I have way better gear but this little fucker has become a great companion for vlogging, even with all the drawbacksDo you have a favorite flawed piece of gear?
>>4493703There are kits that replace the lens with a M43 mount.
>>4493840Reminds me of my Pentax Q with the K mount adapter.
>>4493840ahh yes, the ribcage
>>4493703I use it in b&w (and blast iso), like a little GR 4 mono. no one ever sees me take the photo
>>4493521noice mangg
I'm really lost on how much sensor size matters, because while I read tons of gear stuff here and the most detailed explanations, in reality the photos taken with a small sensor still look good to me because it's about composition, feelings, emotion, subjects and things like that.So what's the deal with sensor sizes
>>4486110this is HYPERKINO
>>4478850Any proof?Take digicam with 1mpix sensor, take photo with DSLR, resize to 1mpix and compare.
>>4478844Unironic techlet.AI needs good quality input data to work properly. Sensor size affects the quantity and quality of said data (light). How can the AI process an image where half of it is noise and blur?
>>4478830Its the only specification that matters. Everything else only concerns pixel peepers, extreme edits (ie: fixing sony colors), people who expose for lightbulbs and the core of the sun. Bigger sensor = better tonality and more natural DOF falloff
>>4478850>all that matters is what bots and browns on social media thinkWhat a sad life you life. Forever servile to people you will never meet. >you can still take some good photos for instagram>cant shoot a family portrait indoors without flash>but you could do a midday building corner and raj and his 100 bot accounts would “like” it!
Planes, Trains, and Automobiles EditionPlease post film photos, talk about film photography, film gear like cameras, film stocks, news, and tips/tricks in this thread.Also talk about darkroom practices, enlargers, photo paper, techniques like dodging/burning, tools, and equipment related to enlarging, developing, and printing.Thread Question: Do you develop yourself or let a lab do it for you? Previous thread: >>4482671
>>4494515I'm not mad, please don't project. And I emphasized more than once that it wasn't doing anything for me, in other words yes, I didn't understand it. I still tried to provide a somewhat constructive feedback, from my non-understanding point of view. So thanks for providing your explanation. I'll be curious to see the scan side by side with the print.By the way, until this post I did not realize that this was a vertical structure. I thought this was a top-down view of stuff lying on the ground. You can tell me I'm dumb for it, but at least for me I don't get any sense of the weight from this composition, and even less that the egg is supporting anything. >>4494523Not going to engage in trolling back and forth, but this reaction tells me I must have hit some nerve.
>>4494567>How would you have added a sense of weight? Is an entire structure being held up by a cracking egg not enough?It just doesn't feel like it is held up by the egg. The top brick just looks like it's resting on the right-most brick, making a safe shelter for the egg, rather than putting it in danger. Also the composition feels very static, being framed on top and bottom with horizontal bricks, and left corner, adding a right angle. Even with the two slanted bricks, it exudes stability, rather than peril and impending doom.>Im also curious why you mentioned the cable in the background and still thought it was laying on the ground. How does that even make sense?I think my initial impression of it being top-down was so strong that I just didn't connect the two facts. Want thinking much about desu, the cable didn't seem too out of place in a pile of rubble.
>>4494577There's really no point when you continue to demonstrate your inability to even look at a picture and ignore important and fairly obvious details in that image.The egg is getting visibly crushed and cracked and your feelings are telling you it is safe lol. cmon bro...
>>4494581Nothing in the picture tells me that the egg is being crushed. What I see when I look at it is a static, stable structure. This is my honest opinion as a viewer, but feel free to disregard it, you do you.
>>4494610>>4494610>>4494610
Here are some shots with people i did.Posting since i moved those in a folder on my dektop recently..might grab some more..
>>4493300Is that a real job? Maybe have to be a doctor or an engineer or an astronaut if you want to take pictures
>>4493652>clutterits a plant broand of all the things one could with with a plant like that and a person, its one of the more mediocre photos somehownice photos, dude.
>>4493851I mean visual clutter. But really happy you chimed in just for this.
>>4493188>nothing is in focusInb4 "that's the point"
>>4494221Yeah they already jumped me for that saying that
Both of these images were taken with a Sony Mavica.
