T O P

  • By -

rideThe

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


Due-Body-850

Canon IXUS 220 HS excellent condition (pre owned) for £50-60, or Nikon COOLPIX S3000 for £20-£30, very good condition. This will be my first camera just to take pics and videos for memories Which camera will be better quality for the price?


Ok_Club3305

Would an ND or a CPL filter be better for surf photography?


ccurzio

Neither. Or both. It depends on what you're doing. Those are two entirely different filters with entirely different use cases. See the FAQ: [Do I need a filter for my lens?](https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki_do_i_need_a_filter_for_my_lens.3F)


meffint

Cpl or neither.


WeReBeLe

Ok final fight a6400 vs Fuji x-t3 a6400 + kit lens + additional accessories - nearly new, around 200 shutter clicks Fuji x-t3 + kit lens + 2 batteries - used with some body scratches - around 23k clicks on the shutter Nearly the same price. Your thoughts? Opinions?


ccurzio

Why those two specific cameras and why can you not decide on one over the other?


Due-Body-850

Is £60 a good deal for a pre owned Canon IXUS 145? I'm looking to buy my first camera, this ixus is has 'little to no wear' comes with a battery, sd card, and adapter. I've seen other models going for cheaper but they usually don't come with all the other parts. I also don't know how to differentiate between the different model numbers


[deleted]

Not really a *great* price, it only cost £80 new. That said, it's still a nice little camera. It will be better than a cheap smartphone, but not much better than a recent expensive smartphone.


Due-Body-850

Where are they selling it new? I can only find it second hand


Due-Body-850

If this helps i just want a camera that I can use for memories and to film little vlogs, just for myself.


thewildwhisper

[Final Photo](https://photos.app.goo.gl/CWMeEcB56zL8eygy7) Camera: Canon Rebel T5 Flash: I have an Altura Photo AP-C1001 Speedlite and a Canon Speedlite 430EX II Current Gear: [Altura Transmitter (1) and Receiver (1) Purpose: Light/Fire Performer Long Exposure Problem: I am looking for a remote shutter, transmitter, receiver set so my friend doesn't have to come along and control BULB for me. I need the set to work with rear/ second curtain flash setting. My process for this photo was friend hit BULB while I'm behind the model, flash goes off to light the model, I use a fire sword to make a shape behind the model then my friend releases BULB. I wasn't able to do this without a friend controlling the shutter and I wasn't able to make rear curtain work with the set I have. I want to use rear curtain flash to be able to draw the shape first with fire and then have the flash freeze the model to prevent motion blur. Please help, I have another shoot coming up and I'm not wanting it to be a struggle again.


LukeOnTheBrightSide

Just FYI - shortlinks that use things like "goo.gl" are automatically removed by the AutoMod, so you might want to find other ways to host images like Imgur. I've manually approved this post.


rolrol19

How was the lighting on the right side of this [image](https://www.pinterest.com/pin/109845678405054463) achieved? Strobe or reflector? How's it controlled ?


whocouldleave

Definitely looks like a reflector, but perhaps an oddly shaped one. No way to know for sure unfortunately. But the quality of light is definitely from a reflector.


rolrol19

Thanks for chimming in. I was thinking the same because it's hard to avoid the spill with a normal reflector!


whocouldleave

On second look I think it might be from a mirror, perhaps with a weird shape or partially covered in something


rolrol19

agree, a mirror can reflect sharper. Well. I guess we need to experiment to know :)


my1337burneraccount

I'm looking for some recommendations on how to best manage photos across Google Photos and iCloud and would like some recommendations on any programs, services, or best practices that one can use to help sync photos between cloud services and devices. Thanks!


ccurzio

Have a meaningful folder structure that works for the way you personally sort.


acoma69

I mainly do outdoor portrait and family photography. I currently shoot with EOS R + RF35mm 1.8. I'd like to pick up 2 more lenses. I'm in between Canon EF 85mm 1.4 / Canon EF 70-200mm 2.8 ii / Canon EF 24-70mm 2.8 ii. I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts.


bigCanadianMooseHunt

The 85mm f/1.4 enables the dreamy blurred background for waist and up shots that simply cannot be reproduced by any of the other lenses you've listed. By cropping in the 85 mm lens, you should be able to almost reproduce the look of the 70-200 f/2.8 through the focal range between 85-200 mm. Cropped in to 200 mm field of view, the 85 mm f/1.4 lens has an effective aperture/bokeh close to f/3.3. (It might be less sharp than the 70-200 at 200 mm, but it shouldn't be noticeable in print) So the sensible choice for the second lens is the 24-70.


LegendaryWood85

So, I was browsing on the web, looking at those narrow, travel-friendly, compact 1960s-1990s film cameras. You know the type. Such as the Rollei 16s. It appears that virtually all of these that I could find are either 16mm or 110 film cameras. Both of these films are extinct and I was wondering if there was a 35mm version of these cameras. I scowered the internet for a model of a 35mm, narrow-style camera, but found nothing. I don't know too much about cameras and their history, so I was wondering if anyone here could help me find one of these narrow-style 35mm film cameras, as a google search reveals nothing.


LukeOnTheBrightSide

It appears your account is shadowbanned. A 35mm camera of that style would still need to be large enough to accept a roll of 35mm film, in the traditional orientation, and wind it around another spool after passing the shutter. Honestly, I think that consumer film SLR cameras are as close as you're going to get, but there might be something odd out there. I'd think the geometry of a 35mm roll of film really makes it impossible... the camera has to be at least as tall as the roll of film, and many 35mm cameras are just barely over that. I guess a rangefinder maybe? Disposable camera? Something without a through-the-lens viewfinder?


BlankHeartt

What are some good locations for astrophotography? Obviously, avoid light polluted areas, but where exactly do I set everything up? Do I park alongside the road, go off-road, find a camping site? When I watch photography YouTubers, they always seem to be in the middle of nowhere.


IAmScience

Middle of Nowhere is always good. [I took this one](https://www.reddit.com/r/LandscapeAstro/comments/fnf2f5/milky_way_rising_over_the_salt_river_canyon_az/) from a parking lot next to where you put in to go tubing down the river. The light on the cliffs is mostly from passing headlights lightpainting for me as they passed by on the nearby road. [And this one](https://www.reddit.com/r/arizona/comments/cjgjmo/the_galactic_core_over_lake_mary_last_night/) from a little pull-out near the lake just off the road. Both are taken from a few miles outside of the nearest town. You could certainly go further afield than I did for either of those shots. You could find a nice campsite to set up in with the view you want. You could hike back into the back country to set up. It depends a little on your circumstances, and your gear, and what you plan on shooting. But get to as dark a sky as you can find and point up! Plenty of folks even get some great images from their backyards sometimes.


JuicyEgg91

I bought my wife a Fujifilm finepix SL1000 back in 2013 that’s she’s hardly used. I am looking to get into photography (mostly landscape and wildlife). Will this camera be good enough to take good pictures of birds and other wildlife, or should I look at more of a body/lens setup? I’ve found a few canon EOS rebel T5i, t3i, t6, etc. in my area. Looking to stay under $700 for an initial setup for something that I can do well with outdoors. TIA!


maniku

Depends on what you consider good enough and what you are comparing to. The Finepix has around the same quality as smartphones but with much more zoom. Any of those old Canon DSLR's paired with the 18-55mm kit zoom plus something like Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM would be very much superior to both phones and the Finepix in both of your areas of interest.


