Orange-ish Velvet EditionPreviously: >>4452329
>>4454785>derp
Some fake grain and a filter really turns snapshits around
>>4454871That's a nice shot. You should try selling it to the cruise line.
>>4454858
>>4454785You're lucky no one gets mad at you for posting similar shots of deer so much.
>>4454785
palm tree>>4455043unbothered. focussed. flourishing.
jewish cemetery
>>4455046really like this one. feels intimate. framing couldn't be better. maybe there was some detail lost in the shadow although that could be intentional if you wanted more separation between the deer and the background or you just like it like that.
>>4455048thanks! yeah darkened it a bit to separate.
>>4455044goat does no gaf
Did some street stuff would like some feedback
>>4455080
>>4455081
>>4455083
>>4455084That's all for now.
>>4454980You should tell these guys to hang out at another backdrop, then. They don't respect me anymore.
>>4455087Try feeding them more corn and organic vegetables.
>>4455130I may have to set up a better spot anyway. My back porch makes it easy to navigate, but the roof cover blocks too much good light when they get close (observe the shading in his face) and that one backdrop is getting stale.
>>4455159You should try setting up an actual backdrop. Could be the kino we never knew we wanted.
>>4455043very nice
>>4455085they lack strong visual elements. last pic is close but still, there's not quite enough to draw the eye
>>4455044What would you rate this picture out of 10?
>>4455160Lol, taking suggestions now.>>4455043>"He's right behind me, isn't he?"
>>4455224Either pure black or pure white. If you can swing it get a dark green hand painted backdrop. Wireless strobe setup and all. Take it to the next level.
>>4455338Check out these goats.
>>4455080080 - blurry. where you moving when you took this? no subject081 - nice warm glow. unfortunately, no subject083 - blurry. where you moving during this one too? what do I focus on? the sign is in focus but its boring. the women looks more interesting but out of focus. woe is me084 - i like the colors. comp could be better. my eye is drawn to the gate but those leaves close to the camera are a tad distracting. two steps back or forward wouldve made this one nice085 - no subjectthanks for sharing>>4455044>What would you rate this picture out of 10?uuuuuuuuuuuuh maybe 4/10? proper exposure, focus, colors. intended subject (palm tree) blends in too much to the tree behind it, making the main subject the entire green blob. nowhere interesting for my eyes to gothanks for sharing
Posting a series of holidays snapshits in the french Alps. Mostly unusual ratios, I'm experimenting with anamorphic.
also squares because why not
That will be it.
>>4455449this one's cool,very comfy place to camp,blessed day for it>>4455459very much enjoy this one too,especially how the shadows still have texture>>4455453i think this would work better cropped since the subject is so tiny. the environment dwarfs him. that may have been your intention and, if so, you've succeeded. if you wanted to bring us into his world, though, take us closer.>>4455456This one and the other are technically superb, exposure, focus, etc.I have experienced some difficulties of my own while photographing wildlife, though. One moment of impatience and they scatter: birds, kangaroos, etc. If I don't crawl up inch by inch there's no hope of getting close... even sheep are skittish.
>>4455452>>4455459>>4455462These are nice. Thank you for sharing. You've somehow made me even more antsy to go backpacking. Did you take a tripod for the astro pics? How did you take them?
