[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/p/ - Photography


Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]


The 4chan Vtuber Competition is over. Click here to see the winning entry!



[Catalog] [Archive]

File: 91tcMWj-khL._SL1500_.jpg (304 KB, 1500x1500)
304 KB
304 KB JPG
I've had a Nikon BX500 for a while and was looking into getting a DSLR, what do you recommend? (Picture of the camera I currently own.)
>>
>>3376385
>what do you recommend?
To delete this and post in /gear/

File: 8mjc7hchfit01.jpg (4.92 MB, 2680x1560)
4.92 MB
4.92 MB JPG
So I know that a high refresh rate and decent resolution is great for gaming, but does having a 144hz 4k monitor actually do anything for you in a videography sense? Can you get more frames out of a video than 30,60 or 120 fps.....I hope im asking this correctly..havent a hard time here.
9 replies and 1 image omitted. Click here to view.
>>
Dang, I feel more immersed in a game at 144 as opposed to 60fps, like everything just seems more clear and immediate. So i felt like if you applied that to a regular video it might seem more realistic? Does that not sound logical?
>>
>>3376093
>Does that not sound logical?
no it doesn't since a video does not respond to your input and therefore you cannot develop a feeling of how "immediate" and "clear" it reacts
>>
>>3375964
The difference is massive, also 50 fps video is an abomination
>>
>>3376094
fuq
i guess im just a fuckin crackhead or sumn because its still just not making sense to me haha. well anyway thanks yalls
>>
>>3375011
>>3375016
>>3375017
>>3375023
>>3375964
>>3376120
Op post in sqt next time. The reason movies look better on a 120hz/144hz monitor is because those are multiples of 24fps so there will not be any judder.

Im a noob in this, but i have an old contax t2 analog camera that i tried out. Took some photos and sent them to a lab for them to get my
Photos back. Got them on a CD but i felt like it was pretty bad quality to it, with small resolution on the photos.
I see others who have taken with the same camera and they get really big resolution to it.

So i guess i have to get my own analog scanner for best quality possible?

If so what are some good analog scanners

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width425
Image Height319
Scene Capture TypeStandard
7 replies and 1 image omitted. Click here to view.
>>
>>3375370
>Then you are dumb m8
Enlighten me, then.
>>
>>3375434
I'm not the guy you're responding to, but:

Film gives you a different look than digital, and the process of taking film pictures is different from the process of taking digital pictures. Just like how lots of people prefer to play a big bulky finicky wooden cello when there are perfectly good MIDI synthesizers that will output the sound of a flawless cello recital.

But then, having taken the pictures, you'd still want to share them with other people. In 2018, that means digitizing the picture and uploading it to the Internet.
>>
>>3375441
The cello analogy is actually completely different but I understand where you're coming from. With modern digital cameras you get a lot more information to work with, to the point where it's not even close, but you also need to edit them and know what you're doing to make your photos look good, whereas film will pretty much always look good once you develop it.
t. shoots almost exclusively on 120 film when doing commercial shoots because it looks good as fuck, but shoots mostly digital for personal enjoyment because it's fun to tinker with the files
>>
>>3375434
Right now it’s not possible to replicate the look of many films, be they printed chemically or scanned digitally. I shoot almost entirely on Ektar and Velvia and scan all my stuff - if I’d been in the same place for any of those shots with a digital camera, there’s no way I would’ve come away with images which came anywhere close to what I got, even with all the post processing in the world.
>>
Most of the places that say they develop film here, send away to one of three places to get processed, and the scans that come back are good.

As to why film to digital, for me it's easier and more cost effective, I have an LS-4000, I process and scan my negatives, which then either I print myself, or send them out for anything over 24". It works out cheeper than running a darkroom, and there is not many I print as most are uploaded to the web.

The other holding part is nostalgic value, I have a DSLR, but film has still a place for, me I guess the same way some people still use vinyl, and ther is still a growing market for that.

