Lighting threadLet's talk about lighting.> Broncolor: 3000usd per flash head, the power pack is 15000> Profoto: basically the same as broncolor> Aperture: 1/5~ of BC and PF> Godox: 1/5 ~ 1/10 of the BC and PFDo high end lighting gears really worth it? What's the catch on 20k worth Broncolor studio set(excluding modifiers) when 1k Fomex flash set can shoot the same bi-color light?Back then the chinese slops actually were trash so one might needed to invest a lot of money on it but today it doesn't seem to be the case anymore.
>>4494970No, it's a real thing but not all companies can make it right. I wish godox improve thei design
is cob led that bad? I see videos saying that because the spectra is so bad it isfurther is neewer that bad? should I pony up for an aputure? All this in reference to skintones
>>4495051https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM5ME4o79bEPara vs Beaute dish https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=femBzU9-hXIhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfRMZBO3rgEBroncolor para vs cheap slopsI think for now it's either buy 7k Bron para 133 (with focusing tube) or just use Beauty. I hope godox will make the same quality good for under 1k.
>>4495054>is cob led that bad?Yes. It's for zoomers to intensify their rooms crappiness. It's a meme.Real problem is integrated leds cannot be fixed individually when one of them is broken.For the other one's case, if you stamp few leds and they out of service then you can fix those certain ones, not just replacing the whole LED board.And the consistency of light doesn't matter since you can use diffuser and etc.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqIWxpBhAOo
>>4495083You don’t need a new one just buy used and slap godox ad1200 or 2400 flash head on it
Who the fuck likes this focal length? What is its purpose?
>>4488753>>4488756Word, I'll creep up closer. Or shoot wide landscapes. Also the wider lenses for this camera are expensive. If I can't make 28mm work I'll probably just go back to shooting 50 and 135.
>>4488725i'll see you in court.
>>4488750Get 28mm vision in your mind. It usually can be acquired by getting closer to subject and observing the environment before shootong. Wide angles are difficult because our vision is usually much narrower.But some dudes mentioned about >muh zooming with your feet It's a meme. If you make a change in the distance between camera and the subject, you will get different result. It just doesnt work. On this matter, i recommend to think of composition based on the distance between you and the subject, rather than focal lengh of your lens and the subject.
>>4462866trash at my sensor and i got no swabs
>>4495117Here, i got the shits removed for you.
birds edition
Thoughts on the Lumix 35-100 f/4-5.6 on the EM-5 mk II? Is it bad for the Olympus?Looking for zoom telephoto lens for travel with my missus.
>>4493362I only have time with a f/2.8 and an older one at that, but I assume it'd be fine. Minimum focus distance is a kick in the dick sometimes but realistically unless you're in a really tight spot it'd be alright in my experience, even better if yours has one that isnt as far out.
Just bought one of these. What do I think of it?
>>4494933>16-50mm f/8>$1100Fucking kek
>>4495094Are you poor?
I just got an old digicam and the previous owners didn't delete all the photos. I took a peek and some of the pics are actually kino.
Mine had a few videos from a kid filming his father and sister during christmas, it is kinda heartwarming, really made me feel like shit, its still on the card so i should probably delete it.
I specifically buy used memory cards and cameras to recover the photos. I have a whole 'Recovered' Folder on my external HD.I bought a 5DM2 that had a whole sleazy "lesbian milfs from Des Moines" shoot on it along with some sort of coffee marketing shots for a regional gas station.
I used to have 2 or 3 mildly hot photos that got left on a camera I had bought but I think I lost em when my stupid ass drive died
>>4489096I'd even check the card with Recuva to see if any deleted kino can be rescued. Found some boring travel pics on one memory card I received, unfortunately no femoid lewds.
Back when thrift stores were full of cheap digicams I bought two cams with pictures still on the internal memory. On one camera there were 2010 snapshits of some boomers chilling in their yacht, smoking and drinking. The other cam had one mirror selfie of a redhead woman, probably from ~2010 as well.
started looking at photos i shot back in 2008-2010ish and decided to do a dump.
Great thread and lovely photos. What were these taken on? >>4492523> I scan now with a Sony a7 and macro lens Even med format? Seems so clumsy to stitching several photos together of the same frame. I do 135 with a macro adapter and 120 on a flatbed for now.
>>4493405Hey thanks! The 6x6 is a mix of Bronica SQ-A and Mamiya 6. The 135 is a mix of Canon AE-1P and Stylus Epic.I don't really shoot 6x6 anymore. I do scan 120 rarely and don't find stitching necessary. I've printed up to 16"x16" from single frame scans of 120 that look great.