>>4455475Thanks anon. Yeah for the little groundhog, I wanted to capture the environment with it. Usually I do like the second pic, here I wanted to try something else. It didn't help that I wasn't well positioned, due to where the trail was compared to the groundhog. As you said, wildlife is fickle, I missed some shots of very nice Chamois just before me that didn't expect to see me at some trail turn, but by the time I stopped looking at my own feet and geared up, it was too late. Fuckers are FAST.Also I noticed the colors are all kind of distorted, does 4chan recompress the files? Here are two examples: if I upload the exact same photos on catbox, the colors are exactly as I see them on my windows photo viewer, while 4chan displays them differently.https://files.catbox.moe/chyipk.jpghttps://files.catbox.moe/7t7uyt.jpgIt may be because I worked in Adobe RGB all the way through, and didn't export in sRGB? Yet, if it was a browser problem, I'd expect the colors to be altered on the catbox uploads too.>>4455476Yes, I'm using an half-sized tripod (75cm), I think for astro it's a nice compromise between a tabletop one (30cm, too low) and a full sized one (a tad to weighty, 1.3Kg at least for the carbon fiber ones). I sit at around 500g with the half-sized one, high enough from the ground, contained weight and compact. Fits alongside the essential hiking gear.As for taking the pics, for the first time ever, I tried the stacking method (through Sequator, it's free, and aligns the pics automatically to compensate for the moving stars). It makes a whole lot of difference. I stacked a series of 15 pics, which helps average/remove noise without using a denoiser that would eat the stars. People well-versed into astrophoto get way more impressive results (and combine this method with a sky tracker also). Stacking is not 100% necessary for wide angle milky way photography, but it's a nice bonus. And it's an essential technique for people doing deep sky astrophoto.
>>4455449Oh yeah this is the one!
I haven't really been shooting lately but there was some nice orange light yesterday
i found a bee in my room so i tried my hand at still life just now. i don't think i have the patience for lighting this stuff>>4455452>>4455426bretty gool
>>4455462high quality stuff here. cant believe you're hiding it in an rpt>>4455569i think you may be onto something here. zoomed out a few inches maybe
>>4455557apocalypse edit
>>4455483yeah wtf, 4chan nuked your vibrancythanks MOOT
more storm content. really like how crisp this one feels.
Snapshit of a satisfied fetcher
>>4455644Cool shot
>>4455644hnng i love clouds so much brosis this what normies feel when they see a film photo of a classic car?
>>4455781fuck, how do i keep the rotation of the picture when posting?
>>4455782I’ve found that if you rotate the photo, save it, then rotate it back to normal and save it again that stops it from happening. On my iPhone anyway
>>4455808I emptied the orientation tag with exiftool and then rotated the picture with paint. I'll give your method a try, though. I don't like passing through my computer. Let's see how it goes...
>>4455829I meant if it’s posting thru the phone. I’ve never had that happen on posting thru the PC.
>>4455659Cute dog
>>4455728I like how it gets brighter as you look close to the center.
>>4455870thank you, I'm still learning but I'm really having fun
I like frames, been putting them on almost all the pictures I edit lately. They either provide contrast or enclose the photo.
Went to nearby park. No idea why but even when camera confirms focus, images are still a little bit blurry at very close, if shoot at distance. 1/320 here so it shouldn't be from shaking.
Stationary targets are fine, at the other hand.
But moving ducks are not. Anyone got some idea? I checked at home at cardboard piece with drawn "target" and AF works as it should.
>>4456077Great ducks!I’m viewing this on my phone so I might be wrong, but I think that duck number 3 is in focus. Perhaps DOF? What aperture were you using?
>>4456080Duck 3 indeed should be in focus, maybe Im overreacting. I was using wide aperture (2.8) on purpose since focus problems I encountered lately were tied to poor light shoots with short exposition and wide aperture.
>>4456089what was your focal length?
>>4456089If focus is critical and shutter speed a high priority, raise your ISO. Better a grainy image in focus than a sharp photo of blurry ducks.
i like how this pic came out
>>4456156In case of ducks, 200mm, in case of that photos I mentioned, varied between 24 and 70mm. Granted, they were two different lenses but AF should be body stuff.>>4456182Thats true. Back then indeed was using high ISO, in case of these ducks I stayed at 100 since it was bright day and even then I could easily hit 1/200 or 1/400 speeds.Im little unsure about which AF setting would be optimal for moving subjects like animals or performancers. I was using AF-S so far but maybe thats mistake and subject would move slightly away from locked focus plane in meantime. However, when I tried using AF-C (continous), it sometimes would try to move away and focus on background. I guess I need more training. I thought I got it already but looks like not.
