Go /p/ro.Want:• Expect criticism regarding your uploads.• /p/ is for photos: so feel free to post them as often as possible, even if "image unrelated" to your text. • Use "Recent Photos" threads if you are shy or only want to post a small number of photos. • Raw Files which can be collectively edited for discussion of post-processing techniques are encouraged. • Please check the catalogue for similar topic(s) before creating a new thread. Do Not Want: • Go to /wsr/ or /r/ for specific Photoshop requests. • Gear threads are discouraged but permitted. Keep in mind that many users simply hide these threads. Want to learn more? • The /p/ Wiki
this was the absolute peak of digital photography and its all been downhill after here. seriously look at the shots on flickr with this tag and how good they look. mirrorless is super sterile and fake looking, and older than the mkii just were shit to use and had too much noise. seriously dont sleep on these, 5d mkii and some EF L glass has u covered and then u can spend the rest of the money on travel and taking kino shots.
>>44784055dmii was the peak of digital cameras designed for making the photo look as aesthetically pleasing as possible.After that sadly specs took over, higher megapixels or dynamic range became the thing that sells, all involve moving away from the image looking nice. 5dmii got so much shit for its shadows but looking back it renders shadow so nicely, and the fake ugly shadows that came in the future that only claim is they can be lifted 4 stops in post look fake and worse. 5dmii has inbuilt protection to stop ppl overcooking the raw by making it break.Also the 5dmii has quite heavily edited colours that look nice, not some word salad gimmick white balance thing all the modern cameras have that produce ugly looking colours. It’s all there on Flickr just compare the 5dmii group to any other newer camera to see for yourself.
>>4478589I like the s5pro for that reason too. They're pretty expensive for a 6MP camera tho.
>>4478589Shadow noise is fugly on the 5D2 and it also has lots of counterintuitive things.From the same era D700 is superior as a photo machine.
You can be as disingenuous as you want and dismiss any photo as "just a photo of (X)". Literally anything. Try it. It doesn't make for any valid form of criticism and, unless you're being facetious to prove a point, just outs you as being... wait for it... visually illiterate.
>>4478599BASED.
Long Portrait is Long EditionPreviously: >>4474514
really recent like 20 minutes ago
>>4478581oh and any advice n editing tips would be nice :3
>>4478584You’re lucky to have some light where you are! At my place the sun set at 5:15 :((( harder to take photos in the dark. The structure looks very cool! I’d like to see more of it, like where it begins or ends at the bottom for context. Also, the sky is bright in comparison to the structure, which makes it a bit hard to make out the subject. I use a module in Darktable called “tone equalizer” to help balance out bright skies. Good stuff my friend, thanks for sharing
Mirrorless is dead editionPrevious: >>4477478
>>4478560Every time I remember SEA exists I am terrified.
>>4478535All the snoy photos are overexposed or underexposed and his wb settings are off. The "ai" autosmudge bokeh is particularly obvious on the portraits of the dude and the sky looks worse without a sky filter, no shit.I don't get it. your straight outta camton jpgs on most mirrorless will be beaten by modern smartphones with autoedits but have ever you tried taking your iphag photos into lightroom?
>>4478592AI bokeh you are kidding right?
>>4478535>new tech renders your expensive camera brick collection uselessheh nothing personal boomers
I ended up buying that viltrox lens No self control
It will rain all week. How do you approach shooting outside in the rain? Do you trust the weather sealing?
>>4478559>also>>4478575>alsoNice tell you have there.
>>4478559There are nearly 24000 examples of "literally" in the /p/ archive you schizoid boomer.
>>4478577Lmfao. Nice try.
>>4478559I'd just like to point out that the guy >>4478504 was responding to also said literally: >>4478481Is he arguing with himself or are you just a retard who thinks everyone who disagrees with him is the same person?
>>4478366Let's take a lookCanon marketing materials:https://www.canon-europe.com/pro/stories/eos-r1-reliability-durability/on water>Drip-proof testing – see the right-hand video below – was used to verify the performance of the EOS R1’s weather seals in conditions that approximate the camera being used in a downpour, or when the camera is placed on damp ground such as when photographing from the sidelines at a football match.No description of how long the test was conducted for, no description of flow rate, no description of distance of source to test subject, no description of angle.We get a six-second video clip that appears to match with IPX1 when the camera is facing lens-down.An IPX5 tested device: Water jets Water projected by a nozzle (6.3 mm (0.25 in)) against enclosure from any direction shall have no harmful effects. Test duration: 1 minute per square meter for at least 3 minutes. Water volume: 12.5 litres per minute Pressure: 30 kPa (4.4 psi) at distance of 3 meters (9.8 ft).on dust>Richard shares an example of how the EOS R1 is earning its reputation as a trusted tool for professionals: "I was covering golf in the Middle East, where it was very sandy and dusty. But I had a lot of confidence in the weather sealing on the EOS R1 and the RF lenses I was using. There was no problem in terms of the heat either. The daily temperature was around 40°C, and the EOS R1 kept on firing in conditions where I previously might have had issues with a camera.Essentially: trust me bro, this guy we paid said it's good. No description of ANY testing at all.An IP6X tested device: you know the product has been tested against IEC 60529 to show NO dust ingress.Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
How do you sell a photo for over a million dollars?