>>4494045I wish I could have been in the Woolsworth building that day at the top and had a 4k or 8k Digital Camera with 120 zoom that doesn't exist. Like a Coolpix P1100 or a change out 800mm or higher. this way you could have seen more details to say whether squibs were truly used or not. but such cameras outside of real film didn't exist. the other thing is showing up 2 weeks prior where all kinds of funny construction just happened to be going on with floors closed down. hide a camera and record their conversation. the Art Students from Israel as wellI dont blame Israel but im pretty sure Israeli Secret service and the CIA helped the Sauds pull shit faggot shit off. You calling me a liar?PS nice shots for the shit cameras they had back then
>>4494163I've thought about being there with my camera so many times it's unreasonable. It's the only nearby event worth taking a picture of in my lifetime, and it had to happen while we were in an awkward in-between period for imaging. Some of the only footage from inside the towers was taken on early 0.3mp webcams and abysmal 2001 camera phones. It's priceless but complete shit quality.
>>4494145Because its hard to be certain he actually did anything wrong. If he was found guilty, just shoot him. Torture does nothing, and usually leads to them just saying whatever in order to make the pain stop. False confessions, fake info etc. Basically no one wins and its completely inhumane and regarded.
>>4494220>Basically no one winsFalse, lot of the time the guy holding the bucket of water is enjoying it.
>>4494229I don't think we should promote that behaviour.
It's 2026 - here are my new years' resolutions:I'm going to leave this godforsaken board. This is a fucking highly negative place infested by gearfags, chartfags and the mentally ill. This board sucks all the joy out of the hobby. A bucket of crabs so to speak. I'm also going to leave all other photography related forums and communities. It's full with nophoto assfags who are just frustrated at their own lack of photographic skill and try to pull down everyone and anyone to their own level of incompetence.Cya fuckers.As a parting gift I'm giving you a bunch of shitty firework pictures.
>>4491670>people who take good photos the first time every time and know how to use a camera? lame. just because people are willing to pay you doesnt mean you’re better than me, the secret king!kek
>>4491673>le motte and bailey Not to say I think these are good photographers, but I'm talking about the Many from your statistics who photograph people and things they don't care about to earn a living
>>4491675Learning the technical side is so easy it's not even a protected trade anywhere
>>4491681Right thats why you’re so successful at it
Status report on Syrian bro?
Your photo must be at least 5 years old. If you are new to photography - share the oldest you got.
>>4493507lol I feel that I’m still stuck in there… not much have changed since
they use us in these captures. it has to be. but what in the flying fuck would need such translations? and fuck me twice on mondays, this fucking captcha expired quickly! fuck you, 4chan coin shoveling fuckface cuntassniggers from hell.
>>4493760
>>4493760>>4493762first was in amsterdam. friends of mine gave it to me for my 30th birthday. 2nd was with my ex-gf in croatia. was a nice trip.
>>4493763>>4493762>>4493760all around 2014 to 2018
Can we agree that almost any modern digital camera takes "good" photos (with the obvious exception of Micro 4/3)?
>>4493686I've gotten an estimated 600MP of resolution from a flatbed scan of an 8x10 negative. Ive seen a wetplate tested to get over 1000MP. Does this make a difference on an 8x10 contact print or wetplate? Absolutely and it is called tonality.
>>4493686It was actually a 4x5 plate that got the gigapickle. Lolhttps://billrolph.com/wet-plate-resolution-1
>>4493645SEXY.But for what purpose would you do this? You need so much light for LF for any sort of DoF. Unless of course... there's a complementary off-camera handheld sodium-bulb flash which is based beyond all measure.>>4493691>I've gotten an estimated 600MP of resolution from a flatbed scan of an 8x10 negativeSurely this is just complete overkill right? Analogue processes might benefit if you're enlarging prints to... ungoldly sizes, but scanning only benefits up to maybe 8k and slightly beyond unless you're literally just peeping individual pixels.Maybe for insane resolution landscapes?
>>4493688Complaining about choosing to not delete a photo on /p/.
