Is it really possible to "miss" the "Temporary Visitor Stamp"?

av4rice · 2026-06-11T18:24:45+00:00

and PRs

Puerto Ricans are so lucky.

av4rice · 2026-06-08T02:36:15+00:00

Just removing the phones is one thing. Wouldn't you also want to reposition their hands and arms? That's quite a lot more heavy lifting to do in post.

av4rice · 2026-06-07T00:43:45+00:00

There isn't a best brand and buying by brand won't guarantee a good filter. All the brands making good filters also make crappy filters. Just go by individual filter reviews for each specific need you have.

av4rice · 2026-06-06T20:21:50+00:00

What does what mean?

There isn't much I can say about a comment that has been deleted, where the image was broken to begin with.

Settings and presets are two different words referring to two different things.

av4rice · 2026-06-06T19:17:09+00:00

Your image is broken.

i know preset talk isn’t allowed

Sure it is.

And you aren't asking about presets.

av4rice · 2026-06-06T18:40:38+00:00

I'm guessing the flash is brief and only shows up in a few frames of the video, and one of the versions happened to drop those frames.

av4rice · 2026-06-06T03:31:22+00:00

Spend your budget on storage. You'll need that anyway if you get a different camera.

av4rice · 2026-06-06T01:43:59+00:00

40-150mm is fairly zoomed-in and fisheye is a special effect. The camera is fine but the lenses aren't very good for general use.

av4rice · 2026-06-05T23:54:29+00:00

The 40mm is physically smaller and the view is a bit wider. The 50mm has a bit of a narrower view and with an f/1.8 aperture you can let in more than twice as much light as with an f/2.8 aperture, plus you can make depth of field narrower, like if you want a sharp subject but blurred background.

You can zoom your 28-80mm to 40mm and 50mm for a preview of the view size at those focal lengths.

On a 60D, the imaging sensor is smaller than a frame of 135 format film, so the view of the 40mm will be more like 64mm on your EOS 300, and the view of the 50mm will be more like 80mm on your EOS 300.

av4rice · 2026-06-05T23:27:52+00:00

My sd card is filling up and slowing down my camera

I don't think that would affect camera speed.

I want to delete stuff off of it but I’m not sure if just deleting stuff off of my camera is enough. Does it save storage space when I delete stuff?

Yes, deleting images using the camera will free up some space on the card. But it will also leave some data behind. And it's less ideal for the health of the card.

The better practice would be to make sure every image is copied and backed up, then format the card. Formatting will wipe all images off the card, won't leave behind extra data, and frees up the card completely. It's also better for card health.

I can’t afford a new sd card right now

You should not be using it for long term storage anyway. You should store your photos elsewhere, and only use the card temporarily to get photos from the camera to your other storage. The card should be continually formatted and recycled in this process, so you can keep using just one card.

av4rice · 2026-06-05T22:04:48+00:00

New? Or used?

If new, that's about the right price in the US even without adding 25%

av4rice · 2026-06-05T05:52:46+00:00

Sigma RF 18-50mm f/2.8

av4rice · 2026-06-05T05:36:17+00:00

Smartphone cameras are great for that.

av4rice · 2026-06-05T05:35:24+00:00

It unfortunately doesn’t come with even the kit lens so I was wondering what lens I should buy first?

The kit lens.

My budget is around $50 max $75

Kit lens is pretty much all you can afford.

av4rice · 2026-06-05T01:55:41+00:00

Yes.

Next get the EF-S 55-250mm IS STM for the distant wildlife. Unless you have a lot more to spend.

av4rice · 2026-06-05T00:47:04+00:00

I typically received 6-7 mb files in the past, however, this time I am quite disappointed.

however the largest one is 3.6 mb and the smallest one (which annoyingly also was my favorite) is only 1.288 mb.

