[NSFW] Lardroom's room of lard and dolls.

1 hour ago, cfx said:

I've never used a mirrorless so I can't make any suggestions on that. I'm used to optical because I started in the mid-1970's with 35mm film SLRs which was long before even autofocus was a thing. I was actually lamening the other day how cameras no longer have split-prism viewfinders so you can manual focus if you wanted to. They have those things that electronically tell you if you're in focus or which direction you're off, but if it's a situation where the autofocus system is being confused, those don't help.

 

That's so neat. The manual focus ring required some getting used to.

Supposedly the new AFs in the new cameras are amazing at recognizing eyes and focusing appropriately and the new ones have a lot of focusing points.

But $3500 could go to several new dolls instead of towards a fancy camera, which needs and even fancier lens.

2 hours ago, cfx said:

I was actually lamening the other day how cameras no longer have split-prism viewfinders so you can manual focus if you wanted to.

That is something that really bugs me about DSLRs. If you have poor vision like me, not having that feature is awful.

24 minutes ago, BeyondTime said:

That is something that really bugs me about DSLRs. If you have poor vision like me, not having that feature is awful.

Exactly. I don't know how I'm expected to be able to tell if something is in focus either in the viewfinder or on the rear screen. Maybe someone with good vision can, since I always see articles with people checking focus of just-taken pictures on the rear screen etc. I never know until I see things on a computer much later.

The other thing is, with glasses, I can't see the corners of the viewfinder so I end up never having the exact framing I want. Even with a tripod and static subjects like dolls it's a chore and I fail at it. It's hard even to see the data at the bottom because it's always cut off for me.

In the film era, Nikon made a variant of the F3 called the F3HP with the "high eyepoint" viewfinder that allowed you to see the entire frame with your eye about an inch away from the camera. I never got to see one of these but if it worked like was claimed, would have been perfect for me. I wish that idea had survived. Adjustable diopters at least make it where you can adjust the viewfinder to make it clear, but they don't solve this problem.

Edited March 21, 2020 by cfx

22 minutes ago, cfx said:

I don't know how I'm expected to be able to tell if something is in focus either in the viewfinder or on the rear screen. Maybe someone with good vision can, since I always see articles with people checking focus of just-taken pictures on the rear screen etc. I never know until I see things on a computer much later.

Best thing I have found is to position a bright light near the doll, and then let autofocus take care of it. Then use tethering to take the picture so you see it on the screen immediately, and can confirm focus. As long as there is enough light it seems to work. It makes it easy to confirm depth of field too.

Easier if you have a studio setup, but works like a charm. I've gotten pretty good and posing the doll in the same spot, so when I repose I don't have to redo the focus.

I know we've had this debate before, and I am not trying to persuade you, but I use Lightroom's built in tethering. It makes it really easy to shoot, check composition, and try a few crops to see if I have gotten what I want. It also names the files, and saves them to a directory I choose.

Nice thing about dolls is they don't wander off while you are working on the computer.

You can buy Nikon's app, and it has more features like live view mode and focus control, but the live view mode needs a lot of light to really be useful.

5 minutes ago, BeyondTime said:

You can buy Nikon's app, and it has more features like live view mode and focus control, but the live view mode needs a lot of light to really be useful.

I'm starting to wonder if my camera is defective. I've tried live view several times doing what amounts to product photography i.e. past couple of days taking pictures of things to sell, and I find the camera can never find focus in that mode. I'm also having a lot of trouble getting any consistency in it focusing in regular viewfinder mode.

I believe I have the same camera you do, and as you may be aware, early on, a significant number of them had autofocus issues related to a manufacturing problem related to the autofocus sensor array's placement within the camera body. I specifically didn't buy until the camera was about to be replaced in hopes of avoiding this, and that issue wouldn't affect the live view focus anyway. The issues seem worse with the 85mm lens than with the 50mm; the 85mm is almost unusable in how unreliable the focusing is; I'll set something up and it focuses, then I try to take the picture and it can't find focus (I have the setting set where it won't let you press the shutter to actually take a picture if it can't focus). Maybe the problem is with me and not the camera. I was getting really frustrated with it, and was thinking about how photography was a lot more fun when cameras were simpler.

I would like to try tethering but with only a desktop computer it's not that feasible. I also missed out on when Lightroom was a product you bought instead of one you rent, which I won't do.

31 minutes ago, cfx said:

(I have the setting set where it won't let you press the shutter to actually take a picture if it can't focus).

With Lightroom when you press the shutter in Lightroom it doesn't alter the focus. As long as focus is set you can take as many pictures as you want. I'm shooting from a tripod though. I just don't have enough light in that room to handhold.

I have a D800, I don't have focus issues as long as there is enough light. Without enough light the autofocus is useless, and manual using live view is hit and miss. I can never get it just right unless I shine a really bright light on the subject, and then I might as well use autofocus.

We're totally hijacking Lardroom's thread and should really stop. XD

Edited March 21, 2020 by BeyondTime

Oh, yeah.

I need to definitely get a copy of lightroom. I don't like the subscription model, though, so right now I'm using an open source replacement (RawTherapee). At first I was just working with high quality jpegs, ut I'm becoming more and more comfortable with RAW files and compensating for exposures. It doesn't seem as intuitive as Lightroom, but it works for dollies so long as I get the basics correct.

Thankfully, i've got pretty good vision so I can kind of tell either in the viewfinder or on the screen when something is out of focus. I also take a lot of photos and discard a lot of photos.

56 minutes ago, cfx said:

The issues seem worse with the 85mm lens than with the 50mm; the 85mm is almost unusable in how unreliable the focusing is; I'll set something up and it focuses, then I try to take the picture and it can't find focus (I have the setting set where it won't let you press the shutter to actually take a picture if it can't focus).

My Nikon D3500 is set up the same way, so sometimes I have to go into manual focus if the AF is acting up just to take the picture and check composition and exposure. This is especially true when I try to shoot a close up portrait at 85mm. I should probably just graduate from the kit lenses. Next step is a either a 50mm f/1.8 or 85 mm f/1.8.

Edited March 21, 2020 by lardroom

6 minutes ago, BeyondTime said:

We're totally hijacking Lardroom's thread and should really stop. XD

No, this discussion is great! I'm learning a lot about set ups. I still don't have a tripod, nor a dedicated setup for pleasing backgrounds, but the lighting situation is getting better and hopefully I'll have some softboxes to get better lighting.

2 minutes ago, lardroom said:

hopefully I'll have some softboxes to get better lighting.

Diffusion makes a huge difference in the quality of light.

 

3 minutes ago, lardroom said:

No, this discussion is great!

As long as it's not bothering you, cfx and I can run on a bit when discussing stuff. I'm guessing everyone being shut in is going to make that worse. XD

42 minutes ago, BeyondTime said:

As long as it's not bothering you, cfx and I can run on a bit when discussing stuff. I'm guessing everyone being shut in is going to make that worse. XD

Toobie and I are prepared for sheltering at home!

Toobs38 by Lardroom, on Flickr

All bars and clubs are shut down, but that just gives me more time to practice making cocktails and taking pictures of dolls.

20 minutes ago, BeyondTime said:

As long as it's not bothering you, cfx and I can run on a bit when discussing stuff. I'm guessing everyone being shut in is going to make that worse. XD

Yes, yes we can. As long as lardroom doesn't mind I'll carry on.

36 minutes ago, BeyondTime said:

I have a D800, I don't have focus issues as long as there is enough light. Without enough light the autofocus is useless, and manual using live view is hit and miss. I can never get it just right unless I shine a really bright light on the subject, and then I might as well use autofocus.

D800e here, same camera minus a filter (or actually plus a filter due to how they implemented it). The thing is, I used to have a D700 which I had to sell due to financial difficulties, and I never had these issues with it. I also had screw-drive lenses back then so everything was different, but that's why I feel like there is something with the camera and not just me doing something wrong or expecting things that don't work the way I think they should.

I know when the D800 came out, a lot of people had issues because the much higher pixel count just meant that slightly out-of-focus images that might not have been noticable as such on a lower megapixel camera like the D700 were now visible. But that isn't my issue; my issue is it not finding focus at all, or not consistently.

It could be a lighting-related issue as I don't recall having it the few times I've used the camera outdoors; however I'm not using it in such low light indoors that I think it should be behaving this way; if this is normal then I don't know how anyone uses it for indoor photgraphy at all. Plus, when I was trying to take these pictures recently, it was using that focus assist lamp.

59 minutes ago, lardroom said:

I need to definitely get a copy of lightroom. I don't like the subscription model, though, so right now I'm using an open source replacement (RawTherapee). At first I was just working with high quality jpegs, ut I'm becoming more and more comfortable with RAW files and compensating for exposures. It doesn't seem as intuitive as Lightroom, but it works for dollies so long as I get the basics correct.

If I recall, that uses libraw etc. created by Iliah Borg which means it should be good stuff. Something else you might look at is Luminar which from what I've read I believe has an interface more like Lightroom. It's a paid, but non-subscription product:

https://skylum.com/luminar

8 hours ago, cfx said:

I know when the D800 came out, a lot of people had issues because the much higher pixel count just meant that slightly out-of-focus images that might not have been noticable as such on a lower megapixel camera like the D700 were now visible.

Not just slightly out of focus images, lower quality lenses are an issue too.

 

8 hours ago, cfx said:

It could be a lighting-related issue as I don't recall having it the few times I've used the camera outdoors;

What I have found is the focusing either requires me to use a spotlight, or to place a 100 watt bulb near the doll when I focus. If I were to touch the shutter without that light it would immediately try and refocus and fail. The use of a third party app eliminates that issue.

I use a spot anyways, so it hasn't been too inconvenient. When my lighting was only flash it was painful.

 

8 hours ago, cfx said:

It's a paid, but non-subscription product:

If you go with a Creative Cloud 'Photography' subscription you get Photoshop & Lightroom plus 20 GB of cloud storage for $9.99 a month, and you get all the upgrades including major feature releases as they become available. You could also do the Lightroom plan with 1 TB of cloud storage for $9.99 a month. I'm not sure if the either plan includes Lightroom Classic, which is the desktop version. $9.99 a month is the cost of 1 TB of Dropbox storage, so the Lightroom plan basically gives you Lightroom. I've never messed with the Cloud integrated version of Lightroom, so I can't compare that to Classic.

I am pretty sure either license allows you to install on two computers, but I am not as familiar with the terms of their "individual" plans.

In 2013 c|net did a cost analysis of Adobe subscription plans, and the cost of the monthly sub to creative cloud was less than the cost buying the Creative Suite packages. https://www.cnet.com/news/how-greedy-is-adobes-creative-cloud-subscription-not-very/

The reality is the cost of an individual sub for Photoshop / Lightroom today is mush less than the c-net analysis in 2013. It's $360 over three years today, and not $700 for just photoshop.

As far as I can tell every major software vendor is moving to some kind of subscription model, and probably because it makes piracy harder. Microsoft has already done so, and has incentivized it by making their Office 365 version the most feature rich version of MS Office.

I can get that people hate the idea of subs, and in my case it probably felt less unusual because our schools Microsoft Campus Agreement has used this model for well over a decade, and I like being able to just download the latest release when it comes out.

The reality is you don't really own the software that you buy regardless of how you buy it. We've always been paying for the right-to-use the software under the makers terms, and every software license I have read gave the maker the right to revoke the license. The advantage of the average consumer is that our use of the software never really catches their attention, so we never get that right-to-use revoked for misuse of the license agreement.

I think the consumer also has an advantage with cloud based subs in that less piracy means the business can lower costs and has more resources for development. Adobe can sell more Photoshop for $9.99 a month than they they do for $20 a month, so they make more money by keeping costs down.

Edit: I found a plan comparison, and the "Lightroom" plan doesn't include Classic, but the "Photography" plan does.

https://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop-lightroom/compare-plans.html?promoid=VKW3KGR6&mv=other

Edited March 21, 2020 by BeyondTime

59 minutes ago, BeyondTime said:

Not just slightly out of focus images, lower quality lenses are an issue too.

Yeah, which really sucked because it obsoleted all my "D" series screw-drive lenses and the "G" versions were more expensive and no longer made of metal. I didn't need 36mp but I was stuck with it anyway. Huge RAW files too.

59 minutes ago, BeyondTime said:

What I have found is the focusing either requires me to use a spotlight, or to place a 100 watt bulb near the doll when I focus. If I were to touch the shutter without that light it would immediately try and refocus and fail.

That sounds like my experience, but I really don't think it should work this way. What about people who photograph weddings, or other indoor event photography? They can't fiddle around like this or they'll miss the shots.

59 minutes ago, BeyondTime said:

[...] The reality is the cost of an individual sub for Photoshop / Lightroom today is mush less than the c-net analysis in 2013. It's $360 over three years today, and not $700 for just photoshop.

I remember reading some of these analyses back then. The problem with them is, they assume everyone bought every upgrade Adobe put out of the standalone products. I never did that. I was happy with older versions, and still am happy with CS6 now. The last time before that I bought Photoshop was PS7, so I skipped CS through CS5 and did the same for Illustrator.

I opted out of the Microsoft upgrade path too. I have an older Office which works fine for me. It's not a security risk because I have this one computer online which is used for nothing other than being online, all my work or other important things are done on another machine that is never ever connected to the internet. I'm just that paranoid lol. Because of that I'd never use any of the offered cloud storage in these plans anyway.

Another issue for me is all the companies seem to take for granted that everyone has megafast internet with no data caps. I have neither, and my data cap that used to be large enough that it wasn't a problem for anything I'd ever do, is now being cut down to about 1/3 of what it was, with a simultaneous price raise of about 25%. 😕 I can't download these huge programs anymore, and the fact that so few things are offered on any kind of physical media now is a problem for me as well.

Like anyone else, I have to choose where to spend what discretionary money I have, and I do not like subscriptions because my financial situation could instantly change at any time and having any sort of commitment like that is just stressful for me, one of my many problems I'm sure. I'm really cheap about a lot of things, which is how I can manage to have hobbies like this one.

I'm getting waaay off topic now, but I thought I should explain my point of view on this. Anyway, the product I suggested Lardroom look at costs about what 1 year of one of those Adobe plans costs because it's a less expensive product than what they charged for their standalones.

Edited March 21, 2020 by cfx

I've been noticing a lot of the Japanese twitter doll pictures are extremely on the soft and bright side. Little to no shadows, not a lot of contrast, some of them even over exposed to hell. They're pretty, and I'm wondering whether to emulate that kind of style. It's like dreamy cotton candy, which may be the point. If I do, it looks like a lot is done in post. I mean, a lot of non-doll photography is also post processing, but focusing on shadows and highlights.

RawTherapee looks to be a very powerful photography editing program, but isn't the most intuitive. I think I'll stick with the open source version for now and just learn it. However, I am interested in editing to remove the doll stands and things like that, so I may eventually cave and get a subscription. While I am in a very stable financial situation right now, you never know in times of uncertainty. But that Luminar program looks kinda just what I needed for hobbyist photography! Gonna check it out and look at some reviews.

Edited March 21, 2020 by lardroom

I think you are referring to high-key photography? Like here?

https://www.instagram.com/aki_aa/

That can be done with large softboxes and reflectors, or as in her case, large windows and natural lighting and white everywhere:

People also do this by making light tents. For more on that just do a search because there's a million articles and how-to videos and I don't know a particular one to recommend. It's a pretty good way to do nice photography without much space, and cheap lighting can be used.

Luminar is a Lightroom-like program. I had to look a bit to remember the name of this one, but a Photoshop-type you might look at is Affinity Photo, which costs $50 or currently half off:

https://affinity.serif.com/en-us/

I haven't used either program, but I've seen them recommended by some pros that are trustworthy. Affinity has a free trial anyway.

Edited March 21, 2020 by cfx

2 hours ago, cfx said:

That sounds like my experience, but I really don't think it should work this way. What about people who photograph weddings, or other indoor event photography? They can't fiddle around like this or they'll miss the shots.

My light is really low. I'm in an apartment complex with a building across from me. I don't like living in a fishbowl, so I always have the curtains drawn.

 

2 hours ago, lardroom said:

I am interested in editing to remove the doll stands and things like that, so I may eventually cave and get a subscription.

Not much better than Photoshop for that. You can use GIMP, which is free, but I personally can't stand the interface.

6 minutes ago, BeyondTime said:

My light is really low. I'm in an apartment complex with a building across from me. I don't like living in a fishbowl, so I always have the curtains drawn.

When I took the pictures of my sale stuff, it was similar because the big overhead fluorescent light was causing glare on the plastic bags so I had it off. I had lights on in other rooms coming through doorways, and one window, but it was overcast and rainy outside. These were exposures of a few seconds. However, some other photographs I was doing for someone else I was in front of a window as well as an overhead fluorescent, and I had the same problem. Still, what's the point of the AF-assist lamp if it can't focus in low light with it?

I've just now been editing some more of those pictures, and pixel-peeping at 100%. These are Volks eyes and shoes in the bags, and I put the focusing point on the doll compatibility label, or the barcode, on each one. I took two pictures of each. I'd say about 2/3 of them, one is in sharp(er) focus, and the other is slightly off. That says to me there is too much tolerance or play in something in my autofocus system. I thought based on what had more difficulting finding focus maybe it was the 85mm lens, but I see these same results on both the 85mm and 50mm. If they were off in a consistent way, then I'd know I need to use the lens offsets that the camera can do to correct for autofocus, but it's not consistent. I also paid attention; it's not that it's always the first one I took, or the second; it varies. To eliminate any camera shake issues I took all these pictures using the self-timer so I pressed the shutter, then moved away from the camera and stood still. I have a rigid tripod but on carpet it can still shake a lot.

