The "Post a Picture You Took" thread

[Spur08 383]

Mornin' folks.  Camera rookie here who has decided to actually use the Canon EOS Rebel SL1 he bought for his wife over 2 years ago that she has never touched.  I took about 75 pictures over 4th weekend w/ an EFS 18-55 mm and a 50 mm lenses.  The pictures do look great, but I made a small mistake..apparently I shot them in RAW format.  I have rapidly browsed this thread for some information but want to know what is an okay processing software that is beginner friendly.  I've seen recs for LightRoom but the monthly subscription is a little unappealing, even if it's $10/mo.  Are there any thoughts on Luminar?  They're running a special for $60 and I'm drawn to it with the "Accidential AI" function.

 

I'm new to this so talk to me like I'm dumb.  

[DougO 5261]

Nikon DSLRs come with some software for file transfer and includes some basic processing of images, including RAW. Not sure about Canon. Check your box of stuff and maybe that could get you started.

You may be able to find a used Lightroom disc online somewhere, possibly an older version. I believe some of the cheaper versions of Photoshop, Elements and such, has some RAW conversion ability.

If you do some googling there are some free open source editing programs with RAW cability. I have no idea if they are worth a crap, but if all you need is to convert the stuff you shot I'm sure you can find something.

[Spur08 383]

4 hours ago, DougO said:

Nikon DSLRs come with some software for file transfer and includes some basic processing of images, including RAW. Not sure about Canon. Check your box of stuff and maybe that could get you started.

You may be able to find a used Lightroom disc online somewhere, possibly an older version. I believe some of the cheaper versions of Photoshop, Elements and such, has some RAW conversion ability.

If you do some googling there are some free open source editing programs with RAW cability. I have no idea if they are worth a crap, but if all you need is to convert the stuff you shot I'm sure you can find something.

Sadly, we bought it second hand many years ago so I dont think i have the original packaging. Is there anything that's dummy proof?

[El Diablo 4232]

RAW noob here too. I haven't gotten into the post processing aspect of digital yet but I have used Nikon's NX-D to mess with the photos a bit. It's free and will allow you to convert the RAW to high quality JPEGS over and over so that you don't lose the RAW file if by chance you want to keep it. I guess all RAW files are equal, I have a Nikon camera so no issues using it for me. 

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

Sadly, we bought it second hand many years ago so I dont think i have the original packaging. Is there anything that's dummy proof?

If you are looking for something cheap or free, try GIMP. Here is an article on it:

http:// https://howtogimp.com/raw-photos-in-gimp/

And where to download it:

http:// https://www.gimp.org/downloads/

[DougO 5261]

8 hours ago, El Diablo said:

RAW noob here too. I haven't gotten into the post processing aspect of digital yet but I have used Nikon's NX-D to mess with the photos a bit. It's free and will allow you to convert the RAW to high quality JPEGS over and over so that you don't lose the RAW file if by chance you want to keep it. I guess all RAW files are equal, I have a Nikon camera so no issues using it for me. 

I don't believe Nikon's NX will convert Canon files properly, though I haven't tried it.

But perhaps Canon also offers a free download of their own similar proprietary software.

[El Diablo 4232]

1 minute ago, DougO said:

I don't believe Nikon's NX will convert Canon files properly, though I haven't tried it.

But perhaps Canon also offers a free download of their own similar proprietary software.

Yep, that's what I wasn't sure about. I didn't think that all RAW files are created equal.

[DougO 5261]

14 hours ago, Spur08 said:

Sadly, we bought it second hand many years ago so I dont think i have the original packaging. Is there anything that's dummy proof?

Here you go. Appears to be a free download.

 

https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/support/details/cameras/eos-dslr-and-mirrorless-cameras/dslr/eos-rebel-sl1-ef-s-18-55-is-stm-kit?tab=drivers_downloads

[DougO 5261]

Went out to the lake yesterday to try to find some painted buntings again before they take off, which could be very soon. And then there's a fox that was about 10 feet from where I was sitting in the yard this morning.

 

 

 

Edited July 11, 2019 by DougO

[baboso 6101]

[nextdoor] OMG, a rabid coyote! [/nextdoor]

[Spur08 383]

What's a good (free) photo hosting site where I can post some of my photos here for advice?

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[Anton Chigurh 3332]

What's a good (free) photo hosting site where I can post some of my photos here for advice?

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Flickr/Imgur. Flickr is better. Let us know once you’re setup and we can let you know how to hotlink.

