*Official* Digital Photography Advice Thread Page 3

  • Page

    of 11 First / Last

  • pistol 13 Jan 2010 11:39:43 13,019 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Nth wrote:
    Anyone who uses Bridge wants their bloody head reading.

    Why don't you like bridge?
  • Nth 13 Jan 2010 11:49:30 3,126 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    pistol wrote:
    Nth wrote:
    Anyone who uses Bridge wants their bloody head reading.

    Why don't you like bridge?
    Because like almost everything else Adobe make at the moment, it's a bloated, bug-ridden piece of shit, coded by retards in their lunch break. Although from what I've read Lightroom seems to be the exception. I use the CS4 suite all day every day and speak from bitter experience, though to be fair Photoshop is the most stable app in the suite at the moment. I almost feel sorry for MS these days always being the brunt of people's anger when Adobe just keep getting away with it. Illustrator CS4 in particular is an utterly shameful bit of coding. Why use all 8 cores of a Mac when one will do eh? Oh, and that'll be a grand please.
  • crispyduckman 13 Jan 2010 11:52:05 1,889 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    The CS4 version of Bridge is okay if you don't expect too much from it. I use it as part of the CS4 Master Collection but it pisses me off no end that Lightroom isn't in there.

    PSN/XBL/Steam/Origin: crispyduckman

  • henro_ben 13 Jan 2010 11:55:50 2,244 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Lightroom is good, but as far as PS goes I haven't seen anything that makes me want to upgrade. PS 7 still does pretty much everything I want...
  • Jeepers 13 Jan 2010 12:03:40 13,312 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    henro_ben wrote:
    Lightroom is good, but as far as PS goes I haven't seen anything that makes me want to upgrade. PS 7 still does pretty much everything I want...

    Samer here. I finally went legit with the CS3 Design package (say buh-bye to a grand!), got all excited about CS4 being released until I saw:

    a) No new features that help me (proper zooming is a nice, if late addition) and
    b) FUCK ME THE UPGRADE PRICE!

    Still, Photoshop is one of the nicer apps I have to use. And Lightroom is fine. Illustrator needs a major overhaul - I can't believe they've only just included multiple art boards.
  • Nth 13 Jan 2010 12:08:44 3,126 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    And obviously it's a poor implementation of multiple pages. FreeHand had it sussed 10 years ago!
  • ram 13 Jan 2010 12:21:12 3,488 posts
    Seen 4 days ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    I'm using Bridge and PS CS4 on a Mac and don't have any problems with Bridge, in fact I think it's really good.
  • Deleted user 13 January 2010 12:25:40
    otto wrote:
    Why's it a ballache MrEd? What software are you using? Most cataloguing/editing software will automatically convert raws for you on the fly, you never have to do any more work than you want to. No difference to converting in camera except you have a digital negative to fall back on should you want to. And which serious hobbyist photographer would not want to?
    otto wrote:
    In any case, Owen, I can't remember ever seeing a shot from you that hasn't been heavily post processed. (And that's not a criticism, on the contrary.)
    Incoming Wall Of Text Alert!

    A few things to say in reply.

    First of all, you're right that I tend(ed) to very heavily post process stuff I was putting on my blog. In recent months the regularity with which I've posted there has dropped off significantly, and part of the reason is a total apathy towards the effort involved in the hobby now. I used to spend a vast amount of time worrying about and researching things like color mode, sharpening techniques, de-noising techniques, etc etc, then I'd be shooting RAW and obsessing over all the above and the exact nuance of white balance and making sure nothing was clipping and OMG which sharpening routine should I use for this image and everything, fretting over every last detail of my creation.

    In the last two years I've realised that I am pretty much the only person who gives a crap about any of those things when I look at the finished image, and that had I just stuck to safe standards (sRGB, a midrange sharpening setting in camera, don't worry about noise unless it's painfully obvious and ugly) there would be in most cases a barely detectable difference between that and a more finely controlled version of the same image.

