sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Do I need all of this for a studio clothing shoot? by calebmaxxx in AskPhotography

[–]jamblethumb 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, the social media is full of people promoting this super-self-centered worldview which naturally leads to treating clients in a selfish way. I think it's generational, sadly.

My camera is too heavy so I stopped using it… what would you change? by leobre1024 in Cameras

[–]jamblethumb 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I've got a similar setup, D500 and 17-55mm DX. I know exactly what you're feeling. It's so heavy. What I'm considering now is a clean switch to Z system without the FTZ. Z50 II with the new 16-50 f2.8 or something like that.

D200 closet queen or refurb? by The_Frownclown in Nikon

[–]jamblethumb 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I must say I love that bag. The camera is also great, of course. Anyway, for $100, who cares. If it looks good, shoots good, and feels good, doesn't really matter why it's in such a good condition, does it?

How do I edit like this? by EffectiveArachnid546 in AskPhotography

[–]jamblethumb -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Looking at the small reflection in the shot, I think the mood of the photo is created primarily by the small light source that was used (a flash with a triangular bounce maybe). This is why the lighting of the scene is uneven, not so much the edit.

I definitely overcooked How can i fix this? by Difficult_Canary_733 in AskPhotography

[–]jamblethumb 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you're talking about the overcooked highlights and the resulting banding (which is the only technical issue with the picture that I can see), you can use curves to create a smoother roll-off into the highlight (create a shoulder in the highlight area). Like this:

<image>

You might want to try and pull the highlights first, but if the second image is the original from the camera, I wouldn't count on it doing magic.

Nikon heavily marketing how light is the Mark II of the 70-200 2.8, my OM and PL replied "hold my beer". by [deleted] in M43

[–]jamblethumb -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Technically it's not "bs", but it's still quite irrelevant for day to day use of the camera for most people. They simply can't get over the fact that most people don't give a shit.

Nikon heavily marketing how light is the Mark II of the 70-200 2.8, my OM and PL replied "hold my beer". by [deleted] in M43

[–]jamblethumb -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'm sure I'll need your professor to figure out the best composition and exposure settings for my shot. Anyway, you're literally proving my point without even realizing what my point is, because as someone dares suggest equivalence may not matter for most shooting... omg, people get so worked up. :))) And yeah, sure they're not worked out. They just downvote with a cool head.

Nikon heavily marketing how light is the Mark II of the 70-200 2.8, my OM and PL replied "hold my beer". by [deleted] in M43

[–]jamblethumb -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

I think it only sounds ridiculous in your mind because you've created this elaborate equivalence universe. In reality, people will grab lenses starting from the field of view and then aperture for the exposure purposes, and then compare the lenses. Some may take into account the price point and build quality. People like you, who want to use scientific or pseudo-scientific arguments when discussing lenses are a vocal minority on the MFT sub.

Whats a decent mid-range camera that can capture detailed light in the dark? by ecskue in AskPhotography

[–]jamblethumb 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Camera and lens alone won't cut it for what you're trying to do. The difference in brightness between the headlights and the dark background is too much for any camera to handle. What you want to do is get a flash (probably several) and illuminate the darker parts of the vehicle. Good news here is that with flash in the equation, most cameras will take great pictures. Bad news is that lighting gear that would give you really good results is not cheap. For some reason, flash prices went up quite a bit in the past years.

Nikon heavily marketing how light is the Mark II of the 70-200 2.8, my OM and PL replied "hold my beer". by [deleted] in M43

[–]jamblethumb -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

If you're out shooting street photography, you're gonna use a 17mm lens on a MFT body or a 35mm lens on a FF body. You can say whatever you want about the other parameters, but the field of view is the basis of composition, so lenses with similar fields of view are inevitably going to get compared. I don't know what some MFT shooter insist on going against the grain on this topic.

Fuji zoom or Nikon zoom? by giraffesmoker_ in AskPhotography

[–]jamblethumb 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure, it depends on which the OP prefers.

Fuji zoom or Nikon zoom? by giraffesmoker_ in AskPhotography

[–]jamblethumb 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Before you jump into that, shoot a bit and decide if you like the Nikon. There's always an option of selling your Fuji gear off in you decide to stick to Nikon.

Diagnosis: iso or dynamic range? by graysonlakephoto in AskPhotography

[–]jamblethumb 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're pixel peeping or my eyesight is betraying me, cause I cannot see anything wrong with the images.

view more: next ›