The photography thread

What's Hot
13468932

Comments

  • zepp76zepp76 Frets: 2534
    I'm a bit dubious of forking out £110+ for lightroom 6 when adobe have stopped supporting it and are now trying to lure people in with their CC version which is subscription only. I just want to buy once and be done.
    Tomorrow will be a good day.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • boogiemanboogieman Frets: 12314
    edited July 2018
    Either get cheaper software or a trial version of lightroom and have a play around with them first. You might prefer the interface of one or just find it easier to use.

    As I said earlier, I’ve never felt the need for the really powerful programs like photoshop and I’m sure I wouldn’t use 50% of the features. I just need it for basics: cropping, sharpening, adjusting levels, cloning. Corel Paintshop Pro is perfect for me. I’m still using V5 and have never felt the need to upgrade either. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • RaymondLinRaymondLin Frets: 11809
    fob said:
    Is the picture on the left before compression (RAW with JPEG as the after) or is it before and after software manipulation? I prefer the one on the left.
    Left is the RAW file meaning straight out of camera.  The point isn’t about which version you prefer as you can edit it how you like but the point is you can edit it, as I have done.


    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • benmurray85benmurray85 Frets: 1395
    RiftAmps said:
    Question - I have been trying to make a real effort to improve my (zero) photography skills. Amongst other things I find I just don’t have the eye to see a shot. I’m snapping loads and getting a few decent images but it is definitely more luck than management. In short I’d love to improve my “artistic eye” is that something that people on here think is doable or is it just one of those things that you either have or you don’t. 

    In other news I went to Blackpool last night to try and get some nice sunset stuff and bumped into an old guy wandering up and down the front. We had a proper chat and he gave me LOADS of tips. So shout out to that guy for being incredible! 
    Type 'photography rule of thirds' or 'golden ratio' in YouTube and watch a few videos on each.
    Thank you. I’m aware of both, More-so the rule of thirds so I’ll look into the Golden ratio. I genuinely am beginning to think it’s just not my forte but I’ll keep plugging away. 

    Thanks
    How very rock and roll
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • boogiemanboogieman Frets: 12314
    edited July 2018
    RiftAmps said:
    Question - I have been trying to make a real effort to improve my (zero) photography skills. Amongst other things I find I just don’t have the eye to see a shot. I’m snapping loads and getting a few decent images but it is definitely more luck than management. In short I’d love to improve my “artistic eye” is that something that people on here think is doable or is it just one of those things that you either have or you don’t. 

    In other news I went to Blackpool last night to try and get some nice sunset stuff and bumped into an old guy wandering up and down the front. We had a proper chat and he gave me LOADS of tips. So shout out to that guy for being incredible! 
    Type 'photography rule of thirds' or 'golden ratio' in YouTube and watch a few videos on each.
    Thank you. I’m aware of both, More-so the rule of thirds so I’ll look into the Golden ratio. I genuinely am beginning to think it’s just not my forte but I’ll keep plugging away. 

    Thanks
    The best advice I ever had was from a tutor on a one day course (def worth doing btw, you’ll learn a huge amount): “Don’t move on from a subject until you’ve exhausted all the possibilities”. Use different angles, points of focus, different ways of framing. So much easier with digital of course. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 2reaction image Wisdom
  • Jimbro66Jimbro66 Frets: 2418
    edited July 2018
    zepp76 said:
    I'm a bit dubious of forking out £110+ for lightroom 6 when adobe have stopped supporting it and are now trying to lure people in with their CC version which is subscription only. I just want to buy once and be done.
    As others have said, there are a number of other photo editing applications, free and paid for, as an alternative to the Adobe offerings. Have a look at the ones mentioned in this thread. Often there is a free trial period offered so you can see if you like using the software.

    If you prefer the Adobe route perhaps have a look at Photoshop Elements which is a much more beginner-friendly trimmed-down version of Photoshop that also includes an image cataloguing system, albeit not as comprehensive as the Lightroom one. It costs about £62. Whatever editing software you choose there will inevitably be a learning period via tuitional videos, books or local evening/weekend AE college courses.

    As regards Lightroom 6, it is ageing a little now but whether that matters depends on your equipment. Lack of Adobe support really means zilch. They do, by the way, still sell LR6 on their web site but make it hard to find. You may find that older versions of Lightroom do not support your camera or lenses, which you can check online. Adobe is counting on customers frequently updating their equipment so that there is some pressure to update their Lightroom -  which is only now available on subscription. It is the same tactic I experienced with AutoDesk in the ‘90s.