>>4456205Why do you like how it came out? What inspired you to take a shot then and there?
>>4456218I like the colors and perspective, it was originally a snapshit where I wanted to take a pic of that Town Car from my car in traffic. I like 80s Town Cars because they look cool, a remnant of old America
>>4456242Wrong version.
wild morons
>>4456253tl note this is whats known as a watercannon salute, usually done when a pilot is retiring as a courtesy by the airport on the last flight of their career, pretty cool to catch desu
Went to a food court, liked this one the most
>>4456209Focusing on a subject at the same distance and stopped to the same aperture, a 70mm focal length will give you about 8x the depth-of-field that a 200mm will. For example, on an APS-C camera, a 70mm lens at f/2.8 will give you 2.18m depth-of-field when focussed ten metres from the camera; a 200mm on the same body with the same aperture and same distance from your subject gives you 0.26mSomething to keep in mind is that focal length will change your depth-of-field, all things otherwise being the same. Also, yeah, AF-C may solve the problem but it won’t help as much as a two-stop decrease in aperture compensated by a two-stop increase in ISO. bigger depth-of-field = less chance you miss focus
>>4456209but if you really like fast apertures then AF-C may be your best friend, or refocusing more often on AF-S
>>4456257I can't see shit
"The zipper" in Gothenburg
>>4456445Sup HuddersfieldI've shagged a girl near that tower
>>4456593Rockwellian
August Rain
>>4456595I'll take that as a compliment, given that I shoot jpeg.
>>4455569>>4456563we're on the same life mission
Ai masks where a mistake. Is a normally lit subject on an underexposed background the "selective desaturation" gaudy myspace style of our time?>red rose on b&w concrete
>>4456647Is this an AI comment?
>>4456647something like that would be pretty easy to hue-shift in the pre-ai area, no masking even needed
>>4456660Yes youre right, but it would have been a deliberate thing to do, now ai makes it so easy to just "make the subject pop a bit" that every photo looks like its take during an eclipse or something
>>4456679
>>4456679.
>>4456679..
>>4456698Id eat that.
Does the color balance of this photo look off or is it okay. I really liked the surreal feeling that the blue shades provided with the out of camera WB. Also how noticeable would the D600 oil-orbs be if I didn't mention that they're there.
>>4456867Anti-rockwellian
>>4456867It’s fine. The only thing missing from this photo is contrast. Everything is the same shade of grey (exaggeration but not by much).
>>4456871This inspired me to make a Kenpilled version of the photo and I actually don't hate it that much.
>>4456867log footage
>>4456878>>4456867Do you have a six gorillion to one hdr monitor?
>>4456878Here is your rockwellian edit.
>>4456867Kentastic
lotta good wallpaper material in this thread, excellent stuff
>>4456886This makes me want to support a growing family for some reason.
>>4456917Damn those oil spots are really obvious in this version. I really have considered getting a D700 on the cheap to replace my D600 but at the same time like 80% of my shots have almost no spots. I just have no clue how to predict when the sensor will have oil spots without checking literally every photo after I take it.
>>4456961Can’t you clean those spots off?
>>4457217I kneel
RawTherapee has a framing toolfair dinkum
>>4457281So does darktable
>>4457288I'm gonna abuse the everliving shit out of it for the foreseeable future
>>4457290I don't quite understand what does frames so cooool, but they do be cooool.
>>4457262This one is great
>>4457281>RawTherapee has a framing toolIs adding a white border hard.