>>4477233I have an art collection worth $180'000. You know when you buy something and flip it on eBay? Its just that. Even for the big collectors. Nothing more insidious. Anti-Laundering regulations have been in place for years. Identities are checked, bank accounts can be accessed and investigated, sales can be stopped. There are no more anonymous beneficiaries for big sales - the money is traced. The only reason NFTs exploded and then disappeared was because they were a loophole for laundering - and then they immediately got regulated virtually out of existence. Stop being poor with a poor person mindset.
>>4477251>Anti-Laundering regulations have been in place for years.They were created to attempt to curb laundering through fine arts among other ways. If one were laundering he wouldn't want the item to make the headlines for a record setting price though.
>>4477251Follow where grand pieces of art are auctioned off... they pretty much follow the f1 grand prix circuit. Safe havens for taxes. It used to be important port cities and financial capital of the world but that has kinda changed.
>>4476728this Gurky is a heavy weight photographer who put his large format cock in mouths of art critics who use to say that "photography is not art". He won all battles for you. Have some respect.
>>4477165Great post.
I am going to buy one as soon as they hit the market in early Novemeber. I hope I get the 1987 edition. It's fire. Which one are you hoping to score?You are going to be getting one right /p/?You aren't gonna be a contrarian try hard no Charmera /p/haggot are you /p/? ISHYDDT
>>4470152Shoot Ektar at 50 and E6 that shit nigger.
>>4471135it's just not the same. sigh...
>>4470376INSULT MASTER WONG AND MEET SWIFT DEATH, PIG
I caved to the hype and bought three. Only received one for now.
>>4470128>cheap chinkoid e-wasteNo wonder you fags are drooling over it.
Brace for my third world tough environment cope thread >there's IP-rated gaming mice>there's $200 chineseium smartphones with IP69K ratingsIt seems like it's a fully reasonable thing to want to know just how well the stuff you want to buy holds up against the elements.. especially professional cameras >Go to purchase $6000 "pro body camera">Canon"Dude, please trust us! The Canon EOS R1 is weather sealed! Because our marketing division said so! We don't have any proof of this, or any testing, but please trust us bro look at our brochure look at our website bro it's weather sealed bro please bro">Nikon"broooo it's the Nikon Z9 bro we sealed it just like our D6 bro remember DSLRs??? Remember how tough those were???? Yeah buddy you know you can trust us come one just spend $7000 on this camera we are the wildlife brand!">SonyThey don't even try. DPReview turned a hose on the alpha 7 III and it died because there were literally no rubber seals in the battery compartment.Why do people do this? Do people actually spend tens of thousands of dollars on cameras/lenses that can't prove resistance beyond marketing teams telling you so? Why isn't the industry being forced to back up their claims?Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>4478480>Their marketing might be to landscape people but that doesn't make it a better landscape camera. Super resolution doesn't work when there is movement in the frame and any DR improvement can be replicated with exposure stacking with any other camera. You can get 14.8 stops without needing any kind of stacking with the D800. I'm sure you can make up a case where you just HAVE to use an OM-1 and NO OTHER camera can meet your requirements but if you are in a dusty location and are changing lenses, the OM-1 will still allow dust in. Plus dust will work its way into the seals and compromise the weather sealing.In my defense I never said the OM-1 would be better than a bigger sensor camera, that would be m43 cope on my behalf, but what I demand is a camera that allows me the freedom of not using a tripod.Of course, the OM-1 will still let dust in, but it'll survive as long as it's up to an IP5X standard, that's the whole point, the point is that it tells me how much it can take before it can die, so I know when pushing too far is too far
>>4478480>>4478486>DPReview tests show it as having less DR than most M4/3 camerasIf you say so. DXO has the ancient A6000 with 13.1 stops vs the 12.8 on the OM-1. And DPReview's comparison shows the OM-1 Mark III looking worse than the third of a stop difference on DXO would suggest (maybe baked in Sony NR RAW).>>4478500Other cameras have IBIS anon. m43 IBIS is better but it only really matters in certain kinds of video. Going for the OM-1 because they bothered to get IP5X involves a lot of tradeoffs especially when you can seal up a better cheaper camera more effectively with a plastic bag.