    To be fair, having Lightroom on subscription currently costs about £120pa which is about the same as buying LR6 outright. The difference is that you have to pay the subscription every year whereas you might have changed LR stand-alone version only once every two or three years - and then only paid upgrade cost, not full price.

    Lightroom Classic CC is the current desktop-based upgrade from LR6. It is reported to be quicker and to have several useful new features, as you might expect. Lightroom CC is a different kettle of fish, being totally ‘Cloud’ based and far more convenient for use on mobile devices instead of being tied to one desktop machine. However, according to Adobe it lacks some of the traditional features of Lightroom that are still present in the Classic version.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • soma1975soma1975 Frets: 6627
    edited July 2018
    There is a book I recommend everyone trying to improve called Understanding Exposure. Its excellent.

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B004FEFS5E
    My Trade Feedback Thread is here

    Been uploading old tracks I recorded ages ago and hopefully some new noodles here.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • GrumpyrockerGrumpyrocker Frets: 4118
    It's a good book, I have it myself. But there are some elements that are a bit out of date due the changes in digital photography. It's a great starter though.

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • soma1975soma1975 Frets: 6627
    To be honest just understanding the concept of the exposure triangle is the best thing a person could ever learn. They are constants whether you shoot film or digital or when we move to lightfield cameras. 

    My Trade Feedback Thread is here

    Been uploading old tracks I recorded ages ago and hopefully some new noodles here.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • Axe_meisterAxe_meister Frets: 4612
    TBH a lot of the photo editing features for RAW mentioned above can be done on jpg photos (albeit with more quality loss). 
    Lab mode+Layers+curves can really make photos pop no matter what format.
    If you ever want to create very large prints or work with other professionals the  raw to Tiff rather than jpg is required.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • ThePrettyDamnedThePrettyDamned Frets: 7472
    edited July 2018
    TBH a lot of the photo editing features for RAW mentioned above can be done on jpg photos (albeit with more quality loss). 
    Lab mode+Layers+curves can really make photos pop no matter what format.
    If you ever want to create very large prints or work with other professionals the  raw to Tiff rather than jpg is required.

    I rarely print from Tiff - they contain too much data and the printers I use don't offer Tiff profiles  

    I print from jpeg but always use proofing to re-edit to get the wide gamut somewhat closely represented for print.

    Edit: proofing in Lightroom is weird - I prefer using photoshop.

    For a laugh, look at unproofed images converted from raw to jpeg in windows "photos" - it's completely colour un-managed and everything looks shite! Upload or view the same picture in, for example, chrome or Adobe Bridge, and it's fine. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • zepp76zepp76 Frets: 2534
    I'm hoping to get out next week with my camera and am hoping to get a few pictures of the country pub I visit regularly, I'd like to photograph it in low light conditions using the light from the pub windows as a feature. Can any of you experienced chaps give any hints or tips on such a composition (is that the right term?). The pub is surrounded by fields and open spaces and I'd like to incorporate that somehow, your help is much appreciated, thank you.
    Tomorrow will be a good day.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • boogiemanboogieman Frets: 12314
    edited July 2018
    zepp76 said:
    I'm hoping to get out next week with my camera and am hoping to get a few pictures of the country pub I visit regularly, I'd like to photograph it in low light conditions using the light from the pub windows as a feature. Can any of you experienced chaps give any hints or tips on such a composition (is that the right term?). The pub is surrounded by fields and open spaces and I'd like to incorporate that somehow, your help is much appreciated, thank you.
    If you just tried to do this as a straight shot, using the camera on auto settings, the light coming from the windows will dominate the shot, so the outside of the pub and the surroundings will look dark in comparison. You’ll have to balance that out by fooling the camera’s exposure metering. You can focus the camera on the building or the background at various points and then lock the exposure, recompose and then take the shot. Or you can use the exposure compensation dial or button, usually marked EV, to change the amount of light getting into the camera.

    To get a decent depth of field, so that the pub and the background are both in focus (if that’s what you want of course), you’ll probably need to push the ISO up to a higher setting. 

    TLDR: Just play around with the camera settings and point of focus, you’ll find something that works. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • jellyrolljellyroll Frets: 3073
    Experiment. 

