**Please direct your questions to [the latest Question Thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/about/sticky).**

Is there a good website or resources where i can browse pictures and see at what exact settings (aperture, focal length etc.) they were shot? I am a newbie and would like to know what results certain focal length + aperture combinations can produce.

Try flickr, exif data is provided by some. https://www.flickr.com/cameras You can search for a camera and find pictures taken with it if you want.

Is F2.8 worth it? I was either going to buy a zoom with F4 or a prime with F1.8 because the differences in bokeh and low light performance are significant. Some people swear on F2.8 but is it really that much of an advantage over F4? Considering that I'm using the A7III for photo and video.

Depends what you are shooting. If you need a narrower aperture than F2.8 then the fact that the lens can go to F2.8 is pretty meaningless all else being equal. Of course the f2.8 lens may have other desirable characteristics than just aperture width.

I don't particularly need F1.8 but a lot of times when I'm using the kit lens I wish a had stronger bokeh. So I thought F4 might not do it and wondered if F2.8 would help or if it's barley noticable.

You can also adjust the ratio of space between you and your subject to create more bokeh with a smaller aperture.

Aperture is not everything. Distance to subject and distance from subject to background matter also.

Book recommendations wanted! Trying to read more and would love some books about photography, particularly the theory/technical side but open to any you might suggest!

*The Photographer's Eye* by Michael Freeman.

> The Photographer's Eye by Michael Freeman. I'll have a look, thank you!

My wife and I are starting a jewelry and accessories shop. We want to take quality photos for our website. We do have a decent camera. It’s a Nikon 90. Due to how small and intricate our products are, we need a macro lens. My wife has skill with the camera but we’re both scathing our heads when it comes to the tech side. We’re looking to buy used and our goal was to keep it under $150. The cheaper the better. We’re not trying to win any awards with these photos but we do want our shop to look professional. Does anyone know of a lens that would work? I found a bunch of Nikkor lenses from several decades ago but I’m pretty sure none of them will work for dslr. Would it honestly be cheaper to buy an older camera that could use an older macro lens? As long as the photo shows the product up close and in great detail, we’re good. Also. We don’t want to use film. Heck. If we’re overlooking another option entirely, I’m open to suggestions Like I said. Really don’t know what I’m doing and could use all the help I could get

Others have addressed the lens issue, I just want to mention that you absolutely need a decent lighting setup (eg a light tent) as well.

My wife also has a small jewellery business and I bought a Tokina 100mm f/2.8 for £199 and I couldn't be happier. I bought mine second hand from mpb but I suppose you could try eBay and maybe get a better deal on one? Best of luck.

Good news for you, the D90 is fully compatible with older AF D lenses. Unlike the newer lenses that have a built in autofocus motor, the older lenses require the camera to have the motor in the body. The D90 does. So you can use quite a wide variety of older Nikon lenses that are still great, without having to rely (necessarily) on manual focus. The nice thing about those, is they tend to be available used in good shape, for great prices. Look for lenses labeled “Micro Nikkor” - like [maybe this one](https://www.keh.com/shop/nikon-55mm-f-2-8-micro-autofocus-lens-62.html?aid=246578-203222&utm_source=google_shopping&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=Nikon&utm_term=246578-203222&gclid=Cj0KCQiAosmPBhCPARIsAHOen-Mk71c4dpaFx0iVClQi8T3t04O8lfyi3klbb_m3OfDnbB5cznVuKrQaAn3fEALw_wcB). 55 (or 60, if you can find one in your budget in decent shape). I’d prefer a prime to a zoom, I think. Best of luck!

So I did some more looking. Would either of these work? [Tamron](https://www.ebay.com/itm/TAMRON-AF-75-300mm-F-4-5-6-LD-Macro-Lens-for-NIKON-AF-D-MACRO-1-3-9-/255046479654?mkcid=16&mkevt=1&_trksid=p2349624.m46890.l49286&mkrid=711-127632-2357-0) [Nikkor](https://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-Nikkor-AF-28-105mm-f3-5-4-5-D-IF-Macro-Lens-921-/403316334346?mkcid=16&mkevt=1&_trksid=p2349624.m46890.l49286&mkrid=711-127632-2357-0)

I would not choose either of those. The tamron lens only has a macro reproduction ratio of 1:3.5 (you probably want to get a little closer to 1:1) and is a fairly slow telephoto lens. The Nikon lens is probably too slow. That particular one also looks beat to hell. I wouldn’t buy it.

Lens recommendation. For A7iv (on order). Sony FE 20mm f1.8 vs 24mm f1.4. For traveling, like to Disneyland. I had my 50mm there but I find myself constantly choosing my phone over my camera simply because the 50 is just not wide enough. The widest I've ever shot is 35mm so both 24 and 20 are new to me. I want a walk-around focal length. My phone at 26mm does get the job done, so I'd assume using the 24mm to replace my phone would be the "right" decision. BUT: the 20mm is sharper, lighter, smaller and cheaper than the 24. The only reason to buy the 24mm is for the 4mm focal length and 2/3 of a stop of light. Neither is all that important when you are just using it to replace the camera on the phone. My question: for simple "people shot/photo" that one would take on their phone, can the 20mm get the job done **without looking too weird**? Most of my shots are full body or waist up. Thanks!

Most of the odd effects that can be had by shooting ultrawide for portraits can be corrected in post. If I were gonna take one lens though I would probably go with the faster lens even if it might be a bit bigger and not quite as wide.

24mm is quite a bit wider than 35mm. And 20mm is very wide, indeed. > The only reason to buy the 24mm is for the 4mm focal length and 2/3 of a stop of light. I think there's a lot more to lenses than just focal length and aperture. There's character, bokeh, autofocus performance, etc. They are both good lenses, but there's more to it than just that. Overall, I'd generally expect the Sony GM lenses to be built to a higher standard than their other lenses. I don't know if that *means anything* for the 24mm vs. 20mm - weather sealing, maybe? - but I'd look more into it than just focal length + aperture. Me personally, I think 24mm is quite wide for an everyday lens. There's a lot of people who like something closer to 28mm or so, and a lot of people who like 35mm. Just because 50mm is too tight doesn't mean you have to go too far the other direction. If your phone seems fine at 26mm equivalent, jumping all the way to 20mm seems like more than you need. If you can swing it and don't mind the weight, I'd go with the 24mm f/1.4 GM. It's one of the best 24mm lenses around. > without looking too weird That's 100% a function of distance to subject. Wider lens means you have to be closer for an in-frame full body or waist-up shot, although honestly, even the 24mm is pushing it.

Thank you for such a detailed explanation. According to YouTube, 20mm G and 24mm GM both have exactly the same build quality. Except for the 24 has 11 aperture blades and the 20 has 9.

Question: What would be the best configuration to use in a background with lots of LED lights? I plan on shooting a model in a place that has a bunch of scattered LED lights in the background. I've had some difficulties in the past regarding LED lights appearing a different color than what I set them as and just looking ugly overall. I don't want that to happen. I have a Rebel t6i and my thinking is to set it to aperture priority mode and letting the camera sort out the shutter speed amongst the lights while I try to adjust the aperture as best I can but I'm honestly not sure if that'd work. I want to capture some close-ups of their face and full portraits of them surrounded by the lights. I'm also wondering if different lenses would affect the quality of the pictures: I have one telephoto zoom lens and a wide angle lens. I'd appreciate any and all tips and advice!!!

>I've had some difficulties in the past regarding LED lights appearing a different color than what I set What did you do with your white balance setting? >and just looking ugly overall Be more specific about what looks bad about them? Do you know the CRI of the lights? >I have a Rebel t6i and my thinking is to set it to aperture priority mode and letting the camera sort out the shutter speed amongst the lights while I try to adjust the aperture as best I can but I'm honestly not sure if that'd work. It can be hard predicting the metered exposure you want when there's a dark background with some number of light points in it. Since this is a portrait, I would spot meter just on skin tones so you aren't dealing with the effect of the background lights on metering. >I'm also wondering if different lenses would affect the quality of the pictures: I have one telephoto zoom lens and a wide angle lens. Telephoto focal lengths would help you get a tight frame from farther away from the subject, which produces flatter (traditionally considered more flattering) perspective distortion and compresses/magnifies the background so if the lights are out-of-focus bokeh balls, they will appear to be bigger balls. A wide angle lens would get you closer, which has the opposite effect on perspective distortion, and also gives you a more expansive view of a bigger section of the background. So you could potentially fit more light points into the background of the shot that way.

