Видео

This is in my top 5 videos list!

Censor the license plates in your Lisbon footage, please.

Man I how long dose take to leran photography and videography

Salient advice as always, Jamie - & certainly, we've all been guilty of shooting wide-open ad-infinitum 😉

In order for a picture to engage your brain there must be something unusual about it. Human brain filters out usual and attracted to things it can learn from. That means 40-60mm slow lens is the most difficult to take interesting pictures with -- there must be something unusual about the scene itself to be interesting. On the other hand pictures that we don't see in real life attract attention regardless of the subject. So want to have a boring subject more interesting? -- use wide angle, or telephoto, or macro, or shallow DOF, etc.

Amazing job! Do you have a Mac version!?

*Please note that the method of installation has now changed for Lightroom* Follow this installation tutorial instead: iruclips.net/video/Mr1wu4RR4AE/видео.html

I've downloaded these and followed your tutorial on importing the presets but it's only importing only the adjustments and preset 2. But even those I'm not able to adjust the amount.. I followed the tutorial exactly, restarted Lightroom classic and it's also the most recent software. These presets are working on Lightroom CC but not on Classic.. PLEASE HELP!

This video is satisfying. Well packaged.

Hi is it possible to develop these for davinci resolve?

What a video! Subscribed immediately! Thanks sir

Great video. I’m gonna give it a go. New photographer here in US.

(This is coming from a place of love) I love this video and I love the point you, Jamie, in it. But it baffles me that in the 2020s we're still having to ""interrogate the truthfulness of images"". The lens, the focal plane, the film size, the film itself being a photochemical process on crystals and not a photoelectric firing of light sensitives cells, the angle, the framing... Every picture is in itself a lie, like paintings were before it. It's a form of poetry. It's really weird to me that this "Was Lange lying ? Was it ethical ?" is still a thing.

Absolutely fascinating and so well presented/explained.

It's the cropping against all golden spiral rules that creates the eerieness in those pictures. Not the colours so much. Place elements to the very edges, cut them even so they fall out of the frame. Disobay any composition rules, throw it out of balance, yet remain stable. That way you will find wonderful disturbance, since the eyes can't rest and expect something to happen from the sides every moment. Think of the exits of a theatre set the villain can enter from any moment. Dare to disturb the peace and beauty. Don't like to be liked.

what is the music before pointer number 5 , just got addicted to it. could you share ?

Is it only ethical to shoot street photography if you ask people first and do you always ask first? I’m looking into buying my first real camera so I don’t know but I would want to ask people before taking photos.

3:56 ALSO "compression" is huge to make the composition right! Though an additional topic.

Such a good video thanku

Hi there, thanks for all yours tips. But if I get it correct, you don’t shoot straight black to white, you alter the image afterwards with Lightroom or such?

Go for Bokeh, not Toneh

love this video, keep re watching it. would love to see more about long exposure and art photography like at the start of the video

The Alex Webb work, causes an energy and discomfort. You can’t help but skim your eyes around the entire image. Your video is brilliant. Thank you.

Thanks for mixing camera information, photography tips and art education. Great content!

Great video. Thank you!

👑

This is sooo inspiring. Thank you for sharing!

Your words were what I needed at this moment …. Thank you

Alex Webb makes you feel so insecure about being a photographer.

Thanks

Phenomenal video. Thank you for the clarity!

Amazing educational video mate, this was so informative. You had my attention from the beginning. I'm new to photography, and this was very helpful.

Thank you Jamie! Your video gave me inspiration to try different methods of photography. I fell upon your channel while looking up the Adobe crap, I am glad I did!!

Great video tuto. Greetings from Marbella ;-)

So many of us need to watch this - especially newcomers. I've been shooting commercial cinematography for 20yrs and still found value here. None of us know everything!

Despite my strong interest in photography and following many youtube photographers for many years, I think this is the first video I’ve seen from you. The RUclips algorithm works in mysterious ways. 😂 Anyway, great video. I’ve just subscribed to your channel.

Digital? there is no cheating. You are just making photos anyway more often, then just taking photos.

