Sounds great, this may sound stupid/ignorant, but i just simply don't know, hence asking, but can photographers even buy special printers etc to print they're own prints? Or do they just all send them off to companies to print?
and please use their services
What camera and lens?
- Thread starter sisu
- Start date
Sounds great, this may sound stupid/ignorant, but i just simply don't know, hence asking, but can photographers even buy special printers etc to print they're own prints? Or do they just all send them off to companies to print?
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 41,470
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
Keep it simple and don't beat your chest too muchDigital cameras are not as good for manual focusing as film cameras used to be but I do not have a clue about mirrorless hence my question.
Wowza! What a statement!
but you do go on to say that you're not familiar with mirrorless... so I wont have a heart attack! DSLR's (WARNING - General Sweeping Statement Alert...) aren't the best things to focus manually with and infact I'd say it's very difficult but with a mirrorless camera you're seeing a representation of the image on the chip and you can focus at a high magnification. It's like macro at a distance. With the appropriate lens and a magnified view you can focus very accurately on detail you can't even see when using a purely optical system and looking through the OVF. If anyone wants to manually focus I'd say that a mirrorless camera is probably the tool of choice
- Messages
- 16,739
- Edit My Images
- No
I am the last person to recommend as I just have a single speedlite that gets used once in a blue moon. Others like Phil use lighting as required.........but though (did read it right?) you may not feel as I thought that what you are planning is specialised IMO it has facets of very crafty lighting to master internal shadows, external reflections, colour shifts of the subject(s) et al.I look forward to seeing you post the end results
Wowza! What a statement!
DSLR's (WARNING - General Sweeping Statement Alert...) aren't the best things to focus manually with and infact I'd say it's very difficult but with a mirrorless camera you're seeing a representation of the image on the chip and you can focus at a high magnification. It's like macro at a distance. With the appropriate lens and a magnified view you can focus very accurately on detail you can't even see when using a purely optical system and looking through the OVF. If anyone wants to manually focus I'd say that a mirrorless camera is probably the tool of choice
Very interesting indeed
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 41,470
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
Oh i plan on keeping it simple
I don't know if you want to print at home or get someone to print for you. I print at home but it can be an expensive and time consuming thing. One thing I'd urge if you go down the home printing route is a simple thing... always do a small print to check everything is working and the picture is how you want it before you do your large print. My Epson is like highly strung racehorse / mistress... scary, satisfying and annoying in equal measure.
I look forward to seeing you post the end results
Yes, but as i did state earlier in the thread, its only one aspect of somethings im trying to achieve, most likely further down the line? None of us know what's around the corner.
Does your home printing give professional, sellable prints though, and are you limited to the size of prints? Cheers
- Messages
- 25,842
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
Ignoring the previous twaddle.
If you want to create 'snaps' you can shoot JPEG and accept what the camera gives you, send the files to the printer and you're done.
In the old days, the equivalent of that was buying print film and sending it off to be printed.
Enthusiasts and pros would either have chosen a particular slide film for its particular 'look' or spent hours in a darkroom to get perfect prints.
Nowadays the tools are somewhat easier to use, but they still take their own amount of learning.
It's not compensating it's using the appropriate tools to create the end product.
- Messages
- 25,842
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
Some people will put a lot of time and effort into producing their own prints, others will rely on the skill of a decent lab, I'm in the 'one too many skills required ' camp.
Keeping a consistent workflow to the stage of a finished file is enough faff for me.
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 41,470
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
I've never sold a print, my prints are just for me and whoever askes for one
I have an A3 printer so that's the size I'm limited to.
I did once and only once pay for a high street name to do a digital shot A3 for me and all I'll say is mine are better
Printing is however a bit of a dark art and it can take a lot of time and effort to get good and consistent results but at least you are in control and if you want a print NOW you can have it. I'd always advise a small test print first though as paper and ink aren't free.
- Messages
- 25,842
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
Flash.
For smaller subjects you can get away with speedlights.
You'll need stands, brackets, a trigger, personally I'd start with Godox speedlights with an inbuilt receiver, you'll probably be setting them manually, but having the ability to go TTL might be advantageous, I can't recommend models till you've chosen a camera.