>>4487081This one is wonderful
great shots, love it
>>4494177Thanks anon, that's one of my favourite people photos I've shot. He's now in his mid 20s and a pretty cool guy.>>4494871Appreciate it anon
How do I get over the fear of using my camera in public? I got a fancy camera but I've never taken any shots with it because I'm too scared to go outside with it and use it
>>4474445>I found out afterwards that they were renting me out for sex very cheapLook at this guy over here, with a job, in this economy
>>4475841Not with that attitude you y
>>4456736>be attractiveNo anon, you only need to not look like a creep or autistic retard. Walk around normally with decent clothes and a camera, and smile back when people react positively to the novelty of having a camera pointed in their general direction. That's it.I admit I'm a semi-retarded beginner but that works for me regardless of gear. Last week I had tons of cool little interactions with people after taking their pictures, including cute women, they know you're a photographer if you act as a photographer.>>4475841I find zone focusing to be alright if you're not a leica 1/1000 powerwalking autismo, you stop, look at the viewfinder and quickly fine tune focus, bam, quick enough to avoid reactions. Or just look retarded and stick around for half a minute fiddling with your camera until avoiding you is too much of an inconvenience, I think that works too. I don't like doing >>4482890 because it feels dishonest and makes you look like a creep instantly.
>>4494726>>4494728outside of tourist spots its probably not very common to see people using real cameras
>>4494903I live in a really big city, so there's no way they don't see big cameras on the street. Maybe people here just don't like their photo being taken or something, I don't know, but anyone non-tourist looking just seems to dodge cameras.
Are Kodak and other film manufacturer's going to get heemed by $95/ oz silver?
they'll be fine
i mean they're raising prices regardless if it goes up down left right
digichads winning BIG TIME
I received this exact camera from my family along with some Fujifilm film. And it also has the exact same lens as in the photo... Would it be a good start to learning photography? I know it's not the best camera in the world, but it's the one I have.I have a digital camera, but I don't know... I'd like to see what it's like to photograph in analog.
>>4494748Just have someone else develop them for you. Most people do this. Self-development is very niche.
>>4494748If you don't have a good digital camera to "scan" your film then forget about self-development, just send them to the nearest hipster lab. I don't think buying a film scanner is worth it, and you can buy a DSLR/Mirrorless later once you get more comfortable with the hobby.
>>4494802>>4494768Excuse the question, but just to get a point of comparison, how much does it cost to digitize the photos you take analogically?In my country, each photo costs 50 cents of a dollar.
>>4494883Just to digitise? Free technically but the inital cost for me was about $1500 for body, lens, and scanning equipment like a backlight etc.
>>4494886YES! Just to scan each photo from the negative.
>camera error editionPrevious: >>4490470
I'm so retarded,I bought 4 whole prime lenses for my APS-C camera without checking they were APS-C lenses.Turns out they all were. But I never bothered to think it would matter if they were full frame lenses
>>4495124It wouldn't really matter, other than they'd be a little larger than they needed to be and maybe cost a little more. But if you like how a lens performs that shouldn't stop you.
>>4495125I might sell one of them. I bought it because I had none and it seemed to have decent reviews but honestly I'm not a fan of it (Sigma 30mm f1.4 DC DN). I have to overcorrect stuff with it and I end up using it at F2 minimum. Barrel distortion is way worse than any other lens I used. I don't know if it's a product of just being an older lens. I have 2 viltrox air F1.7 lenses, both are really light, small and sufficient for what I want. I don't have to worry as much about having them fully open. Only problem is autofocus is ass in considerably lit "low light". I have a meike 55mm F1.4 lens and it's fucking nuts. God I love this fucker. Not even the 1.8 pro that everyone shilled to me, it's a cheaper one.I don't know if it would have made more sense to just buy a pricier kit lens though instead of having this collection
>>4495128That Sigma is a crop lens, from reading a couple reviews it's far from a bad one. Lenses have got quite a bit better in recent years especially the cheap Chinese stuff though.
I'm waiting for my first camera to arrive anons. Canon AF35ML. Crossing my fingers it's fully functional (I got it from a very old and well rated camera account on eBay, they said it's battery tested and working). Anyone ever use one? Thoughts on old, cheap point and shoots in general?
Are technical cameras the ultimate endgame?
>>4494661>and the autofocus is better than every nikon, fujifilm, panasonic, and pentax ever madeAlready true of the EOS-1n, let alone the 5D2, to be quite honest with you, senpai.>doesnt need magic lantern for ISO settings to work correctlyML doesn't change anything about the operation of the ISO settings in the OVF, only the live view. Most of what ML does is live view only with the exception of the shooting section, so stuff like trap focus and intervalometer. Counterpoint, the 5D2 has interchangeable focusing screens, whereas the 3 does not. The 2 also has a better reputation for reliability than the 3, and the 2 is usually a fair bit cheaper. Though I will admit these two cameras are currently in close competition for the best digital camera you can buy when measuring by price per performance. How lucky we are that our hobby has technology that ages so gracefully.
>>4494662>They pack better and are lighter weight than an rb67.Yeah but the rolling boy just operates like a normal camera, albeit a somewhat unwieldy one. Technicals don't really work outside of a studio and a tripod is a must.
>>4494679I mean with the right databack they totally do work like a normal camera. They are commonly used for landscapes. Idk if the newer ones have helicals built into the lenses or not, so maybe not great for studio work unless you have one with a bellows..
>>4494662meh if you go on a trip you'll have to take a tripod + every pic will take 15min to set up, meanwhile a medium format is just as fast as a SLR. Basically what this guy said >>4494679
>>4494823You take the lens and film back off your rb67 it will take similar time to set up. Why is 100 speed film easier to use off a tripod than 100 iso? I'm confused by your thinking on this one.