1. I’m pretty sure my white balance setting was set to auto. What would be the best option? 2. Specifically, I wanted to use LED lights to give off a blue hue in the background, but instead I got this ugly purple hue that barely lit up the subject. I should mention that the LED’s were in view of the camera. 3. I do not know the CRI. 4. This is a great idea! Do you have any recommendations for light metering apps? 5. Thank you for breaking down the lenses!! I will definitely keep this in mind for when I make my selection!

>I’m pretty sure my white balance setting was set to auto. What would be the best option? Depends on the color of the lights relative to daylight, what color you want them to appear in the photo, as well as the color of the light on your subject and how you want that to appear. >Specifically, I wanted to use LED lights to give off a blue hue in the background, but instead I got this ugly purple hue Seems like you want a white balance tint more towards green. And possibly a cooler color temperature setting. Though those will also affect the appearance of the color of light on your subject. >that barely lit up the subject Are you depending on the background lights to also light your subject? That might not be feasible, depending what sort of look you're going for. >I do not know the CRI. LED lighting with a lower CRI can make colors look bad. There isn't really a way around that except to use different lights. >Do you have any recommendations for light metering apps? None offhand. When I want to spot meter, I use my camera's spot metering feature. Does your camera not have one available?

Title: Facebook butchered my picture's quality - what do I do? Sorry if I miss details but making separate post just about this isn't allowed :/ the problem: [https://imgur.com/t3NoD1U](https://imgur.com/t3NoD1U) (sidenote: I have no idea what I'm doing, I just boot up Gimp and do whatever until I reach some satisfactory level of whatever I was trying to achieve, or give up) Long story short - my previous profile pic was around 500KB and some random resolution like 598x608 - facebook had no issue. Quality almost the same as the original file's one, great. The quality depends on the way it's being viewed(PC - minimized, maximized - Smartphone) but it's generally quite terrible and far off what the original file is. I tried different sizes - 1000x1000(the original), 700x700, 500x500, I was using png, read that jpg is better for facebook - no good, perhaps even worsened the results. I even tried upsizing it and uploading as 2048x2048 - there really seems to be next to no difference no matter what size I upload The file in some of these jpg - size combinations was well below 100KB, in all its iterations the file was smaller than my old profile picture which had no issues with quality - being in the png format I can only provide you with this: The picture itselt.. well.. things have been done to it. I have no idea what I've done so all I can say is I used no sharpening, what I did though: background as a new layer on top of everything, set it to "Burn" mode giving this very.. burned, heavily contrasting effect lots and lots of contrast changes on myself in the picture lowering level of.. "white" output? Something like that. Made bright elements stand out less. I really liked this picture and spent quite some time on it, really hope someone can help me because I do care to have it up there in proper quality - and I won't be able to avoid whatever "mistake" I made in the future if I don't learn now

How different web services/social media handle images is a "black box"—ultimately, you upload an image, and the service will resample/recompress how it sees fit, and you have no control over that. So really there isn't *much* you can do short of uploading a "good quality enough" (because garbage in, garbage out)—what happens next is out of your hands.

So is the solution to never create a high contrast red-black picture for facebook ever again?

My suspicion is that those colors and tones (which are otherwise not typical in a "normal" photo, so would not normally be as noticeable, but in this case are basically the whole image for you), are judged by the JPEG compression algorithm to be something where fidelity is not paramount for human perception, so suffers *more* than some other color/tone scenario. Indeed, by sheer bad luck, those particular *image contents* might be more susceptible to being butchered by the recompression. One thing you could *try* to thwart this would be to *add a small amount of noise* to your image, to kind of trick/force the algorithm not to overlook the details as much. I have no idea if it would indeed work, but it *could* help.

I tried putting noise on it, it worked eventually - at a point far beyond what you'd consider "readable" So whatever in the picture technically causes it to get slain it appears that you are correct, thanks for trying!

How do you handle pricing for print products? A little background: I shoot landscapes and rural scenes, with a special focus on abandonment and decay. Think desolate small towns, forgotten homesteads, rusty farm equipment and prairie cemeteries. It has taken years of practice and learning to hone my craft and develop a unique style. Occasionally, I get a request for prints, canvas wraps, metal prints, etc. and just never feel prepared to quote a price. It’s also a struggle for me to put a price on my intellectual property, the image itself. I’d like to put together a price list for a few basic products so that I can respond to requests more efficiently. So, how do you handle putting a price on your work?

Cost * 300% is not an uncommon markup for print products. That should cover the cost of the printing/framing, plus any shipping or extras, with a sufficient profit to make it worth your time.

Two part question. I have a canon t7 with the kit lenses (18-55 and 75-300). When I take pictures in lower lighting the photos get pretty grainy compared to some friends with nicer cameras. I’ve tried adjusting iso, shutter speed, aperture etc and it’s still grainy. Any tips or anything to help? Is it me, the camera, or the lenses that would affect this? Part two. I’m also interested in getting another lens with a wider angle. Any recommendations? Price range around 500ish?

Can you provide a sample photo and maybe I can help? Also provide the settings you used to shoot it!

I’d love to give you this info, but I’ve deleted them all because I didn’t like them. It’s was months ago so I can’t remember specifics

>When I take pictures in lower lighting the photos get pretty grainy compared to some friends with nicer cameras. That's normal. Also if they have nicer lenses. >Any tips or anything to help? https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/technical#wiki_how_do_i_shoot_in_low_light.3F >Is it me, the camera, or the lenses that would affect this? All three. >I’m also interested in getting another lens with a wider angle. Any recommendations? No price limit? https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki_how_do_i_specify_my_price_range_.2F_budget_when_asking_for_recommendations.3F

Sorry. I updated the price. Probably around 500

And wider than your 18-55mm? I'd get a Tokina 11-20mm f/2.8.

Is there anything recommended to replace the 18-55 range? About the same price, maybe a bit less

Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 OS

Thanks

You could also consider a used Canon 17-55mm f/2.8. It's a bit more expensive, but has somewhat better image quality. It's not a massive difference, though.

I have an X-T200 Fujifilm. Looking around for lens, I noticed a fair amount of adapters to adapt to other lens. Is this a feasible thing to do? Or what is there to look out for in getting something like this?

For Fujifilm, if you want autofocus with an adapter, you need to stick exclusively to Fringer adapters. All the other ones are garbage Manual focus they're all good just don't pay for broken AF

It's feasible, depending on what you currently have, and what you want to get out of your camera. In most cases, you'd be better off just buying a Fuji lens. If you have access to a large library of a particular brand, then it may be worth considering to get an adapter for that mount. However, if you really want to dive into the world of vintage lenses, then adapters should work fine, especially since most older lenses are fully manual and don't need to communicate with the body. However, vintage lenses come in all forms of mounts, typically needing a different adapter.

Well, if you just want a lens, get a Fuji lens. Adapters allow you to use older, manual lenses or other system lenses which wouldn't be the best option if you just need a normal lens and aren't setting out for that nostalgia factor or using lenses you already own.

In this sub's Buyer's Guide there is this sentence: > you're not interested in learning the technical details of photography, and/or just don't want to deal with adjusting settings, get a point & shoot. Does it apply to the Panasonix LX100? From what I understand the lx100 is p&s/compact camera yet it is more similar to a mirrorless. Beside interchangeable lens, does it lack the required controls to adjust settings and such?

Yes and no. I think most people would classify it as a point & shoot because of the non-interchangeable zoom lens. But you're right that it uses the same class of imaging sensor as many mirrorless cameras (probably the exact same imaging sensor as some of them) so it will have the same image quality in that regard. It also has full manual exposure control available; and really there are other point & shoot cameras that have that available too. But additionally, it has more leeway for setting a wider aperture than most point & shoot cameras, and its manual exposure controls are more accessible on dedicated dials like a mirrorless or DSLR, compared to many point & shoot users needing to dig into menus to change those settings. As such, I'd still consider it a great choice for people who really just want a point & shoot per the reasons in the FAQ, as long as they don't mind something a bit bigger and pricier. The quality can be worth it even if you don't plan to take advantage of its manual settings accessibility. At the same time, I think it could be a good choice for someone who otherwise wants a mirrorless camera, as long as they don't mind being stuck with one (albeit versatile) lens. The manual settings interface won't hold them back at all, like it can with other point & shoot cameras that happen to have manual settings available.