41 minutes ago, cfx said:

To eliminate any camera shake issues I took all these pictures using the self-timer so I pressed the shutter, then moved away from the camera and stood still. I have a rigid tripod but on carpet it can still shake a lot.

My favorite is the rush to balance the doll, and then trip the shutter release before she swan dives into a faceplant like a Chitose trying to do gymnastics.

16 minutes ago, BeyondTime said:

My favorite is the rush to balance the doll, and then trip the shutter release before she swan dives into a faceplant like a Chitose trying to do gymnastics.

I don't know what I'd do if 2B fell and damaged her face up. Probably cry a lot. Had a few close calls, but never one that was of a doll-threatening height.

That Sony a9 or the rumored Canon EOS r6 look delicious, but that's overkill for dollies. I kinda just want a little bit more than the 11 AF focusing points in this D3500. Is that being spoiled?

3 hours ago, cfx said:

I think you are referring to high-key photography? Like here?

https://www.instagram.com/aki_aa/

That can be done with large softboxes and reflectors, or as in her case, large windows and natural lighting and white everywhere:

 

Oh, I guess there's a term for it, but I see this type of aesthetic a lot in relation to dolls. I go to Japan a few times and one of my favourite Ginza bars, Shuusendo, has something of this aesthetic. It uses creamy wood and is bright and welcoming for a basement bar.

I'm actually moving to a rental right now (lol, bad timing), and I'm actually planning to make my furniture white or very light, like a typical millennial. Don't think I have nearly the amount of windows as in the link, so I guess it's soft boxes and reflectors for me. When I buy a house, though, it's definitely going to have a relaxing sun room like that.

11 minutes ago, lardroom said:

I don't know what I'd do if 2B fell and damaged her face up. Probably cry a lot. Had a few close calls, but never one that was of a doll-threatening height.

They're pretty durable, but they do have a tendency to fall in the worst possible direction. The law of gravity needs a Dollfie Dream addendum.

If you were doing stuff over concrete or another hard surface, you would probably want a partner who could catch them when they fall. I've never gotten damage from carpetplants from a height of 4 or 5 feet.

Usually the most annoying thing is that the carefully arranged wig is now a tangle.

Edited March 21, 2020 by BeyondTime

23 minutes ago, lardroom said:

That Sony a9 or the rumored Canon EOS r6 look delicious, but that's overkill for dollies.

With the Sonys, I think you'd want an A7R III or IV over the A9. The A9 is a "speed" camera made for sports and such, and has lower megapixels because of it.

For experimenting with high-key before spending much on it, look up the info on light tents. You can do crude versions of that with something like white bed sheets and whatever lighting you have; desk lamps, table lamps, etc. Not perfect results but good for some testing. The reason I suggest things like this is because it helps you decide what you do and do not like, so you can make better choices on what lighting and accessories to spend money on.

All this talk about auto and manual focusing has me trying out the manual focus on this 55-200mm f/4-5.6 lens. My arms are tired from holding up the body with an attached fill light and manually focusing the lens. I also forgot I got this tiny pocket mirror that works perfectly as a macbook air for a 1/3 doll. Unfortunately the sticker is really really off-center. Also, tried to "shoot to the right" and keep the things bright without blowing the whole thing out.

 

Toobs40 by Lardroom, on Flickr

 

Toobs41 by Lardroom, on Flickr

I think Arle wants her wig back. I bet Toobie would look amazing in Arle's wig in the white frilled dress or another skinny dress, but I'll save that for another day.

1 hour ago, lardroom said:

All this talk about auto and manual focusing has me trying out the manual focus on this 55-200mm f/4-5.6 lens. My arms are tired from holding up the body with an attached fill light and manually focusing the lens.

If you're using a flash that is attached to the camera, wait until you get it off camera with a sync cord. That will improve your lighting.

I've done photos where I hold the flash in one hand with a small diffusion umbrella wedged between my fingers, and then worked the camera with my other hand.

16 minutes ago, BeyondTime said:

If you're using a flash that is attached to the camera, wait until you get it off camera with a sync cord. That will improve your lighting.

I've done photos where I hold the flash in one hand with a small diffusion umbrella wedged between my fingers, and then worked the camera with my other hand.

Not sure what the difference would be between having an off camera flash with a sync cord versus setting up a soft box lighting kit. Since I'm just shooting dolls, can I get away with those smaller soft box kits? Or is it recommended to just go with the full scale studio/portrait ones.