File: dxo.jpg (54 KB, 402x112)
54 KB
54 KB JPG
To what extent should you trust pic related when it comes to sharpness tests?
15 replies omitted. Click here to view.
>>
>>3376031
Dxo tests are absolute shite. They don't differentiate between sharpness and resolution, and lenses are tested for one working focus distance only, and that's inherently silly. Lenses not only gain sharpness from closing apertures, but from using different focuses as well. Good example for this are macro lenses, they are incredibly sharp at macro, but tend to loose sharpness considerably when shooting at infinity.
>>
>>3376031
Depends, what are you doing with sharpness?
>>
>>3376111
>french space agency
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sIT0u7akdc
>>
>>3376111
>Are you new?
>Mention ____ on here

Are you new? Because it literally fill in the blank for any subject with that sentiment. Also, I read through their scientific papers for the sharpness stuff. Their methods for testing seem sound enough.
>>
>>3376040
[CITATION NEEDED]

CreativeMarket: https://mega.nz/#!Xop3mKhC!tq4v05iXYxb0rdQhcfVfkil2VGBKMjLmtnzHKK7ilAQ
33 replies and 3 images omitted. Click here to view.
>>
>>3373595

the problem is printing it accuretly - wont hapen
>>
Does anyone have Bonnie Cee's presets?
>>
>>3373595
Yeah, that's how you do it, but you end up with a preset that works only on your camera. VSCO works well because they've gone through that process with hundreds of cameras and films.
>>
Hoping these will help me shit out some wedding photos quicker. I enjoyed that some of the presets were even labeled "Wedding".
>>
Do these presets work in Affinity Photo?

File: Intimidating Aura.jpg (9 KB, 248x250)
9 KB
9 KB JPG
>that feeling when you find out a new trick that saves time and delivers a reliable results
What was your last discovery?
I discovered the equalizer in Darktable and how it can be used to give portraits that extra bit of softness and contrast.

File: manbirdshead.jpg (302 KB, 600x600)
302 KB
302 KB JPG
What is your opinion on concept photography? More specifically, surreal photography that requires a lot of post processing in Photoshop.

Can you even really consider it photography when you make the composition post? I see these kinds of images all the time on instagram and i can't help but get triggered. We spend so much time learning about light, composition, how our camera works, etc etc. All to have 20 year old tumblr tier people with a DSLR and a cracked copy of photoshop to steal the spotlight.

idk, is my annoyance justified?
21 replies and 4 images omitted. Click here to view.
>>
>>3375474
Did the soviets do that for instagram clout and pretending to be """artists""" ? what point are you making ?
>>
>>3375376
i like when pictures tell a story like this one. the story is that he is flying because he is made of birds
>>
I just call it illustration. If you want it to be more specific then photo-realistic illustration.
>>
>>3375794

Great answer. Super informative.
>>
>>3376140
>>3375791
google "photographer moon photoshopped" its the first result. I'm speaking of Peter Lik.

File: nikkor-side.jpg (72 KB, 689x337)
72 KB
72 KB JPG
I have a D5100, apart of using the 35mm 1.8g it's not friendly with lenses that don't have any contacts on them, I'm talking about the full manual kind of lenses. Like the Samyang and the Pre-Ai Nikkor lenses.

The D5100 don't have the "No CPU Lens Input data" so I'm not sure how will the vintage lenses work on my d5100.

The crop factor is also a thing to consider, so I'm thinking about buying:

Nikon D7100
Nikon D700
Fujifilm XT-1
Sony a7

I'm trying to make it as much as value-for-money possible. What are your thoughts?
10 replies omitted. Click here to view.
>>
>>3374571
>Pre-Ai Nikkor lenses.
You mean pre-AF Nikkor lenses.

I mean, it applies to pre-AI lenses, but it also applies to AI lenses, since those are also manual focus lenses without electronic contacts.

>thinking about buying
If you really want the best camera for shooting vintage manual focus glass, get the Sony.
1. XT-1 has a crop factor
2. D7100 has a crop factor, plus manual focus with a modern DSLR viewfinder sucks
3. D700 is old as shit, plus manual focus with a modern DSLR viewfinder sucks

A7 will mount all of the Nikon (or Minolta or Canon or Olympus or whateverthefuck) manual focus glass with cheap adapters, uses the full output of the lens, can be set up with focus peaking and such for a much better manual focus experience than what you get with a modern DSLR, and has a sensor that's several generations newer than the one in the D700.