For the time being at table top size, you'll probably end up with home made shoots and softening, later you might move into more specialised modifiers.
There's some specialist stuff on the net regarding your particular niche, but the speedlighters handbook is a great introduction to how light works and what you can achieve with speedlights.
B
BrynBoru
Guest
No, they are not compensating for megapixels. MPs are an inherent physical property of the camera sensor which among other factors, determine the degree of resolution of the final image. Film does not "have" megapixels, as they are based on the chemical granular properties of the film emulsion. So you cannot readily compare film with digital in the sense you seem to be asking.
You can use a digital camera without resorting to post processing, if you are prepared to accept the camera manufacturer's built-in image processing. Nothing dictates that you must use LR or PS. However when you do begin to work with digital images and you understand more about e.g. LR, I'm fairly sure you will appreciate that processing various sorts of camera files is nothing to do with "taking the skill away from photography". Film or digital, the basic skills of which you have been given chapter and verse in all the previous posts, still apply, whether or not you use digital post-processing.
- Messages
- 16,739
- Edit My Images
- No
Re: choices of lighting, especially more unusual demands and/or subjects.
I wonder you might get (biased?) insight by talking to manufacturers and/or suppliers to their view of what is applicable to the task?
I have seen Lencarta mentioned as one such source of kit.
I wonder you might get (biased?) insight by talking to manufacturers and/or suppliers to their view of what is applicable to the task?
I have seen Lencarta mentioned as one such source of kit.
WTF. You think my statement is weird and then you go on to say the same thing. I should have written focussing with Digital SLR through the optical viewfinder for you to see what I meant? Doesn't matter.
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 41,470
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
WTF is wrong with you? Have you had a sense of humor bypass and a Victor Meldrew personality installed? I posted in response to you posting...
Keep it simple and don't beat your chest too much
To which I replied... and rather lightheartedly, note the copious smilies and lack of expletives...
Wowza! What a statement!
DSLR's (WARNING - General Sweeping Statement Alert...) aren't the best things to focus manually with and infact I'd say it's very difficult but with a mirrorless camera you're seeing a representation of the image on the chip and you can focus at a high magnification. It's like macro at a distance. With the appropriate lens and a magnified view you can focus very accurately on detail you can't even see when using a purely optical system and looking through the OVF. If anyone wants to manually focus I'd say that a mirrorless camera is probably the tool of choice
I agree with you that DSLR's aren't as good for manual focusing as film era (or other...) cameras with in built focus aids and added the extra about mirrorless being fantastic for manual focusing... so much so that any Victor Meldrew types with hair trigger personalities might upon trying them exclaim "I don't believe it!"
Why do I bother...
- Messages
- 703
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I think "dispute" is your ouevreI'm disputing it
Mr Badger
Didymus
- Messages
- 7,457
- Edit My Images
- No
Wowza! What a statement!
DSLR's (WARNING - General Sweeping Statement Alert...) aren't the best things to focus manually with and infact I'd say it's very difficult but with a mirrorless camera you're seeing a representation of the image on the chip and you can focus at a high magnification. It's like macro at a distance. With the appropriate lens and a magnified view you can focus very accurately on detail you can't even see when using a purely optical system and looking through the OVF. If anyone wants to manually focus I'd say that a mirrorless camera is probably the tool of choice
And what might the subject be doing while you are pressing various buttons and trying to see the zoomed in image on the EVF or LCD screen to fine tune the focus?
I think cameras (and interchangeable lenses) can be likened to golf clubs to a certain extent (the ones you play golf with, not the ones you join to pay golf). There are budget ones, toy ones, beginner's ones, enthusiast ones, professional ones, etc., and you can easily spend more than you need to for the standard of game you might actually play (and you can also end up buying far too many clubs, but that's another story!) However, and perhaps most importantly, there is no one, single, type of golf club that is best to use in every circumstance. You probably wouldn't do very well teeing off with a two handed putter, or putting with a sand wedge (although a world champion might achieve better results doing that than I could using the right club - but then again, I don't play golf!).
It can be the same with cameras (and lenses); one that lends itself to be fine tuned to perfectly focus on a static subject at close range would probably not be the best choice for freezing the action of a goal strike, in perfect focus, at a football match; or capturing the spit-second moment of impact of a high-speed motorsport crash.