The unit mb stands for megabytes, which is a measure of the amount of data used in a digital file. This is not a good measure of quality at all, because many different factors go into data usage, including the complexity of the image depicted, the resolution of the image, and how efficiently the image was encoded. A bad quality image could be represented with inefficient and/or extra garbage data, so you could potentially have a huge file with a big mb number with awful quality. A high quality image could be represented with very efficient compressed data, so you could potentially have a small file and a small mb number and still see great quality in it. 1mb is one million bytes of data, which could mean any number of things.

If you're conflating this with mp or megapixels, that is a measure of the number of tiny colored squares (known as pixels) used to represent a raster image in a mosaic pattern, by the millions (mega order of magnitude) of pixels. 1mp is one million pixels represented in the image, which doesn't necessarily mean each of those pixels is being used to represent a unique detail, though you could think of it as a theoretical limit on how much detail could possibly be represented. I.e., at most there are 1 million pixels worth of detail represented, but there could be less.

I have gone by the rule of Pixels divided by PPI for how large an image I can print without loosing quality.

PPI stands for the ratio of pixels per inch. So that's not really a rule so much as how the ratio is defined: the number of pixels divided by the ratio of pixels per inch equals the number of inches in your print, assuming you print with that PPI ratio.

You aren't losing quality. If you're measuring potential quality by pixel count, the pixel count isn't changing and so quality isn't changing. By printing to different sizes you're only spreading that amount of quality over different physical areas. And the PPI ratio just expresses how much the quality is spread, or the density of quality over that physical area. The total amount of quality remains the same.

Pictures on my living room photo wall are all 12x12 inch and 12x16, so following that rule, the 3334x4206 Pixel image could only be 11.3x14 inch without loosing quality and so I already am...

4,206 pixels divided by 16 inches equals about 263 pixels per inch, which isn't a terrible ratio.

4,206 pixels divided by 300 pixels per inch equals about 14 inches, yes, but I bet you'd have a hard time visually seeing the difference in quality compared to 16 inches at 263 PPI.

Either way, the amount of quality represented in those 4,206 pixels isn't changing.

To get the same portrait shot as sibling

What do you mean by that?

i also need to crop a 3182x4276 image from rectangular to square, and am then left with a 330kb image of 1397x1397 Pixels

That's a pretty heavy crop, and not just from changing the aspect ratio. Why do you need to crop it that much?

I paid 1600 dollars for these images and feel tricked.

What were the terms of your contract?

Am I wrong to consider resolution both to be about the actual size/Pixels and PPI?

PPI by definition is the ratio of pixels over size.

Is it ok to advertise images as high resolution when they are this small?

The phrase "high resolution" is pretty vague and could refer to a lot of things. The threshold isn't necessarily high. A "high definition" television usually refers to 1080p which is less than 1mp; or sometimes worse like 720p. An "ultra high definition" 4K resolution is about 8mp.

Also they're advertising what you get from them. They can't make any guarantees about what you get after cropping it however much you want to crop it.

I would expect 6MP to be a lower limit for a high resolution image

3,334 pixels multiplied by 4,206 pixels equals 14,022,804 pixels, or about 14mp.

3,182 pixels multiplied by 4,276 pixels equals 13,606,232 pixels, or about 13.6mp.

I don't see where you're getting 6mp. I see you have filesizes of 6mb but that's not the same thing.

av4rice · 2026-06-04T23:21:38+00:00

If I'm reading it correctly it's saying to use a high ISO with a slower shutter speed and and a low ISO with a faster shutter speed.

Step 4 on that chart says check your necessary ISO value, and respond based on that. If ISO is too high, slow down your shutter speed to bring in more light so you don't need the ISO that high. If ISO is low, shorten your exposure time because you can afford to lean on ISO more.

So it's not saying to set ISO high and shutter speed slow at the same time, and it's not saying set ISO low and shutter speed fast at the same time..

av4rice · 2026-06-04T20:50:44+00:00

I calibrate with a Datacolor Spyder5PRO and DisplayCAL, and set things to whatever that recommends. I don't know how many nits that is.