>>4457257
paipu
>>4457296Looks awesome, nice job man. Love the different sky tones
Alright wired headphone users, its time for an impromptu bit of education. Now, I know that some of you hail from countries where the beneficent, innovative, and occasionally revolver-bearing hand of the British Empire didn't reach - so I will explain like I'm talking to the average /p/ poster. Once upon a time, in a time before this time, we had to put words on little bits of paper, put them into other bits of paper, and then stick another tiny bit of paper on that to send each other messages about your mother being a ho. Once the necessary papers were put together, you would put that funky bit of tree skin in a big iron box. Well, THIS is one of those big iron boxes. Its in the middle of Manchester in the UK (Thats right, Manchester, where the awful football team, and the slightly less awful football team, come from). It has been there, on that street, surrounded by Muslim extremists, roadmen (look it up), orange women, scroungers and Oasis wannabes for over 135 years. The letters VR are embossed on the surface - these stand for Victoria Vagina Regina - which means it was installed during the reign of Queen Victoria. Thats the Queen who looked at the world and decided she would like to Ctrl + A.You may notice a little brass plate on the box. This is very unusual, because the people of Manchester are known for seeing the shiny shiny, and trying to apply 100% discount codes. Heavily welded, glued and screwed down, the plate explains that this particular post box survived being blown up by the IRA in 1996, when a 1,500 kg (1.5 TON) bomb exploded just 30 feet away. While the explosion devastated the entire shopping district around this little red Stalinesque bastard, only a few paint chips were removed from the post box itself. It basically replied "new phone, who dis." Its believed the box survived because the victorians built street furniture like cold war era tanks. The boxes walls were inch-thick cast iron.
>>4457482
>>4457482>The boxes walls were inch-thick cast iron.Over-engineering is a simple delight.
>>4457485That was the Bishopsgate bombing u muppet
>>4457487True, Damn they really didn't like Manchester.
first time touching a camera. somehow I ended up with a nikon d3000 with a kit lens on my hands, I watched a few videos and these were from the first session. Photography is so fun bros
>>4457567
>>4457567also, what's up with 4chan's color compression, I never noticed how dull photos end up.I exported them at 70% quality iirc, they look fine when I open them on the browser
>>4457571Looks like you have the same problem mentioned earlier in the thread. I think this is something that should be addressed somehow, especially for the photography board. Colors get distorted, yet colors are extremely important to photography (see the 24:7 asinine arguments over muh color science), yet none of the retards arguing 24:7 fucking point out how the board can completely fuck up the colors for some reason
>>4457575At the very least, photos here seem to lose the color profiles. The, at this point the browser may not apply the screen's color profile either (Firefox doesn't by default).
>>4457575>https://files.catbox.moe/xjovmd.jpgyeah, there's a gigantic difference, the files do seem to be getting compressed not by much, like 20 KB, but theres definitely something funky going on.I usually post on /ic/ and never heard it being mentioned there before either>>4457578I tried on brave, chrome, I uploaded it to drive, discord, anonfiles, yandex, behance, and on my phone and it seems to be a 4chan issue
>>4457580I think some testing should be done, with various color profiles upon the jpeg compression. Maybe 4chan doesn't like sRGB, or AdobeRGB, or whatever else that can be used. And if 4chan doesn't like any of them, we have a problem. Maybe it's an issue since the 4chan hack 3 months ago, and the subsequent fixes they did? (the same way we don't have Exif info anymore)
>>4457580In Firefox, I'm talking about this setting.https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Firefox/Releases/3.5/ICC_color_correction_in_FirefoxIf the original jpeg was sRGB and 4chan turns it into an "untagged srgb", then Firefox (and other viewers that may have a similar "feature") will display it differently.If the original jpeg was not srgb, then 4chan likely just deletes the original color profile, which is even worse.
>>4456953Trying out the new Sigma 17-40Pretty pleased so far
>>4457601Sometimes I believe lens "rendering" doesn't exist, every lens is good, and there's no such thing as a bad camera... And then I remember not everyone uses a Canon or a Nikon — and "sony" "cameras" and sigma "lenses" still exist! This lens renders a terrible image. The colors are gross and devoid of all life, and the bokeh looks like worms. Not even my old AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-140 f3.5-5.6G ED VR sucked this much life out of a photograph — in fact, it was noticeably better. Isn't this just an aps-c version of a worse 24-70 f2.8? Why shoot APS-C just to make it larger than full frame with a shorter zoom range, just like DX medium format is — but without DX medium formats quality, and instead, the lower quality of a sigma "lens" and a sony "camera"? The S in Sigma and Sony both stand for SUCKER.