    If I go out and about and shoot RAW photos that aren't for paid work, what I'm left with is a file that will necessitate converting to JPG, doubling up the number of images I've taken. I know drive space is dirt cheap but it's still a pain in the arse to fill up drives twice as fast and have two copies of everything to keep track of. Opening my RAW converter and going through each image is re-introducing an element of neurotic pixel-peeping that I've learnt simply isn't necessary. What am I protecting myself against shooting my hobby or tourist or whatever pics in RAW? A bad white balance choice? Well, possibly, but I tend to get it right at the time. Poor exposure? Again, would have noticed at the time and adjusted. Noise? Thankfully my camera has excellent noise handling so that's something that other people maybe have more problems with than I do, understandable. Sharpness? Got it right on the day, if it wasn't right it isn't going to get fixed in RAW.

    As for letting the camera make decisions, I've loaded some very good Picture Control settings onto my D700 and experimented with them at length at the time. I'm now very happy with what my camera churns out in JPG mode and have a couple of custom variations saved to a menu I can access with a push of a button should I wish to change them in some way on the fly, which I rarely do.

    So I'd rather just get a few duff shots setting up the camera correctly and then be happy with just downloading the JPGs off my card when I get home and printing those off if and when I get round to it which frankly I barely ever do.

    And that's the other thing that governed my "RAW schmaw" attitude to non-pro work. Ultimately these photos will be on a low resolution screen via the web, or printed reasonably small (A4 or smaller) in a photobook or something, and I genuinely honestly do not think that the use of RAW will make any tangible, quantifiable difference to the way they look.

    Now, I do use RAW for work, most of the time. This is because I'm getting paid to care a great deal about details such as exposure, white balance etc, and it is worth the time it takes to go through all those shots, get them looking shit hot with some basic tweaks and applying them across the whole shoot, saving out the resultant corrected images as JPGs and issuing those on a disc.

    But I just prefer the vast simplicity of shooting my personal stuff in JPG, with very occasional forays back to RAW for a particular image or project - for example if I want to do a really good HDR I'll shoot RAW because it reduces colour noise in the tone-mapped final image (apparently), or I might use it for a shot taken in a weirdly lit, dark environment, because that's when I get the most inaccurate results and might want to tweak later. It's taken me several years to come to that decision but I'm much happier with my workflow as a result.

    I am not criticising other people's workflow. One thing I've learnt is that everyone is different and you have to do what works for you. If you enjoy making RAW adjustments to everything rather than just being happy with the shot you took at the time, or if you find you need to do that while you're learning, fine! But I don't think that just because you can use it, you absolutely should.
  • Nth 13 Jan 2010 12:28:58 3,126 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    ram wrote:
    I'm using Bridge and PS CS4 on a Mac and don't have any problems with Bridge, in fact I think it's really good.
    We occasionally try and use it to catalogue various mixes of files like pdf, ai, pdf etc and it's a waste of time.
  • Nth 13 Jan 2010 12:34:40 3,126 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    With regard to 'storage is cheap', yes it is cheap but it's just something else you've got to backup, catalogue etc. Even after all these years I've still got less than 40gb devoted to photography stuff on my Mac.
  • PhoenixFlames 14 Jan 2010 16:57:50 9,229 posts
    Seen 3 days ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    I am looking to photograph some landscape shots along the seafront where I live at the weekend.

    I just found this very useful guide to focal length and I think I'd be right in assuming my 18-55mm f3.5 will be up to the job.

    35mm equivalent for my a330 would be 27-84mm (1.52x conversion factor)

    Hope I'm not talking gibberish.

    Any other advice appreciated.

    PSN - phoenix1flames

  • pistol 14 Jan 2010 17:01:32 13,019 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Nth wrote:
    pistol wrote:
    Nth wrote:
    Anyone who uses Bridge wants their bloody head reading.