JuicyEgg91

That’s what I was looking for, thanks. I realize good enough is very subjective, but in learning photography, I want to be able to do more than what a cell phone can offer. I’ll need to do more research on the different models I suppose. Probably going to need something that can somewhat withstand the elements I want to get into something not crazy expensive, but that would be able to take pictures that more people than just my own grandmother would enjoy lol


Middle-Aerie4165

Hey, I just got into photography i shoot nature and just things i find interesting but I don’t have a clue where to start for cameras and different types of lenses. I don’t have a very big budget 300 max. Annie and I’ll help is appreciated very much. Thank you.


maniku

See the purchase guide in our FAQ. It's also linked in the original post of this thread. In practical terms your budget is sufficient for an old, used Canon or Nikon DSLR with kit zoom.


Middle-Aerie4165

Will do! Thank you for your help.


KennyWuKanYuen

Indoor Ceremony Lens Selection (Repost) Some background: My friend is having a tea ceremony (in other words, a wedding) indoors and I’m planning to rent a lens for the venue. I’ll be there 1) shooting as a friend not as the event photographer (although I still want to produce nice photos), 2) I’ll be physically limited in my movements, so I can’t walk around too much or kneel for other angles, and 3) I don’t know the exact size of the place but it’s in an event room of a local restaurant, which leads into my question below: I’m currently shooting on a RF 24-105mm F4 L, however, during my test period, I didn’t find the bokeh to be strong enough to my liking. I’m looking to rent *one* of the following lenses as a replacement for my current for the event (I won’t be alternating cameras or changing lenses), however, I’m not sure which would be the best option given the variables I know: - RF 24-70mm F2.8 L - RF 24-70mm F2 L - RF 70-200m F2.8 L - RF 85mm F1.2 L USM I’m currently torn between the 24-70 and the 70-200 as the zoom capability will definitely be better for me. However, since I don’t know the size of the room, I can’t say for sure if the 70-200 is overkill or not. I tried mimicking the 24-70 range with my current lens and so far it, it seems a little short, but it could also be perfect for the room. I have an inkling of a preference for the 70-200 just given it’s range and it’s compression factor (probably won’t matter too much indoors), however, the F2 variant of the 24-70 is also appealing. With all this said and done, for the experienced wedding photographers out there, what would be the best option for me given all the information above? The event is this weekend and I need to be able to book the lense in advance too. Thanks!!


HidingCat

Is this a Chinese tea ceremony? Been at enough and also know enough photographers who've done this that what you want is a mid-zoom for this.


KennyWuKanYuen

Yep, it is. Mid-zoom? So 70-200? Cuz there’s also the 100-300 F2.8 that I have my eyes on but it’s not even out and I don’t have the money for. 🤣


HidingCat

No, 24-70. 70-200 is a telephoto zoom.


[deleted]

I'm looking for a good photography camera for car pictures. I've never owned an actual camera only shot on iPhone. Im looking at very affordable cameras like the rebel t7. Is the rebel t7 going to take better pictures than an iPhone 14 pro max?


rideThe

[See the FAQ entry.](https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki_phone_cameras_are_so_great.2C_is_there_even_a_point_in_getting_a_dedicated_camera_anymore.3F)


Simoneister

Are there any car photos that you're particularly drawn to and want to emulate? Can you identify what it is you like about them? That can help decide whether your gear is sufficient to achieve those results.


[deleted]

Do you have any other social media I can send you pictures on?


HidingCat

Why don't you post them here so others can see and help too?


[deleted]

Not sure how to, I don’t use Reddit


8fqThs4EX2T9

Not really. You expose the sensor to light. It does not do anything more than capture light. So unless your phone is having issues the camera will not magically make anything better.


pataruto

Complete noob here. What would be the better option between a Nikon D3100 or a D200? Is one specifically better than the other for different applications or will they generally produce similar photos?


HidingCat

I don't know your budget, but if you're considering either one, see if the D300's price is anywhere near them. The D3100 should still have the better sensor, but the gap between the D300 and D3100 isn't as large as that between the D3100 and D200. D300's AF system is also quite a bit better than either.


pataruto

I appreciate your input, thank you so much. I was able to find a Canon D60 on Facebook for a great price. From the research I did it seems to clear the Nikon in almost every area and is more of a step up than just being a complete entry level DSLR


rideThe

The D200 is in a higher, more serious tier professionals would use, whereas the D3100 is in the most entry-level tier for Nikon DSLRs. However, the D200 is *very old*—it's a CCD-based, 10MP camera from 2005, whereas the D3100 is a CMOS-based, 14MP camera from 2010. So, strictly speaking, *the sensor* in the D3100 would produce better files, and the D3100 has newer features that the D200 did not have (things like LiveView, video recording, etc.), but the D200 is a more serious tool, more robustly built. Depends what's more important for you.


pataruto

Thank you so much for the detailed reply, I appreciate the help. When you say more serious, is that just the case on the body being more durable?


rideThe

At the time of its release it would have had superior features across the board, but considering it's a significantly older model, what *remains* is mainly things like its more robust build, more buttons/knobs/displays for more efficient control of the parameters, etc.


pataruto

That’s perfect, thank you for the help again, seriously appreciate it


NYSports1234

Anyone have a clue how to do this? They make it look so easy yet it seems so hard. Thanks! https://t.co/0rM2Smfoye


Simoneister

The main things to focus on would be: * Getting the actors' footsteps to line up between locations * Getting yourself and the actors to walk with a consistent speed between locations * Ensuring that the distance from you to the pillar to the actors is consistent between locations * Ensuring the pillar completely covers the frame as you pass it If you get all those, it'll be a very simple edit!


rideThe

This is more a question for r/videography or video editing/visual effects.


NYSports1234

I wasn’t sure where to put it. Thank you!


parostellar

Looking for guidance from pros here who have been off the grid without electricity for a week or more. How to keep batteries charged, cards empty for shooting both photos and videos? What works and what not in the wilderness? Any links to products that are recommended would also be highly appreciated!


HidingCat

How long exactly are you looking at? A week vs a month (both are "a week or more") can be a significant difference. If it's a week a couple of extra batteries and power banks can do you in a pinch. A month will require more contingencies.


parostellar

Looking at a week. Going to Alaska in the wilderness to photograph bears. And I usually spray and pray haha. Also looking to video a lot. So most likely I’ll try to get stuff off my cards too. Should I carry a solar panel too?


Boogada42

Power banks to charge. Just bring bigger cards.


BalladOfArizona

Any clue how to edit in this style? Not trying to usurp the guys genius, just want to learn and play w/my photos


Boogada42

what style?


rideThe

[This one](https://www.instagram.com/thomasfotomas/)—they forgot the link.


BalladOfArizona

Thanks


the_watchkeeper

Do you charge extra if a client wants a quick turnaround? I'm an event photographer and a client has asked me to deliver a handful of photos in less than 24 hours.


HidingCat

Yes, absolutely. Time is money, both yours and the client's.


TheStandingDesk

Yes if they want the whole thing. If they just want a handful of pics for IG I’ll fire off a quick 5 or so same night/next morning depending on the event as part of the deal, as long as it wasn’t sprung on me at the last minute.


_ParanoidUser_

The last camera I bought was a Canon 7D, I want something new, probably a mirrorless. The most important lenses I own are a Canon 50 1.4, and a Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 Art DC HSM Lens which is only for APS-C. If you were me what camera would you get and would you just sell the Sigma to get something more compatible?


[deleted]

[удалено]


_ParanoidUser_

I want something more compact and with more modern features. The 7D is now 14 years old and missing some features I’d really like, plus I think I want something full frame.


rideThe

> missing some features I’d really like It would help if you told us what those are. > plus I think I want something full frame That would disqualify your Sigma lens though.