[Spur08 383]

On 7/13/2019 at 3:10 AM, Anton Chigurh said:

 

Flickr/Imgur. Flickr is better. Let us know once you’re setup and we can let you know how to hotlink.

 

I don't know what's going on but they've disabled new account signup for people.  I don't know if I want to post on imgur -- particularly just due to privacy and I don't want pictures of my daughter (she's 2, pervs) floating around the interwebs.

Edited July 18, 2019 by Spur08

[Spur08 383]

I'm going to go w tapa for now.

Canon EOS Rebel SL1

Iso 100, f/18, 1/25, 50 mm

Edited July 18, 2019 by Spur08

[DougO 5261]

 

[Spur08 383]

I'm going to go w tapa for now.

 

Canon EOS Rebel SL1

Iso 100, f/18, 1/25, 50 mm

I guess I didnt specify in the post, but I was looking for feedback. Certain elements appear blurry. How do I crisp that up?

 

 

 

 

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

I guess I didnt specify in the post, but I was looking for feedback. Certain elements appear blurry. How do I crisp that up? 
 
 
 

Assume all things equal, you want to shoot at a higher fstop (f/10 and up numerically).

But it could also be your lens. Or camera shake.

[nycHorn 3123]

I guess I didnt specify in the post, but I was looking for feedback. Certain elements appear blurry. How do I crisp that up? 
 
 
 

Yeah. Probably camera shake. You don’t want to be shooting at 1/25 of a second.

[Anton Chigurh 3332]

Bring that aperture way down. 18 is way high and you shouldn’t really ever need to use that unless you physically have to or you’re trying to make a sun star. Try in the 4-11 range and then you can speed the shutter speed up so you don’t need to worry about camera shake.

What mode were you shooting in? I’d start in aperture priority and learn what the different apertures mean.

The exposure triangle is important to learn, but I would at least start with aperture.

[Spur08 383]

Yeah. Probably camera shake. You don’t want to be shooting at 1/25 of a second.

What should be my starting point for exposure? Assuming not a lot of movement from the subject. Also, the grass appears pretty sharp in the picture, wouldn't it also be blurry from shake? Not arguing. Just trying to learn. From what I've watched on YouTube, a good iso starting pt for outside is 100, with maybe f8?

 

 

I was playing w all modes at the time so I'm not sure which one for that particular picture

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

What should be my starting point for exposure? Assuming not a lot of movement from the subject. Also, the grass appears pretty sharp in the picture, wouldn't it also be blurry from shake? Not arguing. Just trying to learn. From what I've watched on YouTube, a good iso starting pt for outside is 100, with maybe f8? 
 
I was playing w all modes at the time so I'm not sure which one for that particular picture

If your subject has any movement, even with good light, I still would shoot at ISO 400. If moving fairly quickly with good light, ISO 800. f/8 or f/10 should be good for depth of field.

[nycHorn 3123]

11 minutes ago, Spur08 said:

What should be my starting point for exposure? Assuming not a lot of movement from the subject. Also, the grass appears pretty sharp in the picture, wouldn't it also be blurry from shake? Not arguing. Just trying to learn. From what I've watched on YouTube, a good iso starting pt for outside is 100, with maybe f8?

 

 

I was playing w all modes at the time so I'm not sure which one for that particular picture

I think there is a very general rule that you should never have your shutter slower than "1/focal length of lens".  So if you're shooting a 50mm, you should never be slower than 1/50s.  But with your subject being a child and a dog, the faster the shutter the better since they're probably not going to sit still for you.

It's possible that your focus point in the camera was on the grass and that is why other parts are soft.  But since you were at f/18 then you had a huge depth of field and kinda covered for that missed focus on your subject.

ISO 100, f/18, 1/25s is the same exposure as ISO 100, f/6.3, 1/200s.  You're "opening up" aka making it brighter on aperture, but subsequently "closing down" aka making it dark on shutter, but yielding the same exposure.  

That chart that Anton posted is good.  You just need to keep shooting, pay attention to settings and you'll start to pick up what the differences are and where you're getting the best result.

Edited July 21, 2019 by nycHorn

[Anton Chigurh 3332]

Tony and Chelsea Northrup explain stuff really well, IMO. Give this a watch.

[Longhornmaniac8 255]

Photos are all about using the light to the best of your ability.

As the triangle above shows, you basically have three things at your disposal.