Great vid thanks! Subbed.

That's a very nice lecture on composition, storytelling, etc. The "Depth of Field" (DoF) part however lacks depth, is underexposed. It's good to drive people to experimenting because "it's all relative". One glaring mistake was saying that sensor format impacts Depth of Field - it does not. Yes, DoF is a function of distance and aperture, but there are two other main variables or parameters in the formula: effective focal length and "Circle of Confusion" (CoC). This may seem nerdy or pedantic, but understanding the complexity and how the relativity of DoF works, will motivate you to experiment indeed. It highlights that a DOF scale on a lens is a crude approximation and may be far off - to the point it may be worthless to your photographic use case. The CoC parameter plays a big role in the DoF formula as it tweaks the effect of the other three. The complexity - relativity - is in here in the first place. The CoC bundles the following effect into one parameter: 1 - lens sharpness (detail resolution) - better -> shallower DoF 2 - film/sensor sharpness (detail resolution) - better -> shallower DoF 3 - processing (chemicals and process in film development or the software used in digital) - better -> shallower DoF 4 - display size of your image - larger -> shallower DoF 5 - display resolution in your image (DPI, PPI) - better -> shallower DoF 6 - distance between image and viewer - shorter -> shallower DoF So this combines both technicalities and human perception (the brain part of human vision and its resolution). "Sensor size" plays no role in here. BUT. As we call a 50mm for a "full frame" camera "nifty fifty" and consider it a standard lens, we have to understand that at micro 4/3rds format we need a 25mm lens for the same angle of view. Or on a camera with a frame size of 8"*10" (that's 203.2mm by 254mm - "large format"), the nifty fifty would be about 300..350mm focal length. Portrait photographer Yousuf Karsh used an 8"10" camera with a 14" focal length lens, but most of his shots were with a 4"5" film back on the camera, so he shot with a 2x crop factor. Putting the 4"*5" film back on the camera does not change the system's DoF. Note however that 35mm film would have a slightly higher resolution than medium format (120 film), so as professionals we had to take that CoC impact into account. If we needed to come up with an image that got printed extremely large then the DoF requirement woud be different. That was more gut feeling, in other words "experience", than anything else. While a larger distance to the subject at the same aperture and focal length increases the depth of DoF, or vice-versa, and the CoC plays a very important role (at least when it is critical to get DoF right), we also have to consider that the formula for DoF relies on "effective" in the case of focal length as well as aperture. The focal length printed on your lens is valid at "infinity" focus setting. When you focus closer by, classical lens designs - laws of physics, geometry, mathematics - make for a longer focal length. The aperture number - the number in f/number - printed on the lens hence also only applies when the lens is set to infinity. A lens of 100mm (set at infinity) and f/2 aperture means that the (entry pupil) aperture diameter is 100mm/2=50mm. My 105/2.8 macro lens set to 1:1 becomes about 160mm and so the f/2.8=37.5mm at infinity, now has become 160mm/37.5mm= 4.27 - at f/4.3 I lost more than 1 EV "speed". I know this because my lens indicates the real effective aperture number in a display on the lens. The combination of focal length getting longer (shallower DoF) with effective aperture getting smaller (deeper DoF) compensate each other a bit. Having a camera that measures light through the lens (TTL) makes us completely unaware of these things. In the film days, we applied a "bellows extension factor" to measured exposure for the impact of focusing closer by than infinity. While most people here will have heard about "focus breathing", to me "aperture breathing" is more annoying than focus breathing. Now there are also (e.g. very expensive cine "prime" lenses) that suppress focus breathing. This is done by having a subtle zoom lens that zooms out when you focus closer by in order to keep the same frame. The question is if these lenses suppress aperture breathing at that. You will have to test that for yourself. Note here that what is sold as a zoomlens (rather than cine prime) still can have focus breathing. It depends. Oh relativity. A big factor in the CoC bundle are sharpness of camera and lens. For hard data on sharpness I point to DxO Mark. I do not agree in