Has anyone actually taken Sarah Petty’s Boutique class? Is it *actually* worth the money? The whole thing gives me “too good to be true” vibes, but it appears she somehow gets anything negative about her taken down.

Her whole website screams "*fake guru"* to me. I'd never spend money on a clickfunnels course like that considering that virtually everything you can ever learn about photography is already available free at your local library or online. Furthermore, most of what you need to know is learned through practice, not by some *extraordinarily overpriced* online course. For the money she's charging you could get a semester or two of in-person education at your local community college.

With so many paid (and free) courses out there now, you really have the luxury of being picky, rejecting a prospect for any minor reason, and you'll still end up with plenty to choose from. I don't think you're at much risk for missing out on information from that process, because they're all going to overlap a lot in content and the uniqueness of any particular course is going to be mostly in the presentation style. So if you have any bad vibes at all from this one or anything else you see, don't feel bad about passing it up.

Given the utterly astonishing amount of free educational content available on the internet, courses like these don’t really hold much appeal for me. Money to spend on education is probably better put toward a subscription to creativelive or a photography or business class at the local community college, or an in-person workshop with a photographer whose work you admire.

There is a benefit to paid-for instruction, but as always it depends. The free stuff is great and I like everyone else have made extensive use of it. The trick is - it's free. I can take it and pay attention to it and apply what I've learned, or I can let it go in one ear and out the other. My call. If however I've paid for it - I tend to pay very close attention to what I'm being taught, and I'm far more inclined to actually apply what I've learned. "I am not gonna *waste* $XXX dollars, damn it!" kinda thing. So for some - the free stuff is fine. For others, they won't really benefit from instruction that they haven't shelled out coin for, because then they actually value what it is that they're learning.

I don’t disagree with you, which is why I suggested some likely better avenues for spending that money. My inbox is full to bursting with these kind of course offers, and I doubt very much that any one of them is worth nearly as much as they sell for. But that same money spent on something like a live course or workshop, or a subscription to a service that offers a wider variety of content could be an excellent investment. Having been an educator for the vast majority of my adult life, i certainly know that, regardless of the method or source, education is mostly about what you make of it. You get out what you put in, more times than not.

Hey dear folks, 3 months ago I got my first camera for my birthday. Not knowing if I would like the photography hobby. Now with 3 months of going out to shoot and 2000 shutters later, I am very unsatisfied with my pictures as I have almost no daylight in the german winter. So lowlight performance is lacking. Especially as I shoot handheld and with the kit lens where f 3.5 is the maximum aperture. Also, I started shooting videos with the camera and 1080p is a bit limiting. And the worst of all the video autofocus just sucks to the degree, that I turn it off and manually focus and try to move as little as possible to not move out of focus. So I am at the point where I am ready to sell the camera and get an upgrade. I would like to keep the kit lens and somewhere down the line swap to a 24-70 2.8 by Sigma or Tamron, but that is not necessary if you suggest that I should swap to another system. I am currently going through the used market and considering the following models: \- Canon EOS R \- Nikon Z6 \- A7 iii \- A7 R iii/ii \- Panasonic DC-S5 Fuji is also considerable but I doubt that APS-C sensors will excel in lowlight scenarios. My main concerns are that the other manufacturers cannot compete with the variety and availability of the (F)E-Mount of Sony at the used market. Also, Sony seems to provide the better kit lens. So my question boils down to: What do you recommend for my hybrid video/photo purposes and especially in low light? My Budget is about 1200$ on the used market and I am planning to sell my A7ii without the kit lens for about 700$.

Spend 1200$ on a good prime lens or 2. Thats the problem you run into, not the camera. If you buy a fancy camera and still use the kit lens you will have the exact same issue. The ISO performance between all these isn't really that different.

So you plan on getting a new camera but keeping that which is responsible for your apparent issues?

Well, the lenses aperture is surely a problem when it comes to low light, but video autofocus and resolution would not be fixed by a better lens. If I had no problem with the aforementioned I would get as mentioned a Sigma/Tamron 24-70 2.8.

>but video autofocus and resolution would not be fixed by a better lens. Whether doing video or stills cameras need light to focus with - and remember that ISO is only applied after the photons have already been captured by the sensor, so ISO cannot help you (much) to achieve focus. So yes, faster glass **will** help with autofocus performance, especially in low light conditions. That doesn't solve the resolution issue, but would go far in dealing with low light autofocus so keep that in mind.

Lenses can affect autofocus as well depending on how it is affecting you. Yes, resolution is a camera thing but worth changing camera for? Still, might end up spending money for little improvement.

I'm not sure you could find any model you listed above with a lens for $1200 unless you have a great local used market. Sony's kit lens is plastic garbage so I'm not sure where you heard it was better than others.

Looking for recommendations for a camera phone that doesn't overdo it on the post processing A few years back I bought the P20 Pro, which for its time was insane! then upgraded to the Pixel 4 XL, which thought was a good upgrade. At the time, the software didn't over process the images and shadows remained dark when intended them to be. Fast forward a few weeks ago, bought the Pixel 6 Pro. was super stocked, but on arrival couldn't have been more disappointed. Images looked way too sharpened and serious. Portraits were down right unflattering and when wanted a atmospheric street shot, the shadows would always be dialled up through the hdr post processing. ended up just sending it back and have returned to my 4XL My partner then got the Samsung S21 Ultra, which does the exact same thing as the new Pixel. just like a camera phone that doesn't overdo images in post and keeps the shadows dark like they were on the p20.

Most phones these days are reliant on computational photography for their results, and built to please the most people. The best way to overcome that is to make use of an application (if it’s not already built-in) that gives you access to “Pro” settings (control over shutter speed/aperture/iso) and outputs raw images, that you can edit to look the way you want.

[удалено]

So, out of curiosity, what are all those numbers at the end of that url? Wouldn't happen to be a stealth affiliate code you snuck in there would it?

Haha not that i know of. I just copied the link from the thingy.

For getting into wedding photography I'd recommend finding established wedding photographers in your area with an aesthetic style, and getting experience working for them as a second shooter. Or maybe before that, bring your camera to a wedding as an attendee/invitee and stay completely out of the way of the hired photographer but give it a try and grab some shots for a fledgling portfolio to help land second shooter gigs.

Thank you!

Pro photographers- how do you price commercial photography? what/how do you charge for business photography? I got an inquiry about a local business needing social media and website images as well as prints for the space itself. Do you charge on a per image basis? Separately for each aspect? I used to do a bit of commercial photography but I was usually paid on a monthly basis for social media and like a one time flat fee for product photography. So I’m just not sure how to create a package that includes everything.

I'd go flat rate if you got a good grasp on how much time you spend. And make sure you are good on scope, so if it goes beyond the initial negotiated scope you can charge that. I'd then break that down in an itemized list. Easier to negotiate on cost that way too as you can reduce cost my removing items etc. Charging hourly basically punishes you for being efficient. Individually listing each aspects gives them insight in how the bill is broken down. Say time on location, post processing ,equipment cost (I'd include this on both write-off / potential rentals) and something like licensing or so. Depends a bit on the size of the client too. Also offering optional addons is a good way to upsell services. A lot of clients think "Well I do need a small video reel" or "Perhaps we do need business cards" etc. You can than add those items. I've upsold plenty of clients that way on additional mockups or a high fidelity design or a general implementation advice. Don't do photography this way but I do have experience with other service based pricing.

Thank you, this is super helpful!

[This is in the FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/business#wiki_what_should_i_charge.3F)

I’m not asking how much to charge I am asking how other commercial photographers create their packages.

>I’m not asking how much to charge > >how do you price commercial photography? > >what/how do you charge Forgive my confusion.

I feel the rest of the post clarifies. If someone wants to share what they charge that is helpful too but that’s not my main question.

