Photography Thread

[Chuck]

Hey guys, so I'm a total PS noob and could use a little help. I took this picture of my PRS and Jackson and I must get rid of the reflection on the Jackson to the left of the neck pickup. I think I took this at night in our sun room and wasn't thinking about the overhead light. I tried a few healing tools in PS but all of them left that part of the guitar looking kinda fuzzy/just not right. Anyway to mend it while keeping looking real?

DSCF9776 by Chuck Haller, on Flickr

I did take this on a whim earlier today, I really dig how it came out.

DSCF9858 by Chuck Haller, on Flickr

 

[ThePhilosopher]

I did this in two minutes on the small file you have posted using frequency separation and some color grading. With a bigger file I'd spend more time to get the color just right for the contour.

 

[Chuck]

That looks good! I'll look up a tutorial for those techniques. Thank you, sir!

 

[ThePhilosopher]

The action I use (for CS5) is in the zip file located on this page: http://www.fx-ray.com/tutorials/fs/ - their tutorial isn't worth a damn, but the FS actions are good.

 

[Philligan]

The college I work at had it's 50th anniversary last week, and there was much ado. I got pulled from my department to shoot for Marketing for the day (which is great, because I'm just on contract right now and would like to work in Marketing permanently ).

They wanted a quick turnaround so I shot the whole day RAW + JPG (first time I've done that, actually) and just delivered RAWs. I haven't gone through them all looking for favourites yet, but here's one I really dug.

The whole day was Auto WB with the Provia film sim, and I shot probably 90% of it with the 23 and 56.

Untitled by Phil Babbey, on Flickr

 

[Tang]

Pushing the Galaxy S7 camera to it's limit

 

[Philligan]

That's a great shot man, and doesn't look like it was shot on a cell phone.

What a time to be alive.

 

[Mattykoda]

So what would you guys recommend camera wise for someone starting out? Let's just say for $400-600

 

[tank]

Keep Exploring with My A7

 

[ThePhilosopher]

So what would you guys recommend camera wise for someone starting out? Let's just say for $400-600

Nikon F-3.

 

[UnderTheSign]

Analog: something like a good Nikon, yeah.

Digital: what do you want? There are so many options. Olympus omd e-m10, the lower/mid range Nikon and Canon dslr, a compact like Sony rx100

 

[Mattykoda]

Digital I guess? I'm open to both options and what the pros/cons are. That dsc rx100 looks pretty damn friendly.

 

[Philligan]

So what would you guys recommend camera wise for someone starting out? Let's just say for $400-600

If you want something small that you'll bring everywhere (like a point & shoot that doesn't suck), the Sony RX100 line is a great bet. Just get the most recent model that your budget would allow. IMHO, if you end up wanting to get more serious (like shooting actual portrait sessions or wildlife), you'd probably start to feel limited with one of those. If you feel limited, you can't add anything onto those cameras, so you'd have to buy into a new system to go along with it. It would be incredible for walking around/every day use, travel, going out with friends, etc.

The easiest and safest answer is whatever Canon or Nikon is in your budget. Buying used can save you a lot of money. The upside to Canon or Nikon is that they're the most common, so there are going to be more accessories and resources available. All cameras from the past 5+ years will take good photos, so I'd worry more about the handling (how much do you like holding it) and features (wifi, tilty screen, etc) than I would about the image quality.

One thing to consider is that in addition to the kit lens that comes with the camera, you'll probably want to add another lens or two fairly early on (like a fast prime lens for portraits and low light) and you can do that for significantly less money with Canon or Nikon (not a lot of other companies have such an affordable selection).

Your other option is mirrorless. A mirrorless is the same as a DSLR only without a mirror eek, so instead of an optical viewfinder bouncing light around, your viewfinder is a little digital screen. The upside to this is that the camera can be made smaller and the screen gives you a better idea of what your finished photo will look like; the downside is that the battery life isn't as good as a DSLR, and the autofocus won't be as good for fast-moving subjects like sports.

Mirrorless cameras are great; a bunch of us here have switched to them from DSLRs. Some potential downsides, though, are that they're not as common as Canon or Nikon DSLRs, so it can be harder to find accessories and the used market isn't as good. Also, the lens selection is usually smaller, and there aren't as many cheaper options (for example, Canon has a few lenses in the ~$150 range, while Fuji's cheapest lenses are around $400). So depending on how much you're ready to potentially invest in photography, mirrorless may not be as a good a choice.

To give you an example (I'm thinking in US dollars here), you could buy a Canon Rebel DSLR with the 18-55mm kit lens for $300 used, if not cheaper. That's a great all-around lens that goes from a landscape wide angle to a portrait length, but it's not great for low light or blurry backgrounds. For another ~$100, you could get the 50mm 1.8, which is great for portraits and is more useful in low light situations. Then for another $100 or $150, you could get the 24mm 2.8 pancake; it's a tiny wide-ish angle lens that's perfect for walking around and everyday use, and is also useful in low light. So for around $500 all in, you could have a very versatile kit that's capable of taking professional photos. I'd be perfectly content to take that kit traveling or out with friends.

Fuji's lenses are more on the expensive side, but I'll use them as an example because I shoot them and am familiar with the lineup. You're probably looking at $500 minimum to get a used Fuji X-T10 or X-E2 with their 16-50mm kit lens. Then if you want their 50mm and 27mm lenses, you're looking at $450 each to buy them new (I can't see them going for any less than $350 used, if you can find them). Fuji makes absolutely incredible lenses, but that probably won't make a noticeable difference in your photos. So sure, the lenses are good, but if they're out of your budget and you can't buy them, what's the point?