>>4493694The sinar handy only supports up to a 135mm lens(I think) with a 65mm being the most common. You can totally do zone focus with 65mm. There's a very expensive 47mm lens you can get that covers 4x5 as well. Lots of silly/fun use cases and I think it's sort of wasteful not going for gold with large format, but the camera is a fun one to use and very compact for large format. It has a ground glass in the back, so you could take it hiking to save tons of weight and space. Idk what their intended purpose was when they were made. Maybe architecture or something..>>4493694People will call me schizo, but if you compare a grain free 8x10 print made with enlarged 35mm film and an 8x10 contact print you will see an obvious image quality difference in the two prints. There are also 8x10 enlargers that you could make gigantic grain free prints with, but it is a very difficult and expensive process.If you're talking about the scan being so huge then yeah it's just overkill, but it can be useful if you're autistic about your technique and want to learn what you did right/wrong.
"Merry Blobmas" Edition.Previously:
Max image limit. New thread
>>4493110You're nearly a month late...
>>4493118twss
>>4489467dead bambis, sad
>>4487765what happened
>literally no digital camera not even the state of the art 2025 cameras can surpass LF kodachromeHow? isnt technology supposed to get better with time?
>>4487920the old kodachrome was basically iso 10, so most of these large format shots have like kilowatts of lights blasting the subjects. anyway i do agree, nothing looks quite like it, even the 60s/70s 35mm koadchrome photos just have something special about them - no "preset" will ever capture that, and definitely no fuji recipe lol...
>>4493602>https://www.loc.gov/pictures/search/?q=mrg&st=gallery
Yet another Kodachrome thread where nobody realizes there is artificial light and reflectors that are contributing to muh Kodachrome look.Dumbasses
>>4493618literally one post above
>>4493603you can tell how bright that was from the shadow edges
Been shooting photos forever and think it's time to buy a modernism digital camera. Currently own an original Sony 7 that's starting to show it's age. Looking for a small-ish, used, interchangeable lens camera to 'upgrade' to. I'll be using it as a general EDC walk around but also to shoot professional architecture photos. Must haves:>BSI sensor as a main reason for me to shoot digital is for low light performance >tilty screen that can flip down (NOT out to the side)>SS dial>Cost <$1500calThings I don't care about>AF performance>Video>Menus
>>4490054Ya but the trees in the background are neither here nor there and ruin your shot
Well, wound up buying a Nikon refurbished Z5 still in box with 3 year warranty for $600. Seems like a crazy value and ticks almost all the boxes for me. Thanks for following my blog
>>4490059Homie it's literally an anagram of the Bliss wallpaper. The trees add to it.
>>4493631The trees look sloppy to me, homie
>>4490054>>4489943You're both blisslets.
Has anyone got experience editing their photographs for print? I trialled a few papers and found I like Ilford Smooth Pearl because it's best for a range of global adjustments, even if it's a bit too shiny.If you have printed, how many times did you have to print to get what you wanted? If I want to sell prints, should I just accept this is going to be a big learning curve? So many papers change how the photograph comes out and it's not an exact science. Postproduction is as much an artform as capturing an image with the camera.I'd love to hear what you have worked on and what you learned. I feel a bit in the dark but will probably realise what I want from my prints in the future. Some people can look at a print and immediately what is wrong with it, but my eyes still need some time to adjust while I learn.
go to a shop where the printer will sit with you for a few minutes and go over your pictures, showing you what they look like on their calibrated equipment. when you decide what look you like, bring them the rest of your files and they will edit them for print.
>>4486047I go to the big box store here and order it on the one kind of fujifilm paper they offer in lustre finish (also the only on offer) and it comes out great. There are no real alternatives untill you go to botique printing shops that'll assfuck you for price because the only people who can afford the hobby are normally rich Eastern Suburbs boomers.Anyway,>NRGo lighter on lumainance NR than you'd normally accept for digital. Chroma NR should be basically the same though. Noise is hidden decently by the ink printing compared to digital viewing especially since you can't zoom in. >ExposureUnderexposed sections are exaccerbated (i've tried 5 different shops and this has been constant, ymmv) so you're better off lifting the shadows a fraction more than you'd be happy for digital. The extra noise is hidden rather well by the ink as above.>SharpeningEdit for digital viewing as normal, then do another unsharp mask pass specifically for printing; it should look slightly too crunchy on a screen but the purpose is to overcome the micro-smearing from the ink. This can take some trial and error, as you can absolutely still oversharpen and it'll look like ass.
>>4486047My girlfriend her art proofs for her children books and the initial is done on a method called Giclée (Zhee Clay) which has an amazing finished look but is pretty pricey. runs 20-100s per single print depending if its poster size or page size.