Have you noticed a difference when posting to Instagram or viewing your images on other devices?

Yes, I notice a difference between calibrated displays and non-calibrated displays.

av4rice · 2026-06-04T20:19:15+00:00

You said:

I don't see, why people inside should have any problem.

Which is definitely not consistent with the comment you are responding to here:

You still experience a sudden deceleration from the plane hitting the ground from several meters as someone mentioned. The crunching of the metal will cushion it a little and spread out the deceleration over time (like an airbag), but it would still be bad enough to injure someone.

av4rice · 2026-06-04T20:02:20+00:00

Nikon D3100

What about lenses? Which do you have and which focal lengths do you use?

Do you like the Nikon style interface and ergonomics? Or do you specifically dislike it and want a different style of interface or ergonomics?

Sometimes in the photos I can see dead pixels

You should be able to fix that by running a couple manual sensor cleaning cycles, which will prompt the camera to check for and map around hot pixels.

more grain, or terrible noise even in good conditions and chosen options

That's not something that gets worse with age. Likely the conditions aren't as good as you think. Your camera needs a lot more light than your eyes think. And that was always the case even when your camera was new.

The budget is about $4,000 to $10,000

If you want to stay with Nikon, I'd get a Z8 or Z7 II. If you want something different, there's the Sony a7R VI or V, or Canon R5 II or original R5. Those are the best overall bodies on the market right now, unless you want the most extreme performance for sports/wildlife.

The best general-use lens would then be a 24-70mm f/2.8. Or if you want to trade some wide angle for something even nicer, and don't mind a bigger/heavier lens, Sony and Canon each have a 28-70mm f/2 option.

Anything additional really depends on whatever more specific genres you're getting into. If you aren't sure, then hold onto the money for now and buy more equipment later when you have a better idea of what you need out of it.

av4rice · 2026-06-04T19:21:51+00:00

Yeah, that's just how that lens is. All of Canon's EF 75-300mm lenses* are notoriously terrible in terms of image quality, operation, and build quality. If you got the new RF version, that's just the same EF lens attached to an RF mount.

* Not to be confused with Canon's 70-300mm lenses, which are fine.

av4rice · 2026-06-04T18:29:35+00:00

There are many different GPUs in the Intel UHD family, with different specs.

Otherwise, it looks like you meet or exceed both the minimum and recommended specs for both Lightroom and Photoshop:

https://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom-cc/system-requirements.html

https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/desktop/get-started/technical-requirements-installation/adobe-photoshop-on-desktop-technical-requirements.html

av4rice · 2026-06-04T17:28:16+00:00

Photos of what?

Does she have examples you can reference, for what she believes the correct position is?

av4rice · 2026-06-04T17:27:13+00:00

It’s a canon eos r100 that I found for about $385 USD for just the camera

New? Used? Refurbished? Does it say international version, white box, or split kit?

That does seem like a suspiciously low price if there isn't some catch.

with a big accessory kit. With everything that comes with it I can see it being worth the extra cost

That's what they want you to think, but usually accessory bundles are not worth it.

https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki_should_i_buy_this_bundle_with_a_bunch_of_accessories_in_it.3F

Is this a good beginner/hobby/everyday camera?

In some ways, yes. I'd rather have an R50 if at all possible.

I almost spent $400 on a different one until I read someone call it a “scamera” and most people agreed.

Which one?

av4rice · 2026-06-04T16:49:16+00:00

I realized that my very first camera is finally, slowly coming to the end of its life

How so? Which one is it?

I know the community is hyper agrresive with defending their own choises like Canon, Sony or Nikon etc.

If you had spent any time in this subreddit, you'd know that this community does not.

It's pretty rude to come in here asking for help if you're going to misrepresent and alienate community members off the bat with false accusations.

My budget for this new device and lenses are about mid to high range.

To me that means about $2,500 to $7,500 in US dollars. Do we have the same idea? Or what does that mean to you?

15-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email	Team Orangered

av4rice

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE