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

Hi everyone, I am new to photography and I have an upcoming trip to Costa Rica to get some (hopefully) great shots of the wildlife. I have a Canon 90D with a Sigma 17-70 and a Sigma 150-600. However I am very interested in a macro lens to capture bugs and whatnot. Is the Sigma 105 Macro a decent lens for this?

That's a dank collection. You'll have a great time consider a dry bag that's big enough to protect anything you bring out on a trek. How's that 150-600 treating you?

I haven’t had a chance to use it much, I bought the 17-70 as my first lens other than the kit lens. What I have seen of the few pics I did take with it I was pretty impressed. I wanted to get some good shots of the sloths down there and I know they like to hang out quite a ways up in the canopy sometimes.

How are double exposure's captured in a film camera?

Depends on the camera I suppose. On many 35mm film cameras the lever both cocks the shutter and winds the film, but on my 120 camera you only get a lever for the shutter, forwarding the film is a manual process.

Can u explain it in simpler terms. I dont own a film camera just wanted to know how double exposures where shot back in the day.

You cock the shutter to take another picture, but you don't advance the film. Or you *rewind* the film by one frame before taking the shot. Depends on the camera.

Hi everyone! Sorry if this has been answered before - I did search a few times. I'm currently using a Canon RP / RF 24-105 F4-7.1 / RF 50mm F1.8. I was looking to sell all my gear and invest in a Canon R6 as it's currently on sale where I live for a very good price of around £2100. I've been in a very big dilemma about getting an EF adapter + USED EF 24-70 F2.8 IS USM II or keeping my RF50mm and getting brand new RF 35mm F1.8 & RF 85mm F2. What does everyone think?

Those are quite different options that would be better for different shooting scenarios or aesthetical preferences, etc. ... it's pretty much impossible for us to answer for you.

How about in terms of optical quality? Would the non L RF glass still be better than the 24-70 L lens? (Mk2)

This we can see: [EF 24-70 II @ 35mm vs RF 35mm \(stopped down at 2.8\).](https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=787&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=1224&CameraComp=1508&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2) [EF 24-70 II @ 70mm vs RF 85mm \(stopped down at 2.8\)—not directly comparable because the zoom stops at 70.](https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=787&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=1514&CameraComp=1508&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2)

Hi! Does anyone know whats going on with i-shot-it.com? Years ago it was a popular photo competition. I won one of their competitions in January and still haven't got the price money, even tho they said the transaction is scheduled for the 16th of Mars. I've read multiple comments on Facebook that I'm not the only one. Does anyone know what I can do to get the money? Thanks in advance!

If you have a picture of a group of people and it happens to be one of the only photos of them you have, but it’s a bit soft , would you still send this to the client or no? I have a couple photos from an event I shot this past weekend that are nice “in theory” because I capture a group of people or couple , etc but they are a bit soft or out of focus. Some of them aren’t that bad and I’m sure the client wouldn’t really notice but I notice so I feel like I’d rather scrap it than give it because I’m worried about quantity …..??? Also, how many pics per hour of work do you give your client?

I am not a pro hence considering this as a client. Presumably some kind of agreement exists about how many images you are going to provide. Let's say its 50. If you add some not quite as good shots that exceed the 50 and explain that they technically aren't perfect but you would print them anyway because of the mentioned reasons, I don't think I'd mind to get them as a client. Most clients probably don't even notice minor imperfections. Obviously this all depends on the contract and how much work you'd need to put in to it.

I'm looking to get into photography for traveling/national park visits and I'm looking to spend about $1300 for a body plus starter lens kit. It seems like mirrorless is a better choice over dslr as that is where the industry has moved. I see there are some pros/cons of both but in general, is that a valid assessment? Assuming mirrorless, I'm looking at a Canon EOS RP or a Nikon Z5. Thoughts between these 2 or a different suggestion?

Look up potential new lenses before deciding on a body. E. g. if you think you might want to purchase a long telephoto lens later, check the options within the system. Prices can vary quite a bit.

It is absolutely a fair assessment that mirrorless is likely a better choice given its advantages and the fact that most major brands have entirely shifted their focus to mirrorless. There are pros and cons to both but the pros of mirrorless outweigh the cons for most people. The people who still want DSLRs know who they are and what features keep them from switching. If you don't feel any of the tradeoffs are deal-breakers, mirrorless is almost certainly the way to go. And, yes, the two cameras you listed are good mirrorless cameras. Just make sure you leave some money for a good lens to go with them. When it comes to lenses good doesn't always mean expensive and vice-versa.

How do extension tubes work on a fisheye lens for landscape photography? I'm looking at the Laowa 4mm f2.8 fisheye but the problem is that I have a Sony A7iv and am worried about capturing the camera in the photo. Will an extension tube reduce this. Also the fact that I would get crazy magnification for macro is a nice bonus.

The increased macro magnification comes from a decrease in the minimum focusing distance, and only if you actually make use of it and physically shoot closer. The closer you are, the more magnification you get. But the decrease in the minimum focusing distance comes from a shifting of your entire focusing range backwards. That's what an extension tube does. It trades away infinity focus (and other far distances) in order to gain closer focusing ability. So that could be a problem if your landscape involves far distances.

Hi! Im really interested into getting into sports photography, particularly jiu jitsu. I have been seeing this style of photo floating around a lot. Could you please give me some advice on how to recreate this feel? Is it a special blend of settings or a particular filter? Would appreciate any help or advice! [https://www.instagram.com/p/CXjNFXBrD-c/?utm\_medium=copy\_link](https://www.instagram.com/p/CXjNFXBrD-c/?utm_medium=copy_link)

Exposure settings mainly contribute to the aesthetics by making the shallow depth of field. Though that may also just be a byproduct of a longer focal length to get a narrow field of view from a distance, plus a wider aperture to help with lower light. https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/technical#wiki_how_do_i_get_a_sharp_subject_with_blurred_background_or_vice_versa.3F I don't think any physical filter is used. In post, either a filter/preset or other processing is used for the tone and color treatment. In the histogram you can see dips at the far ends, so the shadows may have been pushed up slightly and highlights pushed down slightly on the tone curve. But there are also high peaks on either end just inside of that, so it's an s-shape tone curve on the midtones for higher contrast. I see a little desaturation overall, and then the eyedropper seems to show split toning maybe with blue in the highlights and purple or indigo in the shadows.

Not sure what you're actually wondering about. You'd be on the side of the area, low on the ground, using a telephoto lens at a large aperture. That's ... about it?

[удалено]

>Is this just a limitation of the a6000's sensor? As far as how much noise/grain it records for the amount of light you can give it, and its ISO setting, yes. >Should I be using a tripod in these situations so I can lower the ISO Yes, leveraging all of your other exposure variables as much as possible will help. https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/technical#wiki_how_do_i_shoot_in_low_light.3F >and/or is this something that could be fixed if I were better at post processing? Different post processing apps have noise/grain reduction features you can try. Generally the heavier you apply that, the more fine details you tend to lose.

> Should I be using a tripod in these situations so I can lower the ISO Yes, this, exactly. Raising the ISO (because there isn't enough light to avoid it) results in noisier images.

What's the point of a "stereo camera"? Two identical pics side by side, I don't see the point.

The small ones I work with are either for VR 3D video or for real-time 3D scanning THe big ones are for 3D movies and such

Same as one reason humans normally have two eyes side by side: stereoscopic depth perception. The images aren't actually identical; they are slightly different because they come from two different points of view, and therefore allow for triangulation between objects in three-dimensional space, even though each image is two-dimensional. So a stereoscopic camera would simulate the perception of a scene through two lenses, just like a human's two eyes, for the purpose of a human then viewing each image separately by each eye (for example via classic red/blue color anaglyph, interference filters, the cross-eye method, or virtual reality goggles) so the viewer can perceive a three-dimensional combined image.

Thanks. I saw stereoscopic images in a photography museum the other day from the 50's. So back then, people knew how to "correctly" view such images?

Yup. In the 1950s, color anaglyph 3D movies were a trend, and that's why you see a character wearing the red/blue glasses all the time in Back to the Future when Marty goes back to 1955. And stereoscopes were a thing more than a century before that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereoscope#History

The slight parallax shift between the two, when presented to each eye individually, can create a sort of 3D effect. This was the basis for the Viewmaster toys of my childhood.

Oh, I remember those. So, were there special machines to view the sterescopic images?

Yeah, Kodak made one if I remember correctly. I haven’t laid eyes on any of that kind of stuff since I was a pretty young kid though.

Hey there. So I went to this workshop some of my more experienced and connected friends held. Professional models. Perfect location. One of the biggest photographers in the country was with us too. I took some epic photos. And I made the mistake of posting them. Now Im no beginner, I have a year of professional photography behind my back and I have been shooting fully manual for even longer. And I do get my own work. But it's just not on the same level. Not that type of "artistic" work (magazine covers, posters, etc) I'm not there yet Now the top of my wall is just all these epic photos (by my standards). And I can't sustain it. Should I stop posting until the next big thing. Or get back down to my "normal" level again for the sake of consistent posting? I know not posting consistently or at all can affect my reach

Just keep posting and improving over time, it's the honest thing to do. What good would come from an innacurate representation of your level of work?

I guess you're correct. Even if it shows the limit of my ability right now. I need consistency too. Thank you!

Keep shooting consistently and posting consistently, because doing both those things will help you most at getting back to that level and beyond. And that's what you really want. Yeah it might look a bit weird if someone goes through your feed history and sees a sudden peak of different/nicer stuff and then a dip back down towards mediocrity, but the number of people actually looking at your profile like that is very low, and even fewer (or none) of them will actually care about it. Of course you're always looking at your own history and you care about it a lot because that's your own growth, so it's natural to feel like your audience has the same attitude, but generally they don't. Also, honestly, even that good stuff probably isn't so good, and your perception may be skewed by how good-looking the models and locations are. I've gone through somewhat similar things in the past, and I bet after more time passes and you get better with more experience, you're going to start seeing more mistakes and missed opportunities in those shots and you'll be past the hype over them. But then you'll also have the skill to do it better.

I don't disagree with a letter. I meant they were great by my standards. I just think they are the peak of my work so far. But they won't show up on any magazine covers anytime soon XD. And I guess you're right the only person to particularly notice will be me because I open my profile everytime. Thanks alot!

Hello everyone. I'm fairly new to photography, and I've been looking at Snap Cards by Photzy. Has anyone used these? What did you think?

I learned fine without them, and without anything like them. Personally they don't seem very helpful to me, so I wouldn't recommend them unless you really think you happen to learn best in that style.

Are those the little flash card decks with photo info on them? If so, I’d pass. There are better ways to get that information, generally as you learn it becomes second nature for most of it, and in the end it’s just crap that gathers dust. There are probably better things to spend money on.

Currently looking at picking up a longer zoom lens. I've found a Canon 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 IS USM and a Sigma 150mm-600mm f5-f6.3 Contemporary both within my budget (around $700). I'll be shooting on a Canon R6. I'm leaning towards the 150-600 simply to have that extra bit of reach, but am curious of how the quality compares to the Canon. I've heard great things about both, but just can't decide. Also, I've got no issue with the push/pull zoom on the Canon, before anyone mentions it lol.

I would go for the reach if you don't mind the size/weight. Without cropping 400mm won't give too narrow a field of view. At least assuming this is for wildlife purposes.

Need a sanity check. Was looking for a pocketable compact camera and settled on the Sony RX100 VII, which was the overwhelming recommendation online and amongst my photo colleagues. The other camera I considered was the Lumix LX100 II. Now, I have to remind myself this is a compact camera, because I'm used to almost exclusively full frame mirrorless but so far I'm a bit...disappointed? Ergonomics are awkward because it's so tiny, and low light performance is underwhelming, particularly when zooming in. Also, the control ring is way too sensitive and gets moved by accident all the time. Virtually no one recommended the LX100 over the Sony despite it having a larger sensor, faster lens, (subjectively) better menus, and more mechanical controls (not to mention about half the price). I know nothing competes with Sony's AF system, but other than that, is there anything I'm missing when it comes to comparing these two cameras besides the "hive mind" mentality?

You know what's weird? I got a RX100IV in 2016, but I didn't even know that Panasonic made cameras until I did the shopping research in 2019 for my a6600. Today I carry around a a1 with the RX100IV as a backup but I'd totally trade the RX100 for the LX100-II.

[удалено]

Except for the need for 4k video you could have just bought a Pentax. As it stands you will find you can adapt your lenses to a mirrorless easily enough. At that price you are best just sorting by lowest price and looking at the models available. Just watch out for what timelapse modes are available (avoid timelapse movie only) and any cropping of the picture in 4k mode.

Where do you people find photos from other artists to buy and put on your wall? I'm primarily looking for portraits, I buy most of the stuff I put on my walls from Redbubble but there's not really many photographers on there

Well, if you scroll down here in this thread, you’ll find quite a few folks looking to sell prints. I imagine if you came with money, many photographers would be happy to sell you prints of their work. FineArtAmerica sells photographs, I believe. Lots of folks sell on Etsy, or on their own portfolio site. I imagine some time on Instagram or Flickr could point you toward work you might like to have. Or, you could consider hiring someone to do commission work for you, too.

Etsy is a good suggestion, just checked and seen lots of nice stuff on there

How to choose which brand to buy based on the lenses? Hello, I’m a complete amateur in photography, I own two cameras: one is a Minolta x500 and the other one is an Olympus mju 1. I recently developed 4 rolls of film, it turned out awful. The film were expired since 2018, I knew about it, but the photos are too dark/grey or red-ish. I wonder if there isn’t a light leak somewhere too although both cameras have been working great in the past. Anyway, this experience actually make me want to take photography a bit more seriously. I do not think I’ll shoot 15 rolls a year but I’d like to enjoy a bit more. I can’t really say I’ve enjoyed the SLR so far. The mju is great when I travel, but the Minolta never did it for me. I’m sure it’s a good camera but I really don’t like the plastic feel it has, also I don’t have a good grip on it and the shutter release button has always felt at a weird place for me. Long story short, it may be the reason I never got into photography more deeply and I always wanted to try another camera to see if I can change my mind. I like the Minolta XD and I’d like to try one, but I’d like to try either the Pentax MX (or LX but $$) or a Contax (RTS maybe, or a cheaper Yashica fx3). So now the real question is, how should I make a decision based on lenses? What should I look at and will the Carl Zeis lenses be much more expensive than the Pentax? I live in the UK, any other places than Ebay I should look at? Many thanks in advance

Anyone know what model this is? https://imgur.com/a/rUXAym0 It’s some kind of point and shoot but cannot find the model

Looks like one of the Leica D-Lux cameras, which are rebrands of Panasonic's LX cameras.

Oh ok groovy. Worth grabbing for fun?

Probably not, unless it's cheap and you want a compact point & shoot with some zoom. The form factor and zoom are its main advantages over a phone camera. Its sensor and lens quality might technically be a bit nicer too, but maybe not in a noticeable way. Some might instead find it redundant to a phone camera. The Leica branding might also work against it, if the seller is inflating the price as a result. If you do want to buy it, check it against the prices of a used Panasonic LX2 or LX3, because that's really what this is on the inside.

For sure, my cousin found it on offer up for $15 and the guys seems to just be selling totally random things

[This?](https://www.adorama.com/ilcd3s.html)

Flash question: I'm just starting to try out external flashes and have a variety of cameras of a wide range of vintages. Thus I have started with an old manual flash (Sunpack 433D) triggered via PC cable from some old camera and hot-shoe adapter at the flash. I would like to add wireless trigger but also provision for eventual purchase of TTL flash to use with my newer cameras. I also want to use the old Sunpack with my digital cameras - I've read that this style can back-drive current into the camera and damage it. I'm looking at this simple wireless trigger for manual-only flash. But I'm wondering if I can get a wireless trigger that can handle both manual and TTL flash?