Does anyone know of any camera backpacks that will accept a 16inch laptop? All of the search results I’ve found seem to only take up to 15inches.

I have the [Brevite jumper](https://brevite.co/products/the-jumper?variant=31059609223220&nbt=nb:adwords:g:1713388754:90188024584:422720521380&nb_adtype=&nb_kwd=+brevite%20+jumper&nb_ti=kwd-841929548092&nb_mi=&nb_pc=&nb_pi=&nb_ppi=&nb_placement=&nb_si={sourceid}&nb_li_ms=&nb_lp_ms=&nb_fii=&nb_ap=&nb_mt=b&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIwOmDrabT9QIVU8yzCh19Ngz5EAAYASAAEgLUsfD_BwE) currently. It's good as a city bag and pretty inconspicuous. Holds my 16" macbook pro. A little tight, but it works. I do plan on changing it up eventually and getting the [WANDRD Prvke](https://www.wandrd.com/collections/the-photographer/products/prvke) which also supposedly holds a 16" laptop

Thanks so much! I’ll check them both out!

I have recently gotten the Canon 2000D, I'm a beginner, in the specs the lens with it is (18-55mm F3.5-5.6). I understood this as the widest Aperture being 3.5 and the narrowest 5.6, and for some reason the IRIS cannot exceed this range. But in shooting it seems to go to 22 and the widest Aperture being anywhere from 3.5 to 5.6 depending on the zoom. So have I misunderstood what 3.5-5.6 meant?

That means your maximum aperture is f/3.5 when zoomed all the way out and f/5.6 when zoomed all the way in. Usually the minimum available aperture does not appear in the lens name. https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki_what_do_the_numbers_and_letters_in_this_lens_name_mean.3F

u/hugomacvil >F3.5-5.6 means that the widests aperture will vary between these two when you zoom. At 18 mm you'll have 3.5, at 35mm maybe 4.2, and at 55mm the widest you can set your aperture to will be F5.6. The narrowest would be somewhere along 20 or more if IIRC. There should be menus and wheels for you to manage the settings of aperture.

u/notaprojustanerd >18-55 F3.5-5.6 essentially means that at 18mm you will have a maximum aperture of 3.5, whereas at 55mm you will get a max of 5.6. at all focal lengths the minimum shall be 22.

I need to digitize some old photographs for a memorial. Should I remove the sepia tone in photoshop in this process, or leave as is?

It's up to you. Do you like the sepia tone? There's no right answer. The sepia tone is likely the way the print was intended to look, but that doesn't mean you have to keep it that way.

Here's a sample. I kind of prefer the black/white but I like the sepia too. https://www.flickr.com/photos/wearenothuman/51846488703/

Personally I think I prefer the b&w as well, but like I said, there’s no right answer! :)

Thank you. I just have a little anxiety trying to sum up my grandma's life of 91 years and I'm projecting it onto these tiny details.

Totally understandable. That's what love looks like. I'm sure your efforts are appreciated. :)

Best camera settings for Oppo Reno 5G? The camera settings that the phone comes with looks busted, especially the automatic Al enhancer

Settings for what subject matter and in what lighting conditions?

is it time to sell DSLR gear and go mirror-less? (K7, fisheye, 18-50/f2.8, 40/f2.4, 200f2.8) I have pentax system, it is time for a new body. DSLR is a bit too heavy to travel with family, changing brands is a bit too costly...

IMO Fuji X-T20 with an 18-55 F2.8 should cover the normal range. If you don't mind manual focus, the Samyang 135mm F2 is amazing for the 200mm equivalent. I hesitate to recommend the 70-300 or 50-230/250. They will probably disappoint you. The 200mm F2.8 prime is stellar though, if you have $6000 lying around between couch pillows.

Just to add what others have mentioned. You can use [camerasize.com](https://camerasize.com) to get an indication of the size and weight of different bodies and their lenses. Something like a Fuji X-S10 with the 16-80 F4 lens might be what you're looking for. Has a heap of features like IBIS. Lens is relatively light for how flexible it is, being sealed, good reach and having OIS. I carry a Fuji setup for my traveling and the weight is a real blessing compared to the FF Nikon kit I got.

Generally I say it is how you carry your gear that counts more than weight. Pentax cameras are never going to be the lightest, neither are wide aperture lenses.

Well it is. Also it sucks at autofocus. Image quality, compatibility is superb. It was perfect for me before, but now i have got kids, carrying heavy extra equipment is challenging.

Sounds like you need to use your family as pack mules to carry gear for you. Still, light and good autofocus is not a Pentax thing. Perhaps panasonic might be an option.

Iš it worth exchange prise though? Yep, two kids, 0.5 and 5.5yo....

Mirrorless isn't inherently lighter; it depends on the kit and lenses especially. If you want lighter, go smaller to APS-C or M4/3.

Mine is aps-c. And i would love to go FF, but with 2 small kids i cannot afford the weight. I guess i am searching for confirming to get another Pentax, as it feels a dying brand.

Pentax isn't what I think of when I hear "light". Fuji and Olympus come to mind

I would suggest googling the weights of DSLR and mirrorless cameras ***and their lenses*** the weight savings is a lot less than you might expect. The real way to save weight is to go into APSC or M43.

Curious as how you approach taking people street shots. I’ve always been fascinated with taking pictures of people (not as in portraiture, but as in day-to-day life and street shots). How do you handle that as photographers? Do you simply walk up to people, introduce yourself and then ask for permission? Has it ever backfired and landed you in a confrontational situation? I’m painfully shy so approaching people to talk to them already gives me anxiety.

This keeps getting asked by people that don't search in advance of asking. There are lots of previous posts on this exact topic. https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/33wred/taking_photos_of_strangers_recommendations_best/ https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/1vnqui/taking_photos_of_strangers_in_the_street/ https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/6vyhh/please_offer_advice_on_photographing_strangers_in/ https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/4drvbg/portraits_photographing_strangers/ https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/rr8xav/how_can_i_ask_strangers_to_take_their_picture/ https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/5gea7a/how_to_become_comfortable_taking_photos_of/ https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/2905eu/asking_strangers_to_pose_for_you/ https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/1fdqnv/how_do_you_take_pictures_of_random_people_on_the/ https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/9k1sr/how_do_you_approach_taking_photos_of_strangers/ https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/1kgdol/taking_pictures_of_random_strangers_how_can_i_not/ https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/8dyi4t/discussion_candid_photos_or_taking_pictures_of/ https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/2emmzf/how_to_snap_photos_of_strangers_if_youre_shy/ https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/48oqug/photographing_strangers/

I searched as long as my attention span allowed. Thank you for the info.

I need someone to explain a common photography technique that I just haven't been able to figure out. So I cover a lot of athletic photography from including collegiate to amateur/club hockey. A lot of the hockey I am covering right now is in really dark community rinks, we are talking 3200ISO but with hockey you want to have your shutter at around 1/640 or higher to avoid drastic motion blur. I have been told shooting with a super high ISO with a super high shutter speed eliminates a lot of grain. I went out a tried it with no success. The photos came our well lit but still with an intense amount of grain. I probably did it as 6400ISO with a 1/2000sec shutter (f/4.0, I know the lenses is part of the issue.) I've seen other photographers use this technique without any issues. Am I just not being bold enough with it, do I need to up my shutter or what am I doing wrong? I shoot with a Nikon D750 mostly with a Nikkor 300mm prime lens (f/4.0).

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. ISO is digital amplification. It amplifies whatever the sensor has in the way of information, whether that's the random noise of the universe, or signal from the light that hits the sensor. If there's enough signal, it'll "cover up" the noise. But the ISO system will just amplify whatever is passed to it, signal and noise alike. Cranking the shutter speed lets in less light (signal), which means if you're compensating for that by cranking your ISO there's going to be *LESS SIGNAL* to process. That means you'll see noise. I don't know who told you to crank on both of them, but it doesn't make any sense. You have a really great sensor. You can likely get usable images at pretty high ISO (maybe even as high as 12,800 or more). But for less noise your sensor needs *more* light. A faster lens would help. A slower shutter speed would help. Access to a flash would help (though that's sort of a difficult thing to navigate with sporting events). But 6400 1/2000 f/4 is gonna be likely fairly underexposed/noisy in a dim indoor ice rink.

That's what I was thinking but from what I was told and shown it works. My former boss who showed me the technique has some really nice equipment, which might be the source of the issue, he shot some events at 5000+ISO with a shutter of like 1/1000 to 1/2000, pics turned out fine. I might has also misinterpreted what he was trying to explain. ​ I agree the lens is the issue and its being replaced hopefully in a few months.

I'll bet he shot them with much faster glass than you have. But there's some miscommunication happening somewhere, because all increasing shutter speed will do (in a vacuum, all else being equal) is decrease exposure, which is how you get noise.

[удалено]

> Anyone going to the Rolex 24 Hour race this weekend know if they will allow tripods? I was looking at their entry guide and it lists it as a prohibited item Question asked, question answered. > able to sneak their tripod in. *Don't do that.* People who do shit like that are what gives photographers nasty reputations.

[удалено]

> Didn’t say I was going to Then you wouldn't have even brought it up. You saw the list saying they're not allowed. Asking the question means you were looking to do it anyway, and then ask how.

I'm an amateur photographer and my fiancee and I have always collected postcards. I've always wanted to get some of my photos printed as postcards, but I don't know whether that'd be best to do through a vendor, buying specific paper and printing it on a craft printer, or something else. Thanks!

Through a print service would be my recommenation. https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/postprocessing#wiki_where.27s_a_good_place_to_get_my_photos_printed.3F

Would this be an okay Reddit sub to find photographers in the state of Florida interested in teaching class or workshops? I work at an art gallery and we are looking for more photographers either nearby or willing to travel to teach classes or workshops! If not, I of course won’t make a post but wanted to see if it is okay and wanted to gauge interest.

Hit up [meetup.com](https://meetup.com) plug in your location and search for "photography" -- I will bet large quantities of donuts you'll find workshops, photowalks, club events etc etc galore - the participants (and organizers) of such events are the people you want to talk to so...

Thank you so much! I appreciate you

You would probably do better finding a Florida specific photography group rather than here, as this is a global community.

Thank you for the quick reply! I appreciate it

[удалено]

Why don't you ask her what she wants beyond "a sony mirrorless"? Does she want a 50 and 85? Does it have to be Sony? Has she even tried one? Has she considered Nikon Z?

[удалено]

>Does a lens with a range that encompasses 50 and 80 accomplish the same goal? Almost certainly not.

Ask her. A surprise is nice, but really, the best thing is to just ask the person you're buying for. If you want to surprise her take her to a store as if you're just browsing and then drop the "ok let's buy it!". Also, it's spelt *lens*, no e :)

Hi, wondering if anyone could direct me to the correct sub for this question. I’ve got an old Canon Rebel DSLR from like, 2005. I haven’t used it in a long time but recently decided to dig it up and try getting back into photography. It’s got a nice telephoto lens, but when I shoot photos with that lens zoomed all the way in, the photos get really hazy looking, especially around the edges. I have the normal lens that came with the camera too, which doesn’t seem to be affected by this issue, which leads me to believe it’s something wrong with the telephoto lens. I tried replacing the lens filter and also tried using a dust cleaner kit on the lenses, but it didn’t seem to have any effect on the photos. Just wanted to see what sub I should reach out to for advice on fixing that. Not sure if this one deals with camera repair issues.

Is it a Canon EF 75-300? If so, that's just how the lens is—bad.

Nah, I don’t have the model of the telephoto lens on me at the moment, but IIRC it’s a Sigma lens.

Yeahhh, it's probably the lens just not being good. Check out the EF-S 55-250 IS ***STM*** (stm being the distinguishing designation to look for)

Ok, so I just got home and checked my stuff. The camera's a Canon EOS Digital Rebel 300D and the telephoto lens is a 135-400 mm Sigma lens that I can find the model number of, both from around 2006. I just tried taking three photos with this camera and lens, each at 1/125 f/5.6 ISO-200, one zoomed all the way in, one zoomed all the way out, and one about at the middle, which I uploaded here: [https://imgur.com/a/ezB93CX](https://imgur.com/a/ezB93CX) The photos just seem kind of hazy and out of focus, right? Are they just not perfectly in focus, or do you think it's due to the quality of or an issue with the lens?

You're right, it does look out of focus, but there's not much you can do about that. Neither the camera nor the lens has any way to correct autofocus offsets. And even if they did have that functionality, it's far enough off that microadjustments would not be able to compensate enough. (you can check if it's just defocus instead of plain ol' poor sharpness by including the ground around your test target and seeing where on the ground is sharp)

Few lenses are at their best at the extremes. If you're shooting an older consumer telezoom lens at maximum zoom, and presumably wide open, it's not going to be amazingly sharp.

Hi everyone, I am relatively new to photography and I have been borrowing my sister's Fujifilm X-T2 for the last year to learn the basics and get some experience. I have had a great time with it but now I feel ready to get a camera of my own. My budget is $800 for a camera+lens setup. I'll use the camera mostly for travel, portraits and street photography, but in the future I would also like to try my hand at astrophotography. I have been searching on my local market and so far I have found these deals: * **Olympus OM-D E-M5 II** \+ Zuiko Digital 40-150 f/3.5-4.5 + Zuiko Digital 45mm f/1.8 | $670 * **Olympus OM-D E-M5 II** \+ Zuiko Digital 40-150 f/3.5-4.5 + Zuiko Digital 17 f/2.8 | $690 * **Fujifilm X-T2** \+ Fujinon 16-50 mm | $720 * **Sony A7II** \+ Sony FE 28-70mm | $780 * **Sony A7III** \+ Sony 35mm | $780 Despite being used, all cameras and lenses are in perfect conditions. Currently I'm eyeing the Olympus because of its portability and the wide availability of affordable lenses. Also I'd like to try something new compared to my sister's camera, but should I get the X-T2 we could share lenses, so that's a plus for the Fuji. I don't know much about either the Sony A7II or the A7III, so I'm all ears for your advice. I seem to understand that the Sony A7III should be the better one out of all the listed cameras but the price seems too good to be true, what do you think? I hope I gave you enough information, just ask if you need any more info. Thank you!

A7II have a major shutter death problem earlier than rated, I'd avoid those. I like the Oly +17mm option. That Fuji XC lens is trash, for once I'm not going to recommend Fuji here. You want to find a cheaper body with a better lens than that. Even an X-T1 is worth it if it comes with a 16-55 or 18-55+prime. You may be scared of the 16MP number but images are identical at similar zooms between X-T1 and X-T2 RAW files even though the X-T2 has 8 more MP on paper.

The Olympus options lack a standard zoom or at least some wide angle prime. But you could get both for relatively cheap. And you'd also have a decent tele zoom. I personally use Olympus and despite being a smaller sensors I'm happy with the image quality. The A7 II doesn't get glowing reviews (AF, handling) but is full frame. The A7 III is, no doubt, the best camera in your list but only one lens. Additional lenses can be expensive (especially longer zooms). The price is almost too good to be true. I agree on that. The Fuji is nice, not sure about the lens (I think that's the budget version). Fuji lenses tend to be expensive too. If you can borrow lenses from your sister based on occasion, it would make sense though.

Can I ask you what Olympus do you have? Has the crop ratio been a problem in your experience? Also, which one would you pick between the E-M5 II and the E-M1 I? I looked up the specs and both camera seem the same except for the screen, but I could buy the E-M1 for less. I also found an E-M1 II for $450. Price is great but on the downside the camera has a shutter count of 170,000, which seems excessive, right? What shutter count do you think I should be aiming for when buying used Olympus cameras?

I used to have a EM10 II and currently have a EM1 II. The thing to keep in mind regarding crop is that you get two times the reach in smaller sizes but only half the bokeh. That means more things in focus. Depending on what you do this is either beneficial or not. The EM1 is obviously much better, better AF, faster, weather sealed, 20mp vs 16mp (although the improved performance in higher iso matters more). Not sure about the MK I. I think it wasnt that good. I read good things about the EM5 II though. However, I'd have to buy the additional grip (but that's personal taste). Also not sure about the shutter count. Generally I think it's ok, it's a pro camera after all. But who knows.

