>>4306620
Probably Reddit, but the responses can be insincere.

/p/ and be a total asshole so you get more specific critique, since the more specific it is the more hurtful it seems

You could try boomer gear-specific forums. Nikonians is good if you shoot Nikon I hear, but it has a membership. It might actually filter out the retards.
Ultimately photography forums are pretty dead, nobody wants to discuss photography.

>>4306620
>>pic related
>>me taking a photo of Mt Rainier
and blowing out the highlights as evidenced by the histogram

>>4306620
Facebook groups can be hit and miss, at least on the film ones that I participated I get hate and cause boomers an aneurysm everything I mention I use a slavshit camera lmao

>>4306630
doesn't look blown out to me. There's still space to the right of the whites

>>4306626
Nothing cuts deeper than real serious critique when you know your work is shit. It still is seen here from time to time.

>>4306630
All camera histograms are jpeg histograms. Z6/Z7 can spot meter the highlights and go up ~2.5 stops before actually blowing them.

Only sony cameras have an actual raw highlight warning (stills zebras, custom level set to 107+)

I remember the last time I offered my opinions and critiques on pictures in the rpt, people were really angry about it.

>>4306629
That’s sad. Why?

>>4306636
you are absolutely retarded if you think that. i own a z7 and know that is full of shit

>>4306669
Not him but I own a z7 too and the histogram is a fucking liar. There's recoverable info well above where it clips. 2.5 stops up from meter gray is a good figure if you're shooting at ISO 400. At ISO 64 I think it's closer to 3-4 stops

File: IMG_75042.jpg (647 KB, 1536x2048)

647 KB JPG

>>4306680
>>4306636
>histogram is a fucking liar. There's recoverable info well above where it clips. 2.5 stops up from meter gray is a good figure if you're shooting at ISO 400. At ISO 64 I think it's closer to 3-4 stops
and you people are mouth breathing retards who have never used your camera before. let me hold your hand like the retards you are and prove this. pic related is a picture of my wall and the histogram, ETTR but not clipping

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Apple
Camera Model	iPhone 15 Pro
Camera Software	17.4.1
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	24 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2024:04:22 19:12:50
Exposure Time	1/120 sec
F-Number	f/2.2
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Brightness	4.8 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	2.22 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1536
Image Height	2048
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Digital Zoom Ratio	1.8
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: 2024-04-22 19_14_15-Light(...).png (1.8 MB, 2399x1211)

1.8 MB PNG

>>4306636
>>4306680
>>4306724
and here is the histogram in lightroom, which is the same as the one from the camera

File: 2024-04-22 19_15_25-Lightroom.png (1.7 MB, 2087x1234)

1.7 MB PNG

>>4306636
>>4306680
>>4306724
and here it is pushed one stop already clipping

File: 2024-04-22 19_15_35-Lightroom.png (1.21 MB, 2104x1264)

1.21 MB PNG

>>4306636
>>4306680
>>4306724
and here it is pushed 2.5 stops with half the image clipping. now please kill yourself you cock sucking faggots who have clearly never actually used your histograms at all

File: 2024-04-22 19_31_49-Lightroom.png (1.19 MB, 2097x1220)

1.19 MB PNG

>>4306636
>>4306680
>>4306724 (You)
and if you want to see what it is like if you just increase shutter speed 2.67 stops instead of fucking with the raw, pic related. you people are retards who think you know more than the engineers who designed your cameras.

>>4306641
Not all criticism is constructive.

>>4306725
You understand that histogram is of the processed image right? Not the raw file. You could use something like dcraw to extract the raw data and make a real histogram.
>>4306727
If you're interested in headroom you should be overexposing in camera and setting a negative value for exposure in lightroom. Obviously it's gonna clip if you increase the exposure in lightroom, because that's what the exposure slider does. You're supposed to set the slider so it doesn't clip.
I don't know if the claims about z7 headroom are true but your "test" is retarded. I do wish cameras had proper raw histograms. One thing people don't always realize is that white balance affects your headroom significantly, since e.g. under incandescent light your red channel is gonna clip way before the others, and the JPEG histogram doesn't show that at all.

>>4306771
>You understand that histogram is of the processed image right
its not you retard. and this has proven it. there arent 2.5 stops of headroom to recover highlights from like you or the other retards are pretending there are.

> under incandescent light your red channel is gonna clip way before the others
they're phillips hue white ambiance bulbs you poor. no one uses incandescent anymore

>>4306771
Actually, white balance has nothing to do with the raw histogram because white balance does not exist in raws. It's a processing option. It only changes the jpeg histogram and would be irrelevant to a 3-channel-in-one raw histogram, which shouldn't be hard because the zebras on the A7RIII could be configured to match the raw 99%.

>>4306732
Pretty sure that was about when highlights clip in camera and you can't pull them back in an editor, not any one channel clipping in lightroom's 8 bit jpeg

Without a gray card or something and raw histograms you cant demonstrate how many stops you get over middle gray but actual camera reviewers said it has 14.7 stops of dynamic range at base ISO and 13.3 at ISO 400 for its second gain stage, so as long as you meter competently and keep the details you want to save within 14.7 or 13.3 stops, plus or minus for extra ISO steps before/after 400, it should be good. I've recovered highlight detail on images where the histogram clipped before so I just leave it off. You can see bright white in the preview anyways, and turning off the preview is a waste of time. It still focuses stopped down and does retarded shit with strongly backlit subjects.