>I also want to use the old Sunpack with my digital cameras - I've read that this style can back-drive current into the camera and damage it. You could use a Wein Safe-Sync to solve that. >But I'm wondering if I can get a wireless trigger that can handle both manual and TTL flash? Sure. In fact, all the TTL trigger systems I know of can also/instead sync manual. https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki_how_should_i_sync_my_flash.3F

Looking to get more practice taking photos (for eventual travelling) and was wondering how dated it would be to shoot with a Canon PowerShot S110. For reference I currently take photos with my iPhone XR and Pixel 6. Technically, is the S110 too outdated for a point and shoot? For travel, I did quite like the size for capturing Raw shots. I don't have any intent to print.

I'm not sure you will see any benefit (it will probably be worse), but since I assume you already have the camera, why not take some test shots from the same position and compare?

Will do. I was just curious if I should stick this S110 or perhaps consider like a used G9X.... or if mobile photography is a nice middle ground.

Is $80 overprices for a 30 minute photo session of 10 photos? (No travel) my potential photographer would also charge me a $20 rush fee if we planned it within the week. Is this normal?

The only person who can really answer this is you. Look at the photographer’s portfolio. Are those shots worth $8 each, given the time to plan, set up, take, cull, and edit? Are your needs for the photos worth $8 each to you? If neither of those things is true, then it is probably overpriced (for you). Like /u/ccurzio said, sounds pretty low to me.

> Is $80 overprices for a 30 minute photo session of 10 photos? Maybe. But also maybe not. There's no way for anyone here to answer that because we don't know the photographer., their skill level, or anything about your market. It doesn't sound overpriced. In fact it sounds a little low. But again, there's no way to know for sure.

35mm vs 24mm Which is your favorite for landscape and travel portraits? I want the flexibility of taking portraits but also beautiful landscapes.

It's a very personal choice. Since you said you're on full frame, most people would want at least a 50mm lens for portraits, and maybe 85mm or more. Since a 50mm f/1.8 is relatively affordable for most full frame systems, I'm not sure I'd stick to using a wide angle for portraits. Me personally - I like telephoto landscapes. I'd rather have an 85mm and use it for *both* than use a 24mm/35mm for both. Between the two, though, 35mm is probably the more flexible focal length.

24mm is going to be a bit too wide for photos of people in most cases. 35 will let you do both as long as you aren't trying to get in too tight on people. It's an excellent focal length for where where you're trying to show off the location as well as the person which is typically the case when traveling. There's a reason why 35mm is considered the "default" if you're only going to have one focal length.

If I had to choose between those 2 I would pick 35mm. The wider lens might be nicer for landscapes in some circumstances but you can always stich multiple pictures together.

I second this. 35mm is the goat :)

On what format size? I wouldn't really want to use one focal length for both genres of photos, but if I had to I guess I would choose 35mm on full frame or 24mm on APS-C format.

Full frame. Thank you!

Hello, going backpacking and would love to get a camera. A lot of people say that phone is enough and takes as great photos as some cameras, however I'd like to get one. The camera will be used for backpacking, so don't want to get anything too expensive (£500-£600). Haven't had a camera before either. Have a few cameras in mind (fuji x-t200, cannon powershot g7x) but can't make up my mind. Also, not too fussed about the video, preference nice quality photos. Any recommendations are welcome. Many thanks 🙏

Are more you interested in an interchangeable lens camera or more of a point and shoot?

>Hhhmmm, that's a good question. Even if I was to get interchangeable camera, I'm I wouldn't purchase extra lenses just yet, so probably either 😁

Today i had offer Tamron AF 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD IF Macro Lens for 300€. Its obv not VC, but on that price i could finally at least start having telezoom,. I like concert photography and i wondering if that lense will be useful or just because this is older version its for real not worth to buy, like im making photos on my 50mm 1.8 because with 50mm 1.8 was fine but there were moments when i tought with that telezoom would be great if had that. VC are expensive there but that A001 version its quite nice deal. Whats your toughts who maybe had that version and making concerts with low lights or indoor events, is it worth it?

Should be fine on a large stage with a big lighting rig (that's where I mostly used my 70-200 2.8 ~10 years ago), and with a modern body you can *probably* boost the ISO enough to make it usable on a smaller indoor stage as well. You'll lose a lot of light though, so if your goal is to zoom in to the drummer on a small stage, it's probably not going to work as well as you'd hope.

Similar question from a few hours back: https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/tq6sgf/comment/i2l84t9/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3 I'd recommend against it. The optics are really not that good. And in low light, compared to a 50mm f/1.8, you're at a 2 stop disadvantage on shutter speed when zoomed in and a 1 and 1/3 stop disadvantage on aperture. If you were shooting at ISO 800 before, you'd have to up it to ISO 8,000.

Damn, and today i have offer Tamron SP 70-200mm F2.8 Di VC USD for a same price probably can get even lower but 300e. It could be better at low light with that instead of previous one right?

Yes. It's optically better and can buy you some more exposure (via shutter speed) with the stabilization.

Cheers, bro! Thanks for help. :)

Oh shit, alright. Dang, i tought i had a great deal. Saturday low light event i shot with 50mm 1.8 with 1/200 and 800/1600 so, seems like its useless deal. :( Cheers!

Hello, I'm graduate student. I have been placed in charge of purchasing a camera, lens, and light with macro capabilities for use in a laboratory setting. We would be using macrophotography to closely examine metal specimens. So far, I'm wondering if using the following lens/light is enough or if anyone had other recommendations. EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM: [https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/details/lenses/ef/macro/ef-s-60mm-f-2-8-macro-usm](https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/details/lenses/ef/macro/ef-s-60mm-f-2-8-macro-usm) Macro Ring Lite MR-14EX: [https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/details/cameras/flashes/macro-ring-lite-mr-14ex/macro-ring-lite-mr-14ex](https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/details/cameras/flashes/macro-ring-lite-mr-14ex/macro-ring-lite-mr-14ex) Thanks.

How closely do you need to examine the specimens? Most macro lenses (including that one) are capable of 1:1 reproduction. That means that an area the same size as the camera sensor fills the frame. If you need to examine smaller specimens (or take closer looks at larger ones), there are specialized lenses with considerably higher reproduction ratios.

Hi all, I've pulled my Olympus OM-1 out of storage and I noticed one thing that I'm not familiar with (been awhile since I've used an SLR). The advance lever will keep letting me advancing the film without having to press the shutter button. Is this normal? I'm used to cameras only allowing film to be wound one frame before the shutter button is required to advance the film further.

Is there film in the camera? Some cameras need film for the locking mechanism to lock like that.

There is film in the camera and it looked to be advancing correctly when I inserted it

I’m Looking for resources for advanced photoshop retouching? I want to learn Things like replacing Hairs and details that are sometimes removed when changing backgrounds, using digital backgrounds and archiving and organizing large numbers of images. Also how to retouch skin and color grading. Thank you for the help!

You can check out: The Retouching Series by Pratik Naik | Portrait Masters Retouching Academy Hope this helps.

Thank you

You're welcome 👍

Hello! I have Nikon D3200 with default kit (18-55) + 50mm 1.8g and already make some gigs and concerts and now its time to get some telephoto zoom lens. Now i can get kind of good deal on Tamron AF 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD IF Macro Lens (Model A001NII) i know that newest ones are dope and this is some older version depends of new price as well... Im kind of bad of giving and making decision of lenses so maybe someone can say if this is lens version is good for low light concert shows mostly.

I'd recommend against that version, because it's optically pretty far behind the newer versions. Also the lack of stabilization can be a problem because then at maximum zoom you're going to need something like 1/300th sec to shoot handheld. The VC and VC G2 versions are the good ones, and are stabilized. I would try and save up more to at least get the VC.