(Oh, and also the two Nikons on your list won't use legit pre-AI Nikon lenses. The D5300 will because it lacks the aperture indexing hardware that could be broken by mounting a pre-AI lens, but the higher-end cameras that can meter with AI lenses don't usually play nice with pre-AI with the exception of some like the Nikon Df with a fancy mount that can handle either. The sony with an adapter can also handle either because it doesn't give a fuuuuuck what the aperture is; you'll be metering stop-down regardless.)

Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
>>3374571
"CPU lens data" shouldn't really be a concern if you plan to shoot with vintage glass. The vintage lenses will work just fine on a D5100, though it may take some getting used to if you don't use Manual mode often. Older AF Nikkors work well in A mode but there is no auto-focus since the body lacks an internal motor. The D7100/D700 do NOT have this problem. They all have focus confirmation either way.
Having said that, I do not recommend vintage glass. Early on in my photo/vid "career" I built up a sizable collection of vintage lenses, everything from Canon FDs to """excellent""" AI/AIS Nikkors, and I got to say about 90% of it wasn't worth the trouble/money. One in particular that I absolutely hated was a 20mm F2.8 AIS Nikkor that was really soft up to F8 (the fact that I paid about 360€ for it still irks me till this day). This is one of those cases where a crop sensor is an actual advantage. Anyway, if you're going for that kind of vintage "character" then more power to you, but I'd instead make investing in new, good glass the top priority.
>>
File: _DSC0404.jpg (618 KB, 2212x1465)
618 KB
618 KB JPG
>>3374571

I've been shooting with a D5100 for 7 years as my main rig. I installed hacked firmware for uncompressed RAW files and HD video and it makes a huge difference in quality. Overall it's been very good to me, and I use almost exclusively non-AF and in some cases pre-Ai glass, no problems. It will say "No lens attached" when you try and use old glass in any mode other than "M", but you can use pretty much anything on it. The lack of TTL metering sucks, my old D1x can do it with full manual lenses and its really helpful, but the D5100 is pretty limited. I find you get used to what exposure it can handle though. It's got pretty good low-light performance, which is made better with wide old glass.

If you're upgrading, The Fujifilm X-T1 looks like the nicest sweet spot for the $ due to being able to use any old lens with mirrorless. The D7100 isn't bad either since you can find them for under $400 these days and the image quality really is great. The D700 might be full frame but it's old and you will definitely feel its age when you use it. Don't get an A7 unless you can afford to get the mkII.

Sample shot from my D5100 using a 1961 Nikkor-S 50mm f/2

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON D5100
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 7.0 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern700
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2018:07:18 03:06:13
Exposure Time1/160 sec
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
Light SourceFine Weather
FlashNo Flash
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlNone
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
File: _DSC0659.jpg (632 KB, 2035x1348)
632 KB
632 KB JPG
>>3374800

It's not a problem with old glass specifically, it's a problem with certain bad lens models. I use almost exclusively old glass. I never pay more than $50 for an old lens unless I know I'm getting something very high quality, and most of my lenses were under $20. I recommend trying out a Nikkor Series E 50mm f/1.8, they are razor sharp even wide open, and they definitely set the bar for me when finding cheap good-quality old lenses. The other two sharpest vintage ones I have are the Nikkor-S 50mm f/2 and the Nikkor-Q 200mm f/4, both sharp and impressively well-built. Don't write off old glass entirely.

I took this >>3376228 with the Nikkor-S 50mm
And I took this one with the Series E 50mm:

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON D5100
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 7.0 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern700
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2018:10:17 15:18:21
Exposure Time1/160 sec
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating160
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
Light SourceFine Weather
FlashNo Flash
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingCustom
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlNone
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
>>3374571
>>3376228

OP, I take it back, after reviewing the image quality of the Fujifilm, I think the D7100 is the best bang for the buck in your list.