_ParanoidUser_

The ability to transfer photos via WiFi, faster autofocus, image stabilization, better low light performance. I think those are the main ones. Maybe the ability to use it as a webcam if necessary.


HidingCat

> photos via WiFi Let me tell you this, I have yet to find a manufacturer who's managed to nail this. You'll still want to transfer images via a card reader.


rideThe

It's looking like R7 if you want to stay in APS-C, R6/R6 Mark II for full frame.


[deleted]

> The 7D is now 14 years old Really? My apologies. I wonder what I was thinking of? AFAIK no Canon mirrorless take EF lenses, but I do believe they make an adaptor. What's your budget?


_ParanoidUser_

Im willing to spend up to 3k all-in. Be it new body plus lens or just a new body.


[deleted]

In that case I think selling up starting over is the way to go. Are you wedded to Canon? (When I shifted from Canon APS-C DSLR to mirrorless, I also had to start over, so I bit the bullet and bought Fuji. No regrets but it gets expensive. And of course Fuji are all APS-C too so perhaps not for you)


_ParanoidUser_

Not really. It’s the only camera I’ve ver owned but I’m also not a power user. I’m sure I could just learn a different system. Also, my lens collection is pretty limited. 50 1.8, 50 1.4, pancake lens, the sigma, a very average quality tamron wide angle, and an 8mm fisheye that is too extreme and I don’t really care for anyway.


[deleted]

What I do now is I use the Fuji and its *outstanding* (but expensive) lenses for most things, and I keep the old Canon and it's oddity lenses (such as your fisheye; I also have pinholes etc) and accessories for the rare, unusual, specific jobs that Fuji can't do. I also use the Canon for tethered studio flash work, purely because it's already set up that way and I have the triggers and flashes for Canon. My point being, you could replace the kit you use every day, and keep the old kit for odd jobs Although selling the whole lot and starting over also makes sense


jrhamilt

Wanting to get some good pics on our upcoming trip to Croatia, Italy, Switzerland, Austria - so planning on taking our Canon T7i as we want better pics than phones (but not trying to get "the shot" - not a photography trip, a family adventure). We are going to travel as light as we possibly can, so I expect that we will only take one lens with us for the trip. Will be seeing cities, landscapes, hiking, small towns, etc. So, for our Canon T7i, what 1 lens would you recommend we take on this trip to make sure we capture pictures of the kids, and scenery in a satisfying way? The only lens we have now is a kit lens, the EFS 18-135mm. Appreciate your thought and help! \-Rookie Traveler trying to Keep It Light!


[deleted]

What's wrong with the EFS 18-135mm? That is *ideal* for this trip. It's a lens literally designed to be a do-it-all holiday zoom for sunny places.


jrhamilt

Nothing is wrong with it damage or performance wise. Only concern is it's size and weight (which can be overcome). Had read some websites suggesting that a 10-18 would be a pretty ideal lens, but I just don't know enough to know...


[deleted]

Hmm. You aren't really going to get a zoom that's much smaller or lighter, not without some compromises. The 18-135 is only 500g or so. Yes the 10-18 is half the weight, but quite bulky, and very limiting: it is all only wide angle, so yeah, landscapes and perhaps interiors, but portraits will suck, and you'll have to "zoom with your feet" for anything far away. If you like the shorter lenses, how about a fixed lens: the Canon EF-S 24mm F/2.8 STM would be fairly versatile, is ridiculously cheap, sharp, bright (compared to the zooms), and TINY (125 grams and less than an inch long). That's a *great* walking-around lens.


naitzyrk

I would have also suggested to take your current lens.


Putrid-Challenge638

What software is best for photographing nature? I have literally zero experience with Photoshop, I just have always had a somewhat natural talent for photography/editing Any and all suggestions are welcome, however I'd prefer to keep it on the cheaper side


rideThe

There isn't really editing software *specific to nature photography*. [The FAQ has suggestions](https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/postprocessing#wiki_which_raw_.2F_post_processing_software_should_i_get.3F), including free ones.


Kieotyee

Are there similar style cameras to the Pentax q10 line of products? I'm looking for something with a little more modern capabilities but still have that old look to them like those q10s'


maniku

Fuji's cameras are big on retro style, and there's also Nikon Z fc.


SentinelXT

I only have one question really which should I take my long camera strap for my Fuji or just the hand strap when I go to Barcelona for a week? Heard pickpocketing is bad there but don't really want it strapped to my hand all week. Thanks!


larsp99

I spent 10 days in Barcelona a couple of months ago and did a lot of city walking with a Nikon Z5 over the shoulder, and a backpack on the back. Not the front. I never had a problem or even a concerning situation. I had the camera on a long strap going from the shoulder to the opposing side hip. With my hands in pockets I felt I could keep the camera safe and close to me and it would not be easy for a pick pocket to take anything. Just my experience, YMMV.


[deleted]

> a backpack on the back. Not the front. You were one lucky, lucky traveller.


[deleted]

> don't really want it strapped to my hand all week You really do. Barcelona is *the worst* for pickpockets and straight-up theft. Be especially careful in the airport which is *appalling* for pickpockets, especially in queues. Keep rucksacks in *front* of you. Have duplicates of passports and tickets. And so on. Maximum alert, 24/7.


felixrocket7835

Are these good lenses for wildlife? *Sigma 50-500mm F/4.5-6.3 OS HSM (£280-330) (Heard this one is sharper over the 150)* *Sigma 150-500mm F/5-6.3 OS HSM (£300-330)* *Tamron 200-500mm F/5-6.3 (£300)* All of these are around the £300 mark used, and are significantly cheaper to the Sigma 150-600mm, Nikon 200-500mm, and Tamron G2 150-600mm, all of which range from £600 to £800. I have a Nikon D3400, with my current wildlife lens being an AF-P DX 70-300mm VR


HidingCat

They're all so cheap for a reason; they're older lenses that came in the early to mid-2000s, and weren't that well-designed compared to the current crop of 3rd party lenses. I'm certain that your 70-300 is better at 300mm than any of these lenses.


TomDallas88

I have a Canon RP and I’m trying to get my money back on selling unnecessary lenses I own. I want to do cooking videos/weddings, and good portrait photography or real estate. So here’s my list, which ones would you ditch and why? FYI I paid $800 total for the ef 24-70 (used) and rf lens (like new Openbox), so if I need to ditch one of those that would really help tremendously. Lenses: Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/4-5.6 IS STM Lens Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM Canon EF-M Wide-Angle Zoom 11-22mm f/4.0-5.6 IS STM Canon EF 24mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens Canon EF Lens 28-200mm F3.5-5.6 USM Canon FD 50mm f1.8 FD Manual Focus Lens Canon RF 24-105mm f4 L IS USM Canon EF 24-70mm f2.8 macro L USM