>>4457613what a sane post
>>4457613Thank god someone here is sane>>4457601Looks like snoyshit but worse. Sigma wants $1000 for this? Kit zooms are better>inb4 the sharpness at 300% zoom is the only good thing, in typical sigma fashion
>>4457620Well being f1.8 is also nice, not many kit lenses can do that
>>4457629it takes too much glass to make a modern small sensor large aperture lens. color reflectance is a real issue that editing cant fix and the tonal vampirism of glass to air surfaces is noticeable with sigma lenses in particular. sigma is such a bad lens manufacturer for anything but mtf sharts and specs that their designs largely fueled 3d pop schizophrenia
>>4457631Sorry to hear you feel that way, I quite like it, definitely a better route for me than 24-70 f2.8/f4 on my FF
>>4457631Even high end nikon zooms have noticeably less saturation and color separation than comparable primes, but its not enough to make an image noticeably uglier. But yeah, sigma/tamron on the other hand… they just can’t make the glass and coatings well enough.
>>4457631How come no one here can pick out sigma when actually given blind comparisons?
>>4457632>a 26-60 f2.8 is better than a 24-70 f2.8>same size and about the same price>shitty color-sapping sigma window glasslol wutDoggearfags always have the most retarded takes
>>4457635>definitely a better route for meI know reading is hard when retarded If you were honest, you could just ask why I said it's better for meI guess you know my wants and needs and preferences better than I do!
>>4457634Because the comparisons you do aren’t valid. When people say x does z but not y, they mean in the same situations. Not entirely different ones>i shot m43 in daylight and ff at evening which is which thats right they are the same>sigma in subdued light that isnt making the veiling flare act up vs high end zeiss against a 2000w strobe which is which thats right they’re the same. Ha!>-doggearfag logic
>>4457636>same size as a 24-70 f2.8>same price as a 24-70 f2.8>same actual aperture size as a 24-70 f2.8>narrower FOV range, basically the same as snoy’s 28-60 kit zoom>sigma qualityWhat, it fits up your asshole and the 24-70 has an extra quarter inch of girth you can’t take?
>>4457637I've done same comparisons and people also couldn't identify brand by colorIf it's distinct enough to be recognizable, you shouldn't need an exact comparison anywaysI've never posted m43 here, you are mixing up my comparisons with the other dog
>>4457639>same size as a 24-70 f2.8It's smaller than most, and half pound lighter than mostIt's also internal focusing, so much better for balancing on a gimbal or on railsSigma quality is fine lol
>>4457641Thats not how photography actually works. Shit lenses show their worst face in some light and look ok in others. This >>4457601 is obviously a bad lens that can’t even handle moderately strong daylight and looks like a AI sharpened 1980s kit zoom with no soul.
>>4457643>gimbal and zoomAmateur hybrid MILC videography is like a cloud of poison gas that kills good equipment for photography and spreads the cancer that is vlogger-first designRemember screens that quickly tilt up and down?
>>4457644Funny how no one's ever made a deal about the look until I mention SignsIf it were that obvious of a problem, there should be a lot more calling out here from looks alone>>4457645>more functionality badInternal focusing is still a based design choice
>>4457601Can you post a catbox link of the same pic?
>>4457645>extending zooms are more compact and less complex>amateur vidcucks: BRO MY GIMBAL>every zoom lens now 2x bigger>photo cameras are fairly small and focus on quality>amateur vidcucks: BRO THIS SHIT OVERHEATED AFTER JUST 30 MINUTES OF 4K60 422 AND WHAT ABOUT THE ROLLING SHUTTER AND CROP IN 4K120>every ff camera gets 2x bigger and has aps-c DR to boost readout
>>4457650Full size jpg or raw? I probably can in a bit
>>4457652Just the same jpeg you posted. I want to see if 4chan affected your pic (see a few posts above your post)
>>4457601Why does the bokeh look like absolute wormy horseshit. Incredibly distracting.
