Photography tutorials/advice

[Anonymous No.8175572]

I haven't seen one of these threads before, so let's try something new. Post links to your favorite photography tutorials. Got any general advice for your fellow aspiring con photogs? Stick it here.

It seems like there's a handful of experts floating around CGL, so let's try to have a positive photography thread for once.

[Anonymous No.8175589]

When starting from scratch, I enjoyed Gina whatsherface's packet of ebooks on Digital Photography School, and an ebook called "Shooting in Shitty Light."

[Anonymous No.8175591]

>>8175589
These? http://digital-photography-school.com/author/gina/

[Anonymous No.8175597]

>>8175591
Yeah, she has a four-pack of portraiture books on that site, as well (I think they sell as a packet for $50? They were a lot cheaper during a before-Christmas sale). But they're REALLY basic, like "this is aperture, shutter speed, and ISO. Be socially competent with your models. Find half-decent light for your model. Here's how to pose a model." And weirdly, at the same time, they're incredibly un-basic, because she talks about set-ups with multiple stand lights. I guess what I'm saying is that they were useful to me before I ever held a camera, but I could have gotten that information anywhere else if they hadn't had Christmas pricing when I wanted them.

[Anonymous No.8175666]

>>8175572
>Got any general advice for your fellow aspiring con photogs? Stick it here.

I don't schedule shoots, so all of my photos are stick & move. Advice from that type of shooting style:

-Don't gearfag. You'll only carry around extra weight you won't use.
-Full-frame DSLR with a nifty-fifty (50mm f/1.4) and an off-board flash is all you really need.
-Neutral density filters for outside shots are a must.
-Bounce the light whenever you can.
-Become very familiar with adjusting ISO and getting a proper exposure as quickly as possible so cosplayers aren't standing there while you fuck with your shit.
-Don't be shy about asking for pictures.
-Don't be shy about asking for a few different poses.
-Don't be shy asking the cosplayer to move a bit so they are positioned favorably (read - keeping bright sunlight out of their eyes, etc.)
-Keep spare batteries and SD cards. Nothing sucks worse than your batteries dying or having no room left on a card.
-Keep a spare point and shoot or 2nd body/lens. Things can go wrong, and if all you have is one way to get photos, well... you could waste the whole day/trip if things break.

[Anonymous No.8175689]

Does anyone have a good tutorial on practical f-stop and depth of field settings? I'm trying to improve my photography and have read a variety of beginner's guides to understanding the numbers, but in practice my photos are never as razor-sharp as I want them to be. Is this just a limitation of my gear or using auto-focus? I have a Nikon 5100

[Anonymous No.8175691]

>>8175666
There's a huge price jump (at least in the second-hand market) from 1.8 to 1.4. Is it worth it?

[Anonymous No.8175714]

>>8175666
>-Full-frame DSLR with a nifty-fifty (50mm f/1.4) and an off-board flash is all you really need.

Really not true. You're not going to be able to do a flattering headshot with a 50mm on a 35mm sensor. Even shots from waist up are going to have an exaggerated perspective on your subject's face. A 50 also isn't going to be wide enough to do group shots unless you have enough room to stand so far back you're completely disconnected from your subjects. A 35 will do you more good if you're set on full body shots and groups and a 70+ will be better if you prefer single subjects and you like to go in close. In fact that is where a crop sensor camera gives you an advantage, you can get a 50 cheaply which becomes a 75mm on a crop sensor.

In generally I wouldn't advise cosplay photographers bother with getting a full frame camera because cosplay photos don't pay and you're better off putting more money into lenses and lights than buying a fancier body. I use a full frame body myself but only because I make money from my photography in other fields. When I was only shooting cosplay I stuck with crop sensor and if I wasn't working professionally now I'd still stick to crop sensor.

>-Bounce the light whenever you can.

Hard light can be more interesting than soft light and some people don't look so good with light coming off a steep angle. Set your light for what works best for each subject.

There are no absolutes in photography and thinking that there is one method to aim for and any one or two pices of kit to always use or fall back on will bite you in the ass. You gotta build your kit to your own means and how you shoot and you need to treat each subject as an individual.

[Anonymous No.8175716]

>>8175689
I highly recommend you check out Tony Northrup's videos if you want cold technical info. He's pretty much the only guy around explaining the math in detail for free. He's smug and boring but every other person doing the technical stuff either gets it wrong, doesn't fully explain or charges. Tuts for style are more subjective and personal and nobody can tell you exactly what settings you should use for your taste in photo, but if you go learn the technical reasoning behind what aperture numbers mean and focal length compression then you can start to work out style for yourself.

[Anonymous No.8175720]

>>8175691
if you use 50 yeah
much better build quality, slightly more light gathering, optical quality is better.

nifty fifty usually refers to the 1.8. 50 1.4 is usually called the 50 1.4.

[Anonymous No.8175724]

>>8175689
most likely limitation in understanding it along with physical limitations. its all dynamic. one f-stop will have different effects at different distances. maybe your shutter speed isn't fast enough. maybe the iso is too high. maybe your lens isn't focused to its best (af isn't surefire)

[Anonymous No.8175730]

>>8175691
Depends on the brand. In the Canon world the 1.4 is the sharpest of their 50mm and it has the fastest autofocus. It's well worth paying the extra for if you can comfortably afford it. The 1.8 is just as good if you are stopping down to 2.8 or further anyway and don't need the extra fraction of a second auto focusing. The 1.2 is a huge waste of money unless you are absolutely desperate to show off your 1.2 aperture lens in all its color fringed glory. The extra third of a stop is all you're paying for it's not as sharp and it's slower to focus.

In the Nikon world it's different because they have more versions spread over the price range evenly. Their 1.8s are a bit better than the Canon 1.8 and their 1.4s aren't quite as nice as the Canon 1.4. For Nikon you're best off sticking to the 1.8s and if you want something better save up a whole lot more and get the Sigma 50mm 1.4. Nikon's own 1.4 isn't good enough to bother spending the extra on.

[Anonymous No.8175742]

What are your favorite lenses, seagulls?

[Anonymous No.8175745]

>>8175689
>I have a Nikon 5100
Okay your first problem is you said what your camera body is, which is irrelevant to sharpness, and you've not said what your lenses are, which is the most important thing.

If you want to improve your picture sharpness then you gotta keep a few things in mind.

>Every lens is at its sharpest with the aperture closed down at least 1 stop. Most lenses hit their sharpest when you sto them down by 2 stops. No lens is sharpest wide open. All lenses become softer again if you stop them down too far, usually around f/16 and further. This is called diffraction. f/8 is a good, sharp aperture for almost all lenses.
>Use a shutter speed at least 1.5x faster than the focal length you are shooting at, ideally aim for 2x faster or more. Example you use a 50mm lens on a crop body, that's 75mm effective focal length so use a shutter of at least 1/125th.
>Autofocus can be fine but try to make sure your camera uses the smallest focus point possible. The center focus points are always the most accurate on any camera.
>Higher ISO means more noise which means less detail so your images won't look as sharp.
>Softer light with less contrast makes it harder to get truly pin-sharp photos. It can still be done but it's more demanding of your gear and technique. The more contrast you have the easier it is to get striking, ultra-crisp images. Autofocus works better with high contrast, too.
>Some lenses are just not sharp no matter what you do. Kit zoom lenses are very rarely sharp. The sharpest lenses are premium primes, then standard primes and premium zooms are about equal, then cheap primes, then standard zooms, then cheap zooms.

Getting sharper images for you may mean you get out of auto mode and take an extra 10 seconds checking your settings, it may mean you learn to focus manually or it may mean you should buy new lenses. Post some example images with shooting info and we can work out what might help you most.

[Anonymous No.8175746]

>>8175720
>>8175730
Thanks. I'm getting into photography on the relative cheap (a used T1i that came with 18-55mm and 70-300mm lenses) and never plan on charging, and after hearing this, I think I'd rather get a used 1.8 (which trend around $80 on eBay) than a used 1.4 (which seem to trend around $250).