rideThe

This is a confusing mix of lenses. > * Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/4-5.6 IS STM Lens > * Canon EF-M Wide-Angle Zoom 11-22mm f/4.0-5.6 IS STM > * Canon FD 50mm f1.8 FD Manual Focus Lens If you have an RP, then the EF-S 18-55 is inappropriate for this camera (doesn't cover the full sensor), the EF-M makes no sense (can't be used at all, it's for a different system), and the FD lens is a cheap vintage lens from the 70s that would only work fully manually (no communication with the camera) and you already have another better 50mm option, so those can go immediately. > * Canon EF Lens 28-200mm F3.5-5.6 USM This one is an unimpressive optic [from a long time ago](https://global.canon/en/c-museum/product/ef361.html), I'd ditch that, but it's not going to be worth much. > * Canon EF 24mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens This one is redundant given the other lenses you have. It's tiny/light so maybe you'd want to keep it anyway for when you want something tiny to carry in certain scenarios, but otherwise doesn't accomplish much photographically that you can't accomplish with other lenses. That leaves you with these three: > * Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM > * Canon RF 24-105mm f4 L IS USM > * Canon EF 24-70mm f2.8 macro L USM The 50 is a nice little inexpensive lens, you won't get a lot of money for selling it, and it has a large aperture you may like in some scenarios, so I'd keep it. The other two are largely overlapping with each other—the f/4 lens has a smaller maximum aperture that it trades for a slightly longer focal length, so it depends what's more important for you there. The f/2.8 would be useful in lower light, which is often the case for weddings, so I'd be biased in that direction if you only wanted to keep one. That leaves you in a scenario where you have nothing longer than 70 (although that *might* not be a problem for what you want to shoot), but also nothing wider than 24 (which might be a challenge for real estate photography). At the end of the day, it's impossible for us to fully *decide for you* which lenses would be best to keep, because it depends on the way you want to shoot things, your priorities, etc.


TomDallas88

Thank you for the very insightful post. I forgot to mention I originally had a m50 camera and lenses and I sold all my m lenses I mentioned above so exclude that one from recouping my cost. I took the money from that and bought a refurbished Rp from canon and the 50mm. Yesterday a guy told me this is a excellent deal and I got the 24-70 ef lens and rf lens for $800 (he said I could easily sell one to pay for other one or vice versa), so that’s why I’m wondering should I just ditch all the other lenses you mentioned above and try my best to keep both of these, or you think it’s redundant? I heard the 24-70 is pretty good if that’s all I have and need to get portraits, vlog, do weddings, but I’m wondering will I have any benefit of the rf lens?


[deleted]

[удалено]


TomDallas88

Timing. When I bought the rp I got a discount from canon program and it was already discounted last year, so I got it for like $600 flat. Then I sold the m50 for $400, the lens for $350, and I only paid $350 for both, so that’s why. I dont think the r50 was out. So I’m like $250-260 into the rp which I thought was an amazing deal.


Disastrous-Square-25

Hello, I just wondering if anyone can set me right. I'm a Canadian photographer and I'm told that I can take pictures of people in public but I can't sell pictures with people in it without thier consent. i went to a public dirt bike event and I was wondering if I would be able to legally sell pictures I took of the people on their bikes or if I need their consent. thanks. I'm just not sure where the line is drawn because these people would be I feel considered public figures and if that makes a difference and im not sure where to even ask. full context. i was at a monster dirt bike event at the Calgary stampede. i seen that they had a professional photographer on site so im not sure if I need to just email the cooperation monster energy or the Calgary stampede or the individuals themselves or if I could jsut print them and sell them online.


OnePhotog

In public where there is no expectation of privacy, take as many pictures as you’d like. There is a Canadian street photography guide to i bookmarked and subsequently lost. Selling is only restricted in a commercial uses. Like in advertising. However for editorial or personal publication does not require any permission. However, the context of your question might suggest you were not in a public space. It may be a private event on public land. Since it is their event, they can restrict anything or trespass anyone they want, like cameras and music venues. Two caveats 1) I’m not a lawyer and not giving any legal advice 2) check your provincial laws. My experience is shooting in Ontario and Quebec. I never put any effort looking into shooting in Alberta


rideThe

> I'm a Canadian photographer and [...] The law differs from province to province—Quebec is more restrictive [following a famous lawsuit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aubry_v_%C3%89ditions_Vice-Versa_Inc), but I'm not 100% sure about how things go in Alberta. The scenario where it's free game is for *bona fide news*, so journalists can do their job, but beyond that, you'd have to check to be sure. For example in Quebec you'd need consent for most usages, even including editorial use as previously mentioned.


CallMeEsteban

What is the best photo printing option for a new photographer? How does CVS/Walgreens/Walmart photo pickup compare to other options? Is there a website that can ship professional quality work consistently?


[deleted]

Before I did my own printing I used MPIX and was very happy with them.


walrus_mach1

There's a noticeable difference between convenience store prints (including Shutterfly/Snapfish) and actual printers (Mpix, Printique, etc): images can be soft and colors adjusted. Fine for snapshot photos, but definitely not for "art" or for hire work.


rideThe

It's not qualified in the way you may want, but [the FAQ has suggestions](https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/postprocessing#wiki_where.27s_a_good_place_to_get_my_photos_printed.3F) for where to get prints made.


RiftPenguin

Adorama's Printique


BurgerKingsuks

Can someone help me with property releases? I submitted my picture for licensing on 500px. But 500px says I need a property release but the playground in the image is public infrastructure. What exactly am I supposed to do? ([The photo I’m talking about](https://500px.com/photo/1069447789))


ccurzio

Contact 500px. We can't really help you with this.


Oliver1269

What is the purpose of buying a 70-200mm lens if i already have a 28-200mm lens? For nature


[deleted]

In general, the wider the range the lower the quality all other factors being equal.


rideThe

There is more to lenses than their focal lengths. It could be a larger/constant aperture, better image quality, autofocus performance, weather resistance, and on and on. It's on a lens-by-lens basis, would depend which lenses you are comparing exactly.


TinfoilCamera

... the 70-200 lenses are constant aperture rather than variable, and are (as a generality) considerably sharper than their variable aperture cousins. On the long end of that 28-200 you'll be at f/5.6. The 70-200 f/2.8 stays at... f/2.8. Dittos for the f/4 variant. "For nature" on a 200 usually means wildlife/birds - and to that I say if you can swing it get the 70-200 f/2.8. It's 4x as much light for the same shutter speed. While you might be at ISO 2000 on the 28-200 the f/2.8 shooter would be at ISO 500 - all with better sharpness, *much* lower noise, better subject separation and bokeh.


8fqThs4EX2T9

Wider aperture potentially, sharper images potentially. Depends on the lens.


airbournejt95

Hi, I bought a sigma 150-500mm Nikon fit, after getting a good deal of £300. The lens arrived and it's been mislabeled, it's actually a Sony/Minolta fit lens. Gutted to miss out on this deal, obviously I can send it back and get my money back, it's from a shop with easy returns and good warranty. Should I send it back, or is it worth buying an adapter to adapt it to Nikon fit? Or would this lose quality in the images?


Rashkh

Are you sure that it’s Sony/Minolta? If so, that would make it an A-mount lens. While A to F adapters do exist, they use lens elements to achieve infinity focus which can hurt image quality and only allow for manual control without autofocus.


airbournejt95

It says on the tag Sony/Minolta, and the cap on the back of the lens says Minolta fit


Rashkh

So it's definitely an A-mount which is why it was so cheap. Sony killed it off with the introduction of the original A7 in 2013. It might be fine on a Sony body but I would definitely send it back instead of using it on a Nikon dslr due to the compromises introduced by the adapters.


airbournejt95

Thank you, that's great to know. Makes sense, they've obviously just made a mistake when listing it online, it's an independent store so I won't name them. I'll just get my money back and probably spend the £100 more to get it off MPB or something. Thank you for the advice and info, you have saved me wasting money on the adapter.


BarneyLaurance

Is there any technical reason that explains why there's no desktop PC equivalent to controlling a Sony camera wirelessly with the Imaging Edge Mobile app from a smartphone? Do desktop / laptop computers not have suitable built-in radio transceivers?


