|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
10-30-2015, 01:36 PM
|
| |
i shoot stop motion films, which are generally shoot, alter scene, shoot; but when working with live actors certain scenes are just shootshootshoot then ill add animation in in post. at max burst i get about 5 seconds of 10fps playback, the speed at which i can balance smoothness and time devoted to animating.
i also shoot bursts which are destined to be animated gifs.
i never do much traditional photography, you guys are much better at that so i leave it to you.
|
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
06-16-2012, 11:17 AM
|
| |
yeah you are right, i primarily use Ubuntu and the GIMP gets an update there frequently, but for windows its more of a numbered release type thing.
still though, haven't had any issues with b/w on my windows 2.8 or 2.6.x.
i went to school for (originally) graphic design, and it was basically like living in a giant Adobe training facility. illustration? they taught on adobe illustrator. photo manipulation? photoshop. live media? adobe premier... etc.
and they pushed for the time saving money making features, pushing students away from hand drawn time-consuming styles, towards terrible flash animation type art.
i dont want to be part of that culture anymore... so now i use open source like the GIMP and never looked back. if im going to be different enough to shoot PENTAX, i might as well be different in post too, right?
|
|
Forum: Photo Critique
05-15-2012, 11:58 PM
|
| |
it sounds like you don't want us to critique your photo as a photo, but as a capture of lighting.
as a photo, i think what we said still stands.
if you want an interesting photo, go get something to put in the foreground, or accept that maybe taking a shot from that location is just a boring idea.
if however, the criteria is "how good is this lightning photo taken from my backyard" then you get 5 stars... this is as good an image as you will get with any settings more or less.
i don't look at photography as a skill, we live in an age when the camera can choose settings better than the photographer in 50% of situations... i look at it as art, and in doing so, you should consider that your camera is just capturing a scene of natural art... so how you frame and set up the shot is going to determine how interesting the photo is.
its kind of like saying, you could take the most technically perfect photo of an ugly model, but, a kodak disposable camera shot of a beautiful model will always be the better picture.
so my question to you is... are you taking accurate stock photos of lighting? or are you trying to take an interesting photo? which angle do you want critique from?
|
|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
02-01-2012, 07:33 AM
|
| |
thanks for "defending" me Dave... hahaha.
i was trying to be silly, and i do understand how i may have annoyed him and how it could have been taken as bitching though.
also, as this is probably very obvious to anyone who gets crop factors.
to me, it wasnt, and my particular learning style works alot better when i can phrase teh quaetion a certain way, take out the variables taht confuse me and are irrelevant (in this example, film). the thing is, to someone "in the know" like him, understands WHY film is used comparatively. but to me, i didnt want crop factors explained, and i could care less. i jsut wanted to know why people say teh 1.5 thing. and everyone else on here helped me understand taht very clearly, i think he just went a little to in depth and missed the actual point, whic again, to be fair, i may not have been entirely clear on.
then again, that's exactly why i asked a simple yes/no question:
if it was answered i would get exactly the answer i need without worrying about whether anyone understood what my question is, as i could put 2 and 2 together after that point.
for future help on this topic, it should be kept in mind by the "pro's" that the beginners asking this question probably dont care about film or image sensor size. they jsut want to know what lenses will work what way. to a beginner, crop factor is hearing soemwhere that lenses act differently on different cameras, and nothing more.
i have been doing photography for about 10 years now as a hobby and professionally. i could tell you how to set up any shot on teh planet reasonably well... but i haev always used digital lenses on digital cameras, and (canon) film lenses on film cameras back in teh day, and never thought 2x about this... now that i want to purchase an FA77 or 43 since teh DA's lack their character, i suddenly became worreid that teh 43 might act like a 62 and the 77 liek a 110 or whatever. and suddenly all the crop factor conversations ive heard over the years without caring came back to me with a vengeance. these lenses are expensive and after putting in my order i had an "oh shit moment" but now i'm fine.
thanks again, everyone.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Technique
01-16-2012, 06:32 AM
|
| |
i have taken many product photos, and though initially i started with a friends borrowed canon d5 and some commercial light box he had, i ended up building my own once i got a pentax since the price of a pro lightbox is ridiculous versus teh home depot price and it worked much better for me.
conceptually, the idea behind a light box is that the light coming in from behind the white sheets gets overexposed and thus registers as pure white in the photo. this also gets rid of any multiple cast shadows since there is nowhere to go past 100% white. you may also need a fill and main light... i don't know if you own a flash or not but lighting is much more important than the quality of your camera or lens in any sort of studio photography.
to get the type of result you are looking for, i'd recommend building an illuminated floor, or alternately a semi-glossy white material that will look white but not reflect too much white up from the bottom. its pretty easy and i can try to give you instructions if you like.
i'd suggest before worrying about the floor, you practice getting the correct lighting with just one rear-illuminated wall panel and fill lighting/flash, then move onto setting up the shots, that way, you will be familiar with the concept alone without the distractions of the actual photography.
since the white floor in that product is velvety or somethign, you won't be able to completely get rid of it in your photos, at least, not in the area directly around your subject, though the area light could drown it out where there is no shadow from your object, leaving just a hint of where the "floor" is in the area that part of your light is interupted by the subject, like in teh .
also, someone said use a shallow depth of field, but personally, i find f8 to be ideal, as the bg is overexposed anyways there is no background to smooth out. also most lenses are much sharper at 8 than open, and finally, your camera's fastest shutter speed may be too slow to correctly expose the product at wide open, especially at f1.4 on the 50mm!
the photos you took are not sharp at all, your shutterspeeds should be fast enough to get much sharper images. also, they look no different than if you weren't using a lightbox in the first place.
if your subject matter is small enough to not include the wall panels in the shot, then there is no reason to use the lightbox aside from glare-free soft lighting.
i feel like i'm rambling, but the important thing is to remember the concept of why a lightbox works, and that is that it makes the walls turn into pure white by overexposure, like taking a photo of something against a bright sunny sky and as the cameraman your job is to control the front light so that you get sharp corners on your subject and avoid lightbleeding.
|