File: 20181010_074258.jpg (3.57 MB, 4032x3024)
3.57 MB
3.57 MB JPG
So now that Canon killed Nikon and Sony killed Canon, will Nikon make a new film camera and lenses to capture the hipsters in need of a onesize fits all compact/rf/slr but unwilling to pay exorbitant prices on the second hand market?

Pic unrelated
>>
we are being hijacked by machines - the tek world - a cesspit of neurotic cronies who are so locked in to their laser visions and hard edgy steel soulless existences they want to make money selling their mental illness to everyone else.

people with money and no brains.

shout out to Ginni Rometty and Tim Cook and every other droid in a lab thinking a lab is an actual place to be.

File: 7777.png (351 KB, 700x595)
351 KB
351 KB PNG
So who's got theirs?

Or is everyone waiting for the Z6
40 replies and 3 images omitted. Click here to view.
>>
>>3375803
Phones are a completely different market you fucking brainlet.

Who uses full frame cameras? That's right kiddo, professionals. Whoever is leading ff sales, is the brand most bought by pros.

And it makes sense, pros know sony is the only real camera company left, everyone else has to buy in their parts, sony are the only company to do it all in house, hence why they are cheaper, smaller, more energy efficient, have the best specs and the fastest release calender.
>>
>>3375988
And the most expensive lenses, because they don't do -that- in house.
>>
>>3370114

Waiting on the 14-30mm f/4 next year before jumping ship and getting a Z6, mostly as I use a lot of 3rd party lenses and just want a clean break to the new system to avoid issues.
>>
>>3370121
>Reckon less af is fine?

All the AF point are utter shit anyways.
Expect a lot of hunting around.
>>
>>3373456
People who think they need the latest greatest camera to make good pictures are the real idiots.

You'll just end up trashing it in 2 years time and buying the next new electronic gadget.
Meanwhile I still love my D800.

I want to sell my Fujifilm x10 with Fujifilm EF-20 flash, and some uv and nd filters, batteries and original box with documentation etc. Everything works great, a little micro dust in lens but photos are clear, first owner since 2013.

I can sell it for 270 USD, is it worth to do it and gather some more money to buy some used dslr?

Sorry for shitty thread but I have little time to decide, help needed
>>
OP here, I would probably buy used Nikon D3300 with kit lens. It would be better image quality, sure, but this one has build quality, looks and soul.
I don't know anymore
>>
>>3376129
Nah. Bump the price to 400, if you can't just sit on it, or use as second cam. That's the price of some decent glass.

File: 1538447183869[1].jpg (488 KB, 1080x1080)
488 KB
488 KB JPG
Why the fuck does this photo look so good? It's fucking with my head. It reminds me of a renaissance painting.
68 replies and 12 images omitted. Click here to view.
>>
File: 1536655926150.jpg (12 KB, 255x255)
12 KB
12 KB JPG
>>3368824
the oldfags really know how to properly ruin a thread
fucking animals
>>
>>3368992
>There was also a massive spike in abortions
German women were terrified of abortions back then. Some turned to attempting the act themselves... Many died. Most simply bore their bastard russian child.
>>
>>3368824
I once read to soviet army was made up of many eastern russians so more of the asian type which if this is true would mean it wasnt the slavic genes that were spread in eastern germany.
>>
File: 1415556479995.jpg (21 KB, 276x280)
21 KB
21 KB JPG
>>3373761
And that's the truth
>>
File: david-hamilton141.jpg (143 KB, 500x338)
143 KB
143 KB JPG
>>3368170
Reminds me of David Hamilton's style.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareGoogle
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Image Width500
Image Height338

File: TO453EG.jpg (75 KB, 971x732)
75 KB
75 KB JPG
dogs
43 replies and 36 images omitted. Click here to view.
>>
File: Webp.net-resizeimage.jpg (2.02 MB, 1620x1080)
2.02 MB
2.02 MB JPG


[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS 80D
Camera SoftwareLightroom
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created2017:12:19 22:10:54
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
>>
>>3372173
F
>>
>>3372173
F
>>
>>3375488
his fat dog nuts are visible
>>
File: bob116.jpg (275 KB, 1600x877)
275 KB
275 KB JPG

File: shutterstock_677716408.jpg (119 KB, 900x600)
119 KB
119 KB JPG
I just recently got interested into Astrophotography.

