>>4329502
>Can you do landscape photography with a shitty APS-C?
Yeah you can do almost anything with that, but landscape photography in general is helped by DR and high MP so full frame is best.
>Do people who do landscape usually know about predicting weather conditions?
They use apps.

My suggestion is go outside a lot and take a lot of photos. There are almost no good landscape photographers.

is 300mm enough?

>>4329545
600mm is

>>4329545
>>4329547
Isn't landscape about taking wide angle photos of the landscape? How does telephoto help if all you will be seeing is a column of haze?

>>4329609
Photography is the art of removing unecessary things from an image

Longer focal length makes this easier

>>4329609
No
>take a photo of a scene that is not urban or suburban
that's landscape photography

you can do it any way you want

>>4329543
Tell me something. Whatever I see on the internet is just shit res for bandwidth saving. I never really see my pics back on the TV either. What really is the use case for a higher resolution picture? Say Magazines will also get a shit pic I suppose because of the printing limitations, and I guess if my purpose is to preserve views of my country's rural side, this would be the medium to spread it.

So what is it then, is Full Frame mostly made for art galleries?

I do see some blurry quality in some of my pictures but dunno what's the cause of that.

>>4329661
This. Many people start landscape with an ultra wide but these lenses are actually very hard to use effectively. A beginner should look at a 70-200ish, then a 200-500ish, then a 24-70 and finally an ultrawide 12-24. It's only for experts IMO.

>>4329502
just AI remove the turbines, retard

>>4329543
don't listen to this retard. landscape photography is the genre of photography that needs the least equipment.
you can use low MP bodies, you can use longer focal lengths (either to isolate details or to stitch together panos).
anyone telling you you need to spend serious money on fucking landscape is a moron or a jewish salesman
your subject isn't moving. you can use a tripod. you don't need bright f1.2 lenses because you step down to f8 or f16 or whatever anyway.
you don't need fancy 20 stop ibis because you've got a tripod. you can always use base ISO.
all you need is the willpower to wake up in the middle of the night so you can be during good light on location.
your biggest expense with landscape is travel costs.

>>4329609
wide angle shots are advanced and you need to be pretty good to get a nice wide angle image.
with a telephoto you can isolate details from the landscape and get nice results while having 0 talent

>>4329767
>What really is the use case for a higher resolution picture?
keeping people on the consoomer treadmill
20mpx is more than enough for gallery prints (no normie is putting their nose to the print to check out resolution - only photographers do this)

You need to shoot large format film for landscape photography

Do you guys think a tripod is absolutley necessary for landscape photography? I plan on getting one eventually, but so far I've just been sticking to handheld with a 18-50 zoom lens. I mostly take these photos for my own enjoyment and I'm not super anal about the techincal aspects, but if like a lot people think it's not even worthwhile with a set up like mine, I might get a tripod sooner than later.

>>4329789
It wil definitely help. You could also snapshit at midday at 800 ISO if you want, but you do need it if you're gonna do anything at early hours in the morning or if you want decent pictures at twilight. Both of these cases are rare for me and I actually bought the tripod to show up in photos with my family.

Get a remote shutter as well.

>>4329789
Also, if you're gonna record anything, get a middle range one with a ball bearing. If you're just gonna take static pictures a cheap $30 tripod will suffice, but these are made out of the shittiest plastic and will break one year down the line if it falls from your shoulder. The more expensive one will serve you well.

>>4329792
>>4329794
Ah, Thanks. Sounds like good advice. I've definitley been thinking about taking photos during those hours for great lighting (harder than it seems, especially when traveling imo), and knowing that a tripod is necessary for that motivates me to get one. Glad to hear I'm not totally wasting my time with the snapshits too though.

File: Ansel_Adams_and_camera.jpg (489 KB, 1200x1518)

489 KB JPG

>>4329543

>No good landscape photographers

The most famous name in photography was a landscape photographer.

>>4329780

This is correct. Most of my best landscape work was shot on an old 5D Classic 12mp with a plastic Canon 28-70 kit lens.

>>4329814
Sure but if I dress like this and take that camera out like that today people will just think I’m a faggot

>>4329543
retarded gearfag
this
>>4329780

>>4329828
Low MP and crop sensors is fine if you don't mind small prints or low detail shots. You don't need to spend very much to get a FF DSLR with 20MP, which is plenty. Many want 40MP. Just because your shitty crop 6MP is good enough for you doesn't mean it's good enough for everyone, particularly if they print their work large.

>>4329817
They already do when they see you with a camera

>>4329833
nooo ur a retarded gearfag you need to do multi shot hdr with your 6mp apsc and take photos that look like 2005 flickr! how dare you insinuate that better cameras get the job done better!

There's actually a point where digital cameras are strictly inferior to film. 36mp full frame with modern sony sensors. Everything lower specced than that has less resolution and dynamic range than a 200 year old medium, so you might as well order a roll of respooled vision3 or portra 160 and slap it on a half decent SLR that takes a half decent 24mm lens.

>>4329836
>you might as well order a roll of respooled vision3 or portra 160 and slap it on a half decent SLR that takes a half decent 24mm lens.
This but unironically

>>4329837
I wasn't being ironic. I was being serious. Everything lower specced for image quality than a nikon D810 is inferior to 35mm film.

File: 1719506034018.jpg (452 KB, 868x868)

452 KB JPG

>>4329796
This was my first time using a tripod a couple of years ago. I took it when you could still see stars in the sky. It was a magical thing to learn that things at night had the exact same colors as day with mere extra seconds of exposure.