[sieg heil !szTe0VDR1w No.8175750]

>>8175714
>You're not going to be able to do a flattering headshot with a 50mm

take 5 steps loser to the subject

it's a prime lens

your feet determine what is in frame

[Anonymous No.8175751]

>>8175742
Really reallllly want to get a Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di 1:1 Macro lens

Gotta pay off all my uni debts first though

[Anonymous No.8175753]

>>8175750

[Anonymous No.8175757]

>>8175742
I tried the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 recently and it blew my mind. Having a zoom with that wide aperture is a game changer for a walk-around lens and it was decently sharp wide open and perfect across the frame by f/2.5. I might buy a crop body and that lens as a new con floor kit.
Of my current lenses I really love the Canon 200 f/2.8, that thing is the daddy for headshots. But I've heard the Samyang 135 f/2 actually beats it in sharpness and contrast, if you can live with a strictly manual-only lens. For wide shots I love my 24 f/1.4, it's pretty much all I ever need indoors though it's not really acceptably sharp until I close down to f/2.2.

[Anonymous No.8175763]

>>8175750
Really not the point at all and you're a fucking idiot.

>>8175753
Thank you. And here's another.

[sieg heil !szTe0VDR1w No.8175769]

>>8175763
you know canon considers their 50mm f1.4 USM as a consumer grade portrait lens right?

oh wait you only buy sigma and listen to /p/

[Anonymous No.8175773]

>>8175763
>>8175769


Play nice ladies

[Anonymous No.8175779]

>>8175769
>you know canon considers their 50mm f1.4 USM as a consumer grade portrait lens right?

On a crop sensor, yes. Then it's a 80mm with their 1.6x crop factor, which is okay for anything up to a head-and-shoulders shot. It's still going to negatively distort a person's features in shoulders and headshots. You've been given photographic evidence by myself and one other as to why you don't want to use that focal length for a headshot.
A 50mm, on any body, makes for a good knees-up portrait lens or wider, and it's good for waist-up portraits if your subject has a very flat and round face which can be helped by being brought out a little. For headshots, never, not unless you want to make your subject's forehead bigger, their eyes more sunken and their nose more bulbus.

>oh wait you only buy sigma and listen to /p/
I've never been on /p/ and I don't own a single Sigma lens, though I've used a few and their most recent high-end specialist products are impressive. I do have 8 Canon lenses, though. Including that 50 1.4. So you can fuck right up your ass.

[Anonymous No.8175780]

>>8175745
Sorry, probably wasn't clear enough - I shoot in manual mode already, usually with a 50mm f/1.8D AF or the kit lens, so I'm all for experimenting. I haven't replaced the 18-55mm yet because I feel like I should improve before I start buying more gear, but it's something I want to do soon.

[Anonymous No.8175781]

>>8175769
Someone's butthurt their shitty technique with their only lens has been called out.

[Anonymous No.8175791]

>>8175780
Stop down to f/2 for all shots, even if you want the wide open look. It's not much of a change but every little helps if you're struggling for sharpness. When you want tack-sharp pictures go down to f/3.5 or f/4. That should be when your lens gets to its best optically. It's normal for those 50 1.8s to be soft at 1.8 and suddenly see a dramatic increase in sharpness very quickly as you stop down. If you're still getting soft images at f/2.8 or even a f/4, it might be that your lens is front-focusing or back-focusing or has an element misaligned, and then it's time to take it in to a shop to have it looked at.

[thigh-gap !PicKleqHjM No.8175816]

>>8175779
>Replying to sieg

he comes in any thread related to photography and tries to gearfag but fails miserably. It's a waste of time trying to argue with him

[Anonymous No.8176046]

>>8175714
>You're not going to be able to do a flattering headshot with a 50mm on a 35mm sensor.
....yeah... right.

[Anonymous No.8176048]

>>8175714
>putting more money into lenses and lights
That nobody will ever carry around at a con. EVER.

[Anonymous No.8176049]

>>8175730
>Nikon's own 1.4 isn't good enough to bother spending the extra on.
Uh, yes it is. The extra stops at shitty conventions is well worth it.

[Anonymous No.8176057]

>>8176046
>>8176048
>>8176049
please see >>8175773

[thigh-gap !PicKleqHjM No.8176087]

>>8176048
Speaking in terms of general photography, lenses and lighting are so much more important than your camera body. A good lens can last you a lifetime, but a camera body becomes outdated within a few years. What you stick in front of your camera is crucial to a sharp shot.

Con photographers do more than hallway photography, they plan out shoots and go to better locations around the convention. They have the time to stop and switch lenses to suit the shot if need-be. Anybody interested in actually pursuing photography as a hobby has to look at the bigger picture outside of choosing just a camera body.

[Anonymous No.8176157]

>>8176046
See >>8175753 and >>8175763

>>8176048
Even if you only add a speedlight and a reflector to your bag, that's going to open up a huge range of lighting styles and a jump in quality and interest that you're not going to get with a single body and lens. You can easily fit three lenses, speedlight and a modifier in a standard shoulder bag.

>>8176049
1.8 to 1.4 isn't one stop, it's two thirds of a stop and because of the diminishing returns of sensitivity it doesn't even equal a full 0.66 of a stop in actual light gathering as far as the sensor is concerned, it's more like 0.59 of a stop. You only gain the full significant amount of light if you intend to stop down with each lens. Now you're stopping down to f/2 which the 1.8 lens can do as well and those 1.4 lens are no sharper than the 1.8s when you only stop them down by ~1 stop. You've got to stop down more than that to see the jump the 1.4 gets you and then the 1.8 catches up again by about 5.6. The 1.4s still give you a slightly brighter viewfinder and faster autofocus but if you're on a tight budget like most people looking at the 50 1.8 are, no, that 1.4 isn't worth the extra money. A 1.8 + a flash is a more useful buy than a 1.4 by itself. I say that owning a 1.4 myself.

>>8176087
Yeah I don't understand why people in cosplay specifically seem to have such a hard time grasping this concept. At cons I see way too many high-end bodies with low-end lenses and no lights or mods or anything to make a shot stand out. Lenses are for life, bodies are disposable.

[Anonymous No.8177484]

>>8176057
I don't think my replies were inflammatory. I just disagreed. If you want I can put the pedal to the metal and go full on b-tard if you want to see the difference.

[Anonymous No.8177485]

>>8176087
>Con photographers do more than hallway photography, they plan out shoots and go to better locations around the convention.
But that's not what the OP was asking about, is it? My advice was very specifically tailored to hallway shots at cons, and I even stated as much in my post.

[Anonymous No.8177490]

>>8176157
>Even if you only add a speedlight and a reflector to your bag,
Did you read the whole sentence, or just stop at the body and lens?
>"and an off-board flash is all you really need"

>>8176157
>but if you're on a tight budget like most people
The OP said nothing about a budget. If it's a choice between a 1.8 and a 1.4 and money is not a concern, it's a no-brainer to get a 1.4.

[Anonymous No.8177510]

Seems like there are some very knowledgeable anons in this thread, so maybe someone can help me out.
I'm buying a Canon 70D and I'm really interested in suggestions for a compatible speedlite flash and/or any non-fisheye lenses that are on the less expensive side (less than $600 preferred if possible)
I've been doing my research for a few weeks now but I love hearing from people who already know what they're talking about. Pic related are the two flashes I'm looking into right now

[Anonymous No.8177565]

>>8177490
>The OP said nothing about a budget. If it's a choice between a 1.8 and a 1.4 and money is not a concern, it's a no-brainer to get a 1.4.
While right, people who aren't thinking about a budget aren't even looking at the 1.8 in the first place. >>8175691 specifically made mention of the price difference and questioning whether it was worth going up to the 1.4.