    “Your first 10,000 photographs are your worst” - HCB. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • boogieman said:
    zepp76 said:
    I'm hoping to get out next week with my camera and am hoping to get a few pictures of the country pub I visit regularly, I'd like to photograph it in low light conditions using the light from the pub windows as a feature. Can any of you experienced chaps give any hints or tips on such a composition (is that the right term?). The pub is surrounded by fields and open spaces and I'd like to incorporate that somehow, your help is much appreciated, thank you.
    If you just tried to do this as a straight shot, using the camera on auto settings, the light coming from the windows will dominate the shot, so the outside of the pub and the surroundings will look dark in comparison. You’ll have to balance that out by fooling the camera’s exposure metering. You can focus the camera on the building or the background at various points and then lock the exposure, recompose and then take the shot. Or you can use the exposure compensation dial or button, usually marked EV, to change the amount of light getting into the camera.

    To get a decent depth of field, so that the pub and the background are both in focus (if that’s what you want of course), you’ll probably need to push the ISO up to a higher setting. 

    TLDR: Just play around with the camera settings and point of focus, you’ll find something that works. 
    You should find it okay choosing evaluative metering and all focus points active.. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • TTBZTTBZ Frets: 2873
    edited July 2018
    Starting to think about investing a bit of money in my own camera gear so I can start to do a bit of extra freelance video work on the side - likely corporate stuff to start with but would like to progress to weddings for the big bucks! I've always used Canon DSLR (currently 5d3) but for video the Sony and Panasonic mirrorless systems seem to be way further ahead without spending ridiculous money. Just can't decide which brand I should pick between - what do you guys reckon? Not interested in stills at all, just video performance.

    I'd be going for one of the lower end models first (probably either a G80 or an A6500). Panasonic seems a bit cheaper and the GH5 looks like a great camera to work up to, but then again the Sony A series do seem awesome too and possibly better long term? I've never used Panasonic stuff. My old workplace had an FS7 which I loved using though the menus were a bit fiddly the footage was so good.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • RaymondLinRaymondLin Frets: 11809
    TTBZ said:
    Starting to think about investing a bit of money in my own camera gear so I can start to do a bit of extra freelance video work on the side - likely corporate stuff to start with but would like to progress to weddings for the big bucks! I've always used Canon DSLR (currently 5d3) but for video the Sony and Panasonic mirrorless systems seem to be way further ahead without spending ridiculous money. Just can't decide which brand I should pick between - what do you guys reckon? Not interested in stills at all, just video performance.

    I'd be going for one of the lower end models first (probably either a G80 or an A6500). Panasonic seems a bit cheaper and the GH5 looks like a great camera to work up to, but then again the Sony A series do seem awesome too and possibly better long term? I've never used Panasonic stuff. My old workplace had an FS7 which I loved using though the menus were a bit fiddly the footage was so good.
    Sony A73 + adaptor, that will be all you need to start with for Sony and use your existing lenses.

    However….video performances with adaptor is not as good as native, and I believe metabones adaptors are better for Canon glass and MC-11 is better with Sigma lenses adapted.


    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • TTBZTTBZ Frets: 2873
    edited July 2018
    I don't have any lenses of my own yet, everything I've used has been company equipment. So I'm kinda starting from scratch in that regard. Just can't afford to drop all that money on an A73 (or a GH5) til I establish whether or not it's going to pay off in the long run. 

    Edit - the original old A7 looks to be a bargain right now! Think that might be the way to go for me. Don't really need something that shoots 4k yet so I can save a bit of money there, and the footage looks great from it :)
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • zepp76zepp76 Frets: 2534
    soma1975 said:
    There is a book I recommend everyone trying to improve called Understanding Exposure. Its excellent.

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B004FEFS5E
    @soma1975 Thank you for the recommendation, I've just scored a new one on eBay for 99p! 
    Tomorrow will be a good day.
    0reaction image LOL 1reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • TTBZ said:
    I don't have any lenses of my own yet, everything I've used has been company equipment. So I'm kinda starting from scratch in that regard. Just can't afford to drop all that money on an A73 (or a GH5) til I establish whether or not it's going to pay off in the long run. 

    Edit - the original old A7 looks to be a bargain right now! Think that might be the way to go for me. Don't really need something that shoots 4k yet so I can save a bit of money there, and the footage looks great from it :)

    I have shot with the Panasonic g80 and it's absolutely amazing, stomps all over my nikon D7200. Stills are not as nice but on balance I'd say it's a better camera... 

    Oh, poor battery life - something the newer Sony cameras have remedied. 

    I'm waiting for the Nikon mirror less..  It's finally happening  @RaymondLin I may not jump to Sony after all :) (although we'll see how good the Nikon actually is...) 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
Sign In or Register to comment.