Merry and bright editionPrevious thread: >>4487403
>>4492803its ok anon we have each other stillin irrelevance
>>4492998What does that matter?
>>4491860only a blind man could proudly post such a pic >>4491840good thing you lifted the shadows: this black and white picture nearly had some black in it…
>>4491798>Maybe consider trying some abstract photography and see what you come up with.bruce_wayne_staring_at_batsuit__on_display.heif
Tree tunnel n stream
So I see some absolutely beautiful sunrises at work this time of year. Realistically what kind of gear would I be looking at to get better than my phone camera (iPhone 14). Not sure on what I’m looking for, but I would also like it to be capable of low light exposure/ night time for aurora. Literally have no idea on what I need and the options available out there are worst than trying to figure out what caliber you need for accuracy out at 300 vs 1,500 yards. Is the iPhone just good enough for my amateur needs?
>>4489585>DIS IS WHY QUALITY EQUIPMENT SUCKS AND CAPITALISM IS WRONG AND PEOPLE WHO SUCCEED ARE ACTUALLY LOSERSWrong thread.
>>4489583no these photos look really bad5d+24-105 f4 = photography solved
>>4490162>5d+24-105 f4Yeah, a used Canon 5D (any model really, with shutter count under 250k) and the cheapest Canon L lens (24-105mm is a good guess) will be ok for your purposes. They can take the weather and have enough dynamic range for your sunset needs.>>4489541>>4489550>>4489553Photography is actually a really fun and exciting hobby, but /p/eeps are like this so OP you should just scram away as fast as you can
>>4489472Is there another duluth anon here?Re:a camera for night time photography? At minimum you'd want a camera with a bulb setting so you can do longer exposures. I started with a 350d and used it for years. You could spend sub $200 and get what you need. Get a cheap, used, decent body and just play with it.
All I have is Sunsets. I can't see the east from my home. just a big hill behind me.
Last days of 2025 editionAll video related questions and discussion is intended for this thread. 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 often have much smaller sensors and a fixed lens.>STICKY - https://text.is/QZ1J>Helpful guide, additional books and more in-depth FAQs - https://web.archive.org/web/20200926115310/https://pastebin.com/kG0gRmTZ>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 ABOVEPrevious thread >>4467259Quick FAQSComment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>4493416It’s the narrators of scp or nosleep-tier horror shit I give money to. Not camera shills; Camera companies give them thier coin. I give them a little coin if I like their shit to encourage them to make more shit.
I'm struggling with what to do about frame rates on an upcoming trip. I'm going to Japan and I'm aware they use PAL due to their local frequencies, so should I use 25fps and 50fps? My main concern is playback on TVs and shit like computers as I've never used anything that isn't NTSC and idk how well it will playback or if I'll have any other weird challenges as a result.My other idea is to still use 30 and 60 but adjust the shutter speed to be slightly lower (1/50th for 30 and 1/100 for 60). Would this still be good? I can't decide at all and need help.
>>4493492>My main concern is playback on TVsAre you still running CRT TVs lmao...?You really do come here and waste people's time with inane, retarded, questions like this, when you could literally https://chatgpt.com/share/6964e6f3-1680-8009-bb2a-8e6496c735c1"Oh Lord in heaven, what a humongous faggot I met on the road, and he was an enormous faggot indeed, my Lord". Are you one of those boomers that instead of using a search engine and finding an answer in FIVE FUCKING SECONDS, you go to fucking plebbit and youtube comments to fish for an answer that maybe, one day, perhaps, god willing, will appear as a reply to your stupid fucking inane questions? Go look in a mirror faggot. I said GO LOOK IN THE MIRROR, FAGGOT! What you will see is a ginormous, stupid, dumb retarded faggot, and instead of harassing locals in a foreign country with your camera, you should either:a) photograph said retard you see in a mirror, and mail the photo to a publishing house working on illustrated encyclopedias, so they could upgrade their illustrations on the topic of "RETARDED FAGGOTS"b) skip the trip, and spend the money on education and tutoring, mainly on the subject of "how to think and use what little brain I have for maximum effect" - recommended for the benefit of you and the whole of humanity, and all the unfortunate souls that you would meet along your way in this world.
Bump limit reached, new thread>>4493514
>>4493501Fucking based way to end the thread