[Anonymous No.8177607]

>>8177510
>compatible speedlite flash
If you're using it off-camera with radio triggers or a sync cable, which you almost always should be doing, any brand will work. Compatibility only comes into play if you want to use the flash on top of the camera with TTL. If you don't want your subjects to look like deers caught in the headlights then you'd never do this.

The 430 is better built than the Yongnuo and I usually advise people buy gear to last, but since you're starting out you'll probably be better off buying the Yonguo for now or neither. As you shoot more you might find you end up never using a flash for your style so no point spending more until you're sure you'll actually get some use out of it. In fact I think you shouldn't buy a flash at all and put even just that extra $60 towards either your lenses or a nice bag or some photography books and tuition videos.

[Anonymous No.8177614]

>>8177510
>and/or any non-fisheye lenses
That's ridiculously vague.

We assume you're talking about cosplay photography, people and events, correct?

Canon 28 2.8 IS is a decent walkaround lens for crop bodies that will do full-length shots of people nicely. For the money you'd save by not even buying that Yonguo flash you could get the 24 2.8 IS which gives you a bit more breathing room and is just a little bit sharper.

Canon's 50 1.4 gives you a basic thighs-up portrait lens that can do full body if you get enough room. It's not nice for headshots. If you move on to a full frame body it becomes a like the 28mm is for the crop body. You could get the 50 1.8 which isn't quite as good but still useful and only costs like $120 brand new.

Canon's 85 1.8 is $380 and really good once you stop down to just 2.5. On a 70D it'll be like a 135mm f/2.8 classic portrait lens. Good headshots, too tight for anything else indoors.

Sigma's 18-35 1.8 zoom is $800 but if you could afford $600 on a lens and thinking about a $260 flash then you can definitely combine that to get this lens. It's super sharp, it's the fastest zoom lens on the planet and it covers all of your wide to full length shots. This lens + the 85 would have absolutely everything covered. The only drawback is it can not be used at all on full frame bodies, so if you upgrade bodies in future this lens would become useless.

Canon EF-S 60 2.8 Macro would give you fine detail options and roughly equals 95mm so you can get away with it for closer portraits without it requiring the space the 85 does. But like the Sigma lens it only works on crop bodies, they are not compatible at all with full frame bodies.

Buy second hand through KEH and you'll save 30-50% so you should be able to get two lenses easily. Something in the range of 24-35mm and another 60-85mm will have you covered for all cosplay needs.

[Anonymous No.8177803]

>>8177484
>Getting this defensive
>I can get serious and can go full b-tard! You better watch out!
>Multiple posts to reply to multiple people instead of >>8176157

No.

[thigh-gap !PicKleqHjM No.8177836]

>>8177485
No, OP said nothing about doing just hallway photography. Do you honestly believe the people suggesting lights are giving advice for simple hallway shots? This is a general photography thread, we're discussing photography on a broader scope.

[Anonymous No.8178357]

>>8177803
>Getting this defensive
Lol at you thinking that was "defensive". My what a sheltered little world you must live in.

[Anonymous No.8178364]

>>8177836
>OP said nothing about doing just hallway photography. Do you honestly believe the people suggesting lights are giving advice for simple hallway shots? This is a general photography thread
He was asking about CON PHOTOGRAPHY. The whole fucking premise of the thread was about it from the fucking get-go. I offered advice for CON PHOTOGRAPHY specific to people who do not schedule shoots (aka people who will not want to carry around shit tons of lenses, reflectors, etc.) What is so goddamned fucking hard about wrapping your obtuse pointy head around this?

[Anonymous No.8178500]

>>8178364
The aspie is strong in this one

[Anonymous No.8178521]

Is using live view cheating?

[Anonymous No.8178566]

i want to get into photography
good camera for beginners but isnt potato quality?

[Anonymous No.8178567]

>>8177614
>can not be used at all on full frame bodie
you can use it 28-35 with no vignette except corners so it still has usability

[Anonymous No.8178584]

>>8178521
live view is another tool with strengths and weaknesses
that's like saying using a text instead of calling someone is cheating

[ECStudios !!LovcAUcWmJK No.8178822]

>>8175666
This is a good guide, but starting out a DX frome nikon is a good cheaper starter with really good results. a 35mm and 50mm are my main lens.

[Anonymous No.8179045]

>>8178567
You can't use Canon EF-S mount lens on EF bodies without modifying the lens mount or using adapters. In those instances you still get an image circle that only takes up 2/3rds of the image size and your perceptual MP drops way down too. You lose the ability to infinity focus, as well.
If you try to put a lens with an EF-S mount on an EF mount body without modification the lens protrudes into the body too far and the mirror hits it, damaging both the body and the lens.

Unless you are used to servicing cameras and are willing to risk writing off a body and a lens, no, you should never attempt to mount an EF-S lens on an EF body. Implying to new users that there is any chance they can make it work is irresponsible.

>>8178521
No, but be aware that on many cameras Live View is not a perfect representation of the framing and it is never a good representation of the exposure and colour. Even the histogram is based off the compressed and crushed jpg preview all cameras produce even when shooting raw.

>>8178566
Anything by any name brand. Canon, Nikon, Sony, Olympus, Pentax are fine for DSLR, Sony and Fuji are my picks for mirrorless and Olympus and Panasonic have the best micro four thirds. Nobody makes a duff camera any more. The differences between them are minimal and mostly down to menu layout and how they feel in your hands. Go to a shop and ask to feel some so you can see what fits you best. Failing that think about what lenses you would like and buy into the brand which produces those. Buy second hand so you save a third or more on the price. Anything made in the last 5 years will do. Split your budget one third to the body, two thirds on lenses + spare batteries, memory cards and a bag. What brand you pick sort of matters because it dictates what lenses you will be using, but the body itself doesn't matter because you'll most likely ditch it and upgrade in a few years.

[Anonymous No.8179758]

Before buying any DSLR you should watch this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWRqauP8jlE

And then watch his One Light DVD, just as Kira Hokuten recommended

[Anonymous No.8179862]

>>8179758
Zack's One Light is okay but he's done an updated version now which is a bit more useful. Thing is the technical stuff is what he's worst at explaining. The main thing to take from him are all his life lessons and experience and how he restarted his photography after fucking up so hugely first time around. He's a good one to look up on youtube and listen to for that but I didn't find his instructional things very helpful. Tony Northrup's better at the technical stuff and Frank Doorhof is the best for putting technique into the context of fashion and portraiture.

[Anonymous No.8179873]

>>8179758
It's funny watching him there listing Canon stuff when now he's THE Fuji guy

[Anonymous No.8180011]

so many gear fags

[Anonymous No.8180013]

I don't mind giving photography advice or tips, everything about gears is researchable and already been said multiple times overly overly again and again.

[Anonymous No.8180530]

Nifty 50 on crop sensor all day long. Although I get funny looks sometimes when I need to back out way too far

[Anonymous No.8180675]

>>8180011
>so many gear fags
What do you expect? What do you think people can say which doesn't relate in any way to gear? You can't give people bullet points on how best to improve their eye. The only thing you can ever discuss and teach is what gear to use and how to use it. Everything else is down to the individual.

[Anonymous No.8180860]

>>8178822
>starting out a DX frome nikon is a good cheaper starter with really good results
I dunno, I always regret when I buy something that's not the best. Start out with full frame and you'll not pine for something better, in my opinion.

[Anonymous No.8180862]

>>8179045
sigma doesn't use ef-s mounts. it's a ef mount but you get a vignette of varying size on full frame.

[Anonymous No.8181368]

I'm a "retired" cosplay photog who once worked with many high-profile cosplayers and who took many high-profile images, many of which were published prominently in books, magazines, and websites. My background is in professional photojournalism, but I now have a career that hardly involves photography.

Anyway, I'll be here for a while and will answer any questions anybody has about photography, gear, and the scene in general, as long as it doesn't involve identifying myself or anybody I've worked with.