>>4306667
Not sure. I think people are always excited to talk about their photos but no other people's photos.
Not many people want or even can provide any meaningful feedback on your work, so it's all just a photodump with no discussion or gear discussion and no photos.

Discord

>>4306620
Flickr.

>>4306814
faggot
>>4306821
based

File: dead_flickr.jpg (593 KB, 140x637)

593 KB JPG

>>4306789
Yeah, but most cameras don't have a raw histogram, only jpeg and sometimes not even RGB. So whitebalance makes the shitstogram even more deceptive. Also the camera's meter may or may not take white balance into account, so it may expose raws correctly in some light but not others. There's an old trick I used to use where you could set the white balance to some ugly green color to make the jpeg histogram more accurately represent the raw values, but it made it too hard to chimp so I stopped using it.
>>4306788
>its not you retard
Does it change when you change the settings? Then it's not a raw histogram. The raw doesn't change just because you fiddle a slider. I'll admit I don't use lightroom but your own screenshots show it changing.
>>4306821
dead

>>4306860
Flickr might be dead, but it's either that or getting followers on fb/insta/tiktok and so on, that either don't care about you, or criticize what you put out or like but don't get involved.
Also, flickr is at its core a site for photographers. You can also find niche forums for brands and so on, but you might get nitpickers and nerds that will run you over if you are or are not the flavor of the month.
Mastodon might be an alternative, but it's also pretty dead and it's just a facebook alternative.

>>4306861
>Mastodon
Anyone here using pixelfed? The federated alternative to Instagram?

>>4306636
Superior decade old Canon DSLRs with Magic Lantern support multiple histograms including RAW. Firmware issue

>>4306877
You go where the audience is, the fediverse is pointless wank unless the big players fuck up for good

>>4307205
They also have micro four thirds tier noise

Just use a sony. The highlight warning set to max is very close to raws clipping

>>4307267
>pointless wank
as opposed to let's say Flicker

>>4306813
Forums are mostly people shitting on each other. I mean, you can see it on /p/ . Constructive criticism on internet is rare as fuck.
Could be easier to find local photographers community and actually meet and discuss photography, at least for gear talk and so on.

>>4307465
Yeah but this is 4chan tho, surely dedicated internet forums are better nowadays

Can someone open a new /sqt/? I have no thread and must stupid question.
I'd do it myself but don't have the thread template saved.

>>4307490
Forums are just 4chan but everyone is afraid of being banned or judged by obsessed post history reading losers. You dont get any spicy opinions outside of the consensus of the circlejerk. Some like mu-43 or the m43 section on dpreview are extra bad because the circlejerk itself is delusional gearfags. My dad fell in with them and when he got his om1 he returned it because the photos were all noisy shit. He accused mu-43 of lying to him and the mod banned him for a month with a link to topaz AI’s purchase page. Now he has a nikon z50 and the kit lens and he’s talking about buying the 28-400 and a z5

>>4307500
>spicy opinions
That is all you get on /p/, mostly unqualified, and if you question them the critic gets butt hurt.

>>4307697
to be honest when meeting in real life you get the same shit as in here
>it would be neat if you cropped that photo just a little bit
>but I like it this way
every interaction is like this

want good, sincere criticism?
enroll in a good photography school

t. I've spent four years studying photography at a nice prestigious school

The pentax forums are a great resource, though a bit boomer tinted. I really like the lens database they have, and the monthly photo comps are fun, though it's a bit lame when people enter literal 17yo pictures cause they dig through their library to find one that matches the theme, instead of going out and shooting something new in the month they have.

>>4307729
>every lens ever is tack sharp
>source: sharpening slider
>pentax numba one!

>>4307704
>want good, sincere criticism?
>enroll in a good photography school

Good heavens, no. Talk to someone who actually does pgotography

>t. I've spent four years studying photography at a nice prestigious school

And all you became was a nophoto

>>4307729
What does it matter if you pushed the button 5 days ago or 10 days ago or 50 days ago or 500 days ago or 5000 days ago? Either way you were in the scene in the past, positioned yourself to get the shot, shot it, and are today developing that shot for the client, in this case some dumb internet chat thread. A photograph is a capture of an image in the past, if you have a problem with the past then sell your camera now and just watch the present with your eyes.

>>4308247
This is why i ignore /p/ photo contests

Nigga my vacation was last year and i am not going on a trip for 4chan. Your next theme will be: farms. Fuck yall.

>>4306620
>be OP
>go onto photography board to discuss where to discuss photography and post pictures online
4chan is all you need :^)

>>4308284
Same

The time limit sucks. What it usually is: I have a good photo of the theme, from another place ages ago, and there's no opportunity to take another one here without ultra high effort shit like assembling a studio for 4chan.

>>4308307
I thought the point of the challenge was to challenge you to go out and shoot something. Rifling through your archives isn't very challenging, is it

>>4308284
Wait...there is a /p/ photo contest?