    Why don't you like bridge?
    Because like almost everything else Adobe make at the moment, it's a bloated, bug-ridden piece of shit, coded by retards in their lunch break. Although from what I've read Lightroom seems to be the exception. I use the CS4 suite all day every day and speak from bitter experience, though to be fair Photoshop is the most stable app in the suite at the moment. I almost feel sorry for MS these days always being the brunt of people's anger when Adobe just keep getting away with it. Illustrator CS4 in particular is an utterly shameful bit of coding. Why use all 8 cores of a Mac when one will do eh? Oh, and that'll be a grand please.

    I'm on CS3 and have used Bridge for ages with no problems at all. Although in all honesty my only tweaks in Bridge tend to be WB. The rest I'll do in Photoshop. I've used Lightroom too and thought it was very good but seemed pointless to keep both.
  • henro_ben 14 Jan 2010 17:04:54 2,244 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    PhoenixFlames wrote:
    I am looking to photograph some landscape shots along the seafront where I live at the weekend.

    I just found this very useful guide to focal length and I think I'd be right in assuming my 18-55mm f3.5 will be up to the job.

    35mm equivalent for my a330 would be 27-84mm (1.52x conversion factor)

    Hope I'm not talking gibberish.

    Any other advice appreciated.

    18mm kit lens will be fine to start with. Will be worth your while investing in a tripod & some filters if you want to take a lot of landscape shots though.
  • PhoenixFlames 14 Jan 2010 17:06:46 9,229 posts
    Seen 3 days ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    henro_ben wrote:
    PhoenixFlames wrote:
    I am looking to photograph some landscape shots along the seafront where I live at the weekend.

    I just found this very useful guide to focal length and I think I'd be right in assuming my 18-55mm f3.5 will be up to the job.

    35mm equivalent for my a330 would be 27-84mm (1.52x conversion factor)

    Hope I'm not talking gibberish.

    Any other advice appreciated.

    18mm kit lens will be fine to start with. Will be worth your while investing in a tripod & some filters if you want to take a lot of landscape shots though.

    Cool. Will see how it goes and then look into some filters and tripod. I had a feeling my kit was going to expand!

    PSN - phoenix1flames

  • PhoenixFlames 14 Jan 2010 20:19:13 9,229 posts
    Seen 3 days ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Further to the link I posted above. The whole site is worth checking out. I am learning loads reading through. Cambridge in Colour...

    PSN - phoenix1flames

  • Nth 14 Jan 2010 20:50:09 3,126 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Blimey that'll keep you going for a while! Good find.
  • PhoenixFlames 17 Jan 2010 10:24:33 9,229 posts
    Seen 3 days ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Stupid idiot newb questions alert!

    I'm taking my camera down the seafront today. Now, when I take a portrait or shallow depth of field type shot I know I have to focus on the subject/person's eye but what do I focus on in a landscape shot? The horizon?



    PSN - phoenix1flames

  • mal 17 Jan 2010 10:42:29 22,830 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Well focus on what you want to be in focus ;)

    Often focusing at infinity will do the job. So long as you're not using a lens wide open everything reasonably far away will be in focus. However, you're allowed to have foreground interest in a landscape shot, in which case focus on that and stop down enough to ensure the background isn't a blurry mess.

    If you're trying to focus on something in the mid distance and the horizon at the same time and can't stop down too much you'll need to focus at what's called the hyperfocal distance, but that's really getting technical.

    Cubby didn't know how to turn off sigs!

  • Maturin 17 Jan 2010 10:44:52 3,231 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Take a landscape shot at f8 - f11 (you can go higher but this is a good place to start) and focus one third of the way into the scene. It's just a rule of thumb, but should get you started

    However if you want something very close to you in focus as well as the landscape you'll need to use something like f16 - f22.

    Have a look at this.
  • PhoenixFlames 17 Jan 2010 10:59:55 9,229 posts
    Seen 3 days ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    @mal and Maturin - Cool, that's helpful. Thanks. If I get any good results I'll post in the Photo Gallery later.

    PSN - phoenix1flames

  • henro_ben 17 Jan 2010 11:11:40 2,244 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Stick the lens on manual focusing, set it at infinity & shoot at F16. That's what I tend to do anyway.