A few points I'll make in regards to discussion in the thread:

I don't like a 50mm (on FF) as a cosplay lens in most situations. It's neither here nor there. When I was very active, I used a 24-70mm f/2.8 as my workhorse, and it was usually either between 24 and 35mm or at the 70mm long end. I now use a 35mm f/1.4 (the Sigma Art Series lens) and love it as a general wide portraiture lens, and for close-ups I use an 85 f/1.4 (the optically brilliant and dirt cheap Rokinon MF lens) or a 70-200 2.8 set to around 135mm. I liked 85mm on crop quite a bit when I was still shooting that format. For very wide shots, I use a 20mm f/2.8 prime, which requires careful composition and distortion correction.

I like Nikon's speedlight system. I often use as many as three or four lights at once, but only if necessary; don't use all your gear just because you have it. I prefer softboxes to umbrellas for most situations, and shoot-through umbrellas to reflector umbrellas. Softboxes smaller than 2' are only useful for headshots, where you can get the softbox very close to the subject. My general rule is to never put the softbox further from the subject than its own diameter, so a 12" mini-box needs to be a foot from the face, a 2' octa should be within 2' of the subject, etc. These rules obviously get bent, but it's a good thing to try for.

Make sure to learn how to manage backgrounds and environmental lighting conditions. Don't have strong sun/shadow transitions in your photos.

[Anonymous No.8181370]

>>8181368
cont'd:

Shoot outside if possible. Learn to use fill flash. Learn to use gels and white balance to match indoor light if you have to shoot inside. Try not to shoot between about 11AM and 2PM. The best light is within two hours after sunrise or before sunset.

Work on composition and other fundamentals before you try to do crazy effects or other gimmicks. Learn to post-process naturally and attractively. Photoshop filters can be useful but must be used tastefully - I really like Nik Color Efex pro, but use most of their filters at below 10% settings, just to give things a subtle tinge.

Look at good professional photography and learn from their techniques. I find that cosplayers, especially female ones, really like a style that emulates Asian fashion magazines, and much of the lighting, composition, and posing in my most popular photos was essentially cribbed from those magazines.

[Anonymous No.8181423]

>>8181368
>>8181370
1) Are there any books/e-resources on composition? Most online articles say "RULE OF THIRDS" and leave it at that. I'd love to see some resources on things like creating mood, or color theory.

2) I've been using the free trial of Creative Cloud for a while and I think I like Lightroom. I can get Lightroom for $70 as a student. Should I do it? (I also have Elements from before Adobe switched to subscription model.)

3) What are your thoughts on Lightroom's auto-exposure tool?

4) What did you carry in your bag when you did cosplay photography, for hall photography and for shoots?

5) Why did you "retire"?

[Anonymous No.8181434]

>>8181423
Resources are around but scattered. I really like Joe McNally's books but they're more lighting-oriented. There are some books on wedding and portrature photography that have some decent info in them, but they can also be pretty dated.

I really like Lightroom, it's my workhorse. I don't use its auto-exposure much though, and you also really need photoshop to do any real edits. (Skin fixes etc.)

When I was doing cosplay photography really seriously, I used a Nikon D3S with a 20mm 2.8, 24-70mm 1.8, 50mm 1.4, and 70-200mm 2.8. I currently have a D610 with the same stuff, but minus the 24-70 and with a 35mm 1.4 and a 85mm 1.4. I think it's actually a much more convenient setup. I also have an SB-900, SB-800, and two SB-600s, plus an array of softboxes, umbrellas, and other lighting modifiers. A pop-up flash on a Nikon is actually very useful because you can control remote speedlights with it. I also really like the Gary Fong lightsphere collapsible, and used it heavily for walkaround work and less serious shoots. Another great piece of lighting gear are the Lastolite triangular reflectors, they're easy to manage and fold and can be used with one hand while you shoot with another.

I'll answer 5 in another post, since it might be kinda long...

[Anonymous No.8181446]

>>8181423
Not him but

1) I'd say hit up your library and dig through their photography section. I don't really have any explicit suggestions on hand. You just kind of learn it over time from various places.
2) Lightroom and Photoshop go hand in hand. You should have both.
3) It's a suggestion. If it's dark it'll bump exposure up, if it's light it'll move it down. Only you can tell whether it has done the right thing or not.
4) Again, not him but I use the following: 35 1.4, 85 1.4, 70-200 2.8 IS II. Sometimes just the 35 and 85. Couple of speedlights if I want to go light plus flash stands. Umbrella softbox. Gels. If I want to go heavy then replace one light with a strobe and battery pack. Depending on what that strobe is it might "only" be another six pounds but it adds up. Hope you have a good pack or some helpers. A cart if it's feasible at your venue.
5) Can't speak for him but I've pondered it. Sometimes you just get tired of it. It's like another job and depending on where you are it might pay peanuts or nothing at all (I'm in California so that means working for free). It's can be a grind depending on how many people you shoot/how often. As long as I'm able to shoot costumes I like or characters I like then I'm happy with it.

[Anonymous No.8181461]

>>8181423
>>8181434

So, why I retired.

The biggest and most obvious reason is a personal one. I dated a high-profile cosplayer for many years, did about 50% of my photography with her, and most of the rest of my shoots were with people she knew. I lost those connections when we broke up. Another less-obvious part of that whole situation is that, when I was happily in a relationship with a very attractive woman, I could shoot other girls without any sexual or romantic overtones clouding things. I don't feel like I can keep my mind off of those things as a single guy. I don't think female cosplayers will be able to trust me as much with the knowledge that I'm single, either.

But outside that, it's just kind of a toxic world. It's very competitive and a huge amount of work. My quality standards are very high, and that extends to not only my own work but that of my subjects. I specialized in producing high-quality work of high-quality subjects, and if I went out and started from zero as a photographer I'd have to work with some people I don't think I'd be able to do well with. I also have very little reputation in the community, as I kept a very low profile and never promoted myself beyond simple watermarks on my photos, which would mean rebuilding everything from scratch.

And then there's what high-profile cosplay photography actually is. It's a ton of work, your con turns into nothing but scheduled shoots, and then people beat down your door for their photos while you're trying to balance your real life and getting their stuff processed and edited. And if you do manage to do all that stuff, what do you get? The bragging rights of being able to tell your photographer friends who you shot with? An invite to an occasional awkward party with a few prominent cosplayers and their boyfriends/husbands? It's like a game with an insane grind and no payoff.

[Anonymous No.8181462]

>>8181446
Oh and radio triggers. Can't forget the triggers. Depending on your environment you can use the built in system but it has its strengths and weaknesses.

And a shitload of rechargeable batteries. I would suggest having two chargers in your luggage so you can charge at least two sets at night. At least one set of batteries for each of your things that need it (for me that'd be 2x4 for the speedlights, 2x3 for the triggers) and one or two extra sets for when those go down. For your camera at least one extra besides the one inside it. More if doing video.

[Anonymous No.8181477]

If you happen to be in northern California I would recommend going to the Cosplay Gatherings held 3-4 times a year. Nice places to go, meet people, hang out, and shoot. Be shot if you're a cosplayer.

>>8181461
Other responding person here. Can echo your second and third paragraphs about wanting the best (which sometimes means being shallow), turnaround, and payoff.

I keep it lowkey and only shoot a handful since I have other stuff to do (press). Press is more tangibly rewarding. You actually meet people and cover things that you give more shits about. I do like location shoots but that's another big time sink.

[Anonymous No.8181482]

>>8181477

>>8181461
here, agreed about the press thing. I think I mentioned that my background is in mainstream journalism, so it's a much more natural environment for me. I used to be on AX's press team before they killed off the EX department and that was really amazing, too, it was really cool to work with some of my favorite people in the anime world. I'm much more interested in the production side of things instead of the voice talent and musicians, and being press is pretty much the only way to meet and interact with directors, writers, etc.

