I have a side hustle/hobby where I sell stuff and I've come to the conclusion that attractive photography makes people buy your shit. I can usually produce some pretty attractive photos using lighting in my house, but that requires taking the pictures at specific times of day.
So now I'm looking for a small and inexpensive lighting setup that would allow me to have better control of my light source. Subject matter are pretty small items and will be 0-5 ft away. I shoot with a stock 14-42mm lens on my DSLR with a moderate amount of natural light... Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>2720922 NP...aside from that, you're interested not in the Watts of a light source, but the watt-seconds of a light source. Continuous lights, even stupidly bright ones, are really dim compared to strobes.
You really want strobes. You can get a two strobe setup for around $200 (avoid speed lights if you're just working out of a home studio -- that portability costs you money and power). With that, you can also build a lightbox/set up almost any lighting you want with a little DIY effort. I don't recall... Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Are long lenses with fast apertures considered a dead end on FF dslr's?
I'm currently drooling over the Samyang 135 f/2 as a dedicated portrait lens, but I'm having doubts regarding the expected focus "hit rate", even with the focus assist/range finder on my Nikon employed.
Anyone here with relevant experience, maybe even with this lens in particular?
>>2720915 >Are long lenses with fast apertures considered a dead end on FF dslr's? No. >I'm currently drooling over the Samyang 135 f/2 as a dedicated portrait lens It's a nice lens. >but I'm having doubts regarding the expected focus "hit rate" You should be worried. >Anyone here with relevant experience Yeah, I have a shitton of manual lenses, and you need either a mirrorless camera or stick to the viewfinder. Start with a 70-200mm and shoot it at ƒ8-11 with fill-flash. Don't bother bokeh whoring at your level.
>>2720915 Your DSLR viewfinder isn't designed for manually focusing. Swap your focusing screen for a high accuracy screen, or use live-view for help. You'll want to be on a tripod, since even a half-inch of moving front or back will ruin your focal plane.
Also, you could come to the understanding that not all portraits need to have razor thin dof, and that the only reason to blur the background is if you are unable to find a pleasing background and compose accordingly. The best photographers shoot portraits... Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
I'm not a marketer, I'm just genuinely curious. Plus if I was a marketer, I would go for a different consumer base with a larger market. 4chan is stubborn as shit and if any company has to pander to /p/, then you know they're going to shit.
I've been reading reviews of the past few days on the net, and I think I've settled on Sony RX100 for £256 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sony-DSCRX100-Advanced-Digital-Compact/dp/B008CNMZDW
I'm not a photographer, I have always used my phone's camera for shooting (as of now OnePlus Two). I probably won't become one the guys who constantly changes lenses, having a camera in my pocket when I go on holiday etc would be nice, I won't be taking much pictures elsewhere.
So /p/ is RX100 a good choice for me, any issue... Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
I don't know about other versions of the rx100 series but I have the mark III, grabbed it back in May for a trip to Italy. I love it, I've personally have a lot of pros that work for me. non invasive, I used it to photograph a christening in a church, shutter is silent as fuck when you turn of the digital shutter noise. Fits in pants or jacket pocket, I carry it with me everywhere I go, I have it in my pocket at the moment at work and took a few photos earlier this morning. Having it always on me and shotting revived my interest in photography back when I first... Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>2720796 If all you want to do is just have a camera with you at all times this is probably one of the better choices. I would recommend looking at getting a Mark II or III though, they're a large improvement over the original.
Other cameras to look at are the Ricoh GR and the Lumix LX7. The GR would be my pick if you think you'll get more serious about taking photos later on, but if not the RX100 will be a perfect fit. It's a great little camera, my one complaint is that it feels far too small in my large... Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Look into the rule of thirds, and probably shoot with a wider aperture to blur the clutter in the background and draw the eye toward your subject. The lighting is a little flat so maybe change the environment entirely.
Hello everyone, I recently purchased my first DSLR with a very specific purpose. Last year when I saw all my friends and family, I took a lot of camera phone shots that came out very poorly. This year, I would like to get some very good shots of people. The setting would be- the person isn't looking, they are most likely moving, we are indoors, and the room is lit or dimly lit. I'm would like to know, given that situation: what manual settings would you recommend? My reasoning behind the no-flash is because it tends to really kill someones vibe. I'm sure the loud shutter won't help either, but there's nothing I can do about that. Any and all advice is welcome, thanks in advance.
>>2720446 Maybe get the cheap 50mm prime for the low aperture. I have it and love it. Only problem you have to watch out for is the conversion factor if you dont have a full frame. So if you got a small rooms then maybe get something wider.
>>2720446 You can try to dissipate built-in flash light with some tricks, maybe it'll work. No settings will help you without light, you can't just cheat physics - if it'll be too dim, you won't be able to capture moving subjects.
On the other hand, i'm willing to bet that your high-iso photos would look alright in low resolution and after noise reduction, so it all depends on how much quality can you sacrifice.
And as other guy said, nifty fifty. God, this lens is just perfect for its... Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Ok so I'm anticipating a new K-3 for Christmas, and I've never worked with digital photography before. I just installed Lightroom, and I want to get accustomed to some of the features it offers. I don't intend on doing heavy editing, but the ability to fix exposure mistakes that couldnt be addressed from an impromptu shot is nice. If anyone has a few raw files they'd like to post for me to mess around with in lightroom that would be cool.
>>2720434 Look around Youtube for tutorials, Fro knows Photos usually critiques and process RAWs from others and puts them out in the comments. You can download them and follow his processing. Also experiment, see what things do what, don't be afraid to totally rape a photo, you can always reset it back to original state.
Lets take this from another Angle what is the piece of equipment you most regret buying. For me it has to have been a Godox SY3000. Legitimately dangerous. Don't buy these pieces of shit. This is what the flash cap looked like after it exploded an spewed fumes everywhere. Anyone else got horror stories?
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at email@example.com with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.