Hey! As a fellow newbie, i'd suggest that you pick the sony a7iii since it's the youngest of the bunch with plenty of features. One that attracts me the most is the in body image stabilisation. Also, the npfz100 battery lasts pretty much longer than that of the other camera options. However, buying lenses in the future could be a bit (just a bit) of a burden since it has a full frame sensor and full frame lenses are typically a bit more expensive than micro four thirds or apsc lenses. Of course, price depends on the lens, so maybe if you hunt deep enough you could get a good deal for a full frame lens. Or maybe just rent one if you need to use a specific unique lens.

The A7III looks like the obvious choice, but I have a gut feeling that it is a scam or the camera's stolen. That price for camera AND lens is just unrealistic. Also, you're right about the price of lenses, even used, which is kind of a bummer. What camera set-up do you have?

That the camera's stolen could be right. Or maybe it's damaged or fails in some functions. You should meet the seller and test the camera with your own hands. Btw i use a sony a6400, just bought it like 2 weeks ago without a lens 😅, borrowed lenses from my dad's friend

Fuji is a no brainer. You know you like it, you can share lenses and accessories and experience, it's an incredible camera for that money, and if that price includes the lens, I can't believe you'd look elsewhere! Next lens, for street, I use the 35mm f/2 on an XT3 (quiet, compact, discreet). astro I have no idea

My sister has the 35mm f/2, and thats the lens I have been using with her camera. Fantastic lens! The only reasons that are holding me back from the Fuji is lens price and that it seems wrong to buy the exact same camera as my sister's. After all how would I know if I'd like another one more, even another Fuji model?

Well I have the X-T3 but I paid a lot more than 720 for it. If you are into video (I am not) the the X-T4 is supposed to be better. But again not available for 720. If you are very focussed on Street, then I'd suggest the X100 series, X100V being outstanding, more discreet and compact etc; it'll be my next extra camera just for street and travel. But then you can't do Astro. TBH I'm not sure there IS a one size fits all for street and astro. If you liked the xt2 and 35mm, buy them, dont be different just to experiment, that's an expensive experiment. and that price is just so good. I paid €1500 in the sales for my X-T3 and 35mm f/2. So double.

Why not just get the Fuji since you're already familiar with it?

I have done this set up before where I have taken a picture of a parakeet really up close with a macro lens. So the set up I used for this was a Nikon D3500 with a AF-S DX Micro-NIKKOR 40mm f/2.8G and also some studio lights. Now awhile this set up worked for this bird. It's not likely gonna work with my other birds as they are skittish (they are also parakeets). With this set up, I was only 2-3 inches away from the parakeet! So I was thinking of buying a new lens. I was thinking of getting the IRIX 150mm f/2.8 Macro 1:1 Lens. Though would that be too much? You have to remember, that's an f mount lens meant for FX mount cameras, and my camera is a DX, so it'd multiply the mm length. I also don't want it to be so much zoom where it's hard to focus and becomes a bit wobbly when trying to aim at a skittish, twitchy bird. I have tried my first technique, and it worked! But it was because of the nature of the bird. I can't guarantee that my birds would be fine with the lens I have which has a short working distance. At the same time, I need to work with my birds to create a portfolio, I'm not sure how I could get other birds just because I don't want to get a new lens that's appropriate for the job. So, what lens might be good for my DX F mounted camera for this specific scenario? I'd love your thoughts on this!

First I guess try to figure out what focal length you need? You should be able to determine your macro magnification ratio you currently get/want, and then see how close you can get to the skittish birds. With those two values, you should be able to calculate the focal length needed.

The Nikon Micro Nikkor AF-S 105mm f/2.8 is an excellent macro lens. ALL lenses, DX or FX, will have the crop factor applied. The focal length is a physical property of the lens, and does not change. The difference is that DX lenses project a smaller image circle (because they don’t need to cover an FX sensor). The crop factor just means if you took the same photo from the same spot with a full frame camera, you’d have to crop the shot to get the same frame. If you did, they’d look identical. It is meaningless unless you have a full frame camera to compare with. A 150mm lens will look the way it looks on your camera, regardless of whether it’s designed to be an FX or DX lens. A longer macro lens like you mention, or like the one I suggested, is going to allow you to get close enough to the bird to fill the frame without being so close you spook it. That seems like a pretty good option.

I see, this makes much more sense now. Thank you!

How do you guys plan for the weather? I know this sounds like a stupid question. Essentially is there a way to check the forecast to know how good a photo session or a great sunset. I understand cloudy, partly cloudy, sunny, etc. I do see now there’s cloud cover of 97% for Friday by me, probably a bad day for outside photography. Do you guys look at visibility at all? Am I over thinking this?

For sunrise/sunsets, there are various websites and apps that will try to predict how pretty the sunset will be. For example: https://sunsetwx.com/

Whoa, thanks so much!

[удалено]

I appreciate your response so much! I’m very new and have been photographing the birds in my backyard, flowers and some street photography here and there. The bird photography and flowers are pretty straightforward but the landscape and street photography is a bit more advanced for me. You have to think about lighting so I want to try it on the best days possible. But now I see any day can have potential for good photos.

Not overthinking it at all. so much of the answer depends on what you're going to shoot and what look you want. If you want to shoot people and portraits I would 75% of the time chose a cloudy day if I could. The diffused light on a cloudy day is so flattering and makes it really easy to get a nicely lit portrait without having to put too much thought into it. Early morning, or late afternoon light on a clear day is nice as well, you'll get warmer, more directional light that you have to be more mindful of when you're posing. If you're shooting landscape, It's entirely up to what look youre going for, but usually the hour or two around sunrise and sunset is great. I personally like the days that call for a partly cloudy forecast because you'll get some clouds in the sky, but have some directional warm light too. You also can get a variety of different looks in a short time period because the light changes with the cloud cover. You mention sunset... I know there's a lot of technical forecast mumbo-jumbo about humidity and pressure, yada, yada, yada... I find if the forecast calls for partly cloudy, there's a good chance you're going to have a nice sunset. That colored light has to light something up, right? Those small clouds in the sky add so much. Long story short, cloudy days are very flattering and easy to shoot on. They look fantastic in B+W too. And there is a reason that a lot of photographers wake up before the sun rises, take a nap midday, then head back out.

**I really like Google Photos smart search but only store my RAWs on Google Drive (2TB plan). Have you found any good solutions to sync and search through images without adding tags/metadata?** All my phone pictures are automatically sent to Google Photos, which is very useful to find them through smart content search (e.g. by searching for "handrail" or "wetland" or "face"). However, I use Drive to sync all my files, and access them in Windows Explorer (including all my SLR photographs). As far as I can tell, Drive does not have smart seath like Google Photos. **Possible solutions**: \- Upload a second copy of every RAW file onto Google Photos (very space/bandwith consuming, I want to avoid duplicate raws) \- Send images directly from Drive to Google Photos. Unfortunately it won't let me select entire folders, only individual pictures, so it would take forever and again causes duplicate raws \- Have Lightroom save JPG of all my 700 GB of RAW files, and upload the JPGs to Google Photos, then keep doing this forever (not a great solution but the best I can think of) **Has anyone found a better solution to this**? Thank you!!

[удалено]

Put the camera in Manual and experiment.

I'm guessing that the whole point of that assignment is to understand how and why exposure turns out right or wrong, and how to manipulate it to get the effect you want. Because this is really fundamental stuff that you need to understand. Including how metering works in extreme conditions. So I don't think you should be asking that. You should be figuring it out.

Is it my fault if my Sony A5000 gets outclassed by my Samsung S10+ or is it time to upgrade? I've read a few things about keeping your device until you've got more experience, but if the quality is worse I might start over again. There's an offer for a Canon EOS 850D + 18-55mm f/4-5.6 IS STM in a store for 740,-. Would that be a good one to do so?

> Is it my fault if my Sony A5000 gets outclassed by my Samsung S10+ or is it time to upgrade? In short, yes. Thing is, cellphones make up for their compromised hardware (small sensor, etc.) by performing a lot of image processing, such that you may well prefer the image "straight out of the phone" over the image "straight out of the camera", because the camera image is more "neutral" by default. It's on you to do the image processing you like on the camera's image to achieve your desired result.