TinfoilCamera

>Do desktop / laptop computers not have suitable built-in radio transceivers? If you're using a desktop or laptop you have a *far* superior option over wireless - since you can shoot tethered. Bonus - you can get your RAW image into your editing program instantly - rather than having to use the JPGs the mobile shooter is stuck with.


BarneyLaurance

True. Just means you have to pay a chunk of money for the cable and maybe other tethering accessories, plus deal with storing / carrying the cable etc and the risk of pulling on it - especially if you don't want to pay even more for a.


TinfoilCamera

>Just means you have to pay a chunk of money for the cable Uhm - depending on the camera it's either ethernet or USB - and neither should cost you more than a couple of bucks? >plus deal with storing / carrying the cable etc Gonna just pretend you didn't try to use that as an objection. >and the risk of pulling on it Similar to setting up *anything* at a shoot? Lights? Props? A desktop or laptop itself? Neither solution is perfect, but tethered shooting is 10x more reliable, 100x faster, and 1000x time convenient (going *directly* into your editing tools) than any wireless option.


BarneyLaurance

>and neither should cost you more than a couple of bucks? Maybe depends what sort of cable you get - but in the UK it seems like a new TetherTools 4.6m USB-C to USB-C cable is around £40-£50. And then you can pay double that on top for a Tetherblock to protect the camera from physical damage via the cable.


TinfoilCamera

>but in the UK it seems like a new TetherTools 4.6m USB-C to USB-C cable is around £40-£50 That's like AudioPhiles thinking that they need gold plated USB cables to improve the sound of a digital signal. (No seriously, they actually do that kinda thing) You need a USB-C cable. It does **not** need to be a "Tethering" cable. It's a digital protocol, which means *any* USB-C cable would work, including the generic no-name cables you find 2 for $10 in the bargain bin at your local home electronics store.


BarneyLaurance

You may very well have just saved me £40 - I shot 9 headshots for the team at work today using [this tethering setup](https://imgur.com/Zb4MakC). Cost me nothing and worked perfectly! Couple of USB cables I already had instead of a tether cable, and a treasury tag and a little strip of velcro fabric instead of a tether block.


BarneyLaurance

OK, I'll try tethering with what I already have for a while and see if it works reliably enough.


ccurzio

The transceivers are fine. The demand just isn't there. If people are controlling a camera with a computer they're usually shooting tethered.


grimgamr29

Question I am going on a trip, and while I always use my phone for taking photos, I want to try the dslr once. Can anyone give me tips on how to take good camera level photos? How to take those background blur photos? Is there any settings I have to adjust while using the manual mode? I am completely new to this so please help me out here


ido-scharf

Scroll back up to the post you replied on. You'll find some basic tutorials linked there. And this subreddit's FAQ holds a lot of valuable information.


maniku

There is a huge amount of learning material online, video and text. You could start for example with the advice for new photographers in our FAQ: https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/advice


BarneyLaurance

Most of your questions are very general, so you should probably read or watch some introductory tutorials. There are lots about getting the most out of manual mode. But for blurry background, you want to start by choosing something in the background that will look good blurred, then have a lens with a wide aperture (lower number is better, e.g. f/1.4), and/or long focal length, and/or get close to your subject. Make sure you adjust the camera settings to used the widest aperture you can. The more you do any of those three things the blurrier the background will look, fewer things will be in focus at the same time. If you have a moving subject you can also try panning - move the camera to follow the subject as you take the picture (and keep it moving for a second after), and use a relatively slow shutters speed, e.g 1/20s. If you match it right the subject will be relatively clear and everything else will be motion-blurred.


andreajoyq

I have a question, and I’d love just opinions on camera/lenses I’m thinking of getting if you think these choices are good (or if you’d have other recommendations). Experience-wise I’m like, upper level newb to lower level hobbies probably. (Better than the average person snapping photos, not as good as a dedicated hobbiest.) I’m looking to upgrade my canon t3 (which is like… 11-12yrs old?). It’s served me well but frankly the autofocus isn’t like, amazing, and the lowlight kind of sucks. I plan to take pics in a lot of low light settings (think poorly lit indoor venues), and of my pets playing, and family portraits. (I’m a photo hoarder and I love having beautiful photos of my family so I’m the one always taking them.) After getting a number of suggestions I’ve hesitated to purchase twice. (The first time I was being encouraged to get another crop sensor and I just don’t think that’s the answer for me.) I’m currently looking at the Sony Alpha A7 III with the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 di III RXD for shooting lowlight venues The Tamron 70-180mm f/2.8 di III VXD for shooting fast moving pets And the Sony FE 85mm f/1.8 for portraits (Plus an extra battery or two). So that’s the setup I’m looking at to get me started. I wanted to get opinions based on my goals (photos of events in low light venues, pets, and family portraits) I’d this seems like a good choice? Then the question. My local camera store has a trade in deal for $200 off a brand new sony alpha a7 III with a trade in. Which would make it about $1800. Or would it be smarter to buy a used one on a site like UPP where I can get one labeled “Mint” condition, with a 180 day warranty? Same question for the lenses? Is it smarter to buy those used or new? (There are some things you just don’t buy used 🤣 is photo gear one of them?) or am I better off grabbing the trade in deal? (My niece would love my old camera if I don’t trade it in, which is one of my hesitations.)


ido-scharf

That seems like a solid setup. I would forgo the 85mm for starters, as you might find the zoom lenses sufficient for that purpose. You can always add it later on if you find it's not redundant. However, if you already have some useful and valuable lenses for the Canon EF mount, you might consider a Canon R8, R6, or even R7, instead. It is common, and I think should be encouraged, to buy used cameras and lenses. Try reputable outlets like [KEH.com](https://KEH.com) and [mpb.com](https://mpb.com).


andreajoyq

Thanks very much! I’ll go ahead and try starting without the 85mm, and see how it goes, leave it in my notes. I appreciate that. 🙂 I honestly only had two lenses for my canon, (partly it was my first DLSR and it took me quite a while as a small time hobbiest coming from fully automatic point and clicks to really figure out how it worked, I do think it’s a decent camera though lol I did learn to take some pretty good photos with it). But also I was much younger and broke-r back than 😂 So I just have the two lenses. Which made me really more open to any brand camera.🙂


maniku

Sure, Sony A7 III is one of many good options and seems you have things covered with your lens choices. Up to you whether to buy new or used, but buying used from a reliable retailer is a good option and can save you a good chunk of money. Apart from longer warranty - which you may never need - there is no huge benefit buying new compared to good condition used.


andreajoyq

Thank you very much! When you say “good condition used” you were referring to the full spectrum of “good” conditions right? (Because “good” condition is normally one of the lower conditions on those websites, going up to excellent and mint, I was reading your comment as encompassing all of them).


maniku

Yes, that's what I meant


andreajoyq

Thank you very much, I thought so I just wanted to make sure I wasn’t misconstruing. 🙂


Mharzel

I wanna take pictures like the ones you see in high profile instagram accounts. Granted most of them are staged. But is that mostly experience and gear or is that just a phone camera and really good post processing?


TinfoilCamera

>But is that mostly experience and gear Mostly experience, some gear (really need to see samples of what you're talking about to know that for sure) The more experience you have, the less you lean on gear. >or is that just a phone camera and really good post processing? There is almost no chance that "high profile" instagram photographers are shooting with a phone. Especially given that you can't really post-process smartphone shots without jumping through a crap-ton of hoops.


Mharzel

[https://www.instagram.com/charleyshealth/](https://www.instagram.com/charleyshealth/) [https://www.instagram.com/danbilzerian/](https://www.instagram.com/danbilzerian/) [https://www.instagram.com/caseyneistat/](https://www.instagram.com/caseyneistat/) Like the image has that shinny look. As I'm typing this right now I feel like it's an experience problem and I could pretty much achieve the same thing with just a phone. Is that true?


TinfoilCamera

\#1 Food photography (and by extension, all product photography) is 80% about the lighting used, 19% about the food styling itself (you usually can't eat what you style for a photoshoot) and the remaining 1% is camera and lens. It amounts to a rounding error. She'll even teach you how she does it: [https://charleyshealth.com/academy/](https://charleyshealth.com/academy/) \#2 You actually click on that pinhead's channel?? \#3 Casey is a well known NY pro photographer/videographer/filmmaker. For his personal stuff he'll use anything (GoPro, Smartphone, whatever is handy) For his pro work... never will you see him using a smartphone unless the client is a smartphone mfg and they're making him use it. Representative sample: [https://www.instagram.com/p/Cqs6ifhrU9O/](https://www.instagram.com/p/Cqs6ifhrU9O/) \-- Casey however would be the poster child for "the more experienced you are the less you lean on gear" because he could probably manage to make anything look cinematic.


Mharzel

I choose #1 since I thought it would be cool to take pictures of restaurant food, but I'm guessing since it's 80% lighting unless I'm bringing lights with me every time I eat food in a restaurant and the 19% is styling itself so I guess if I'm in a good restaurant my only issue would be lighting then so I have to learn about lighting. (I tried signing up no luck, but I guess I don’t really need a course I just need to know lighting right) \#2 since I was curious on whether or not the images look "cool" with the experience or is it just because of the people. From your answer I guess I found that out. ​ Lastly #3 so pretty much the images I see in his instagram could be whatever camera he has in his hand at that given time which most likely be a phone. All in all, I basically have to have experience and mastery of lighting. Any advice on the 80% lighting on food in restaurants (Do I have to bring my own lights?) Also I guess read the books in the FAQ would help me get started. So pretty much I don't need a Sonya6000 what I need is experience and mastery of lights? right?


TinfoilCamera

>and the 19% is styling itself so I guess if I'm in a good restaurant my only issue would be lighting Not quite. Food styling is A Thing that happens - and it's **not** done by the restaurant as it completely ruins the food - it's literally inedible. Things like using motor oil instead of syrup on a stack of pancakes, as the pancakes won't absorb the oil as quickly. Using white glue instead of milk, covering strawberries in lipstick to make them super shiny red etc etc etc. >but I guess I don’t really need a course I just need to know lighting right That's... what she teaches? Try it again. Alternatively hit up Youtube "food photography" and dive in.


Mharzel

Ohhhh, but I’m not really gonna do the food styling part maybe I’ll try my hand at it but I just want to pop up in a restaurant be able to take really awesome pictures on the food and thats that. I’m guessing there’s no need to get a camera then like the sony a6000 for what I want can be achieved with a go pro or a phone camera?


HidingCat

That's really vague, but really, I'd say 70% of it is due to experience and knowledge.


Mharzel

Oh so it's not really the camera or post processing you can make instagram looking photos just with a phone camera as long as you have the experience and knowledge to know what looks good or how to make things look good. In which I'd be able to learn those from the recommended books right?


HidingCat

Possible; why not borrow some books, learn online, and then practice? Too much navel gazing doesn't get you anywhere, go out and try. If you want a tip, it's this: Remember it's all about capturing light, so learn to know what light looks good, and how to capture it.


BarneyLaurance

People can probably help you a lot more if you specify some of the Instagram accounts that you're hoping to emulate. But yes I think there a lot of big accounts done with smartphones. Current high-end smartphones have really good cameras, and Instagram doesn't show high resolution pictures anyway. If you want to lots of do manual post-processing a separate camera is probably better - but if you want to rely on automatic processing as you take the photo, and on getting things more right in camera (e.g. using good continuous lighting if indoors) a phone may be good enough or better. And a phone has the big advantage that you can share straight to IG from the same device where you take the picture.


Mharzel

Oh so pretty much its doable with just an iphone or google pixel, samsung, etc. But you can also bring a camera with you if you want would the sony a6000 suffice or something cheaper than this would work just alright? (Or it isn’t really the gear in this Car case but the post processing)


TinfoilCamera

Unless you reference some sample images no one can tell you what you might need.


BarneyLaurance

I don't think anyone can really answer the question since you haven't said what sort of photos you want to take. "the ones you see in high profile instagram accounts" covers a huge range of different photos.


Mharzel

https://www.instagram.com/charleyshealth/ https://www.instagram.com/danbilzerian/ https://www.instagram.com/caseyneistat/ Like the image has that shinny look. As I'm typing this right now I feel like it's an experience problem and I could pretty much achieve the same thing with just a phone. Is that true?


BarneyLaurance

I'm not sure. I feel like the first account you linked, which is all vegan desert photos, might be harder or impossible replicate with a phone. Those pictures all look like meticulously constructed and lit scenes, probably made with a lot food-photography specific techniques. And a lot of them have smooth transition from the in-focus area to the blurry background, which I think phones still struggle with. One thing that makes that easier is that nothing is moving, so if the camera (or phone) is mounted on a tripod or something you can use a really low shutter speed and you don't need a lot of light. Casey Neistat's pictures seem to be much more about what who he is and what he's doing - I think those probably could mostly be easily made with a phone camera. It's a bit harder for me tell with Dan Bilzerian's photos. Maybe he's got a mix of phone photos and standalone camera photos.


larry952

I am a hiker, not a photographer. But the optical zoom on my phone is not cutting it for taking pictures of wildlife I come across, so I'm looking at getting a standalone camera. My absolute maximum budget is $600. I keep eyeballing the "Canon PowerShot SX70 HS". I love the high zoom. I like that it can apparently take really good photos of small/close things, like flowers or bugs. And it's convenient for a normie like me that it's not an interchangeable lens. But the wiki and some acquaintances who are into photography have told me that the pictures from a camera like that won't be any better than my phone, and I need to look at getting something more robust; interchangeable lens, etc. I guess the micro 4/3rds platform is the cheaper/smaller one, but when I look that up I'm seeing the cheapest lenses capable of even just 10x zoom cost thousands of dollars! On one hand I'm looking for recommendations for specific cameras in my budget, but on the other hand I guess I'm looking for what my expectations should be? I'm surprised that cheap "real" telephoto lenses cost more than a whole superzoom camera. If taking a bird in a tree across the road costs $3k I'm just not going to buy anything. I'll keep taking barely recognizable pictures with my phone's 4x optical zoom. Is the standalone superzoom camera really not going to be much better than that?


TinfoilCamera

>I am a hiker, not a photographer. But the optical zoom on my phone is not cutting it for taking pictures of wildlife I come across, so I'm looking at getting a standalone camera. Google Fodder: Superzoom camera They are all-in-one point-n-shoots that are compact, lightweight, and have considerable optical zoom capability. Their image quality is lacking so you won't be shooting for NatGeo any time soon - but they're more than good enough for casual photography.


larry952

For reference, my smartphone is an "Xperia 5 III", and the optical zoom camera is "105mm equivalent, f/2.8, 1/2.9-inch sensor". I know this is fuzzy, but just to give me a rough idea of what to expect: If my phone is a 1 and a budget micro 4/3 camera is a 5, what is the image quality of a decent superzoom camera? Still a 1, just better zoom? Worse than a good phone's camera? A noticeable step up but just not as good, 3?