So like I said, the big thing to think about is how much you think you'd potentially be ready to invest in photography. If you get a mirrorless camera, regardless of the brand, expect to spend around $500 or more on new lenses, or have extremely limited selection. If you could see yourself getting into it and wanting to eventually drop a good amount of money into lenses, then I think you should definitely look at mirrorless. I switched from Canon to Fuji and couldn't be happier. But if you're not sure how much you'll be into photography, I'd recommend a Canon or Nikon DSLR; if you shop around, your current budget would allow you to get the basic starter kit plus an extra lens or two to play with, and you can experiment and try new lenses with a lot less money than a mirrorless system.

/rant

 

[Sumsar]

^ Thx for the above rant. I am currently also looking into getting into photography / video with a DSLR, and so far my plan was to spend around 300$ on a used Canon, maybe + some for extra lenses and then see how far that can take me, and give me an idea of what I actually need for what I want to do with it. Nice for you to confirm that that approach seems to be a good solution

 

[ThePhilosopher]

^ Thx for the above rant. I am currently also looking into getting into photography / video with a DSLR, and so far my plan was to spend around 300$ on a used Canon, maybe + some for extra lenses and then see how far that can take me, and give me an idea of what I actually need for what I want to do with it. Nice for you to confirm that that approach seems to be a good solution

I've not been into the market recently, but $300 seems to be at the low-end for a used entry-level body alone that is video capable from reputable resellers (B&H and KEH).

I have two trains of thought for people looking to start in photo:

1) Get a small kit: There is a lot you can do with a crop-body sensor + a 35mm f/1.8 and 50mm f/1.8 lens. Push this as far as you can to learn about composition, lighting, and general photography. This will seem limiting and frustrating at time; however, it's a way to not have to suffer through lens selection, zoom settings, variable minimum aperture, etc. This hearkens back to when I learned to shoot in high school (digital wasn't a thing that schools could afford) and then when I was teaching film photography in second semester photo classes.

2) Get a specific outcomes kit: It might actually easier to start with a small-specific set of desired outputs and build a starter kit around that as opposed to buying kit and being frustrated that you cannot achieve what you would like to see. This might require more upfront costs and be more narrow in scope, but if you have a very specific vision then this is the fastest way to get there.​

 

[Philligan]

I've not been into the market recently, but $300 seems to be at the low-end for a used entry-level body alone that is video capable from reputable resellers (B&H and KEH).

I have two trains of thought for people looking to start in photo:

1) Get a small kit: There is a lot you can do with a crop-body sensor + a 35mm f/1.8 and 50mm f/1.8 lens. Push this as far as you can to learn about composition, lighting, and general photography. This will seem limiting and frustrating at time; however, it's a way to not have to suffer through lens selection, zoom settings, variable minimum aperture, etc. This hearkens back to when I learned to shoot in high school (digital wasn't a thing that schools could afford) and then when I was teaching film photography in second semester photo classes.

2) Get a specific outcomes kit: It might actually easier to start with a small-specific set of desired outputs and build a starter kit around that as opposed to buying kit and being frustrated that you cannot achieve what you would like to see. This might require more upfront costs and be more narrow in scope, but if you have a very specific vision then this is the fastest way to get there.​

This. When I mentioned buying a couple extra lenses, I should have said that it's good to start out with as little as possible, and to only upgrade when you know why you want to get a new lens and what you want from it. Having said that, as you start to hone your style, you'll most likely want to add a lens or two, and it's worth keeping that in mind when you're budgeting initially.

That's a good point about video, too. I didn't realize you were interested in video. That could up the price a little bit. I'm not sure how much video image quality is important to you, but I just looked and eBay has Canon T3i's with the 18055mm kit lens for around $500CAD. If you look around on Craigslist or something, I would imagine you could find something like that for around $400USD. It won't be amazing video (it could only be 720p), but it'll get you started. But if you're interested in more competitive video quality (1080p at 60p, etc) that will stretch your budget more as you'll need a newer body.

 

[Mattykoda]

Thanks for all the input. Seriously. I mainly would like to shoot landscapes from hunting and hiking but also have the versatility for closer shots as well. I know that will all fall on the lense but I just would like to be able to capture some cool moments while not being limited to my phone. I've looked around at the d3300 and 3400 models but I know down the road I wouldn't mind making the investment for lenses. Would the J5 be a good choice for mirroless?

 

[ThePhilosopher]

Nikon-focused semi-rant:

The D3xxx and D5xxx Nikon bodies do not have AF motors on the body, so you must buy lenses that have AF motors built-in (this leaves out a major-if not all-of the AF-D lenses). This is a predicament for most people looking to enter photography as a serious hobby (as opposed to taking snapshots with a dSLR), but not spend a lot of money.

You get the most lens economy by buying lenses that work with full-frame cameras (if you should ever upgrade), which means buying used AF-D (or older) lenses. However, these lenses do not work on the entry-level camera bodies except as manual focus lenses. While this isn't a deal breaker for some people, it's an added source of frustration for new-to-photography folks (especially with those tiny viewfinders).

The Nikon 1 (the J5 is one of these cameras) is extremely lens poor and does not use the same lens mount as the traditional dSLR line.

 

[flint757]

At that price range I'd personally just get a higher end compact that you'd want to keep after upgrading to interchangeable down the road when you're more experienced and have more cash to work with. Photography is an expensive hobby.

Lenses on their own aren't particularly cheap and a descent interchangeable is going to eat up almost the entire budget all by itself.

 

[Tang]

Pentax K5 + Tamron 17-50 f/2.8

Samsung Galaxy S7 shot in RAW and edited in Lightroom Mobile.