    Hyperfocal focusing is rarely worth the effort involved in my experience.
  • otto Moderator 17 Jan 2010 12:20:36 49,335 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    You should learn how to use zone focusing, very quick to pick up and will serve you well for a lifetime of taking photos.

    It's primarily useful for people wanting to be ready to take photos quickly on the street without fiddling around with focus settings, but it's just as useful for landscape photographers.

    In short, pick an aperture of around f/11 and set your focus to somewhere short of infinity (probably around 20m but you'll need to check your own lens) to ensure maximum depth of field.

    say no to Eurogamer sigs

  • Maturin 17 Jan 2010 13:13:00 3,231 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    henro_ben wrote:
    Stick the lens on manual focusing, set it at infinity & shoot at F16. That's what I tend to do anyway.

    Good suggestion. I'll try that.
  • otto Moderator 17 Jan 2010 16:57:02 49,335 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Don't stick it on infinity, then you're wasting depth of field if you see what I mean - stick it on slightly less than infinity and you'll be sharp right up into the foreground.

    say no to Eurogamer sigs

  • henro_ben 17 Jan 2010 17:17:47 2,244 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    otto wrote:
    Don't stick it on infinity, then you're wasting depth of field if you see what I mean - stick it on slightly less than infinity and you'll be sharp right up into the foreground.

    Yeah, I've heard that before, and logically it does make sense... but I did a load of test shots a couple of years ago & came to the conclusion that any benefits were small at best & life was just easier when you set it at infinity & left it.
  • otto Moderator 17 Jan 2010 20:57:45 49,335 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    For landscape you're probably right, it's more for street photography I suppose that you need to have the near- to middle-ground reliably sharp. Plus f/16 is too narrow for street photography.

    say no to Eurogamer sigs

  • henro_ben 17 Jan 2010 21:23:02 2,244 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    otto wrote:
    For landscape you're probably right, it's more for street photography I suppose that you need to have the near- to middle-ground reliably sharp. Plus f/16 is too narrow for street photography.

    I'm not really sure what you're getting at here, are you saying it's not as important for landscape photos to be sharp front to back? 'Cause that just ain't so..!

    Suspect the lens angle makes a big difference with all this - with the 10mm set to infinity at f16 basically everything from 10-15cm in front of the lens onwards is in focus. Makes getting the shot when dodging waves much easier ;-)
  • otto Moderator 17 Jan 2010 21:28:22 49,335 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    No, I'm saying that landscape shots don't necessarily feature subjects in the near to middle distance which need to be sharply in focus. Also, with street photography you're bringing the camera up quickly and snapping a shot without the time to settle, so you'll have to rely on higher shutter speeds than you would if you're shooting landscape handheld (generalising here); meaning that you'll tend to use wider apertures, meaning that you'll have to be a bit more careful with your zone focusing than if you were shooting landscape; meaning you can't leave the focus set to infinity.

    and yes the focal length of the lens is an issue.

    say no to Eurogamer sigs

  • PhoenixFlames 18 Jan 2010 14:25:45 9,229 posts
    Seen 3 days ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Might have my first gig \o/

    Someone I know through work has put me in touch with a just-been-signed band. They haven't even played their first gig yet but will be in February.

    Their 'manager' might want me to take some promo band photos. I have told him I'm only a hobbiest but as they are only starting out it might be the low-cost solution they need.

    Apart from shitting myself can anyone offer any advice about how I might go about these band pictures?

    Do I have enough equipment? (50mm f1.8 and 18-55mm f3.5)

    Also what should I charge him?

    PSN - phoenix1flames

  • Nth 18 Jan 2010 14:38:54 3,126 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    You need to take lighting into consideration, and you might want to consider not charging him bearing in mind your inexperience, but that's your call. Is it an actual gig you're shooting? If it's in a dark pub then your 1.8 might struggle, and you'll need to assess how your camera copes at very high ISO settings.
  • Page

    of 11 First / Last

Log in or register to reply