From the OP's description, he appears to be wanting to do different things: Capturing splashes (split-second timing to freeze fast motion), still-life shots of light reflecting off ice in water (where micro focus facility might be handy, providing the ice wasn't floating about), and capturing drops of ink diffusing in water (capturing random 3D movements of a subject at relatively close distance) are what I think was given above as some of the potential subjects being considered. If so, micro-focussing probably isn't going to work too well on diffusing ink droplets, unless the exact point of dispersion can be replicated time and time again for as long as it takes to get the desired effect? I've never done shots like that, but I'd imagine the ink in water one would require a good depth of field technique rather than micro focus on an exact point? Then there's artificial/studio lighting - best of luck there, that's an art in itself (and one I've actively managed to pretty much avoid for 30 odd years!). In addition to this, the results need to be able to be printed at a large size, which probably rules out using a 'good all-rounder' type compact camera?
It seems there's a lot to weigh up and consider, and a few different techniques will need to be researched, studied and practiced, but the 'right tools for the job' probably can't be fully chosen (or accurately suggested) until the scope of the tasks involved have been finalised. It's a bit like trying to choose just three or four golf clubs to play a round of golf with; it's possible, but I imagine knowing the type of course you're going to be playing would be important to your choice, and your chances of success.
Last edited:
Mr Badger
Didymus
- Messages
- 7,457
- Edit My Images
- No
From what you've said I think it might be worth a go... and use the resulting photos of them to illustrate your listing of them on eBay!Well my golf clubs are apparently useless for golf (based on recent form), I must admit I'd never thought of using them for photography. Will have to give it a try.
Golf: a good walk ruined!
Last edited:
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 41,470
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
And what might the subject be doing while you are pressing various buttons and trying to see the zoomed in image on the EVF or LCD screen to fine tune the focus?
You talking to me? Ok, I don't know. Do you?
Calling the magnified view up isn't a matter of "pressing various buttons" unless you're a sausage fingered oaf who doesn't know how the camera works. The option of mirrorless was imo worth mentioning and I'll go on to mention the consistent accuracy that's possible from mirrorless (usual caveats apply) and the vagaries of DSLR focus and the issue of front/back focusing and micro adjusting lenses. That's something else the OP should look into.
And of course there's the question of how many perfectly in focus shots either AF or MF could you take with a mirrorless camera while the DSLR owner is sat at home taking pictures of test charts and tearing his hair out trying to MA his lens?
I assume the OP has a brain and can do some research and come to an informed decision now that he's aware of the existence of mirrorless cameras.
Choice is good, Informed choice even more so.
- Messages
- 2,802
- Name
- Glenn
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You've actually raised a good analogy.From what you've said I think it might be worth a go... and use the resulting photos of them to illustrate your listing of them on eBay!
Being good at golf has so much more to do with the skill set of the golfer than the equipment he/she uses. Choosing which clubs to buy initially is a bit of a minefield and for sure going for the same as the pros use would be a bad move for a beginner. Learning to execute the right shot, with the right club at the appropriate time takes time and patience.
Photography is similar, but actually a broader and more complex activity IMHO.
- Messages
- 3,386
- Name
- Tim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Just been browsing through this rather passionate thread.... @sisu it seems like the images you're trying to produce are while possible with basic kit will be fairly challenging to execute and several steps up from beginner level. it crosses my mind that some photography lessons would be helpful to help you through to reach the level needed to be successful as soon as possible?
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 41,470
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
I think for the OP the art analogy might be better.
Art, a painting, sculpture or whatever is something you might be able to tell yourself you've finished (there's sometimes a temptation to just keep fiddling) but you might still think to yourself that you could have somehow done better. And indeed some do produce multiple variants of the same work. Photography is also something that I at least rarely think is perfect. I usually think I could do it better.
Art, a painting, sculpture or whatever is something you might be able to tell yourself you've finished (there's sometimes a temptation to just keep fiddling) but you might still think to yourself that you could have somehow done better. And indeed some do produce multiple variants of the same work. Photography is also something that I at least rarely think is perfect. I usually think I could do it better.
- Messages
- 25,842
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
You're free to believe that.
