor stuff. The problem is that even low-end camera lighting solutions still cost around 300 bucks.

What can I do at home to reduce the yellow effect?
Anything I can buy at Walmart or Home Depot to help me out?

My cameras auto and manual white balance just wont do enough for me. Still get yellow in every shot.
Click to expand...

The yellow comes from incandesent lights (filament bulbs), you can replace bulbs with flourescent light in your home. or you can use a filter(if you have interchangeable lens) designed for incandesent lights

 
Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
Originally posted by: shortylickens
I see a lot of folks here recommending cheap lights for indoor stuff. The problem is that even low-end camera lighting solutions still cost around 300 bucks.

What can I do at home to reduce the yellow effect?
Anything I can buy at Walmart or Home Depot to help me out?

My cameras auto and manual white balance just wont do enough for me. Still get yellow in every shot.
Click to expand...

The yellow comes from incandesent lights (filament bulbs), you can replace bulbs with flourescent light in your home. or you can use a filter(if you have interchangeable lens) designed for incandesent lights.
Click to expand...
Ummm..... Hmmmm....

I have all flourescent bulbs in my house. Go them a long time ago to save money.
No tungston bulbs anywhere now. Still got the yellow.
 
Originally posted by: kalster
which mode do you shoot in most, Aperture priority or full manual
Click to expand...

At first, Manual. Now, Aperture Priority. I know where my lenses are sharpest, so I want to try my best to keep them at the proper Aperture. Around 5.6+ on my EF 24-105 F4L for example.
 
i read in a photography magazine that beginners to dslrs should shoot in P (i think its program or programmed mode). any particular reason why?
 
Originally posted by: shortylickens
I see a lot of folks here recommending cheap lights for indoor stuff. The problem is that even low-end camera lighting solutions still cost around 300 bucks.

What can I do at home to reduce the yellow effect?
Anything I can buy at Walmart or Home Depot to help me out?

My cameras auto and manual white balance just wont do enough for me. Still get yellow in every shot.
Click to expand...

You need to shoot in RAW and then adjust the color temperature of your pictures afterwards. The yellow cast is easily fixable in RAW software.
 
Originally posted by: pontifex
i read in a photography magazine that beginners to dslrs should shoot in P (i think its program or programmed mode). any particular reason why?
Click to expand...

P is basically full auto, but it displays the aperture and shutter settings while shooting and allows for things like AF mode selection, AF point selection, Drive mode selection, ISO speed selection, etc.

It's all in your Canon manual.

I'm thinking they say it's good for beginners because it still has the crutch of full auto, but is kinda sorta more customizable.
 
How good is Pentax P-FA 43 mm F1.9 for everyday photo taking? Would it focus fast? Currently I got *ist DL with the kit lens, 15-55 one and the auto focus seems kinda slow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top