detail with some of their reasoning but trust their data. There are a few important "DoF trap" lessons in there. (a) "fast" lenses may be much slower than you think. This is reflected in the DxO lens data as "T value" that represents how much light a lens allows to pass (or how much it wastes). Your 1.2L lens may have a T-value f 1.5 and my 1.4G lens also may have a T-value of 1.5. This means my 1.4G is equally fast as your 1.2L, when both are completely opened. This impacts exposure, but not CoC or DoF. (b) CoC depends on lens sharpness, and my 1.4G lens (I don't have these any more) may be significantly sharper than your 1.2L. This make the CoC in my DoF formula small and gives shallower DoF than you would expect. (c) MP are less critical than you think. When sensor resolutions became a bit better than bad, the industry added a so-called OLPF over the sensor. This does photosite leve controlled diffraction and breaks a fraction of the light travelling to photosite (cell, a sensor has no pixels) [x,y] so it hits the direct neighbours. That filter is called OLPF or AA filter and it reduces (i) contour sharpness, (ii) low light sensitivity, (iii) dynamic range (DR), (iv) contrast envelope (DR available to one frame), (v) colour space, and (vi) messes with vignetting. It's purpose was to make raw processing (guessing colours missing in the raw) easier on the software and hence the hardware, because you needed to less powerful software to do the mathematically precise and repeatable wild-assed guessing. But at about 36MP (1970s colour film resolution) , the OLPF starts to get in the way, so e.g. Nikon decided to Eliminate it from their 36MP D800 in the D800E version. If you want the impact on sharpness and hence CoC and hence DoF, go to DxO Mark and find the sharpest F-mount lens. Compare its sharpness on a D800 to a ceteris paribus D800E. Shocking, right? Now you did this, also compare that lens's sharpness on a 24MP D600, D610, D750 or D camera to the same lens on the D800 - all have an OLPF and these cameras (sensors) will give a similar CoC contribution. As you are curios, also compare the 36MP D800E to a 45MP D850 with that same lens (both cameras without OLPF). There's a lot of DoF trap in there. (d) as Canon has religiously stuck to having an OLPF in their cameras, part of the L lens not being as sharp may be because of this. Well, I have to admit that they are beautifully soft. (e) Nikon have no OLPF in (at least some) APS-C cameras and hence comparing a 20MP APS-C camera to a full frame 24MP makes the APS-C camera look very good. And the absence of the OLPF means the added Depth to DoF will be less when you compare the APS-C camera. (f) while we can compare "ceteris paribus" identical things for the impact of one altered specification, we cannot be completely sure that it is "ceteris paribus" (everything else, than the one thing who's effect we want to figure out, being the same) because we don't know what e.g. Adobe Camera Raw does to your camera's raw file compared to mine. Today (2024-06-16) Adobe have 1,209 different "Adobe Standard" profiles that are camera specific, sometimes camera + firmware version specific, that each want to render your raw images to the same "Adobe Standard" result that is their ideal. (in Windows, see C:\Program Files\Adobe\Adobe Lightroom Classic\Resources\CameraProfiles\Adobe Standard\) That trap you only can uncover when you experiment. In the film days we worried about wasting film and processing costs. Today it's about shutter clicks and pixels: not a lot to worry about.

This guy Webb is good! And love Windsor's glasses: straight out of Dilbert! Many great points in this video -not just about shallow depth of field. Thank You ...

Very interesting video sir, thank you.

Takk!

The point about knowing your apertures and distances is great. I got a four thirds camera many years ago with a decent prime lens and immediately cranked up the depth of field on everything. Took what I thought was a great close-up portrait of a friend, only to find when I opened it on my computer that only the tip of his nose was properly in focus.

Best video on the depth of field topic seen so far!

Finally! A video about photography and not gear! Masterfully done! Bravo

Excellent video. Thank you!

This is a masterclass in creating an engaging teaching video

Impressive video, you have some very interesting points. Thx

Man, this is definitely the best tutorial of VHS effect, i've searched a lot of videos, and most of them was way too simple, your video is complete, really really thanks

once recorded a video opening the reflector only to play backward to fold it back 😂😂