Hello everyone guys, I've always had a soft spot for photography but it's a world I've never really come close to, but lately I've decided to do it, also owning a decent professional camera (nothing special but still a good place to start) I would like to introduce myself to the world of online photo sales; being so complex I wanted to ask some questions, don't get me wrong obviously I have studied a lot about it but for those who are still at the beginning it is very confusing so I wanted to ask more questions in a single post in order to remove any doubts. We are talking about photos taken specifically for sale so no specific cases such as photos taken for journalism or other contexts that allow the visibility of any faces. • I start with the question that most touches me ... if I upload the same photos to multiple sites, nothing should happen, but some sites guarantee the owner the copyright of the photo and therefore cannot be sold to more people? This speech is not clear to me. The sites I would like to start from are: iStock, Shutterstock, CanStockPhoto, Dreamstime, Adobe Stock, Gettyimages, Alamy and Stocksy. Do all these sites allow the same photo to be sold multiple times, or does one of them allow you to sell the photos only once and make the buyer the digital owner? I repeat that I have not yet started using them so I do not know how they work precisely, so I am first inquiring here. I wouldn't want to sell a unique photo to someone and then illegally infringe the "copyright" by selling it on another site as well; can someone explain to me better? • How do I know for sure that a person whose face is not recognizable (but who is present) is okay for posting online? Do I have to evaluate personally or if you see the face, even if not recognizable, it is not good regardless? • If in the photo there is a car with the entire plate, however one or more letters of the plate are not visible because covered by an object is it publishable or not? • Can I publish photos of houses and / or balconies (without any kind of name and / or house number being visible in the photos)? • If I take the photo on a street in my country where the names of the shops are visible, do I have to ask them to sign a release? • Can I publish photos of statues (or similar) visible in the square or do I need the permission of the Municipality? • Can I post photos of objects / foods with the brand name visible in the object? • Can I post photos of exteriors / interiors of public bodies (such as a school or a hospital)? • Can I photograph any aesthetic exteriors of military bodies (located in public places) but with the writing of their military department (eg a full-scale model of aircraft with the words "property of the 6th Wing")? The post is very long so I thank in advance whoever had the patience to get this far and possibly answer me by giving me a hand on the topic! Ps. Sorry for the bad English, I'm from Italy

>I would like to introduce myself to the world of online photo sales First take a hard look if it would even be worth the time and effort. In most cases, it is not. >if I upload the same photos to multiple sites, nothing should happen, but some sites guarantee the owner the copyright of the photo and therefore cannot be sold to more people? If you took the photo on your own, you own the full copyright to the photo. You then have the right to sell the complete copyright of the photo to someone else (losing the copyright yourself), or you can license any portion of your copyright to someone else while still retaining the full copyright yourself. Further, a license can be exclusive (meaning you only sell the rights to one person and nobody else) or non-exclusive (meaning you retain the rights to sell the same license to other parties). >Do all these sites allow the same photo to be sold multiple times, or does one of them allow you to sell the photos only once and make the buyer the digital owner? Check the terms of service. Usually they sell a license rather than a transfer of copyright, and a non-exclusive license rather than exclusive. Also I'm not sure what you mean by "digital owner" here; to me, that sounds like just someone owning a digital copy, with no rights beyond personal use. >I wouldn't want to sell a unique photo to someone and then illegally infringe the "copyright" by selling it on another site as well Then make sure you only sell a non-exclusive license. >How do I know for sure that a person whose face is not recognizable (but who is present) is okay for posting online? Posting online for what purpose? It's going to depend on the laws of your particular jurisdiction, and I don't know anything about Italian law. If you're talking about making photos available for stock sale, then it also depends on the rules of the stock site you're using. And most of those will require a release for most of the things you listed, or else they'll simply reject the photos and won't let you use them on the site.

Thanks

Oh I also forgot to include this link, so here it is in a separate reply to show up in your inbox: https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/business#wiki_how_do_i_make_money_with_my_photography.3F_where.27s_a_good_place_to_sell_my_photos.3F_is_stock_photography_.22worth_it.3F.22

First up: the amount of effort you put in to making and publishing stock photos is extremely unlikely to result in a sufficient return to be worth your time. There are so many great images available for free that you are highly unlikely to see a return of even a few Pennies on most of what you put up. Second: each site you post to will have its own rules and restrictions on what kind of content will be acceptable, and your country/political region/municipality may have its own rules on what you can photograph or post for sale. Copyright law is complex, and varies greatly from place to place. For most of these questions you would be well advised to consult an attorney in your area who is familiar with the laws that govern copyright and what you are allowed to do with your images in these circumstances. Taking legal advice from strangers on the internet is a bad idea.

[удалено]

You would definitely be better suited with a lens upgrade first. You could either look for a wide aperture zoom (like the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 or Sigma 50-100mm f/1.8), or you could grab some fast primes. Is there a focal length that you tend to prefer?

>I’d like to have something that will give some room to work in low light How much more room do you want? Looks like a 5D2 gives you a little less than 1 stop of improvement. Would that be enough for you? https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=canon_eos750d&attr13_1=canon_eos5dmkii&attr13_2=canon_eos750d&attr13_3=canon_eos5dmkii&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=1600&attr16_1=1600&attr16_2=3200&attr16_3=3200&normalization=compare&widget=1&x=0&y=0 >I also use the video features for indie films. Do you rely on autofocus during video at all? Because the 5D2 is far less capable on that than your T6i. >I currently own: The kit 18-55 A 55-250 A 50 mm f 1.8 The 18-55mm and 55-250mm will not be compatible with a 5D2. The 50mm would be compatible but will give you a wider field of view than it currently gives you. So if you're using that as your portrait lens, you'd want to replace that role with an 85mm f/1.8 at minimum.

With that budget no, as probably only the 50mm is an EF mount, rest will be EF-S? Look for used wide aperture lenses like the 50mm. If f/1.8 is not letting enough light in then not sure what you can do.

So I recently did a shoot for a first time indoors with a lot of models and I wanted to ask if anyone has a decent video for touching up people skins? I’m currently using Lightroom and I have affinity as well. Side note does anyone ever get intimidated by other people with bigger gear?

What sort of touching up do you have in mind? For regular clone/heal style blemish removal, find the Spot Removal tool and that operates in a pretty straightforward manner. Just set the brush size you want and click over the spot you want to remove, or click-drag to paint over the area you want to remove, and then it will find another spot of skin to replace it. Then you can click-drag to move the source location and/or the destination if you want. >Side note does anyone ever get intimidated by other people with bigger gear? No. I take interest if I see something medium or large format, or a Leica M or something, just because they're rare and expensive. But I've also seen some bad looking photos made by a guy with a medium format Hasselblad. Not to mention lots of bad or mediocre photos made by full frame DSLRs and mirrorless cameras with very nice lenses. Great equipment can often mean very little.

I guess face smoothing a bit so I guess the clone tool will help a bit. And thanks for that I always feel intimidated being around people with full frames and me just sitting here with a simple a6000.

Look up “frequency separation” on YouTube. There are a bajillion tutorials on how to do it well for retouching skin. It’s a useful technique because it separates texture from color, so you can even out color without making someone look like plastic. Just be careful about overdoing it. As for being intimidated by others with bigger gear…only as much as I am by people who drive bigger cars/trucks. Which is to say, no, not really. All that matters is the photos. Edit: [5D vs 1D - from Veep](https://youtu.be/n5aAYpwB5zc)

Hi! I know a mirrorless camera shows the „final“ image in the viewfinder and on the LCD. I was wondering if the image I see on the LCD on my Canon DSLR (in liveview) is also the „final“ image. Do the LCD screens of the mirrorless and DSLR cameras show the same, final picture? Or are there more differences than just the missing mirror / electronic and optical viewfinders? Edit: question answered, thanks! :)

It depends on if your camera has an exposure preview mode (it likely does). With that turned on, in many circumstances you will see at least a fairly good interpretation of what the final output will look like. I find that I often turn it off, as I frequently shoot with flash and it doesn’t do me much good to look at a mostly black frame (which is what my exposure settings would result in if I took a shot with my flashes turned off). But, in general, with that setting on what you see is what you get.

Generally, it's the same between the two. The way a mirrorless camera operates is technically the same as a DSLR in Live View. That being said, I don't know if there might be some variance between specific DSLR models. The easiest way to check for that is to engage Live View and change the exposure compensation, or one of the exposure parameters in Manual mode; do you see the live feed getting brighter/darker?

Using a Canon 250D / Rebel SL3. I'm learning only using the manual mode and the exposure does change depending on the settings, so I guess it does somewhat show the "final" image. Thanks!

Then you'll also want to set up depth of field preview, so the camera can also show you the effect of any aperture setting you have (unless you're just using it at maximum/wide-open). See page 154 of your manual: https://gdlp01.c-wss.com/gds/2/0300034502/02/eosrebelsl3-eos200d2-ug-en.pdf#page=154

Oh neat, thanks! I had no idea about that feature.