Part of why I'm kind of out of the scene now is that, having experienced what it's like to be a real part of the con world, it's hard to know what to do at a con now that I'm not directly involved. Going from spending 50% of my con time working as press or with guests and the other 50% doing promotional work or being a GOH with my ex to being at a con with no particular job or role, it's hard to find anything interesting to do.

[Anonymous No.8181494]

>>8181482
I would not be surprised if we've met. Moonlighted a little for EX. Nowadays cover as part of one of the outfits who attend. EX's departure, and the AX press department in general, is just one more of those things that makes you wonder about the con's management.

I'm kind of curious but we should keep opsec.

[Anonymous No.8181495]

>>8180862
They don't call it EF-S because that's a trademark of Canon, obviously. But it's the same mount. It categorically only works with crop sensor bodies as far as Canon is concerned. Mounting it to a full frame body will damage both the lens and the mirror. Now the Nikon version may be a different case, I don't know about that one, but original Anon was asking about Canon and that one is absolutely definitely not compatible with full frame bodies.

[Anonymous No.8181497]

>>8181461
What you said is kinda true.

I've never dated anyone but have been close friends with somewhat high profile cosplayers. I'm kinda in love with one so when I shoot other girls I don't feel anything for them; I just want to get the best photos I can. I'm pretty close friends with all the cosplayers I like to shoot; if I want a ride/hotel room; I can ask away and it's nice to have these types of friends if you are going to a con.

I think the problem you had was not befriending cosplayers you shot. Some of them are my best friends now, and are much better than the friends I'd ever thought I had. I don't think I have a low reputation like you did, but yeah.

And yes cosplay photography does turn into nothing but scheduled shoots but that's what it's like for high profile cosplayers as well. They do shoots all day and party at night. They key is here is party at night. My cosplaying friends invite me all the time. I don't know about you but thats the best thing at cons. Shoot all day party all night. I don't have photographer friends because I'm pretty competitive, most of my con friends are cosplayers.

[Anonymous No.8181500]

>>8181461
HI SEBASTIAN

[Anonymous No.8181507]

>>8181495
it's not a ef-s mount and doesn't protrude into the body like a ef-s lens does. it's ef mount and the lens is only made to cover the crop sensor so you get a vignette on fullframe but it will not damage the camera at all. i have a sigma 10-20 which is a crop lens. fits my 5d2 but vignettes.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Comparisons/Sigma-18-35mm-f-1.8-DC-HSM-Lens.aspx#FULLFRAME

[Anonymous No.8181514]

>>8181494
Most likely. I was with the video side and mostly did production outside the con, if that helps.

>>8181500
Swing and a miss.

>>8181497
I was friends with some of them, and have maintained those relationships, but a lot of them left as well. My ex told a lot of people a lot of horrible things about me when we broke up, and it's taken almost two years for people to realize that it was all bullshit. I've gradually had people coming back to me recently and my network is starting to repair itself.

The parties were OK as a guy with a GF there, but I have a feeling they'd suck as a single guy. Every girl there is with some form of significant other. I do miss L's parties, though. (You probably know who I'm talking about.)

[Anonymous No.8181525]

>>8181514
I can't imagine why your ex would say shit about your unless you had a bad break up.

Then again I havent heard people say shit about me and even if they did my cosplaying friends would trust me over them.

I've seen some cosplay photographers retire for break up reasons but I love going to cons and making new friends; I was almost at that point but my cosplaying friends supported me when I was down and thats why Im still in it to win it.

[Anonymous No.8181544]

>>8181525
She slandered me to try and protect her own reputation and make herself look like the "goodguy" in a situation where the truth would reflect very badly on her if people knew it. I think she expected me to be as petty as her and immediately jump on /cgl/ or similar with the true story about what happened, and she was trying to discredit me as quickly as she could. I've actually never told anybody but close personal friends, most of whom have no involvement with the cosplay community, any details of what actually happened.

She also had emotional problems and a really, really serious victim complex, and in her head I think she believes a lot of the stuff she's claimed. She told people I was abusive, for example, and I know that her idea of "abuse" is a situation where she starts screaming at somebody and they argue back. (She recently did the same kind of thing with her roommates, who initially had believed her side of the story, and immediately launched a social media smear campaign against them, claiming they were abusing and torturing her, and then moved out. They, in turn, cut ties with her and immediately came to me and asked me to forgive them for not believing me when I told them what to expect.)

[Anonymous No.8181597]

>>8181544
Sorry to hear that man. I have a natural instinct for avoiding those types of people so most of my friends aren't like that at all.

[Anonymous No.8181636]

>>8181597
I have now developed such an instinct, which is part of why I haven't dated in the two years since my breakup.

[Anonymous No.8182745]

>>8181461
>I dated a high-profile cosplayer for many years, did about 50% of my photography with her, and most of the rest of my shoots were with people she knew.
My woman isn't high-profile, but this is pretty much the same. I'm still active though, and the difference also is I don't schedule any shoots. So, with that in mind, I don't lug around a fuck-ton of gear. I'd be in the same boat if we broke up. I would never go to a con on my own, because it would be awkward as fuck. I don't cosplay, I just take pictures. With my woman there it's easy for females I'm shooting to not worry about any ulterior motives (read - trying to mac). Without her around? Yeah I can see how that could be... weird.

[Anonymous No.8183117]

Any advice on how to do the super rubbery fake looking skin edit style? As far as I can tell they freq sep and then raise the skin tone to as close to white as looks human? Not sure what to google for tips on this.

[Anonymous No.8183137]

>>8182745
I actually never really scheduled either. It was more that people would call me during the con and say "hey, I'm out in costume, wanna do pictures?" or say the same to my ex and she'd tell me. That's another part of why it'd be hard to get started again, I'd have to start actually doing real scheduling and that sucks.

[Anonymous No.8183147]

>>8182745
Just call her your girlfriend for focal sake, 'my woman' sounds like you're balding and drive a lorry

[thigh-gap !PicKleqHjM No.8183224]

>>8183117
/p/'s a good place to ask, but they'll probabl shit on you cause they hate cosplay photography over there

[Anonymous No.8183720]

>>8183117
Simply using dodge and burn will get you the effect you one.

>>8182745
I was until recently a single cosplay photographer, and I didn't feel anything for anyone that I shot cos frankly, their whole lives are centered around cosplay and I cannot stand a gf whose only good quality is that. I am dating a nice Korean girl now who I can actually talk about a lot more other topics and it's so much nicer.

[Anonymous No.8183761]

>>8182745
That's odd man. Is your appearance scary or something? I go to cons alone all the time because my best friend can't attend sometimes; I have so many cosplaying friends that if I want a shoot with someone I just ask them to ask him/her. I have never been suspected of wanting to "Mac" someone

[Anonymous No.8183766]

>>8183720
From my experience, the low-mid profile cosplayers are the best cosplaying girlfriends. The high profile ones think too much of themselves, and care so much about attention its fucking nuts. I wish I didn't encourage some cosplayers I shot to make a page or encourage it. Mistake of my life.

[Anonymous No.8183823]

>>8183766
Agreed. If I were to date a cosplayer, it would be the lower profile ones.

[Anonymous No.8184418]

>>8181544
Hello Prof Tog Anon. If you come back would you be willing to critique some shots for me?

[Anonymous No.8184625]

>>8183117
Slight overexposure to begin with, blur all texture out using frequency separation, then for the color you reduce the saturation and increase the brightness and contrast a little bit. You also gotta use a medium light source, pretty direct front-on with some kick light but do not use a rim or side light. Set your white balance both slightly blue and slightly more magenta than it should be.

And be prepared for everyone to hate you and for your images to look hilariously dated within 12 months.

[Anonymous No.8184644]

Camera
Kit lens
Shoot on auto
Bam
Photoshop
PRO

[Anonymous No.8184686]

Any recs on what should replace a 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens? I'm not looking to break the bank or shoot full time at cons, but I'm looking for a bit of an upgrade. Is it worth it to buy an intermediate lens for a few hundred bucks, or is there no point doing anything until I can afford a higher end lens for a crop body?