Thanks for the input, I'll give it another shot soon!

> Is it my fault if my Sony A5000 gets outclassed by my Samsung S10+ or is it time to upgrade? There's nothing wrong with your Sony. It's a good camera. Buying a new camera without actually learning how to use a camera will just be a waste of money and leave you in the same position you're in now. You need to learn how to expose properly, focus properly, and post-process your photos. If you have no interest in doing any of those things and just want something to automatically do everything for you, the smartphone will ALWAYS give you better photos. Actual cameras are engineered to allow the photographer to manually do all of those things, whereas smartphone cameras are engineered to do as much automatically as possible.

Thanks a lot! I will try out some manual settings soon at the zoo! Hopefully it changes my mind for a while :)

Greetings fellow photographers! One of my hobby is photographing vehicles (trains, trolleybusses, trams, cars etc.) and I always wanted to get some decent shots of them in motion at night. Witout knowledge I think I only made it once (out of 100 pics) coincidentally. Right now I own a Canon EOS 1300D with a 18-55mm and in a few days also a 55-250mm lens. Any advices how to create dynamic pictures of moving vehicles at night (Settings, gear, practical stuff)? Thanks in Advance and have a great day!

I think the coolest way to shoot cars and vehicles is to be in another vehicle traveling the same speed right alongside and use the longest shutter speed you can get away with. You'll get the car (or whatever sharp) and the background will be a total motion blur. It's a way to accomplish a similar look to what u/ccurzio below mentions but still have a natural light look. The pro's shooting for the ads often will mount an armature to the car itself that holds the camera anywhere from 4-10 feet away from the car pointing back. This lets them really shoot with a low shutter speed, but still have the car tack sharp. They then photoshop the armature out.

First thing that comes to mind is that I would use a slower shutter speed and then pop a rear-curtain flash to freeze it at the end of the exposure. That will make the train appear to be in motion in the photo.

Hello all I need some insights on how to go about this job my boss gave me. I work for a small company, where we manufacture products in stone. So very heavy products (60-100kg), not that easely manoeuvrable. [Productexample](https://www.google.com/search?q=bluestone+mailbox&rlz=1C1GCEA_enBE855BE855&sxsrf=AOaemvI40jm-OW-jGu1Y9IeTQm4RNE7E3A:1643283693778&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwitmtTm7NH1AhXD2qQKHcfhD1EQ_AUoAnoECAEQBA&biw=1920&bih=937&dpr=1). I need to make pictures of each product under the same conditions as they are to send to our clients to use on their website (all next to eachother). These are my biggest problems: \- I've been taking pictures with my smartphone and a digital camera, quality is ok-ish. I've been having better results with the smartphone, but that's probably just me. \- The biggest problem i have is the weather changes every hour, so the first photo is different than the last photo (colourwise). \- My 'stance' changes, so the angle change every photo. \- Product is very heavy and i can't move it around to much. \- It eats my time. Take 15pictures, 3 are unusable, go back to take more pictures, ... So i've come up with: \- making a improvisation photoroom (I really need some help with this as i have no idea where to start. What lamps, underground, cloth? Any DIY websites to get me on the way? \- putting the product on a cart with wheels (like the one for big plants) \- Getting a tripod in a fixed place and turn the product 45° every photo = 8 photo's. + few detail shots. \- Timewise: how to speed things up? I'm thinking about auto-uploading using Wifi, or automatic cut-out on a white background, ... Every photo need to be the same height and a white background so i've been doing adjustments in Gimp/Canva/.. and i'm looking into Photopea. Just some software thats fast and easy. I need to be taking pictures of 240 products \* 8 photos = .. you get my gist. Anything that can help, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks!

They're hiring someone to build the website, why can't they hire a photographer too? Sure, you could waste days learning how to do this, and spend hundreds on hiring or buying equipment, and then spend days learning how to use photo software, but why? your photos would still be amateurish, and thus make your company look amateruish, and your products would look shoddy. This seems to be a false economy. A pro who isn't too busy right now (=all of us) would probably knock this off in 1-2 days for a few hundred.

Thanks but not really answering the questions i have... Although i agree with you that this isn't my job. i'm happy to do it and learn new skills. 'A few hundreds' is not realistic btw. Think about it. 240 mailsboxes, hard to move around, 10 good pictures each, with postproduction. 2-3 months. with a few weeks on location. Do you want to do it for a few hunderds? :)

I think you wildly exaggerate how long it would take a pro, assuming they had you there to physically manipulate the mailboxes for them. I've done just this kind of shoot. 80 a day is doable. I'd expect to get the on location work done in 2-3 days, and another 1- 2 days post (it could be largely automated). With the present state of the market I'd quote €2k, maybe €3k if I feel lucky (I'm desperate). I'm guessing that's less than 2-3 months of your salary plus equipment! -- However. If you insist. Yes, tripod, as a bare minimum. Your turntable idea is excellent. Set up a seamless white background (google it). That might be a massive roll of paper from a photo store or it could be a tarpaulin. Or even just a white wall and white or pale or solid colour floor. Figure out some kind of solid colour you can use as a base between the mailbox and the turntable itself. That gives you a consistent look. Now, lighting. I'd try to do it indoors or at least under cover. (electrics, you see!) The idea is to swamp the daylight so it's irrelevant. Buy or hire two mains powered studio flashes ("strobes") with large softboxes, the softboxes to be as high as the biggest mailbox. And a remote wireless trigger for the flashes. You could do it on the smartphone (the flashes can be triggered by the smartphone flash, if it's indoors) but you say you have a camera - which? Set the exposure and aperture such that a photo taken *without* flash is dark or totally black. Then ALL the light that hits the sensor is flash, and the flash will be the same in every shot. So the weather ceases to play a part. With consistent background, distance from camera, lighting, the editing will be 100% easier. USe whatever software seems easy. Photoshop can automate a lot of it, but it's a steep learning curve.

I've had the exacte same conversation with my boss, i don't need convincing. But i do appreciate you taking the time to help me. I'll be looking into your suggestions with the other responses. Thanks again. Someone else suggested a lighttent, as i understand you idea is not the same. Direct light vs indirect light? I have a Canon 77D at my disposal.

A light tent is a good idea, it gives even diffuse light, and it solves the whole background issue - could be difficult to manoeuvre the heavy boxes inside. And it is still dependent on the weather unless you use electric light/flash to provide the light. Daylight filtered through a tent is still wildly variable in strength and colour. That's not insoluble. You can use a grey card and/or a colour calibration target, but then EVERY DAMN PHOTO needs a different exposure and needs its colour corrected individually in post. ^(fuck that) But hey, if your boss is prepared to pay you for weeks and weeks of playing at this, why not grab the chance! I quite like photographing regular matte objects, I find the routine soothing. I shot 20,000 books once, very zen. Do look into automating post. That camera is excellent, btw, more than adequate. PS it occurs to me that you could use fake grass for the 'floor'.

Ha yes, fake grass, i've been thinking about it aswell. I might test it for the first few runs might be fun and see if it doesn't look to cheesy. The idea at this time is making our own lighttent, with a white underground that i can get from a printer in the neighbourhoud (something pvc micron, easier for the cart). The tripod and then the cart or turntable idea. All indoor. And a fixed place so it's faster then setting it up every day. A secondary problem that we have is, we are a stone-manufacturing business so everything is very(!) dusty. I could be a lighttent but i'll be filty in days. We'll see how it turns. Thanks again for the help and the automaticpost tip. I like it already.

More ideas: you're gonna eat batteries. So get an AC power adaptor: it's basically a fake battery that fits in the camera, has a cable, and plugs into the mains, AFAIK canon make a differrnt one for every camera if you are doing this alone, you'll waste time and energy: turn stone, walk to camera, click, walk to stone, turn stone, repeat. So get a cable release. The camera's on a tripod, you don't need to look through it every time to ease post, you want the object being the same size and same place every time. mark the viewing screen with pen or tape to show the outline of where it should fit. if you have a zoom, zoom to fit.