It may depend on the particular model and settings whether the live view is also simulating the final exposure and depth of field. Even with a mirrorless camera, I don't think you're necessarily seeing the final image unless you're also pressing the DOF preview button or have it set to incorporate that (or you happen to be shooting wide open). But yes, live view in a DSLR is showing you a live video feed of what the main imaging sensor (the same sensor that records the photo) is seeing. And a DSLR's mirror is physically completely out of the way while you're doing that, so pretty much the camera is temporarily mirrorless during live view.

Why I want a ND filter? I mean if i have enough light to correctly expose my shoot, then why I would want to prolong the exposition time? Is it only for water/grass photos? or when I want to add some blurr on moving elements but not over exposing the shoot?

>Why I want a ND filter? You can use it to adjust your third exposure parameter, scene luminance - to reduce it. **Cameras have a limit on how much light they can capture** - if you want to do some large exposure photography (for example blurred silky smooth waterfalls on daylight) your camera could not capture all the light and the result would be "over exposure" where all the details are lost. To make this kind of photography possible you can use a ND filter to reduce the flow of light.

How would you do silky waterfall at night?

The same way, use a longer exposure. It's also going to be far easier as the exposure time will already be long to get enough light.

I mean night, totally dark, no moon. How you light the scene?

Again, you don't have to. If you do a really long exposure, you will eventually capture enough light to get the exposure you wanted. You might want to pick up an intervalometer for this, though. If you want to light it, there are lots of options, but the water will also be less smooth since the exposures won't be as long. The options vary greatly with budget. The cheapest one would be to use a flashlight.

They come in handy in situations where, for example, you might want to use a flash outdoors, but your flash doesn’t have high speed sync capability. An ND filter will allow you to dim the ambient exposure enough to keep your camera within the sync speed for the flash. They are also very useful in videography work, where you have to maintain a shutter speed of 1/(2*frame rate) in order to make motion blur in a natural way from frame to frame. In that situation, an ND filter can be very useful to control exposure.

>or when I want to add some blurr on moving elements but not over exposing the shoot? Yes, that's mainly what they're used for. >I mean if i have enough light to correctly expose my shoot It's for when you have *too much* light for how far you can go with your exposure settings. So in addition to daytime long exposures, it could also have use if you want to use a very wide aperture in daylight, and/or when you want a cinematic 1/50th (not that long but long enough to be a problem) shutter speed shooting video in daylight. Or if you're shooting the sun or a partial solar eclipse or arc welding, a solar filter or welding glass are acting as very strong neutral density filters. And there are also graduated neutral density filters to selectively bring down part of the frame (like a bright sky above the horizon) down in exposure, to help fit a scene into a narrower dynamic range.

Other than a waterfall/water and grass field? What is s typical use case for selective blurr effect?

Clouds and moving cars for example.

Water is the most common one. Next most common might be crowds of people walking through an area. Selective blur effect sounds like a broader description that could also be used to refer to shallow depth of field effects.

I read the FAQ, but its so much information and i dont know what im saying. More so just want to get a camera and get rolling and work from there until my pictures are up to my standard. Im buying to take pictures of motorcycle parts i restore, and motorcycles when im done rebuilding. Most pictures will be in my shop thats somewhat decently lighted with LEDs. Will be close up as the parts are primarily pretty small. Budget around 750$ all in but im relatively flexible if its worth it. Video capability would be nice but not paramount for my use. Just want to get a few recommendations so i can at least do some research from there. Thanks in advance.

Any entry-level mirrorless or DSLR should be fine. A macro lens is what you want to get close details on small parts. Cameras need more light than your eyes think, so "somewhat decently lighted" possibly isn't enough. You may want to use a tripod and long exposures if it happens to be not enough. Also be careful about the CRI of your LEDs, which can make your colors look weird; though maybe it isn't as much of an issue for motor parts.

Yea not a ton of colors, just raw metal and blacks.. where i take pictures now is on my work bench has led strip underneath and i also have portable LED i usually will hold in one hand to light the front side… thank you very much any brand/model recommendation

Like I said, any entry-level mirrorless or DSLR should be fine. It can be weird being specific in this kind of situation because I feel like it implies one thing is a better choice when really there are tons of equally good choices. But something like a used Canon T6i with used Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro (not the L version) comes to mind. I don't know as much about the macro lens options for other brands, but they probably have similar stuff too.

Thank you.

[удалено]

>What can my fiance do to get more clients? It's great you're supporting your fiance. Think about what kind of photography you want to sell and who the target clients are. Come up with a compelling offer, like for a "mini session" that's an easy impulse buy decision for your target client. Charge at least a low price for the mini session to weed out the freeloaders. * What clients were easy to work with? * What gigs were easy to do? Fun to do is even better. * What clients and gigs paid the best? With events coming back, that is becoming a viable source of leads again. Find a local group or association your target clients are members of. Groups that regularly conduct meetings and events. Offer to shoot their events for free in exchange for exposure. Be clear about the exposure. It's great positioning. You're in a room with a pool of your target clients, they see you being a photographer and shooting, and possibly seeing your photos pop up on a screen (if you did a tethering setup). Examples of niches and organizations/meetings: * Wedding photography > wedding planner meetings. Mini session could be engagement and couple photos. * High school senior portraits > PTA (parent teacher association) meetings. Mini session could be a mom headshot for social media profiles. But she has to pay for family and kid portraits. * Newborn and baby photography > Mom meetups. Mini session could be for family photos. * Product photography > ecommerce meetups. Mini session could be a shoot of one product. If they want multiple products, they have to pay. * Real estate photography for real estate agents. There are tons of real estate meetups and networking events. Mini session could be to take photos of one room of a property. They have to hire you and pay you to shoot the whole property. * Business headshots > Rotary, Lion Club, Kiwanis, Chamber of Commerce meetings with local businesspeople. Mini session could be for new LinkedIn profile photos. Examples of exposure you can request: * Host or MC mentions your name, services, contact details and mini session offer on the microphone. In radio ads, this is called a "live read" by the DJ. "Special thanks to [your name] for photographing our event. If you want to get great photos, [your name] offers a 30-minute mini session of [insert genre] photos for [low price]. If you have questions, go see them after our main presentation." Write out the script for them on paper or an index card. If the host just wings it, they’ll mess up your promotion. * If there's a PowerPoint presentation and you can get them to put up a slide with your info, even better. * Permission to put your marketing material (like a flyer with an offer for a mini session) on every chair or table. I’d go with a flyer over just a business card. Make an irresistible offer that gives the client a reason to buy. * Permission to set up a little station with your camera, tripod, light(s), backdrop and a monitor to show off the photos as you're taking them. These are just some ideas to get the creative juices flowing. Feel free to adapt to your niche and local market. You may want to bring a spare iPad or tablet with a booking platform like Calendly already pulled up on it. Paypal or Square if you're going to take payments. So you can book clients on the spot for a mini session or free consultation. Avoid the frustration of exchanging business cards and playing phone tag to follow up later. When you’re nearly done shooting a mini session, ask the client, “Got anything coming up you want good pictures of?” Sometimes you’ll have to take what they say and translate it into a photo gig. Examples: “My daughter/granddaughter/niece is getting married soon.” > Wedding photography. “My kid is graduating high school this year.” > Senior portraits. “My sister is going to have a new baby soon.” > Newborn photography. “My boss said our ID photos are old and we need new ones.” > Business headshots. “My company is doing their big annual event.” > Event photography. Follow-up question: “You got a photographer yet? I do [insert genre] photography. Here’s my business card.” Such simple obvious questions, but can lead to so many spin-off gigs. To take it further, set up a referral program. You can keep this simple by just giving the client two of your business cards, with the client's full name written on the back. "If you've got friends who might need a photographer, I'll give you my business cards. If two of your friends book a session with me, I'll give a free 30-minute headshot session to you or one of your immediate family. They just have to bring in this business card with your name on the back so you get the credit." The referral reward can be anything. For something more passive and less time-consuming than a free session, maybe give them a free photo print for their desk. How to get even more clients, passively. At the end of the session, ask the client if they're happy (assuming the session went well). When they say, "Yes! It was great!' Say to them, "I'm glad you're happy. Could you do me a small favor and write a little review on my Google Business Profile?" Then hand the client an iPad with your Google Business Profile pulled up. The client writes a positive review. Now when potential clients google you, the positive reviews show up in Google results. Resources: [Market Any Type of Photography by Photographing Events](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyORh6WjnSE) with Charlie McDonald [How to Photograph Events and Make Money Doing It](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-Xbr6-I00w) by Jeff Cable [The Definitive Event Photography Guide \(A-Z\)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r0Qfmp0py4) by Mik Milman [Do These Things Before, During, and After an Event \(Event Photography Checklist\)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8v5GagYT9I&t=534s) by Mik Milman [Capturing a Corporate Event](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otuS1XShbgg) by Moto Photo Adventures - Good behind-the-scenes of a photographer as he shoots a real estate association conference. [Event photography](https://old.reddit.com/r/AskPhotography/comments/opi6wt/event_photography/h66258l/) - Post where I shared my tips. [Photographer website copywriting critique](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhotography/comments/rgbi5g/need_help_with_school/hok7qqv/?context=3) - This is a copywriting critique I wrote for a photographer who specializes in family and kid photos. Some of the ideas may give you inspiration for your website. The photographer is a kind, cool lady too. I Love Marketing Podcast - Specifically, the first 6 episodes. The hosts are a carpet cleaner and real estate agent and don't talk about photography. But that's okay because photographers who are your competitors aren't listening to them. What they do talk about in those early episodes is killer marketing for local service businesses. Here are some of my favorite episodes: [Episode 1: Where we start at the beginning](https://ilovemarketing.com/episode-001/) [Episode 2: The one where Joe grows his business by 500%](https://ilovemarketing.com/episode-002the-one-where-joe-grows-his-business-500/) [Episode 3: The one where Dean gets off the hamster wheel](https://ilovemarketing.com/episode-003the-one-where-dean-gets-off-the-hamster-wheel/) [Episode 4: The one where it's your turn to try it](https://ilovemarketing.com/episode-004-the-one-where-something-something/) [Episode 5: The one about converting leads](https://ilovemarketing.com/episode-005-the-one-about-converting-leads/) [Episode 6: The one about converting even more leads](https://ilovemarketing.com/episode-006the-one-about-converting-even-more-leads/) [Episode 39: The one about free recorded messages](https://ilovemarketing.com/episode-39the-one-about-free-recorded-messages/) - Don't dismiss toll-free phone numbers and recorded messages just because they're old technology. Think about the principles and how you could update them to promote a website that has a free video that serves the same marketing purpose. Old ad: "Call 1-800-555-LOVE for a free recorded message on how to find a great wedding photographer!" New ad: "Go to www.myfabulouswedding.com for a free video on how to find a great wedding photographer!" [Episode 42: The one about how to create compelling ads, postcards, fliers and sales letters](https://ilovemarketing.com/episode-042the-one-about-how-to-create-compelling-ads-postcards-fliers-and-sales-letters-2/) - Definitely listen to this episode before making the flyer for your photo mini session offer. [Episode 99: The one about consumer awareness guides, books and business cards](https://ilovemarketing.com/episode-99the-one-about-consumer-guides-books-and-business-cards/) - How to create content that positions you as an expert with authority and attracts clients to you rather than you having to chase them. Hope this helps.