[application No.8184693]

>>8175666
> Don't gearfag
> Immediately gearfags

> Don't gearfag because it will weigh too much
> keep an extra fucking body and lens on you at all times

> Immediately go full frame and whatever 1.4 you can find because you can really appreciate full frame off the bat

> buy a $1200 FF camera
> become familiar with adjusting ISO which is the least important property for a photo with a good camera

> ND filters are a must
do you even know what ND filters do?

[application No.8184705]

just with all this lens talk going around, just remember that even if he's right and did his research, any given photographer probably hasn't owned more than 10 lenses. Go to DPreview and look around, compare glass, use their sharpness sliders to find which lens is better. They do really good reviews over there and let you know what to value in a lens.

TLDR; don't buy a lens because someone else uses it.

>>8175720
nifty fifty just refers to 50, everything looks better in 50

>50 1.4 is usually called the 50 1.4.
wat

not every 50mm 1.4 has better build quality and better optical quality than 50mm 1.8s, how dare you just make assumptions like that? you're actually misleading people into purchases.

[Anonymous No.8184962]

>>8184705

If you're just referring to what you greentexted, I think that person just meant people commonly call the 50mm 1.4fl a 50 1-4 or something.

I heard a friend refer to it that way and I was like "wait what why."

[Anonymous No.8185249]

>>8184705
>nifty fifty just refers to 50
No it doesn't. The 'nifty' part specifically comes from the cheapest, most basic versions of the 50mm, the idea being that they're so simple and plentiful that there's no reason to not always have one available. For some companies that does mean a 1.4 lens, for most it's a 1.8 and for some it's a 2. It does not refer to any and all 50s, though.

There's way more to picking lenses than looking up some lab tests for sharpness. Sure, don't buy a lens just because one person says it's good, but look up multiple user reviews, go do a flickr search for the lens and see what people are actually producing with the lens in the real world.

>>8184686
You're too vague. What's your camera brand? Budget? Zoom or prime? What about your current images do you want to improve with a new lens? Do you want a different focal length, wider apertures, faster autofocus, less distortion?

[Anonymous No.8185293]

>>8185249
nifty fifty refers to a lens that's
> the cheapest
> most basic
> simple
> plentiful
> 1.4
> 1.8
> sometimes 2

what the fuck are you talking about even

[Anonymous No.8185308]

Did sieg change his name temporarily or something?

[Anonymous No.8185312]

Could I get some feedback on Tokina's 11-16 f/2.8? This has been in my wishlist forever because I'm still not entirely sure if it's a good lens for me. I mostly take photos of landscape, interiors, and architecture/buildings, and my biggest problem is that I almost never can get the whole subject in frame when using the 18-55 lens.

At a friend's suggestion, I picked up the 50mm f/1.4, which performs beautifully, but I can count on one hand the number of times I have actually used it. Not too eager to drop $500 on another lens I won't use...

[Anonymous No.8185327]

>>8185312
11-16 not much good for cosplay but good for the other stuff you do. 50 is the opposite of that.

[Anonymous No.8185331]

>>8185312
BorrowLenses and LensRentals have it, if you're interested in trying it out first.

[Anonymous No.8185372]

>>8184418
Yeah, post up and I can give you whatever feedback.

>>8184705
Pretty good point about owning lenses here. I've shot with more glass than most people since I've used so many staff gear, rental gear, and the like, but there's still plenty I haven't tried.

>>8185312
The 11-16 has its place but I'm not a huge fan. IMO, the world is going Full-Frame and I feel like it's not worth spending that much on a crop lens when you'll probably upgrade eventually.

I use my 20mm on FF, which is about the field of view of 13mm on crop, a decent amount, but only for really specific situations. It's great for automotive and not bad for landscape-type stuff, not so great for portraiture. It can be useful for group shots if you're careful about distortion.

[Anonymous No.8185396]

>>8185293
"Nifty fifty" is whatever 50mm lens is the cheapest in any given manufacturer's line-up. This is not a hard concept to understand.

[Anonymous No.8185423]

>>8185312
It sounds like you need something that is both wide and well-corrected and you don't get that in a zoom. A tilt-shift like the Rokinon 24mm for outdoors and then a 14mm prime for indoors is a pretty standard and common kit for starting architecture. Then when you upgrade to a full frame body, which you pretty much have to do if you want to shoot interiors, those lenses will still work and in fact work even better.

If you go for a zoom then you're going to have to pay way more to see decent quality and you're going to have to deal with distortion at every focal length. That Tokina is unusably soft until you stop down to at least 5.6, it's got chromatic aberration even past f/8 and it's got wave distortion at its widest end and changes to heavy barrel distortion as you go longer. The Sigma 8-16 is sharper and is better-corrected and since you need to stop the Tokina down to 5.6 or more anyway the Sigma's 4.5-5.6 aperture doesn't make a difference.

There's a reason why people don't use ultra-wide zooms which don't have either a big red ring or a big gold band. Save up and be prepared to blow some serious cash, use primes or live with lower quality.

[Anonymous No.8185460]

Whats the opinion on the Fuji XT1? and X100 for conventions?

[Anonymous No.8185476]

>>8185460
They're good cameras but kind of niche. You lock yourselves into their lenses (or only the one permanent lens on the X100), their flashes, etc. They're expensive for what they are, too. They look and feel cool as hell though.

Personally, if not a true DSLR, I think I'd be looking at a Sony. The Alpha 7 is a great camera and if you don't have to have the latest and greatest A7S, the first model A7 is a steal right now.

[Anonymous No.8185516]

>>8185331
I didn't know such things existed, thank you! I will check them out.
>>8185372
I definitely would not be using a lens like this to photograph people; it's more for the other stuff I mentioned. Noted with thanks regarding full-frame.
>>8185423
I added this lens to my wishlist a couple years ago, so I can't remember exactly why I chose this lens in particular. I think it's because most wide angle prime lenses were way, way out of my price range, and since I'm just a dabbler that uses my camera when I travel, I can't really justify dropping that much money on something that gets used for a month once or twice a year. I do remember going between the Tokina, Sigma, and Canon "equivalents" and for whatever reason, tokina appealed to me more. That being said, thank you for the detailed reply - you gave me a lot to think about and research!

[Anonymous No.8185711]

>>8185460
>>8185476
I like mirrorless cameras for some things but for conventions and cosplay I would say go with DSLR.

XT1 is a pro camera. It's not beginner-friendly yet it's the easiest camera in the world for pros and anyone old enough to remember pre-digital. People who want hard dials and don't care about automatic modes or shooting 1,000 frames a day. The lenses and accessories cost twice what the DSLR equivalents cost. It's not a system you get into casually. If you have to question it, it's not for you. I bought one and ended up selling because although I liked the image quality I missed the speed and flexibility of my DSLRs. It brought back the memories of working with my old Nikon F and was nice enough but for the cost it's just too limited a system. You can buy a 5D2 for the cost of the XT1 and some L lenses cost no more or even less than some of those Fuji lenses.

The X100 is a little easier to pick up and get into as it's that bit faster, the automatic features work better and you can choose to use a EVF or optical viewfinder whenever you fancy. For covering the show floor I would say there's no better camera. I've kept mine and use it regularly. It's a lot of money for what is basically a higher-end point-and-shoot, though.

If you're considering the XT1 then I'd say buy the X100 first and see how you get on. If you don't like the X100 you definitely won't like the XT1. If you like the XT1 and you don't think you'll miss the speed and options of the DSLR then maybe go for the XT1

I do like the Sony cameras too but they're an even more extreme version of the XT1. More resolution, more dynamic range, slower, more expensive and more limited and worse lenses. I rented the A7R a few times and loved it for studio. I'd never bother taking one to a convention.