>>4329865
You're such a fantastic faggot because that's the kind of impression and experience that I think makes photography and camera equipment in general a great thing. But this is 4chan so something something sneed

>>4329502
Here's your landscape GOAT setup:
Any 35mm film SLR with a shutter button that is threaded for a cable release and a mirror lock up feature (ie: OM-1n)
A prime lens between 21mm and 35mm for things you are close to
A prime lens between 85mm and 200mm for things you are far away from
A square filter holder that goes on each lens
A cheap set of square "graduated neutral density" filters in 2, 3, and 4 stops. You may also want warming and cooling filters, to taste.
Total cost will probably be less than $300.

>but each photo costs-
goddamn man don't you have a phone or a PNS for low value snapshots? this is for printworthy memories, not every day snaps.

And now here's what you do with it:
Go to a place where you can see a pretty feature of the planet at a time when the sunlight looks nice
Put your tripod, camera, and lens together so that what you see in the viewfinder looks like a good photo
Use a light meter to determine if the correct exposure for the sky and the ground are within the dynamic range of the film
Use a GND to dim the sky if it is not. You want to be able to build exposure on the ground without blowing out the sky or making it look like shit. This will, regardless of whether or not you fuck it up a little, look 100x better than fucking with curves or blending bracketed exposures on digital. You probably won't have to edit it at all beyond color correcting the scan.
Set your aperture so the zone of sharp focus is what you want it to be (ie, if your foreground starts many meters away from the camera, you could actually get away with a wider aperture) and your shutter speed to expose properly without undesired motion blur
Lock the mirror up and use the cable release to fire the shutter

When you get good at this you can buy a view camera

is photography gay?

>>4329870
the majority of good photographers were heterosexual so good photography is very straight

shitty new photography that's nonsense like gay black couples posing naked on a dirty mattress in a dump by a creek is gay, and so are the photographers making it

>>4329871
Let me summarise for you
>Photography is an art
>Lots of people are shit at art

>>4329891
>pressing a button is art
sometimes I think the boomers were right about millennials and zoomers

>>4329909
Pressing a button is winography

Photography is a bit more involved than f/8 and be there

>>4329868
>wide for close things tele for things that are far away
I hate how often people think this way. If you get close to a subject and zoom out you will be taking a different photo. Wide angles are for bringing in more elements and teles are for simplifying scenes. Look up perspective distortion. It's really important to use this thoughtfully and a good reason to use a zoom (though film-era zooms can suck).

>>4329913
You're thinking in terms of FOMO.

Does gear really matter? Are people buying more that 1 camera retarded consumers? Is me farting at the lens affecting it's quality?

File: DSC_6135.jpg (231 KB, 1804x1210)

231 KB JPG

shitty aps is nice for landscape

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D200
Camera Software	Ufraw & Imagemagick & Exiftool
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	301 dpi
Vertical Resolution	301 dpi
Exposure Time	1/320 sec
F-Number	f/9.0
ISO Speed Rating	100
Focal Length	45.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated

>>4329780
>anyone telling you you need to spend serious money on fucking landscape is a moron or a jewish salesman
you are one hell of a smoothbrain. the guy you quoted told OP to go outside and take photos.

>>4329796
you really shouldn't blow money on a tripod to haul around unless you already know from personal experience that your photos will benefit from it

>>4330455
All landscape photos benefit from a tripod and they’re fucking $50

>>4330495
ISO has to go above 100? Time for a tripod

>>4330497
This plus huge bbc in the ass

>>4329814
Look at that tripod. You know it has seen some shit.

>>4329545
50-105mm is king for landscape.

File: _DSC5614-Panorama_r.jpg (3.73 MB, 5913x2500)

3.73 MB JPG

I dunno if a tripod is really needed, I just point and shoot like the dumb tourist I am and that's it. I do need one for milky way, obviously, but as long as the sun is out there somewhere, you can get by.
I like wide angle ~20mm, and then I jump straight to ~90mm. 35mm for general use.
What I'm unsure if is if memefilters are any useful. Despite reading about many landscape photographers using them, I feel like they're a complete meme (UVs and sit), the exception being ND filters as they have a direct impact on the light you gather, allowing you to take photos at slow speed that would be impossible to take during daylight.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7CM2
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop 24.6 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	21 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	8016
Image Height	3389
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpcm
Vertical Resolution	240 dpcm
Image Created	2023:12:27 12:58:35
Exposure Time	1/160 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Brightness	7.6 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	21.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	5913
Image Height	2500
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
GPS Status	Measurement Interoperability
Geodetic Survey Data	WGS-84
GPS Differential Correction	No Correction

>>4329780
What this guy said is true but I would add get yourself a nodal rail and learn to use it. It will make stiching much easier.

>>4330497
yes

digital high isos are bad. it's not like film where it's just fatter grains looking kino, when digital isos go up the error rate per pixel goes up and the demosaicing algorithm starts being even wronger about colors than it already was. the higher the iso, the more digital it looks. by iso 800 on full frame you're approaching the tonality of an ipone.

>>4329814
>almost none = none at all
Work on your reading comprehension. Most landscape photographers are bad, I'd say to a greater extent than other genres.

>>4330599
most landscape photographers are good, average at worst

and then you have womens portraits. i genuinely think 99.9% of womens portraits are awful, and if humans of both sexes were not programmed to have an involuntary dopamine response to women with certain physical characteristics, and culturally programmed to admire those who maintain the company of women, the photos would be more clearly trash. like replace the woman with a cat or something and all of a sudden its just clearly garishly lit generic junk.

why even bother being a good photograper, or a good artist? take photos of women. spend time with women. make sure everyone knows you do. and make sure they are pretty women. it doesn't matter if you go ham on the colored gels and never hire a real makeup artist and your only lighting setups are offset softboxes and clamshell umbrellas, if pretty women good photo right?

>>4330601
I don't even think I disagree but you might just hate women and like nature lol

>>4330605
>you might just hate women
I like women short of wanting to fuck them desu