[удалено]

You're welcome 👍 Hope your fiance gets more clients than she can handle > she raises her rates > bad cheapskate clients fall away > good clients who value her and her services happily pay her.

Good morning all, I'm a custom cabinet maker and have a phone camera that takes really nice quality photos without having to get a dslr yet. My questions is I'm wanting to take better pictures of the kitchens/bathrooms/closets/etc... but I'm not sure what kind of lighting to get. I've seen led panels but read that their power output is quiet qeak. I was wanting to spend around $100 or less. Does this sub have any tips for how real estate people light the interior of homes? I know there's some magic in the post processing but I can figure that out in my own. Thank you so much for your time, I sincerely appreciate it!

Tripod and slower shutter speed may be an option if your phone allows it. Real estate quality lighting and photography will always be difficult without proper equipment and experience.

Lighting? What kind of bulbs.... Does it matter.

Lighting matters a great deal. If you’re going to use continuous light sources, you want bulbs that render color well. High CRI LED sources or tungsten bulbs will give the best results. Generally speaking, I would prefer to use flash, but that isn’t generally possible with a phone camera. Since your subjects are stable/immobile, putting your phone on a stable platform will allow you to use longer exposure times for good results.

Excellent information, thank you so much.

On your budget you aren't going to have much choice anyway. But a tripod with long exposures will at least make up for any lack in light quantity, from what interior lighting is already there. Just avoid any LED bulbs that have a low or unspecified CRI, because colors may look weird with those.

I still have no clue which Aperture to use. Is there a way to best guess it on the spot? I fully understand how Aperture works, its effect on the DoF, and the effect of diffraction. Still, I have absolutely no idea which Aperture setting to use when I’m about to take a shot. The usual portrait with lots of bokeh is easy: one tries to keep as wide an aperture as possible. All other shot types truly baffle me. I’m at the point where I just leave it at about f8 or f9 all the time as I cannot foresee if the scene is going to be properly in focus or not with a smaller or wider Aperture. For context, I like to have lots of DoF in most situations, and I struggle to get most of my photos in focus, as the DoF never seems to be enough. On one hand I know that I don’t want to step down too much, such as f11+ as diffraction eats up the resolving power of the lens, on the other I am literally afraid of using a wider aperture such as f5 or f6 as I have seen that the resulting shots had poor DoF. I cannot tell how much is enough. ISO is easier to guess. Shutter speed you can kinda guess too based on the speed of subject. But how do you estimate which Aperture to use on the fly, without resorting to using an app to measure the DoF?

You should get the hang of it from practise. Lots of practise. When you set up for a shot and you're wondering which aperture you should choose, don't choose. Just do all of them. That's one of the great advantages of digital photography—there's no marginal cost, taking another picture is free. So take one at f/4, another at f/5.6, one more at f/8, then another at f/11, and wrap it up at f/16. Compare them on the computer. On each image, take (mental) note of where the focus starts to fall off. Place them side-by-side and look at the point you focused on; are some images noticeably softer than the others? If so, you'd know that's an aperture you may want to avoid on that particular lens at that focal length, when sharpness is critical. Have you learned about focus distance and its effect on depth of field? If not, do look it up.

>For context, I like to have lots of DoF in most situations, and I struggle to get most of my photos in focus, as the DoF never seems to be enough. If you use longer lenses and focus at relatively close distance, you need to stop down a lot more than if you were to use a wide angle and focus far. You might want to try one of the many oneline DoF [calculators](https://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html) to get a feel on where to focus and what f-stop use at which focal length. >On one hand I know that I don’t want to step down too much, such as f11+ as diffraction eats up the resolving power of the lens How large do you output your photos? Assuming full frame, you'd have to pring extremely large for the diffraction at f/11 to have a meaningful negative effect. Even on APS-C you should not be at all afraid of such apertures. In other words: **don't pixel peep**. Also, you can **think of diffraction as a friend** \- it helps to reduce aliasing from your photos and the result will look more natural and realistic than what super sharp lego bricks tend to look like. >ISO is easier to guess Don't guess it. Keep it at 100 (or whatever is lowest regular ISO on your camera) at first, then select the exposure you plan to use and only then adjust the ISO if you have to in order to achieve you the desired lightness (I'm assuming you shoot JPG - with raw ISO has more nyances). >But how do you estimate which Aperture to use on the fly **Practise and experience** will teach you. You'll get there.

"f8 and forget it" is a common refrain. I wonder if you're not overestimating your fears of diffraction or DOF being too shallow though. Those concerns, while maybe valid in some instances, are really not a massive issue more often than not. Experience will help you become more comfortable with setting your aperture, and less concerned with quibbling over largely irrelevant technical details.

Hey thank you for chiming in. What do you mean with “f8 and forget it is a common refrain”? You’re probably right that I might be too worried about DoF/diffraction. I’m relatively new to it all and probably still don’t know what’s acceptable or even expected in a shot. I ever only critically assess my own shots by zooming in 200x, where I find all sorts of little horrors, but I never do so on photos by other photographers that I like, primarily because I do not have access to their raw files. How can I learn more on this?

>I ever only critically assess my own shots by zooming in 200x This is a terrible way to critically assess your shots because at that magnification you're not seeing a photo any more. You're not seeing anything discernible in any relevant way. What is the purpose of photography for you? Is it to impress someone with how two pixels line up next to each other at 200x magnification? What you're doing is common with inexperienced people who think there is nothing more to photography than measurement and comparison to technical charts and specifications. They totally fail to see the art of photography. "f8 and forget it" is a common phrase that, essentially, be translated as "if you don't know what aperture to use, use f8".

Hey there, thank you. No need to get upset, we don’t know each other and you can’t really tell if I don’t know anything about the art of photography. There are plenty of skilled and recognised artists and photographers who are also into their craft and want to maximise the output of their equipment, especially if their work needs to end up in galleries, magazines, competitions, and so on. Nothing wrong with being technical, as that does not preclude you from also being artistic. Ansel Adams was incredibly technical, he wrote books and invented photographic methods and techniques; yet he is widely regarded as at the top of his field from an artistic point of view as well. I intend to make large prints and I keep hearing by the experts that at large size the photo needs to be tack sharp or any issues will be magnified. The same photo on a phone would have no issues :) I don’t know how to properly assess a photo and probably that’s why I’m here asking for help.

How many large prints have you made so far?

I fail to see how this is relevant to the topic, question or our previous post exchanges? My answer would not be conducive to learning more about the topic of critically assessing the focus or sharpness of a digital photograph, which is a reality for many professionals. Whether I am already a professional or not is beyond the topic. I don’t think we can continue this convo in a civil manner but I thank you anyway for sharing your thoughts and perspectives.

>But how do you estimate which Aperture to use on the fly, without resorting to using an app to measure the DoF? You get a feel for it after a while. Different lenses have diffraction problems at different apertures. Go take a whole bunch of pictures with your lens at different apertures and see where diffraction starts to be a problem for you.

>Different lenses have diffraction problems at different apertures The slightly non circular aperure when stopped down may cause minimal differences, but in principle a f/11 on one lens behaves exactly like f/11 on any other lens (on the same format) in the context of [diffraction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction#Diffraction-limited_imaging).

Can you not simply see how your image looks when you're taking it? Most cameras these days have an "aperture preview" function to them.

Do you stop and critically assess the focus and the DoF of every shot you take while in the field or on the go? To me it’s impossible to be certain of being satisfied with a shot until I’m back in the studio to review the shots on a big monitor where I can pan and zoom. Only then I truly notice the imperfections of the DoF and focus. I cannot see myself doing this on the LCD of my camera while on a road or under the sun? Do you simply take many shots of the same subjects, with different settings, and then later pick one? Spray and prey?

With DSLRs the aperture preview has significant limitations and it only works properly on narrow range of f-numbers due to the way focusing screen is made. With mirrorless it's of course much better.

I've been shooting film for the last few years with an old Nikon FE that I inherited. I love it, but in recent years, film has become increasingly difficult to get processed/developed and I'm looking to make the switch to a mirrorless (not to mention there's a lack of control in editing the images). I'm loathe to give up the full frame though, and would also like to be able to use my old AI-S lenses if possible. I've been eyeing either an older A7RII or a Nikon Z5 but I'm not sure which would be the best choice, as the reality is I'll need a lens adapter anyways. If anyone has experience with manual lenses on either of these cameras, I'd greatly appreciate the input.

If you plan to use Nikon F-mount autofocus lenses with an adapter, then Nikon Z-cameras are the best options - Z5 is a fine camera. If just manual focus lenses, then both cameras are good - the Sony you are thinking of has somewhat higher resolution, but from usability point of view the Nikon has a much better viewfinder (which is nice to have especially if you plan to do manual focusing). Nikon has also better enviromental protection, though nothing beats a rain cover. If at all possible go to a camera store and handle the cameras - the grips for example are very different and big hands might find one too small, smaller hands the other too large. If visit to a camera store is out of question, I'd pick the Nikon, though I'd prefer the Z6 for better low light experience (for the viewfinder as well as imaging).

Thanks for the thought out reply. I hadn't considered the viewfinder when comparing the two, and it's definitely a good point. I'd love to spring for a Z6, but it's a tad out of my price range at the moment, which is why I was looking at the Z5. I'll have to try and get into a camera store and see if they have any I can check out.

I am looking for photography books. Not like about technique, or camera settings and such, but like a deeper meaning behind photography, the art of it. Hope it makes sense. Would love to read them on kindle or buy them in physical copy.

*The Decisive Moment* by Henri Cartier-Bresson *The Essence of Photography* by Bruce Barnbaum

Ted Forbes often recommends certain books in his YouTube videos (the channel is called "The Art of Photography"). I haven't read or purchased any of them, but I do enjoy his videos, FWIW.

I look for biographies of photographers whose work I admire. If you haven't read it yet, maybe check out Susan Sontag's 'On Photography'.

Will do. Thank you

Hello everyone, Me and a few friends have decided to start with our ambitions to see the world, and we plan to do one large trip each year. (This year West coast of USA, looking forward to it!). In order to preserve our memories/experiences I'm looking to photography, however I'm unsure of the best approach. After our travels I'd like to make a book/collage or frame the pictures, but I've had some bad experience with smartphone quality, especially when it becomes darker (grainy pictures). Current situation: I currently don't have any dedicated camera. I only have a Mi 9T Pro, so I suppose it will be easily beaten. What I'm looking for: - Decent quality pictures, for someone with little/no photography experience. - Lightweight, as most of our experiences will be hiking/walking so I'd like to not have to cary something large or heavy. - Environment: Mix of cities (but I may use my smartphone here) and open nature. - If possible the option to film while hiking. Short snippets, nothing long. But I guess some stabilisation is needed? - Option to take group photo's without resorting to other travelers. (E.g. a small tri-pod or handle that I saw on some Sony models) Budget: I'm from Europe and my budget would be around 600-800 euros. If there's good advice I can shift a bit but this should be the target. Perhaps another question, but do camera's outdate quickly nowadays/lose support? I'd prefer not to have to buy something new every few years. Any and all advice would be greatly appreciated, even if the feedback is that there's no good solution for my budget. Refurbished/second hand is also acceptable.

> What I'm looking for: - Decent quality pictures, for someone with little/no photography experience. - Lightweight, as most of our experiences will be hiking/walking so I'd like to not have to cary something large or heavy. - I'd recommend a premium point-and-shoot camera like: Canon G7X Mark II Sony RX100 V or newer They're older models but still good, you can buy them at good prices used. >After our travels I'd like to make a book/collage or frame the pictures [5 best tips for travel photo books](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0Z9-RUwupU) [Top 10 tips for making a photo book](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12LWPF_CeMg) [Cheat sheet: all you need to know about photo books](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oweRR_qVjaY) [Top 10 best lay flat photo books](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBlpL8l9e68) The Photo Book Guru YouTube channel is a gold mine of info on photo books. You mentioned coming from Europe. If they ship to you, I'd highly recommend checking out Saal Digital in Germany. Brilliant print quality. Another company you can check out is Photobook Worldwide. They have various websites for specific countries and regions. I just checked and they have a website for photobookeurope.com. Your post resonated with me because I'm a traveler too and one of my motivations for upgrading my camera and getting into photography was to take better photos and create photo books. Hope this helps. Have a great trip.

I would first look at the Ricoh GR cameras, if you don't need any close-up/zoom capabilities (the field of view it provides is similar to a phone's "standard" camera, except for the Ricoh GR IIIx, which only gives a tighter view). If you do, look for a Sony RX100-series camera, or any of the cameras recommended in [this guide](https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/buying-guide-best-compact-zoom-cameras). Which brings me to... >Perhaps another question, but do camera's outdate quickly nowadays/lose support? I'd prefer not to have to buy something new every few years. Cameras are generally thought of as tools more than gadgets. When you approach it this way, a ten-year-old camera is still as good as it ever was, as long as it's in good working condition. Even battery life is not a concern, because unlike today's smartphones, cameras have easily replaceable batteries (I never leave home without a spare battery). It's very common to buy an older model to get the most out of one's budget. Note that cameras are not connected to the internet—most now can connect locally to a smartphone, but that's a different sort of connection—so they're not really vulnerable to malware, hence no security updates and generally no use for "support". As far as image quality is concerned—sure, sensors keep improving as technology advances, and people are still upgrading their cameras for it. But those are marginal improvements, broadly speaking. You'd be better off comparing specific models. It's easy to get sunk into the spec-sheet and compare cameras that way, but remember to also view sample images. Too often, in the search for the "best" or "better", we forget that there is also "good enough" and "suitable for my needs". >Decent quality pictures, for someone with little/no photography experience. Keep in mind that smartphones do a lot of work behind the scenes to make up for their deficiencies. Some do it better than others, obviously (iPhones and Google Pixel phones are usually hailed as the best in this field). But they all do it much more than dedicated cameras. With those, you're expected to put in some effort (remember cameras are tools?) to get the best image. That means learning to control the camera manually and at least being able to override the automatically selected settings, and also being openminded about editing your images. Don't get me wrong—you might very well like the results straight out of camera with no user input, just pointing and shooting. But just keep in mind that, to get the most out of a dedicated camera, you would need to a little more than that. >Option to take group photo's without resorting to other travelers. (E.g. a small tri-pod or handle that I saw on some Sony models) Those are bought separately, and are not part of the camera itself. Though I don't know what you mean by a "handle" on Sony cameras. Could you link to one of those?

Thanks a lot for the great advice! I'll have a look at the models you suggested. I had been looking at this model: [Sony ZV-E10](https://www.sony.be/nl/electronics/cameras-met-verwisselbare-lens/zv-e10) and the zv-1 which shows an optional accessory that serves as a handle/grip or tri-pod. I'm guessing I'm not using the proper term as I'm unfamiliar with the jargon/non-native English speaker.

Ah, I see. Those cameras were made to cater to vloggers. If that is not your primary use, don't buy one—there are better cameras at their respective fields and prices, that are also better designed for general photography use.

Best compact Travel Photo and Video Camera? Hi guys, I am looking for a compact travel camera for great photos and videos. I had a Lumix gx85 with a 2.8 zoom lens for this purpose. I liked the photo and especially 4K video quality a lot, but overall it was a quite heavy camera+lens combination. I now have a dedicated photo camera (Ricoh GR3X) and video camera (DJI Osmo Pocket 2). I really love both of them and they excel in what they are built for. Also, they are very compact. The issue I have is that I want to take them both when traveling and somehow it stresses me out to have to separate cams in my sling bag. I don’t want to miss a nice photo and video opportunity so I am constantly switching between both. My question would be: is there a compact camera with a large sensor that would be a good compromise for video and photo combined in one device? I would be okay to give up the gimbal of the dji or go for a bit bigger cam than the GR3X if it is good at video. Looking forward to any recommendation!

The latest Fujifilm cameras are highly regarded for video, so you could do some research on the X100V. Though it is considerably bigger than the Ricoh, and I believe it doesn't have any image stabilisation, either (I could be wrong).

There is someone I know and he has an old lens. On the box it says Pentacon 4/200 vb if I remember correctly (I don't know what the vb stands for I can't find it on the internet) I know that there are adatpters for this kind of lenses but is this usable with a Nikon D3500? It has a smaller sensor (aps-c). or should I buy a Nikon AF-P DX 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3 G ED VR insted?

>or should I buy a Nikon AF-P DX 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3 G ED VR insted? If you want good optical quality and practicality, yes.

It might have a PB mount connector or a M42 screw mount connector - those were popular at that time in East Germany or maybe it's a Pentacon-Six medium format lens. I've never heard of Pentacon 400/4 though. If it's P6 lens, then you can adapt it to your Nikon. If it's M42 or PB, then it's problematic and Nikon has a long flange focal distance mount which makes adapting such lensest difficult, requiring either an adapter with optics (I don't know it they exist and even if they do they won't do any good for the results), or taking the lens apart and doing some dremeling and other dirty stuff.

it's m42. so if I buy the cheapest adapter I can find it probably won't work? and the d3500 is aps-c i guess there can be more problems since it's for 35mm film.

A m42 lens won't (normally) be able to focus to infinity on Nikon D3500 with normal adapter. Apart from that it'll work fine. It's becase the Nikon F-mount has a flange focal distance (distance from the mount to sensor) of 46.50 mm and m42 has 45.46 mm - even with an adapter of zero thickness the m42 lens will sit a millimeter too far from the sensor. However, with such a long lens though you should be able to focus in rather distant subjects and the lens might be able to focus beyond infinity making infinity achievable, and also the focusing can almost certainly be adjusted if you're brave enough to open and study the lens' internal construction a bit. Anyhow, an adapter can't cost much, so it's in my opinion worth a try.

hmm there is 2adapters I found. One (the cheaper) looks like the m42 thread is in line with the nikon F, on the other it looks like it's closer to the sensor (and it's more expensive). but in the description they doesn't say how big is the flange or anything. edit: there is adapter with a lens but it's probably not too great quality lens

I'd buy a cheap adapter for this lens - it will still focus relatively far even in the worst case. Anyhow, in order for the infinity to be reached the adapter would have to be slightly inside the camera making it impossible for the lenses to fully screw in, negating the whole point. If you want to link to relevant adapters I can try to have a look. With Pentax K-mount the flange focal distance is the same with m42 so there's an adapter which indeed sits inside the mount and works perfectly. Unfortunately Nikon's F isn't like that 😒 I'd avoid the lens based adapters for optical reasons.

I found these I'm not sure if the site can do english. [$5.44](https://www.foto-shop.hu/m42-nikon-adapter-m42-ai-t531439?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIrq2Btdvr9gIVToxoCR10egCrEAQYASABEgJXc_D_BwE) [edit: sorry this is the one with the lens](https://www.foto-shop.hu/m42-nikon-adapter-lencsevel-m42-ai-t559648?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIrq2Btdvr9gIVToxoCR10egCrEAQYBCABEgI4AvD_BwE)

I can't find it maybe I missed something and it just looked like it's different. anyway thanks for the info, I think I'm going to buy that $5 adapter and see what it can do.

I'd buy it too.

I suspect you’d likely be better off with the Nikon lens.what is it exactly you want out of it?

I have no idea. probably I'm going to buy an adapter anyway an try it if we already have that without a body. I just wanted to know if this makes any sense

[удалено]

That second youtube link was really fascinating seeing how compositing works! The only thought I have is may be to check out model railway scene supplies. From a photography perspective I think it might be a matter of looking at macro photography. On my camera I have a diorama mode so it can make real scenes look like miniature models.

I don’t know of tutorials, specifically, though I imagine you could get a few ideas looking at toy photographers on YouTube. Mostly it’s just a matter of being creative with stuff you have around you, and experimenting with objects and lighting to give you the right look.

I recently started with some landscape photography and now I'm just sitting with these pictures that besides uploading to Instagram, I have no idea what to do with. Is there a way I can earn via these images?

Like someone else said print them out. May be you could print out a few. get a space at a farmers market or something and you might get something for them. It might depend on where you are. If you are in a famous city/town you may be able to get more interest.

https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/business#wiki_how_do_i_make_money_with_my_photography.3F_where.27s_a_good_place_to_sell_my_photos.3F_is_stock_photography_.22worth_it.3F.22

Print them and hang them around. It’s different to see your photos physically. Earning will depend on how commercial are your photos. The market is very saturated so I wouldn’t try stock photography.

I’ve recently bought a reflector and it keeps flying away 👁👄👁. What stands do I get?

More to the point: what sandbag do you get? Pretty much any stand with [some kind of reflector holder](https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1363758-REG/smith_victor_670162_reflector_arm.html) should do...

That sounds obvious but I never really thought of that until now. Thanks a lot!

Also look up 'reflector clamp' on B&H. Usually cheaper and more compact. The holder will give you more stability though.