If you don't mind getting into adapters then you can add more lenses to either system but then you're also giving up autofocus entirely and in some cases messing with the exposure meatering.

[Anonymous No.8186775]

>>8175572
What lightroom presets are the most appropriate/fashionable in cosplay? Are there any that people here stick to religiously?

[Anonymous No.8187103]

>>8185396
I can't believe were still doing this
ok so show me
show me the cheapest 50mm for sony, the cheapest for pentax, for cannon, for nikon
literally 0 of them will be 1.4

why are you so intent to think a nifty fifty means only the cheap ones? who told you this?

[Anonymous No.8187129]

>>8183117
I don't know how I got to this, but I have a feeling a photographer that I follow shared this link a while back: http://fx-ray.com/tutorials/skinretouching/#_

[Anonymous No.8187157]

>>8186775
Step 1: do not use presets if you want your work to stand out. If you love your photos you'll give each one individual attention.
Step 2: if you insist on ruining your work with presets at least use a program like Topaz or DxO which is designed for them and not shitty Lightroom. Lightroom is only good for cataloging. Nothing else should be done within it.

>>8187103
I said for some it's a 1.4. I also said that for some it's a 1.8 and for others it's an f/2. Sony, Pentax, Canon and Nikon have 1.8s as their cheapest at the moment. In the past both Canon and Nikon have had f/2 50mms as their cheapest lenses. Fuji's cheapest 50mm equivalent, taking into account they exclusively make crop lenses, is a 1.4. Sigma's cheapest 50mm is a 1.4.

Who told me to use 'nifty' fifty to refer to the cheap lenses? Common sense, 15 years of experience, my photography professor at university and my mentor at the first national newspaper I worked for.

So you can get fucked.

[Anonymous No.8187508]

>>8187103
>>8187157

I've always been under the impression that "nifty fifty" referred not to the cheapest 50 but to any 50, because they're compact, versatile, fast, and all of them are cheap compared to zooms and wider or longer primes. (With the obvious exception of specialized f/1s and 1.2s etc) It's "nifty" because it's something you can throw in your bag in case you need it but without a specific plan for using it.

[Anonymous No.8187511]

>>8186775
>>8187157


I mentioned this earlier, but I really like Color Efex Pro when it comes to filtering programs. In addition to doing artistic filtering, it also has contrast filters that make photos "pop" without being "rough" looking like LR's clarity adjustment.

LR is fine for some basic processing work, by the way. I use it for white balancing, lens corrections, and general RAW processing. I only use Photoshop for edits that require cloning or similar pixel editing tools.

[Anonymous No.8187550]

>>8187508
>because they're compact, versatile, fast, and all of them are cheap compared to zooms and wider or longer primes.

That's only really in recent years. In the past 35mms were smaller and a little more versatile and it was only the very cheapest, most plastic 50s which cost less. Even now a lot of 35mm lenses are smaller and faster than the 50mm of the same range and cost the same. Rangefinder brands built themselves on 35mm being their just-throw-it-in-your-bag lens and 50s were ignored more or less. Of course you also had medium format where 80mm-120mm is your cheap, fast standard depending on if you've got a 6x4.5 or a 6x6+ and a 50mm is an expensive and slow wide option for those cameras. So the 50 1.4s and 1s actually were kinda specialised for a long time. The 50 2s and 1.8s did have a very small price advantage for some brands and that's where they began building this reputation. Once small format got better and medium format was ditched and rangefinders became too expensive, those cheapest 50mm came into their own. The next-level 50mms still lost out to the 35mms and like you said the 1s and 1.2s were never something anybody thought of as "nifty".

It's actually pretty fascinating going back and reading old photography books and interviews with the pros of the 70s and 80s because you can really see the trends shifting and it's not until the end of the 80s that the cheap 50s have really become standard. Anyone shooting earlier than about 1988 is using either medium format or a rangefinder with a 35mm and an SLR with a 50mm is like some consumer-level bullshit nobody will touch. As you get into the early-mid 90s and the 1.8s have gained ground you then get Canon relaunching its 50 1.4 and 1.0 as an evolution of small format off the back of the "nifty" 1.8 but they never catch on half as well.

[Anonymous No.8187564]

>>8187550
That depends on what kind of photography you're talking about. By 1970 or so, it was only by preference that any photojournalist was using anything other than a Nikon F or F2, especially with very wide or telephoto lenses. Rangefinders stopped being mainstream somewhere around 1965 or so, since Nikon's SLRs were so much better for 35mm field work and anybody in the studio was using MF.

That reminds me, I have a Hasselblad outfit waiting for me to pick it up, I really need to go do that. (It belonged to my serious amateur aunt, who passed away about ten years ago and my uncle has finally decided to let it go.)

[Anonymous No.8187628]

>>8187564
In Europe the Nikon F never fully took over from Leica as top of the pile and in Japan it was the Canon A series that really broke out.

[Anonymous No.8187663]

>>8187628
That's true that other markets had different preferences. Even in Europe you wouldn't see a photographer shooting sports or anything else requiring a lens longer than about 80mm with a Leica though.

[Anonymous No.8187790]

>>8183147
>Just call her your girlfriend for focal sake, 'my woman' sounds like you're balding and drive a lorry
Because she's not my girlfriend, she's my wife.

[Anonymous No.8187792]

>>8183761
>Is your appearance scary or something?
Yes, actually it is. That and I'm way too old to be around cons taking pics and junk. I only go because my wife likes to cosplay.

[Anonymous No.8187807]

>>8184693
>do you even know what ND filters do?
Do you? How about instead of acting like a faggot you give some advice. Is anything I listed there wrong? No, it's not. OP didn't say shit about price.

[Anonymous No.8188616]

>>8187807
Loads of stuff you wrote is wrong, as has been highlighted by multiple posters along the life of this thread. ND filtes being a "must" being just one such point.

[Anonymous No.8188695]

>>8175666

>50 mm

Enjoy walking 2 miles backwards and holding everyone up/ cause them to walk in your shot, every time you want to take a picture. Enjoy distorted perspective when doing portraits.

If you're not retarded walk around with a 24-70 2.8 at cons and switch to primes when you're actually shooting someone outside where there's no people.

Also do you even know what an ND filter does?

[Anonymous No.8188804]

>>8187157
This post really depressed me to make because the DG HSM is my bread and butter and I payed like $900 for it a billion years ago

[Anonymous No.8189387]

>>8188804
It's still a nice lens, though. It's just the nature of gear that it becomes cheaper over time and third party brands drop prices faster than first party. But the Macro version actually kinda sucks and also isn't a true 50mm. It's actually 44mm at infinity at 40mm at closest focus.

>>8188695
A 28mm or 35mm makes for a good con floor walkaround lens too, assuming you want full length shots quickly and you know better than to try anything closer. Personally, I wouldn't change my 35 f/2 for the world when it comes to walking the floor. 35 easily gets you full length on a full frame body and the extra stop is nice when you get those cons that think holding an event in the dark is a good idea.

But you make a good point, if someone really wants to claim that there's only one lens that you need then it should be a 24-70, not a 50mm. I prefer primes but if I was going to work with one lens and one lens only from now until the rest of time then the 24-70 would be the only viable choice.

[Anonymous No.8189541]

I got a Canon 6D, 35mm F2, 85mm rokinon 85mm cine 1.5m 50mm 1.8 and some random fisheyes lens. Was planning to get a Sigma 50mm Art as my all around con lens but reading this board, seem like I should either get a better 35 or/and 85mm lens?

[Anonymous No.8189870]

>>8189541
Your post is really confusing. You're using an 85mm cinema lens on a DSLR body?