However, trying to pretend I'm just being contrary for disputing what you said is pushing it a little. What you said is demonstrably factually incorrect. Suggesting it wasn't up for dispute was plain laughable.
But by your admission, you are a beginner, and like I said 'beginners think it's about cameras', I've spent 30 years at this, and 20 of those coaching 'beginners', so it's fair to suggest I have a greater understanding of your viewpoint than you do of mine
Again though, you're free to disagree, but it won't make you correct
- Messages
- 703
- Edit My Images
- Yes
My god, when you fall from that ivory tower it's going to hurt like hell.You're free to believe that.
However, trying to pretend I'm just being contrary for disputing what you said is pushing it a little. What you said is demonstrably factually incorrect. Suggesting it wasn't up for dispute was plain laughable.
But by your admission, you are a beginner, and like I said 'beginners think it's about cameras', I've spent 30 years at this, and 20 of those coaching 'beginners', so it's fair to suggest I have a greater understanding of your viewpoint than you do of mine
Again though, you're free to disagree, but it won't make you correct
Please demonstrate my factual incorrectness.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 25,842
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
Attacking me personally, just because I disagreed with you (when you were factually incorrect) says a lot more about your personality than mine
The ivory tower from where I've stated (in this thread)
- I'm over 30 years in and still learning
- I've never taken an amazing photo
- I'm not a great photographer, still learning my craft.
Nod
Tootles
- Messages
- 47,298
- Name
- Nod (UK)
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yes, MF is perfectly possible with most mirrorless systems and with some, you can see what you'll get from your chosen settings before releasing the shutter (with available light).
- Messages
- 703
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Your people skills need work. Take it from someone who has 20yrs in the creative industry. A creative director, exec producer and art director. Someone who mentors and runs a creative team creating award winning work.Attacking me personally, just because I disagreed with you (when you were factually incorrect) says a lot more about your personality than mine
The ivory tower from where I've stated (in this thread)
So, I'm really full of myself, coming in here, constantly helping people, why can't I just leave it to people who haven't got a clue to just offer camera advice that'll help no one?
- I'm over 30 years in and still learning
- I've never taken an amazing photo
- I'm not a great photographer, still learning my craft.
- Messages
- 25,842
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
Again, attacking me personally because I disagreed with you.
But my people skills are at fault.
Sir I salute you. For you surely have the elf awareness of a teapot.
ancient_mariner
Moderator
- Messages
- 25,398
- Name
- Toni
- Edit My Images
- No
This is probably a good time to post a final note of thanks for the advice given in the thread, then walk away for a bit to digest things. I'm pretty sure no-one started out intending to belittle or provoke, but sometimes text isn't such a good medium to convey intention, and misunderstandings happen.
- Messages
- 703
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You're so right! Experience isn't a license to patronise and belittle.Again, attacking me personally because I disagreed with you.
But my people skills are at fault. [emoji38]
Sir I salute you. For you surely have the elf awareness of a teapot.
Aaaaaaand I just found the ignore button, denying myself access to 30 years of experience begrudgingly given. But I think I'll cope.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 25,842
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
All that knowledge and experience...
And you've got nothing positive to say to the OP?
Your only interaction with the thread is to slag off others.
Good work. Your mum should be proud
- Messages
- 3,628
- Name
- Lee
- Edit My Images
- No
Phil V has never begrudged helping a beginner regardless of how many times he has to repeat himself answering the same old questions. Quite why he bothers sometimes is beyond me.
The OP has been given enough answers to be getting on with, so he just needs to break it all down and re-assess what questions, if any, he needs to ask next.
- Messages
- 703
- Edit My Images
- Yes
What's that cliquing sound I hear?...
- Messages
- 3,628
- Name
- Lee
- Edit My Images
- No
All I can hear is the sound of toys being thrown out of the pram...
- Messages
- 703
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Well give them back to Phil then... It would appear you're his baby sitter...
Last edited:
- Messages
- 3,628
- Name
- Lee
- Edit My Images
- No
sphexx
Likes a dare
- Messages
- 14,819
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
Not sure about this, I've usually found teapots to be very elf aware because otherwise the little boogers are always taking up residence in them, ruins the tea.
- Messages
- 7,572
- Name
- Ken
- Edit My Images
- Yes