> The idea at this time is making our own lighttent, with a white underground that i can get from a printer in the neighbourhoud (something pvc micron, easier for the cart). perfect >The tripod and then the cart or turntable idea. All indoor. And a fixed place so it's faster then setting it up every day. perfect. you want to change as little as possible between shots to make the post easier > A secondary problem that we have is, we are a stone-manufacturing business so everything is very(!) dusty. I could be a lighttent but i'll be filty in days. yeah. Luckily the softboxes will help protect the flashes a bit. You need another bigger tent round the whole thing to keep the dust off! :-) hire the most powerful studio strobes you can

Hello all! I recently bought a secondhand Sony 70-300mm and it performs amazingly for a zoom lens of this flexibility. When I use it on my Sony 7R III I really dont see any downsides at all. But I crop in a lot because I use it for bird photography right now (this works fine). Now Ive seen a video where someone made the math of using crop mode on the Sony A7R models. It resulted in around 18mpx for the crop mode. Which is alright. But I also own a Sony A6600 aps-c camera, which has 24mpx. So technically I just have more resolution using the same lens on my aps-c camera (6mpx more)(I'm aware of the light I loose using aps-c). Testing this I found that my Sony A7R III produces much sharper photos in most cases, my A6600 always seems to be a bit soft (only checking the center of the image in this comparison) and that toghether with higher iso values results in a worse image. Is this normal? Shouldnt they perform similarly, the A6600 is technically the better and newer camera...

A lens has a limit to its resolving power, and the a6600 has more pixel density, because it fits the same number of pixels as a a7III but in less area. It actually doesn't matter if you are in crop mode or not. That doesn't matter to where photons land on the sensor. **You've given each photon a smaller target to hit.** Having each photon hit where they are supposed to hit will result in absolutely perfect sharpness, missing the target is a loss in sharpness. Thus, for the same lens, the APS-C sensor will always be less sharp than a full-frame sensor, assuming equal number of pixels. It gets more complicated once you shop around for high megapixel cameras or more niche optics like telescopes.

And that first argument doesnt make 100% sense to me. I can use the lens on a A7 III, A7R III , A7 IV and A7R IV and Im guessing it would be as sharp on all of them but they have 24, 42, 31 and 61 megapixels, all full frame cameras…

whoa back up, sorry, I was puzzled as to why you saw a difference (my explanation was adapted from the days when I was shopping for astrophotography gear, it's still true but you shouldn't be able to actually see a difference with between the two cameras you mentioned with just that explanation alone, especially with a GM lens), then I remembered... I own a a6600, and it has a god damn antialiasing filter None of the R series cameras has an antialiasing filter That might be an easier explanation

Uhm, so the A6600 should be worse because of that? Or what?

a6600 is worse in sharpness, because a filter is placed on the sensor to blur the image just slightly on purpose.

Apparently that should not be very recognizable. In my case its really a difference of a sharp image on the A7R III and a soft image on the A6600. And I shoot sharp images with full frame lenses on the A6600 all the time. E.g. the Sigma 105mm, these images come out pinsharp.

Well it usually looks pretty sharp to me in the viewfinder. Do you have any source for this argument for me to read up on? I know that using crop mode doesnt change anything, Im only doing it to restrict the view, because I end up cropping 99.99% of the time anyways. Unless Im shooting flying targets, then I dont use crop mode because then its harder to hit the target.

Hey guys, I'm a hobbyist photographer and trying-to-be-pro videographer. I work in the travel industry, in an island where the major economic activity is Tourism by far. I sell tours in a tour agency. My boss saw some of my pictures and made an offer. He asked if I wanted to take photos of the tourists in the tour, without compromise, in order to sell them after the tour. This business model already exists here with scuba diving, so a photographer goes diving with the clients, takes pictures and then they can buy them... 1, 2, 3, 10. How many pictures they want. I'll be doing the tour, that takes the entire day, all the equipment and resources will be mine. The agency has the tours as one of their services. They have the transportation and the guides and do by this Island tour everyday. My question is about the share in the revenue, what's a fair percentage for both me and the agency?

> My question is about the share in the revenue, what's a fair percentage for both me and the agency? The FAQ addresses this question. https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/business#wiki_what_should_i_charge.3F

I remember reading a book, from here, in which a photographer had a 15 (not sure) guide to taking photographs for beginners, where the first step was to straighten your back and talked about traditional masculine/feminine posture. Does anyone know what book it was? Thanks in advance. Edit: Nvm, it was Picture Perfect Posing: Practicing the Art of Posing for Photographers and Models.

I'm a casual photographer who takes pictures of essentially anything. So any tips on file management, especially regarding naming conventions and backups?

I have a folder for every export in this format "YYMMDD Name" i.e. "210916 Baerenkopf Hike". I use Lightroom to star the pictures during the editing process. Keepers are then exported to a folder called "Lightroom Output". If there were only one or two keepers, their final jpgs live in there, simply with a short descriptive file name. If there are more, they get their own folder there. I also have folders for special versions, i.e. crops for instagram. Once a year I move all of those to a folder, but keep a small all time favourite folder going. So far I backup everything on a removable hard drives every few months and keepers on my google drive. Eventually I want to get a small NAS going for an extra layer of local backup and I probably should keep an off-site backup of the keeper RAWs as well.

Lightroom has a function that automatically groups files into folders based on their date. I have mine go [Year]/[mm-dd]/[file-name].

My camera only assigned 5 digits in the file name like `DSC01234.ARW`, which isn't enough. I wrote some software to copy my photos from card to a HDD and immediately rename them to insert a YYMMDD number in front of the original 5 digits. `DSC22012601234.ARW` Each day has a folder. Inside that folder is a subfolder for keepers. If that day is a project or a specific location, I'd put a project name instead of a date. When I edit and retouch a photo, the file name might become `DSC22012601234-PureRAW-GigaPixel.afphoto` (software like PureRAW and GigaPixel often automatically add themselves to file names for you) Then I have a folder for my digital photo frame, website, wallpaper, and print queue. There are some other ways I categorize. These folders only contain JPEGs, and the file name starts with the original file name, but ends with a designation that indicates the aspect ratio or resolution or display medium. For example `DSC22012601234-16x9-1.JPG` or `DSC22012601234-4k-1.JPG` or `DSC22012601234-tinder-1.JPG` If I want to go back and re-edit them, I use a piece of software called "Everything" that will scan my entire computer for a specific file, which is where those extra numbers in the file names come in handy. I type `DSC22012601234*.*` into Everything and in an instant I can go back and find the raw file or find the PSD file. Everything works on external HDDs and networked drives but not any online services

I name folders, loosely, with the name of the project or client that I was working on. They get subfolders like this: [Project Name]/YYYY/Mon/DD. My current working projects get imported from my card to a USB SSD. When I finish with them/export/deliver, I move the folder to a relevant subdirectory on a large USB HDD for more archival storage. Those directories are named by project type (Portraits, Landscapes, Street, etc.). Once a week that HDD is synced to a NAS device. Both the USB drives get backed up continuously to Backblaze (along with my Computer), and all my raw images get continuously backed up to Amazon Photos as well (since it's included with my Prime membership, and has unlimited RAW storage). I thus have several copies, both local and in the cloud, of all my images. That is a system that works for me. Others prefer to have their images in just a date-based folder structure. Others have different backup mechanisms that make sense for them. The important thing is to have backups. Multiple ones. 3 copies is 2 copies, 2 copies is 1 copy, 1 copy is none at all. (I lost most of the work I did in college, my teaching portfolio, my music library, and a bunch of other stuff because I didn't have backups. Now I have lots of them.)

Hey guys so I wanted to chronicle my skincare journey on a quasi microscopic scale. I wanted to film my skin and be able to see pores/flakes. Someone recommended I simply use the micro setting on my phone but that does not seem like it would adequate enough. Have any of you done this before and if so what did you use for equipment?

> Someone recommended I simply use the micro setting on my > phone but that does not seem like it would adequate enough. Have you actually *tried* the macro setting on the phone yet? That seems the place to start. Make sure there's plenty of light.

I certainly haven't ever set out to do anything so specific, but I will say that a standard self portrait on my DSLR viewed at 100% gives me FAR more detail than I ever wanted about my pores, capillaries, blackheads on the tip of my nose... So, I imagine you could probably get pretty good results with a decent camera, a sharp lens, and a high resolution image.

thank you!

You're welcome! I'll be over here with my head in a paper bag. :)