The Canon 35 f/2 is a good lens as it is. That's been a workhorse lens for decades. For the con floor there is nothing else you need. The rokinon 85mm lenses are all very sharp and well corrected and the only thing you'll get out of buying a different 85mm lens is fast autofocus. I don't know why you'd be using a cine lens, though. The 50mm 1.8 is good enough for anyone once you're shooting at 2.8 or smaller and even wide open it's good enough for all but demanding pros. Your post doesn't read like it was written by a pro.

Instead of worrying about buying better versions of what you already have, buy things you don't have. Invest in some books or a workshop with a professional. Book yourself a model, a MUA and some studio time. Buy a lens of a focal length you don't already have covered. Something in the 125-175mm range would round out your kit well. Buy a nice bag, a speedlight, buy a backup body, buy yourself a Macbook and a good tether cable. There are a hundred things you can put your time and money towards which will help you far more than a very slight upgrade in glass.

[Anonymous No.8190013]

>>8189870
Ah sorry, English isn't my first language. Got the Cine lens from a friend but hated it since it's only manual focus. Thank for the advice

[Anonymous No.8190144]

>>8188616
>Loads of stuff you wrote is wrong, as has been highlighted by multiple posters along the life of this thread. ND filtes being a "must" being just one such point
Hah. Fuck off, nobody pointed out anything wrong. They had a difference of opinion. And ND filters are a must if you want bokeh and you're in sunlight.

[Anonymous No.8190153]

>>8188695
You're a retard. I do cosplay photos, why the fuck are you shooting portraits. Walking back and forth? Are your feet broke? Are you a fat fuck who can't move?

YES faggot, I fucking know what an ND does. Again, DO YOU or DO YOU NOT like bokeh? DO YOU know what the motherfucking SUN is?

[Anonymous No.8190223]

>>8185711

I wholeheartedly agree with this post and will second the opinion that the Fuji X-Series outside of the X100/T isn't meant for beginners at all.

For everyone else, the interchangeable lens X-series cameras are meant for serious enthusiasts and pros that want a solid closed-loop mirrorless system with a lens lineup to match and don't want to bother with Micro 4/3rds or the quirks of the Sony Alpha system.

Yes it's more expensive than DSLR systems, but when you nail perfect focus with one of the prime lenses, it's so fucking sharp you almost need to do a double take. The automatic fill-flash metering and lighting compensation is also a key advantage over DSLR systems.

My current DSLR setup with a Rebel XTi EF-S 10-18mm, EF-S 24mm and 60mm Macro is serving me well, and I feel underqualified to own the X-Series at the moment, even though I'd like to invest in the series in the future.

I will also agree that the X-Series can be hit-or-miss for a first-time user unfamiliar with digital photography. Fuji designs every aspect of the line under the assumption that you already know what you're doing and have a working knowledge of how to compensate for your environment.

I've seen too many first-time users complain about how their shots come out badly because of a lack of knowledge and end up returning perfectly working cameras as a result.

I would never recommend the line to a first-timer, nor would I ever recommend using mirrorless cameras at cons, either and that is from past experience using a borrowed Olympus MILC as a backup camera for hall shots.

[Anonymous No.8190395]

>>8184625
tyty. this is more or less spot on. i was starting from underexposed and shooting myself in the foot.
mostly wanted to learn how to do it to fool around with it.

[Anonymous No.8190755]

>>8189870
One thing I'll say about the Rok 85 is that you absolutely need a full-frame camera with a good viewfinder to use it. With a little APS-C mirror finder, it's just too hard to see if things are properly in focus and you instead have to use the dot or the EVF to confirm, and both of those are clunky and time-consuming.

[Anonymous No.8190872]

>>8188804
Wait, why is it even that expensive? The actual Nikkor one is only $350, and even back in the day it should've been $500 or so.

[Anonymous No.8191137]

>>8187790
Then just call her "my wife"... "My woman" sounds so cringe

[Anonymous No.8191334]

>>8190144
>And ND filters are a must if you want bokeh and you're in sunlight.

Congratulations, you don't know what 'bokeh' means.

'Bokeh' is the quality of the out of focus areas of an image. You get smooth bokeh, rough bokeh, painterly bokeh. Bokeh is not one single aspect which you "want" or get. Every image, except wide angles at narrow apertures, are going to have areas which are out of focus and that's all bokeh means. It's literally just shorthand for "the out of focus parts" to be used in the context of "the out of focus parts look [description]."

Now that you've proven you don't have a rat's ass clue, kindly shut the fuck up.

[Anonymous No.8191341]

>>8190755
I think that goes for all the Rokinon lenses. Put them on a great body and in the hands of somebody used to doing everything manually, they produce absolutely incredible results. There's top glass in them. Put them on a crop body or used by someone used to leaving everything automatic and you're just fucked. You've basically got to treat all of their lenses as if you're shooting film.

[Anonymous No.8191361]

>>8185711
>>8190223
All of this. Fuji X cameras are probably the most exciting range of bodies and lenses on the market but if you don't know what you're doing or why you're doing it then they just become overpriced crop sensor point-and-shoots.

I have a X-Pro1. When I bought it it was the fanciest camera on the market and I thought just owning it would make my pictures better. It didn't. Shit sucked for a long time. I wasn't used to the off-center viewfinder, having to turn physical dials to change settings or the focus-by-wire. It took about a year and a half of basically re-learning everything I thought I knew about basically handling a camera before it paid off. Now I can't imagine ever going back to DSLR. I'll be getting the Pro2 when that comes out and I just bought an E2 as a back up body. The 35mm f/1.4 and 56mm f/1.2 are the first fast aperture lenses I've had which genuinely are super-sharp even at their widest. The colors and depth of the images the X-Trans produces are unique and beyond what I was ever getting with DSLR. I've a friend who has the Sony A7 and that's the same deal with 50% more resolution.

But there's no getting around that year and a half it took me just to get to grips with basic functions. Dealing with battery life, EVF lag, offset optical viewfinder, software not properly supporting the Fuji RAW format, all sorts of things.

If you get into a mirrorless system do your research and don't expect it to revolutionize your photography over night. It'll probably be a step back for a while.

[Anonymous No.8192155]

>>8191334
>Congratulations, you don't know what 'bokeh' means.
Fuck me you are the biggest retard I've ever had a conversation with regarding photography. I hope people don't read what you wrote and think it's actually true. Fuck off back to a Sony My First Camera and leave the talking to the grown-ups, son.

[Anonymous No.8192254]

>>8192155
Go on then. Explain for all the boys and girls. Share your infinite wisdom.

[thigh-gap !PicKleqHjM No.8192287]

>>8192155
Every single time you get called out, you have a raging mad butthurt reply like this yet post no supporting fact for your argument. You should probably just stop posting before this leads to a heart attack. I'm seriously concerned for you, son.

[Anonymous No.8192695]

I think I know what he means. He's just incredibly bad at articulating it. I believe by "bokeh" he means "a nice blurred background courtesy of a wide aperture lens like a f/2, f/1.4, etc" and to do it in bright sunlight without having to use 1/8000 and/or ISO 100/ISO 50 he says you need ND filters. Alternatively if you're trying to use off camera lighting during the day you will need ND filters but I don't think it's this. Even f/8 (not very wide and bokehlicious at all for most lenses) will require some ND in combination with additional lighting.

[Anonymous No.8192927]

When's the best time to post hall shots for maximum attention?

As a cosplayer, I started checking CosCom/Tumblr for shots as soon as I got home, which could be Sunday evening, and got less interested in checking as time went on.

[Anonymous No.8195924]

>>8192927
>When's the best time to post hall shots for maximum attention?
>As a cosplayer, I started checking CosCom/Tumblr for shots as soon as I got home, which could be Sunday evening, and got less interested in checking as time went on
Sooner the better, but it's not unreasonable for photographers to take a week to get hall shots posted. Well, assuming they give a shit about their work and actually do a little post-processing anyway.

Best bet for cosplayers is ASK FOR A CARD if you see someone shooting you with what looks like a decent camera. I will go out on a limb and say most of us have cards, because we actually WANT people to see our work.