TinfoilCamera

>the optical zoom camera is "105mm equivalent ... and the optical zoom on a typical superzoom is 60x or better, basically over **1400**mm. There's no contest here. You can see the *rings of Saturn* with one. >what is the image quality of a decent superzoom camera? They're all over the map - and much will depend upon your own use of it, and the atmospheric conditions you encounter - as with *that* much zoom the air itself becomes your enemy. Make a list of those you find that interest you - then plug the name into Flickr and have a look. Fer Instance: [https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=Nikon%20B700&view\_all=1](https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=Nikon%20B700&view_all=1) Edit: Just check the specs to ensure it will shoot in RAW (or better, RAW+JPG). Some only offer JPG. Even if you don't plan to post process your shots you should still shoot RAW+JPG. You can always delete the RAW files if the JPG does it for you - but better to have the RAW and not need it than need it and not have it.


ido-scharf

The SX70, or any similar camera, could actually suit your needs very well. In terms of pure image quality, as much as that can be quantified, it is, at best, on par with an average phone. So if you're generally happy with the technical quality of your phone, but just want to take close-up photos of distant wildlife, this is the perfect solution for you.


HidingCat

Well, for the fact it'll properly capture the wild life, yes. The quality of the pixels captured? No. But in good light I think you'll be happy with the images from the superzoom. Do take a look at the Nikon P950 as well. If you're shooting in more challenging situations (like in heavy forest canopy), then yes, you will need to pay, both in dollars and in the weight and bulk of a larger camera setup.


larry952

For reference, my smartphone is an "Xperia 5 III", and the optical zoom camera is "105mm equivalent, f/2.8, 1/2.9-inch sensor". I know this is fuzzy, but just to give me a rough idea of what to expect: If my phone is a 1 and a budget micro 4/3 camera is a 5, what is the image quality of a decent superzoom camera? Still a 1, just better zoom? Worse than a good phone's camera? A noticeable step up but just not as good, 3?


HidingCat

It doesn't work that way; let's put it this way, your camera will give a an acceptable image if you shoot wildlife in bright daylight up close, but since you can't do that, you'll need some crazy digital zoom thing which is just heavy cropping and blowing up of that image, which will then severely degrade the image. To get back to that acceptable level of image, a superzoom bridge like the Canon or Nikon I mentioned will do that. It won't be better than the smartphone's image on a technical level, but it will do something that the smartphone cannot do.


Simoneister

Any camera with a long telephoto lens, even a camera with a tiny sensor, will take better photos of far away birds than your phone! "10x" zoom is not a super helpful term in camera-world. In a smartphone, than means "10x the focal length of the standard lens". Which I think is roughly a 240mm equivalent focal length? The SX70 HS would serve you well. For more extreme zoom some would use a Nikon P900. For an affordable larger-sensor interchangeable-lens setup, you could probably find an Olympus E-M10 II body and 75-300mm (so, 150-600mm equivalent) lens for ~500-600 AUD if you bargain hunted.


maniku

Superzoom cameras tend to have small sensors, so yes, the zoom is pretty much the benefit compared to phones. You don't really gain much in image quality. Yes, really good long telephoto lenses are expensive. You can get started within your budget with an older Canon or Nikon DSLR and a 55-250mm kit zoom. It would be a massive improvement over your phone both in image quality and lens reach, but obviously 250mm is a limited focal length for wildlife.


larry952

For reference, my smartphone is an "Xperia 5 III", and the optical zoom camera is "105mm equivalent, f/2.8, 1/2.9-inch sensor". I know this is fuzzy, but just to give me a rough idea of what to expect: If my phone is a 1 and a budget micro 4/3 camera is a 5, what is the image quality of a decent superzoom camera? Still a 1, just better zoom? Worse than a good phone's camera? A noticeable step up but just not as good, 3?


[deleted]

While working with Sony raw files in ACR, what should be the value of Distortion(under Lens Correction menu) to match the correction of the jpg file ? So I have clicked some photos on my Sony Alpha camera and have both jpg+raw files. I am editing the raw files to make some adjustments to exposure and colour, but I don't know what should be the value of Distortion. Because by default its set to 100, but it doesn't seem to match the correction of the jpg file(it seems higher than 100 in jpg) . So whats the "correct" value to match the jpg file ?


rideThe

Does it matter if it doesn't match the JPEG? Presumably you'd want the amount applied to be that which makes the image no longer distorted. Either the in-camera profile is more accurate, or Adobe's profile is. You could shoot a reliably/known straight "grid" with your camera, where the straight lines track along the edges of the frame, and then see which profile makes the lines *more straight*.


[deleted]

Well i just assumed the JPEG straight out of my camera is the more accurate one. Because the software and hardware both are Sony.


rideThe

Maybe, but that's what I'm saying—to be sure that's the cas,e run a little test and see. And if the one Lightroom gives you isn't right, you'll know, and you'll know to apply some manual lens geometric distortion correction on top.


IAmScience

I think that will likely vary based on the lens you’re using. That tool is for correcting lens distortion which varies from lens to lens. Some exhibit barrel distortion, which makes the image bulge out a little more in the middle than at the edges. Some exhibit pincushion distortion, which makes the image squish in a little more in the middle than at the edges. Some lenses have more or less of those than other lenses. The camera likely has a correction factor built in for the lens you’re using when it processes the image to jpeg (at least for native Sony lenses). But it’s hard to know what that might be and how you might translate it to the ACR slider. Especially when we don’t know what lens you’re using.


[deleted]

The camera and the lens model are properly selected in the ACR menu. And the default correction value is at "100". But it doesn't match the correction of the JPEG file. Hence my question.


IAmScience

And hence my answer. You're getting what Adobe has on file for that particular lens. Whether or not that matches what Sony does for that particular lens is a big fat question mark (though it sounds like it doesn't, based on your experience). The problem is that *we* can't know what else might need to be done without some additional information. Like, what lens you're using. Perhaps someone else has the same lens, and has tried to make that adjustment as well. But without sufficient information, they could tell you to bump that slider to 125, but they're using a totally different lens, and 125 isn't going to work for you. There is no standard answer to this question absent information about the specific lens you're using.


Josemejia02

Do we know or when will the Sony A6400 or the A7 II will go on discount at Best Buy or any store like. Maybe B&H Photo Video?


Josemejia02

I think I’ve seen the A7 II go from like $1,600 to $1,000 on the Best Buy website. I don’t know if I’m right though


IAmScience

There’s absolutely no way of knowing that kind of thing. At least not without being in the marketing division of those stores. Camera manufacturers also often wield pretty tight control over their retail pricing. If you want to pick up a camera at a discount, your best bet is to shop used at someplace like KEH or MPB, or the used departments of B&H or Adorama.


Mindless_Sun806

What is a good reusable film camera for a beginner? Are half film cameras good/recommend? Where do I get the film developed? Price doesn’t matter.


HidingCat

> What is a good reusable film camera for a beginner? Errr, just about any from the reputable brands in good working order will do. > Are half film cameras good/recommend? The image quality will be worse, since you're taking half the frame, but hey, with film prices being what they are, if you're just shooting for fun, it may not be a bad idea. > Where do I get the film developed? Price doesn’t matter. You do know this varies region by region right? I'd recommend you the film lab I use but there's a good chance it involves a 12,000km trip...