>>4457636>I want to carry around a heavier, bulkier, more expensive, 3rd party piece of gear because I don't give a fuck and it makes me differentWell fuck me, you really got us with that one anon.
>>4457653Will do in a bit>>4457654Because you know it was taken with a Sigma
>>4457654Its a sigma zoom. Only looks passable on youtube and test charts. There’s a reason serious creatives film on vintage primes instead of this 20 hyper aspherical apochroma-dispersiotron element shit. The rise of modern lenses ie: sigma art, sony gm coincided with ancient shit no one used to want quadrupling in price.
>>4457655You mean cheaper lighter and smaller? I have plenty of other lenses lol
>>4457641your comparisons are shit20 wildly different scenes, no a:b, all less than one megapixel each. no one even looks at photos like that. 8mp is like the standard. and no a:b test means nothing to people who actually use cameras. we all know the biggest piece of digital budget pixel peeper shit can take a passable photo in at least one scenario. but a fucking holga will still mog it the rest of the time.
>>4457651Video is killing cameras
>>4457659I've posted plenty of a/b comparisons. I always ask and encourage others, like yourself, to post better examples, almost no one doesI've posted plenty that were in the several MB range, which is actually how most people view images. Since you have so much energy for this topic, you should definitely make a proper thread with proper examples and make me a fool
>>4457659How many megapixels do you need before you can see sigma color and rendering? I always ask this too, because people give the same cope, but then also never really answer
>>4457665You posted plenty of very boring bokeh a:bs, but your spot the sony/sigma collages are disingenuous. We all know that a sigma or an entirely plastic lens looks like its been drained of color if the sun barely hits it and it takes harsher light to get the same dullness out of higher quality glass.
>>4457666>leave sigma alone!>refuses to do A:Bs in challenging lightFuji kit zoom > that mosntrosity.
>>4457667You should bring this energy and post examples in a thread to show me up! I will acknowledge how right you are and how stupid I am if you doOtherwise, you just sound like another brandfag schizo>>4457668> but then also never really answer
>>4457669>go rebuy the sigma shit you sold on ebay years ago and do a test to show me upim not an autistic gearfag like you, doghair and huskyfuckeri simply know what is shit through experience. i know sigmas glass and coatings fuck up colors noticeably compared to first party lenses and higher quality third party lenses like voigtlander, and this is most noticeable in brighter light because its because lower quality glass is more reflective. i dont need to buy sigma’s meme zoom and a canon 24-70 f2.8 to prove it to you. i do think its funny to point out how useless the comparisons you make in sony and sigma’s defense are.
>>4457670I make comparisons for all brandsSo there are actually zero examples of images showing this phenomenon online you could just share instead? Sounds like it's in your headFunny you bring up voigtlander, as the resident voigt shooter here too
>>4457673you would know every gear review sitebut will you do a real comparison, a:b across 3 scenes (soft light, bright day outdoors, backlit) and upload raws instead of color graded thumbnails? probably never
First night shot(s) with 800 ISO. I am learning
Hmm, bit of a nothingburger
>>4457674I'll do that when you make your thread doing the same
>>4457613> Uh oh someone mentioned gear that's not Canon, time to shit up another thread with schizo ramblings.
>>4457601
>>4457729these photos would be better if they weren’t shot from eye-level or kneeling (>>4457601). get down lower, imo, to your dog’s eye level, at least.
>>4457733For you
>>4457740LOWER.Cute dog btw.
>>4457740that’s what I’m talkin’ about
Golden hour.
>>4457692Sup ManchesterI've shagged a girl near that tower
>>4457889touche
>>4457296fuck man that's great shit
>>4457296That looks awesome, nice
>>4457296This would look good without the frame because it's a good photo.My theory about why framing makes it look "better": the frame gives the illusion that what we're looking at is a print. Which implies that the photo was good enough to bother printing.