Aperture: How much your lens is open. F-stops are a fraction, so an F-Stop of 3.5 is really 1/3.5. Put a different way, the bigger the number, the smaller the opening on the lens.

Your aperture is how you control depth-of-field. You pay a light "tax" to stretch your depth-of-field. Play around with the manual mode on your camera to see how it all works. At a given setting, closing the aperture (increasing the F-stop) will bring more of the background into focus, but you'll see the image getting darker as you do it.

Shutter Speed: This one is more self-explanatory. Your camera lets light in on the sensor for however much time the shutter is open. The darker it is, the longer the shutter has to be open to let enough light in to compose the same picture vis-a-vis a brighter environment. Like the aperture, you pay a "tax," this time in the form of blur, to keep the shutter open longer. Artistically, this may be a desirable effect. You can dial back the shutter speed to show motion of an object. A great example and easy way to test this would be with some sort of waterfall or flowing water. Take a photo with a really fast shutter speed and the water will appear to be frozen. Start lowering the shutter speed and the water will have moved a noticeable amount in the time the shutter is open, thereby creating motion blur. 

ISO: This is your only way to "create" artificial light. As with everything, there's a "tax" you pay. ISO essentially brightens the pixels, making the entire image brighter. But it does this indiscriminately, so past a certain point, pixels you don't want brightened (such as a dark sky etc...) will also get brightened.

So, how do you use each of these?

Well, let's say you're taking a photo of someone in the shade, with a sunny background. You want both to be in focus. This isn't necessarily the easiest shot to compose and make it look natural, but here's a couple of thoughts:

Firstly, if you want both the foreground and background to be in focus, that instantly clues you in that you need a large f-stop (small aperture). Just how small is largely dependent on your camera and how much light you do have available. 

So now you've got your depth-of-field taken care of, but you've reduced your amount of available light, and in a shady foreground, you've got a problem. The sunny background can handle a narrowing aperture since it has ample light available. So we need more light in the foreground, and our only* options are ISO or shutter speed. Depending on what you're shooting, you might be able to reduce the shutter speed to get more light on the foreground subject, and/or increase the ISO. Either would put "light" on your foreground subject, but it's going to do the same to the well-lit background, resulting in an overexposed, potentially washed-out background. 

*So what do we do? Well, most cameras will have a flash. This is a perfect time to use it. A flash will dramatically increase light close to the camera, while doing nothing for the distant background. In doing so, you've effectively "balanced" the light situation. You're at a light deficit in the foreground until you use the flash, which won't affect the already well-lit background. Depending on the camera, you can change the power of the flash to get the right amount of light.

[Hook1997 5486]

My buddies daughter did some chalk art while I was visiting them, pretty impressive I think.  Took this after dark with my iPhone and some light from the bottom side only so missing some of the detail up top.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited July 21, 2019 by Hook1997

[El Diablo 4232]

Does dumb question amnesty apply here? Nikon users, I've had this camera (D3500) since March and I still don't know where the light meter is within the viewfinder. My old mechanical SLR's had a physical needle on one side of the viewfinder but all I'm seeing is the shutter speed and f stop displayed along the bottom.

[Anton Chigurh 3332]

Does dumb question amnesty apply here? Nikon users, I've had this camera (D3500) since March and I still don't know where the light meter is within the viewfinder. My old mechanical SLR's had a physical needle on one side of the viewfinder but all I'm seeing is the shutter speed and f stop displayed along the bottom.

The exposure indicator is #12.

[DougO 5261]

17 hours ago, Patricio Swayze said:

Assume all things equal, you want to shoot at a higher fstop (f/10 and up numerically).

But it could also be your lens. Or camera shake.

It also kinda looks on my monitor like the focus point may be more on the grass than the foreground subject, or somewhere in between.

[DougO 5261]

And that can be a product of the focus activation during half-shutter button push and having the camera  slightly move off target before the snap occurs. That's why I often switch to back-button focus only when the focus point is more critical.

[Anton Chigurh 3332]

I am a full-time back button focus user.

[DougO 5261]

I have gone back and forth on which I use. i was a back button guy for a long time when it first became available, but when shooting hundreds or thousands of frames for stuff like a football game I would start to get grip fatigue. I switched to the shutter activation for a couple of years after I first got the d500, but then started switching back when I was missing more action shots.

I used to do still life stuff in manual focus, but my eyes just don't cut it any more. So I'm on back-button focus most of the time now. once in a while I switch back if I'm just scattershooting.

[Hornius Emeritus 12779]

A couple of photos of Shinyribs saxophonist Mark Russell.

[El Diablo 4232]

4 hours ago, Anton Chigurh said:

 

The exposure indicator is #12.

 

I did some googling before posting my question and found that image but that's not the viewfinder as I see it on my camera, this is...

I can't find out much about it but I'm guessing that it's not something that can be changed in settings. Maybe it is, I don't know where though.

[El Diablo 4232]

1 hour ago, Anton Chigurh said:

I am a full-time back button focus user.

Same here. I grew up with manual focus cameras so the focusing wasn't connected to triggering the shutter. As soon as I learned of the feature on my DSLR I made the switch.

[Anton Chigurh 3332]

I did some googling before posting my question and found that image but that's not the viewfinder as I see it on my camera, this is...

I can't find out much about it but I'm guessing that it's not something that can be changed in settings. Maybe it is, I don't know where though.

You know what, it looks like it only shows up in Manual mode and when the camera anticipates an exposure problem.

Throw it in M and see if it shows up.

[Hornius Emeritus 12779]

8 minutes ago, El Diablo said:

I did some googling before posting my question and found that image but that's not the viewfinder as I see it on my camera, this is...

I can't find out much about it but I'm guessing that it's not something that can be changed in settings. Maybe it is, I don't know where though.

Yes, it can be changed in your settings.  But when you say you don't understand where the light meter is, I don't know what you mean.  The light meter is a physical device in your camera.  It measures the light and tells you what combination of shutter speed and F-stop you can use to produce a good photo.  On the image that you posted here, the light meter has measured the light and is telling you that at 1/125th of a second  it's going to need an F-stop of 5.6.  Do  you mean that you don't know what area in the photo, exactly, the light meter is measuring?

Edited July 21, 2019 by Hornius Emeritus

[El Diablo 4232]

18 minutes ago, Anton Chigurh said:

 

You know what, it looks like it only shows up in Manual mode and when the camera anticipates an exposure problem.

Throw it in M and see if it shows up.

 

Alrighty then! Yepper, I found it now. I've been shooting in manual pretty much exclusively but with the Auto ISO on. Which I guess isn't really full manual.  I miss my analog needle. Seems like they COULD couple one to the output of the sensor regardless of which metering mode the camera was in but yeah, that's not going to happen for an old fart like me. Thank you sir! 

[Anton Chigurh 3332]

Alrighty then! Yepper, I found it now. I've been shooting in manual pretty much exclusively but with the Auto ISO on. Which I guess isn't really full manual.  I miss my analog needle. Seems like they COULD couple one to the output of the sensor regardless of which metering mode the camera was in but yeah, that's not going to happen for an old fart like me. Thank you sir! 

I think I remember you saying it seemed like they stripped a bunch of features/UI stuff from that camera. Seems weird the way it works.

[El Diablo 4232]

50 minutes ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

Yes, it can be changed in your settings.  But when you say you don't understand where the light meter is, I don't know what you mean.  The light meter is a physical device in your camera.  It measures the light and tells you what combination of shutter speed and F-stop you can use to produce a good photo.  On the image that you posted here, the light meter has measured the light and is telling you that at 1/125th of a second  it's going to need an F-stop of 5.6.  Do  you mean that you don't know what area in the photo, exactly, the light meter is measuring?

I was referring to the output, aka - I miss the needle on my old film cameras. It was always there, unlike on this digital doohickey. 

[DougO 5261]

I'm kinda with you there. It still is not intuitive to me what left and right dots mean, but up or down with a needle and bracket thingy was pretty clear.

Edited July 22, 2019 by DougO

[Anton Chigurh 3332]

All that talk reminds me of when this thing came out. It was a failure, but it looked damn cool.



Thinking back, it did kind of pave the way for Fuji’s current lineup (though they had some classic styled point and shoot cameras before the Df existed).

[El Diablo 4232]

10 hours ago, DougO said:

I'm kinda with you there. It still is not intuitive to me what left and right dots mean, but up or down with a needle and bracket thingy was pretty clear.

I don't mind all of the automated gizmos, they're very handy. I just wish that there was an indicator in the viewfinder at all times.

If I am shooting in M but with Auto ISO I'm also not aware of any way to know where the ISO is at. Yes, I can preset a limit on the upper range but I'd still like to have that feedback as I'm looking thru the viewfinder just for the hell of it. It is on the back of the camera on the screen but if you move the camera to look at the back screen well, it's not pointed at the scene I'm trying to shoot anymore.

