Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Photography for geeks

lcamtuf.coredump.cx

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 150 posts

Re: Photography for geeks

#21

Post by _HMCB_ »

throw0101c wrote: post #5

If anyone wants to move beyond using the "auto" setting on their camera (or phone), I would recommend the book Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson, the first edition of which was published in 1990: * https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/142239.Understanding_Exp... The principles involved haven't changed much in the intervening decades; the current fourth edition was publish in 2016. If all you have is a phone you…

I bought that book months back. Have yet to read it but thanks for the reminder.

Re: Photography for geeks

#22

Post by throw0101c »

geokon wrote: post #7
throw0101c wrote: post #5

If anyone wants to move beyond using the "auto" setting on their camera (or phone), I would recommend the book Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson, the first edition of which was published in 1990: * https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/142239.Understanding_Exp... The principles involved haven't changed much in the intervening decades; the current fourth edition was publish in 2016. If all you have is a phone you…

I think when you break down all the variables there is really very little to play with bc no phones have variable apertures. ISO is basically a linear gain that's done on the sensor. As long as you aren't blowing out your photo and loosing information, it basically makes not difference if you do it in sensor or later while editing So the only variable left is the shutter speed - which is basically directly dictated b…

> […] bc no phones have variable apertures.

:(

Re: Photography for geeks

#23

Post by SamBam »

Terretta wrote: post #6

This is very well done for a new-to-photography audience. Will be sharing around to people who say all their things look like snapshots, what's up with that. Great use of examples, except for one: kid on bridge. > At the same time, it must be said that color and tone can be what separates a mediocre photograph from a memorable one. To illustrate, let's look at the potential evolution of this vacation shot deliberatel…

I had the exact same thought on that sequence.

The angle is a personal choice, though I think I agree that the mirroring angles of the two bridges was more interesting than having the horizon straightened. But the final "Tone Curve Corrected" turned a fairly nice image into a typical HDR-ruined photo, where the eye can't focus anywhere because all the colors have the same value.

To add some praise with the criticism, I thought the explorations of light white the photos of the wife were well done. Pointing the rear light at the subject's back to create that subtle halo is nice and I had not considered it.

Re: Photography for geeks

#24

Post by muglug »

The main thing about photography is your first 10,000 photos will likely be bad. Modern technology makes it possible to get through 10,000 snaps much faster and much cheaper than when using film.

But taking those photos is not enough — it’s in the editing of those first 10,000 photos that you will find the hidden photographer in you.

Photography is a lot like writing code: you can create something that does the job, but does not do it beautifully. You can keep on creating until creating beauty becomes easier.

Re: Photography for geeks

#25

Post by photochemsyn »

An interesting site with lots of information about 35mm photography and film vs digital techniques is 35mmc.com. Here for example is a very clear and concise discussion of depth of field and the factors that control it (such as aperture, focal length):

https://www.35mmc.com/25/07/2016/basic-optics-photographers/

Re: Photography for geeks

#26

Post by lelandfe »

lxe wrote: post #15

This is helpful for my stable diffusion prompts.

A lot from the article will not work, because the terms are too overloaded ("three point"). SD photography and lighting keyword dump I've tested for 1.5:

f1.8, dof, bokeh, soft focus, chiaroscuro, backlit, golden hour, soft lighting, natural lighting, warm colors [but not "cool"], Polaroid, lens flare

"85mm", "50mm" etc all make the image realistic, but don't do anything specific.

Pro-tip: use "windows" to get many of the outdoor lighting keywords available indoors.

Re: Photography for geeks

#27

Post by kyleyeats »

lelandfe wrote: post #26
lxe wrote: post #15

This is helpful for my stable diffusion prompts.

A lot from the article will not work, because the terms are too overloaded ("three point"). SD photography and lighting keyword dump I've tested for 1.5: f1.8, dof, bokeh, soft focus, chiaroscuro, backlit, golden hour, soft lighting, natural lighting, warm colors [but not "cool"], Polaroid, lens flare "85mm", "50mm" etc all make the image realistic, but don't do anything specific. Pro-tip: use "windows" to get many o…

Thanks for these. Can vouch for golden hour. I can see why directors are obsessed with it.

Re: Photography for geeks

#28

Post by rsch »

geokon wrote: post #7
throw0101c wrote: post #5

If anyone wants to move beyond using the "auto" setting on their camera (or phone), I would recommend the book Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson, the first edition of which was published in 1990: * https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/142239.Understanding_Exp... The principles involved haven't changed much in the intervening decades; the current fourth edition was publish in 2016. If all you have is a phone you…

I think when you break down all the variables there is really very little to play with bc no phones have variable apertures. ISO is basically a linear gain that's done on the sensor. As long as you aren't blowing out your photo and loosing information, it basically makes not difference if you do it in sensor or later while editing So the only variable left is the shutter speed - which is basically directly dictated b…

If you underexpose too severely, the JPEG compression will eat up all the detail in the shadows.

Re: Photography for geeks

#29

Post by geokon »

TreeRingCounter wrote: post #13
geokon wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think when you break down all the variables there is really very little to play with bc no phones have variable apertures. ISO is basically a linear gain that's done on the sensor. As long as you aren't blowing out your photo and loosing information, it basically makes not difference if you do it in sensor or later while editing So the only variable left is the shutter speed - which is basically directly dictated b…

> ISO is basically a linear gain that's done on the sensor. It's usually not done on the sensor - it's usually done by the ADC that performs sensor readout. Some cameras use a technology like Aptina-DRPix to dynamically change the capacitance of the sensor FETs, but (as far as I'm aware) this only exists in a simple binary form right now. E.g. one of my cameras reduces sensor gate capacitance when the ISO exceeds 800…

Right, sorry. Not on the sensor, but the hardware that's reads it off the .. which I guess is not technically the sensor.. haha

You're still multiplying what is the photo-count or shotnoise

Didn't know there is technology built on top of that... Does changing the capacitance increase the sensitivity somehow? I guess then the question is.. why isn't that always enabled. There must be some downside to it

Re: Photography for geeks

#30

Post by bradknowles »

muglug wrote: post #24

The main thing about photography is your first 10,000 photos will likely be bad. Modern technology makes it possible to get through 10,000 snaps much faster and much cheaper than when using film. But taking those photos is not enough — it’s in the editing of those first 10,000 photos that you will find the hidden photographer in you. Photography is a lot like writing code: you can create something that does the job,…

I wouldn't say it's your first 10k photos. Because anyone can just hold down the button and take hundreds of photos. And those hundreds of photos don't really count as separate pictures in this regard.

I would say that it's more like your first 10k different photographic compositions/subjects.

From there, I agree that you really learn in the editing.

Post reply on HN