My main concern is which direction to go for camera, lenses, etc.

Is this new hobby possible while on a budget? Right now I'm trying to spend 3-400 for a camera body just to get our foot in the door. I'm okay with getting used older models since they tend to be cheaper than newer ones.

But my biggest concern on what to exactly look for in lenses. Does anyone here have any experience with astrophotography? Thank you in advance.
9 replies and 1 image omitted. Click here to view.
>>
>>3371353
My god, I live in a city and dont even remember the last time I saw stars in the night sky, feels bad man
>>
>>3371388
tfw live in a dark sky site in the UK but it's cloudy 361 days a year.
>>
>>3371951
I would be sure to enable the long exposure noise reduction. it basically takes a dark frame for you. turn off all the other noise reduction shit though

if you can do electronic first curtain or full electronic shutter, go for it, it should reduce shake a little

iso depends on your camera but 800 is usually a good starting point.

there are shutter speed calculators for astro. I would err on the side of shorter shutter speed because i dont like trails at all. keep in mind such a calculator should also take into account image sensor resolution
>>
>>3371345
LMAO I hardly call taking pictures of the Milkyway astrophotography
More like night time photography
Astrophotography using a DSLR what a waste...
Plenty of camera's dedicated for astrophotography
>>
>>3375941
It is one of many ways to do astrophotography. Don't be an asshole, post your own shots instead.

File: vid gen tarantinoesque.jpg (131 KB, 1489x1198)
131 KB
131 KB JPG
Let’s all buy shitty cameras edition!
>STICKY - https://pastebin.com/vbJV0Wia
>Helpful guide and additional books - https://pastebin.com/kG0gRmTZ

Here we discuss techniques, gear and anything else related to capturing video footage. Please don't pretend to be an expert if you don't know what you're talking about. Kindly leave your ego at the door.
Posting short films/scripts or other work you've done is encouraged.
We tend to use and recommend DSLRs/mirrorless cameras because they provide phenomenal picture quality for their price, have large sensors (ie the same size used in high-end cinema cameras and higher) and have interchangeable lenses.
In contrast, consumer camcorders normally have much smaller sensors and a fixed lens.

>NO ONE CARES WHAT AN EXPERT YOU THINK YOU ARE. IF YOU’RE ASKING BASIC-AS-SHIT QUESTIONS, YOU CAN’T BE ALL THAT GREAT. SEE ABOVE

Previous thread >>3365049
Is it me or are these threads moving a lot faster than they used to?

FAQS

Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
314 replies and 30 images omitted. Click here to view.
>>
File: 1539576945908.png (757 KB, 1000x596)
757 KB
757 KB PNG
Huawei P20 Pro + Gimball or BMPCC4K

??

For travel and vlogs
>>
>>3376083
that fucking shack for almost 900k?
WAT DE FUQ?
>>
>>3376171
I live in the SF Bay Area, and those are pretty much the standard market prices. You're not paying for the shack but rather the location. I also drive by the neighborhood that you were talking about, and it's not even a particularly good area.

There was a house that burned down not a mile from where I am, and the realtors who owned the place said "fuck it" and just sold the house as-is. Someone bought a fucking pile of charred lumber for $1.1m not even a week after the house went up for sale.
>>
>>3376347
For those prices I’d live out of my car if I worked in LA.
>>
File: Tront.png (1.17 MB, 1906x1080)
1.17 MB
1.17 MB PNG
This was filmed on a Black Magic Production Camera 4K, I love the amount of light in the image, seems like something an A7III or A7SII would be capable of right? I'm looking to do similar style of shooting myself and would love some educated guesses on what focal length the lens being used here is? It looks kind of wide to me but I'm no expert.

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

Anyone have any examples low light action shots like this?




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.