I went to the barrel racing again this weekend at HOT coliseum, well actually at the show pavilion. Shitty lighting there so the ISO is thru the roof, I wasn't trying to limit the upper end and was just wanting to see what exposure I would get.  After I got home I decided that next time I am going to set the ISO and  let the camera choose the shutter speed and see what that does. Probably around 1/40s and it'll all be motion blur. Nothing I can do about the f stop with the lens I have and I've looked at a lot of lenses (f2.4 and f4)  but they all run minimum of $1,000 and go way up from there.  fml.  

They have reining horses this week and part of that will be in the actual coliseum which has better lighting. I think I've learned enough now to maybe get some decent shots there. Fingers crossed.

[DougO 5261]

I almost always have auto ISO off. I rarely use auto exposure. The only exceptions are when shooting football games where the action can flip several stops from bright sun to dark shade in an instant.

 

[DougO 5261]

2 hours ago, El Diablo said:

I don't mind all of the automated gizmos, they're very handy. I just wish that there was an indicator in the viewfinder at all times.

If I am shooting in M but with Auto ISO I'm also not aware of any way to know where the ISO is at. Yes, I can preset a limit on the upper range but I'd still like to have that feedback as I'm looking thru the viewfinder just for the hell of it. It is on the back of the camera on the screen but if you move the camera to look at the back screen well, it's not pointed at the scene I'm trying to shoot anymore.

I went to the barrel racing again this weekend at HOT coliseum, well actually at the show pavilion. Shitty lighting there so the ISO is thru the roof, I wasn't trying to limit the upper end and was just wanting to see what exposure I would get.  After I got home I decided that next time I am going to set the ISO and  let the camera choose the shutter speed and see what that does. Probably around 1/40s and it'll all be motion blur. Nothing I can do about the f stop with the lens I have and I've looked at a lot of lenses (f2.4 and f4)  but they all run minimum of $1,000 and go way up from there.  fml.  

They have reining horses this week and part of that will be in the actual coliseum which has better lighting. I think I've learned enough now to maybe get some decent shots there. Fingers crossed.

I just got a Nikon refurbished D7500 for $599, b&h photo. I needed another DX sensor side piece to compliment my D500 for sports, with football season approaching.

On the D7500 you can set auto ISO on or off by holding the ISO button and rotating the dial in front of the shutter button. It shows on the top LED screen. I don't think your model has a top ISO button, but it probably does the same on the back LCD monitor.

In the  PHOTO SHOOTING MENU, you can find under ISO sensitivity settings, arrow right, Auto ISO sensitivity control is there. you can also set minimum and maximum ISO for this, as well as minimum or maximum shutter speed.

Edited July 22, 2019 by DougO

[El Diablo 4232]

11 minutes ago, DougO said:

I just got a Nikon refurbished D7500 for $599, b&h photo. I needed another DX sensor side piece to compliment my D500 for sports, with football season approaching.

On the D7500 you can set auto ISO on or off by holding the ISO button and rotating the dial in front of the shutter button. It shows on the top LED screen. I don't think your model has a top ISO button, but it probably does the same on the back LCD monitor.

In the  PHOTO SHOOTING MENU, you can find under ISO sensitivity settings, arrow right, Auto ISO sensitivity control is there. you can also set minimum and maximum ISO for this, as well as minimum or maximum shutter speed.

Pretty sure my D3500 doesn't have that easy way to turn the Auto ISO on and off, I have to go into the menu to switch. The rest I'm aware of, just need to learn how and when to make adjustments for what I'm trying to shoot. I'm learning. Slowly.

[El Diablo 4232]

31 minutes ago, DougO said:

I almost always have auto ISO off. I rarely use auto exposure. The only exceptions are when shooting football games where the action can flip several stops from bright sun to dark shade in an instant.

 

Yah, another thing I'm learning is to use the Auto ISO to get in the ballpark and then take it off. I was shooting at one particular barrel and the background from left to right was a bright white sign and then a dark blue sign. If I had the shot framed a bit to the left it would be dark and if I tracked them to the right then it would go bright. I checked some shots and figured out what was the best sweet spot that way. Still too high though, like 10K. 70-300mm lens shooting at ~250mm and f6. No control over the f stop there because that's the limit of the lens at that length. If I were to manually drop the ISO to something acceptable then the shutter speed would be low. I'm going to give that a try though and see what I get. Maybe it will work. At least I won't have all the ISO noise. Shrug.