Took this in berkeley, california at Caesar Chavez Park last year of the golden gate bridge looking 8 miles from the west. >>67x optical astral zoom>>Minolta bridge camera (pun intended)I had to tweak the iso speed to get the proper lighting. yes, it was a blood red sunset. August-October is the best months to take photos in California due to the golden-light effect is strongest.
>>4494160OP made a good thread and then completely ruined it with his reply. Tragic.
>>4494684you are a retard my friend
>>4494685Fort Point and Golden Gate good shot. Im guessing late afternoon since the sun is on the western side of the bridge.also I stated in my last post about opposite sunrises when I meant NYC or East Coast Sunrise over the Atlantic vs Sunsets over the Pacific have different lighting due to daily pollution. I'v seen amazing sunrises in NY but nothing like sunsets in San Francisco or LA. So again, its not a over saturated filtration by the camera that often happen. it was natural. also look up 9/9/2020 over San Francisco. looked like Blade Runner the entire day. freaked everyone out. it was like a red beam outside my shades when I woke up
>>4494688just corrected my statement of sunrises. I meant East Coast Sunrise vs West Coast Sunsetyours is an oversaturated red filter nuff said
Random photos from my DSLR taken with a redscale filter on it. not true film redscale, but one day i might do that.
Y'know what? It's neat. What do you set the white balance to for this? Or are you just leaving it on auto?
This reminds me that I bought a set of glass color filters with a front lens mount that will let you use up to three at a time. Maybe it's time to bring it out.
>>44777654chan scrubs metadata, including rotation info, so your images need to have their pixels rearranged to upload in the correct orientation
>>4494438I normally scuff my white balance to be greenscale, so that when the filter is applied, the highlights turn yellow instead of pink. Not sure how to retrieve the exact number, but if you have a canon, set the WB custom to the most overblown highlight photo you have
>>4494519that's good info. first time posting on the site, so wasn't sure of standard practice. good to know the metadata scrubs though
>it now cost $20 to develop film only with no prints or scansAHHHHHHHHH
Why the fuck is it more expensive to develop black and white film as opposed to color film? That's fucking insane.
>>4489845C41 is a standardized process that is uniform regardless of film speed (pushing/pulling aside), while b&w can be done different ways to achieve different outcomes and also requires different timing for different film speeds (unless your lab is doing rodinal stand dev I guess). More complexity = more expensive, while every lab has a machine that basically does c41 for them.
>>4489845B&W dev is done by hand, and C41 film is done by machine automation.I've seen a moderate rise of C41 B&W film being sold locally this past year or so. Local shop has sold a lot more XP2 Super than even HP5 according to the owner. The film is like an extra two bucks per roll but costs 2/3rd the dev cost at the same store so it's actually more economical.Besides, think of how much time it takes you to dev a single roll at home. Even if you've done it a hundred times and have all the chems ready to go, it still takes you a good 20-30 minutes to go through everything all the way to drying. I'm not surprised shops are charging $20 USD a roll to have an intern spend a solid half an hour on a single job.
>>4489852also that's the reason you never give your BW film to a lab because they don't know what look you want and they just use $something. if you shoot BW film you have to develop yourself to keep full control of the process. otherwise you could just get a digicam and shoot the monochrome JPG profile. same amount of control - just less cost.
>>4415069I miss the days of $3 film and $5 developing
Haven't posted in a couple of months but got a few rolls developed recently and I'm slowly going through scanning them.Exif: Leica M3 + Nokton 50mm f.1.5 + Vision3 250D (for the first seven ones), then Aerocolor IV for the remaining four.
>>4493288Thanks, bro. I also really enjoy that one.
>>4487758>He doesn't know voigtlander lenses are optically on par if not better than lenses these days.
Love the colours in the 250D shots. They don't have a green tint that I see other people get from it. I hate green tints.
>>4493620Right? I don't know how OP does it, these are bright and colorful with tasteful halation while any time I shoot vision3 it comes out with weird color cast that can't be easily fixed. Maybe he's using bona-fide ECN2 chemicals or is just better at scanning. I'll stick to gold and ultramax or the de-remjetted vision3, those come out ok.
>>4487005Bro did you just post a pic of your mrs on a chins?
New Ricoh GRIV Monochrome. What's the verdict?>1800€ / 2200$>built in red filter>25mp apsc>28mm equiv lens>very compact and light>no evfI want one because my taste in color grading changes every week and I'm so tired of working my way through lightroom presets and settings. It makes life easier. How does the image quality compare with a full frame image converted to b&w?
>>4494266If it's so consumeristic then the sales must be through the roof, right?
>>4494266>Can't think of something more consoomerist than paying $50,000 for a manual car with no AC or radioThat's what you sound like
>>4494206Uhhh, anon literally every mirror less and dslr is an imagination of a film slr. Dumbass
>>4494316Zoomers like you think all old cameras are the same and the manufacturers milk thisA Nikon F5 is night and day difference to an FM or F3
>>4493926>apscpass