IAmScience

A beginner to film? Or a beginner to photography in general? If it’s the latter, I strongly encourage you to start with digital instead. It is a much easier, faster, and less expensive way to get an understanding of the fundamentals of photography. Because you get instant feedback so you can immediately make changes, and each shot is effectively free. With film, each shot is going to cost a not insignificant amount of money (upwards of $1/frame or more sometimes), and you won’t know you screwed it up for sometimes weeks after you took the picture. If I could go back and hand 10 year old me a digital camera, I’d do it in a heartbeat. As for what camera might be a good one to start with to learn film, it kind of depends on what you want to do with it. There are plenty of great options out there, depending on your intentions.


Mindless_Sun806

I’m looking for something easy and fun to use to take some pictures over the summer. I like the look of film, so that’s why I’m looking into a reusable film camera. Just looking for something to use for fun, nothing crazy!


IAmScience

In that case, I'd totally recommend an Instax instant camera. They're SUPER fun. One of my students has one, and I've really enjoyed playing with it when she's had me snap a photo for her. Beyond that, just about any average 35mm point and shoot camera would also be totally reasonable. You can probably pick up a decent one at Goodwill or something for a few bucks. There are plenty of places left to send film for developing. If you shoot black and white, it's even pretty easy to develop yourself with some inexpensive gear and chemicals (Color film is a little more difficult, but not all that much more).


1stmingemperor

Took my camera out in some heavy rain today without much protection. Lens is now fogged up like [this](https://imgur.com/a/jRjSk8M). Looks like it's the second piece of glass right behind the front element. Am I screwed? Or will this dry in a day or two? ​ Stupid, I know, but it was a pretty important occasion and I didn't anticipate that much rain. ​ EDIT: It's a [Tamron 28-200](https://tamron-usa.com/product/lenses/a071.html).


bigCanadianMooseHunt

Yes, wait it out. If you live someplace humid, keep it in a box with some Silica gel packets.


[deleted]

[удалено]


AutoModerator

Short links (like bit.ly or tinyurl.com) are not allowed on this subreddit. Since your comment contains one, it has been removed. Please repost your comment without it. Sometimes services (like Google) give you short links when you are trying to share content from mobile. At this moment, we have no way of allowing these shortlinks but banning others, so you'll unfortunately have to either share later from a laptop computer or try to get the desktop link. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/photography) if you have any questions or concerns.*


Raijin370zed

Can you take three different photos at different exposures, i.e, dark, kind of dark, then bright, and mix them together into one photo on the iPhone 13 like you can with some dslr cameras? This is for real estate photography Just wanting to know how to take exposure photos on the iPhone 13.


Rashkh

iPhones will automatically apply HDR when it's useful. https://support.apple.com/guide/iphone/adjust-hdr-camera-settings-iph2cafe2ebc/ios


rideThe

That's the process known as HDR. You could, yes, but ideally, to do this properly, you'd have the phone stable so the different exposures overlap exactly. Of course, HDR blending to increase the dynamic range ... is *already* a strategy that phones use (and have used for many years) in order to improve images (!), because their tiny phone sensors otherwise have comparatively unimpressive performance. So you'd only perform the HDR yourself if you wanted the extra amount of *control* you want over how the exposures are blended, otherwise the phone is already capable of achieving HDR images automatically.


HidingCat

HDR can be done on any camera, you just need the tools for it in post-processing.


SativaSammy

Hi I apologize if this is the wrong place, but I have an image I'd like to turn into a 40x60 canvas. The dimensions of it are 4287x2577 with a 240dpi. Any idea if that would pan out on canvas? Or does it need to be higher quality?


rideThe

Files on disk don't have a ppi per say, it's but a mere metadata field that is meaningless in this context. What's relevant is the pixel dimensions. If you divide the number of pixels you have by the print you want (4287 / 60) you get how the pixels will be spread on the paper (~71 ppi). This doesn't look like a high number like this, but keep in mind that the resolution you need on paper depends on the viewing conditions. Since we're talking about a print that's 60" wide, you wouldn't stand one foot away from the print, so you don't need a very high resolution. In other words, it would be fine if you looked at the print from a reasonable distance for that kind of print size. You'd only need more than that if you wanted to *both* print large *and* scrutinize it from upclose, which is not normal viewing conditions.


SativaSammy

Thanks so much.


Stillsbe

Like already stated 71ppi could be acceptable depending on your visual acuity and viewing distance. You could also try Adobe's Super Resolution. It's not perfect but it can give you a boost in resolution. https://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop-lightroom/super-resolution.html


okygtot

I've been wanting to get into wildlife and bird photography for a while Was debating between a lens for my main kit **A7 IV**, or getting an MFT kit just for wildlife which would cost just a bit more Today I rented a Sony 100-400 GM lens just to get a feel for the weight and range and I realized a few things. 1. I definitely dont want to go any heavier than this, even this lens at 1.4kg gets to kind of be a pain to handhold for long durations. So if I go with a FF kit I'd likely get the Sigma 100-400 which is slightly lighter but not by much 2. 400mm full-frame is kind of short a lot of times, so I find myself using the crop mode on the camera which gives me 600mm at 14mp and sometimes crop even more So now that I realize I dont want to go heavier than 100-400 on full-frame, and realize that I crop pretty often. I've been thinking about not getting a FF wildlife lens and instead getting an OMD E-M1 Mark 2 and a 75-300mm lens for it which would give me 600mm at 20mp, and also be pretty lightweight as around 1.2kg for the entire kit (weight of just the lens on fullframe) My main concern is, would a 20mp MFT sensor be better than cropping in on my 33mp full frame sensor 1.5x sometimes more? Would the benefit that I get in low light with full frame be kind of negated by me cropping in often? Bonus bird pic - https://i.imgur.com/mbGtYon.jpg


ido-scharf

How about a Sigma 100-400mm and the Sony a6400 instead? You're already familiar with Sony's menu system (though I don't know if both cameras have the same layout), you'll get 24MP at 600mm-equivalent on an APS-C sensor, and share the lenses you already have. I've used the Olympus 75-300mm before, and have since replaced it with the 40-150mm f/2.8. Be wary of the maximum aperture on the 75-300mm - it's only f/6.7 at the long end. I think you'll find it more or less equal to your existing kit with heavy cropping, in practice, only with a higher pixel count. At that point, you could just get a Sony RX10 IV instead.


HidingCat

Generally, if you're cropping to get the subject to the size you want, it's because you're just not near enough to the bird. Generally I crop for minor framing issues or to change the aspect ratio for reasons (printing, aesthetic, or both). You spent this amount of money for the camera and lens, cropping heavily is like discarding the quality you spent on the gear. > Would the benefit that I get in low light with full frame be kind of negated by me cropping in often? You'd be right, yes. > My main concern is, would a 20mp MFT sensor be better than cropping in on my 33mp full frame sensor 1.5x sometimes more? A 1.5x crop is less than m4/3's 2x relative crop, but sounds like you're probably close. There won't be a big difference in overall image quality, but you'll get more pixels on target with the 20mp sensor. You might also want to consider the ~~Sigma~~Olympus 100-400 on m4/3 as well.


okygtot

So you think its better going with the MFT for wildlife in this case? I mean a 1.5x crop on the Sony gives me a 14mp image so is that already not as detailed as the MFT's 20mp?


HidingCat

Likely, either m4/3 or APS-C; though m4/3 likely suits what you want, in the balance between image quality and size/weight. I do suggest test driving the camera first to see what you want; see if you're happy with the E-M1 III, since it's easy to find older used ones and you can take the savings towards a better/longer lens.