[El Diablo 4232]

On 7/20/2019 at 10:29 PM, Longhornmaniac8 said:

Photos are all about using the light to the best of your ability.

As the triangle above shows, you basically have three things at your disposal.

Aperture: How much your lens is open. F-stops are a fraction, so an F-Stop of 3.5 is really 1/3.5. Put a different way, the bigger the number, the smaller the opening on the lens.

Your aperture is how you control depth-of-field. You pay a light "tax" to stretch your depth-of-field. Play around with the manual mode on your camera to see how it all works. At a given setting, closing the aperture (increasing the F-stop) will bring more of the background into focus, but you'll see the image getting darker as you do it.

Shutter Speed: This one is more self-explanatory. Your camera lets light in on the sensor for however much time the shutter is open. The darker it is, the longer the shutter has to be open to let enough light in to compose the same picture vis-a-vis a brighter environment. Like the aperture, you pay a "tax," this time in the form of blur, to keep the shutter open longer. Artistically, this may be a desirable effect. You can dial back the shutter speed to show motion of an object. A great example and easy way to test this would be with some sort of waterfall or flowing water. Take a photo with a really fast shutter speed and the water will appear to be frozen. Start lowering the shutter speed and the water will have moved a noticeable amount in the time the shutter is open, thereby creating motion blur. 

ISO: This is your only way to "create" artificial light. As with everything, there's a "tax" you pay. ISO essentially brightens the pixels, making the entire image brighter. But it does this indiscriminately, so past a certain point, pixels you don't want brightened (such as a dark sky etc...) will also get brightened.

So, how do you use each of these?

Well, let's say you're taking a photo of someone in the shade, with a sunny background. You want both to be in focus. This isn't necessarily the easiest shot to compose and make it look natural, but here's a couple of thoughts:

Firstly, if you want both the foreground and background to be in focus, that instantly clues you in that you need a large f-stop (small aperture). Just how small is largely dependent on your camera and how much light you do have available. 

So now you've got your depth-of-field taken care of, but you've reduced your amount of available light, and in a shady foreground, you've got a problem. The sunny background can handle a narrowing aperture since it has ample light available. So we need more light in the foreground, and our only* options are ISO or shutter speed. Depending on what you're shooting, you might be able to reduce the shutter speed to get more light on the foreground subject, and/or increase the ISO. Either would put "light" on your foreground subject, but it's going to do the same to the well-lit background, resulting in an overexposed, potentially washed-out background. 

*So what do we do? Well, most cameras will have a flash. This is a perfect time to use it. A flash will dramatically increase light close to the camera, while doing nothing for the distant background. In doing so, you've effectively "balanced" the light situation. You're at a light deficit in the foreground until you use the flash, which won't affect the already well-lit background. Depending on the camera, you can change the power of the flash to get the right amount of light.

As you may recall from my previous posts I'm still very new to digital photography. I was watching a video last night on post processing RAW files and one of the scenarios they covered was similar to this, shaded subject with bright sunny background. I don't know yet how to properly make adjustments myself but they suggested shooting a scene like this in a "flat" picture style.

Does anyone here use these programmed picture profiles to make their post processing work better for them?

[El Diablo 4232]

Magnifying eyepiece showed up today, DK-21M. 1.17X + a hair more range on the diopter. Stupid easy to install too. Amazing what that little bit of magnification can do. 

ETA: Rubber eyecup also showed up but it won't fit on the new eyepiece, it would have fit on the one I just replaced. Oh well, that's $6 gone. 

Edited July 24, 2019 by El Diablo

[DougO 5261]

Last night I went to shoot a friends' band at a local gig just for grins. Small outdoor stage under shade near dark with puny LEDs that weren't arranged or pointed in any particular useful way. I was about to call it a lost cause after watching them under dim green and purple lights and drastically clashing color temps spilling in with what little ambient light was present. Then I decided to do something I have never done before, set a DSLR in monochrome mode and give it a try, shoot where there is any kind of light, the only way I thought possible to get anything remotely useful. I cut the contrast and brightness settings back to open it up a little bit and give me something to work with.

In the end it turned out pretty cool, reminding me of the olden days of pushing the hell out of Tri-X with Accufine, only without the stinky chemicals messing up my makeshift bathroom lab.

 

[Anton Chigurh 3332]

Nice. EVH looks a bit different than I remembered.