>>4478508>Going for the OM-1 because they bothered to get IP5X involves a lot of tradeoffsabsolutely, that's kinda the cope of M4/3, I'm fine with it though, honestly I have no problems with a6000 IQ whatsoever, I say it's "not that good of a camera" completely basing that on the standards of /p/ because I know half of you own some pretty high-end cameras, a Canon EOS R7 owner would think the a6000 IQ is bad, for me it's more than enoughI just want a camera that's certified and tells me exactly how much it's designed to handle before failing, because I live in bumfuck nowhere where the weather is extreme to say the least, and I wanna go do some /out/ing for some extreme ranges so tripods are something I will have to shave offLeica pretty much makes the camera that OM System refuses to make, their MILCs are way better in the whole weather sealing department, but, Leica also expects you to be loaded, OM sells you a midrange camera at $900 and their top of the line at $2000
>>4478513Ok so you are poor and want to do extreme weather photography at extreme ranges and your A6000 with a kit lens which weighs 1lb + $100 2lb tripod + $0.50 plastic bag is too much. But an OM-1 with the equivalent 12-40mm lens which weighs a little over 2lbs and costs $3,000 is the solution. Right.
>>4478519I will shave off the tripod not for weight, but for the space it takes up, even those collapsible ones take up spots which could have otherwise been food or medicine, I'm not doing hiking trips I'm straight up travellingAnd, well, I might be poor, but I do make money, I will get there sooner or later, I invest the bulk of my money to photography
Insta threadWill follow anyone>horgen_fotoHad anyone got tips on how to find less popular content?The algorithm is just feeding me terrible tiktok reels with millions of views all day long.
>>4470960Take pictures however you want, as long as you're enjoying it. Fuck the noise dude.
>>4470960Something to keep in mind is that quality that is displayed can change in the future and you can always lower quality but not get it back. So if you ever take some photos you love and have them in shit quality, they're shit quality forever.You can also get higher quality pictures on Instagram if you start with smaller images. So if you compressed the photo yourself to say 500x500 and used 95 quality, it will pretty much be that when you upload it.
I'm here. https://www.instagram.com/v1sion3s?igsh=MThjNGtpNXdrbG01OA==Nervous about showing my work to you guys.
>>4470877too gay for me
>no decent alternatives to IGIt saddens me bros. I know Flickr exists but that has no reach and is mainly extreme autists.
>Same as M11>Only difference is EV1 has an EVF(same with Q3, SL3) instead of Optical Range Finder>9000 USDThoughts?
It should have had L mount. >L mount: you can use M with adaptor>M mount: only usable with M One thing one can hope is that Leica making Q with L mount with IBIS.
>>4477435maybe they wanted m native system because it's a Leica m and they like to sell m lenses to the m person who had an L before
>>4477321how does this work when you edit your photo? does the photo editor add its own signature or does it add a second signature and preserve the first or what happens exactly
>>4477424They were already usable via live view or Leica's hot shoe EVFs
>>4477236Leica chads won
This is my new project, Homemade Piss Christ, inspired by Andres Serrano.
>>4478337
>>4478336Now do a piss quran and a piss star of david
that just looks like tea
>>4478453agreed, op if it’s really piss where’s all the crumbly bits?
>>4478336Bump.These pictures suck.
What’s a decent home printer that prints up to A3 size? I want to print my stuff at home and skip the hassle of getting prints online or at a local store. Yes, I want problems. Anyway, let’s make this a general printer thread.>What’s your experience been like printing your own photos?>Did you print them yourself or professionally?>Have you had bad experiences with any brands, companies or websites? and vice-versa?
>>4474102also dye printers dont clog up so easily. you can get away with not printing once a week - what you are supposed to do with a pigment printer.
>>4473441UV exposure is the biggest. Kept in an album is an easy way to stop UV but glass and certain plastics also work great. Avoid direct sunlight.>>4473467>>4473468If the prints are going into a family photo album, that is by definition archival and a good case for pigment. I also see a lot of boomer types keep the same photo on a wall or dresser for decades. For stuff that you only care about for your lifetime, dye has the advantages of more consistent (no metamerism) and poppier color as well as a much smaller chance of clogging. I do have photos from inkjets and dye subs from 20+ years ago which have faded quite a bit and I have no access to the originals so I'm biased toward getting the most archival quality possible. It's ironically the digital stuff that is likely to be lost and forgotten. A busted capacitor in a hard drive or degraded flash and I can imagine someone just chucking it or maybe losing the password to or never accessing online photos whereas an old worn photo can still be kept and people usually keep albums even if they only look at them every decade.>>4474102Yeah, the inks require quite a bit of time to set and dry. My pigment prints haven't gotten scratched yet even with toddlers handling them but I figure dyes soak in for more resilience.
pro200 owner here. it's absolute overkill for my hobbyist snapshitter use but i love holding the big 13x19 prints. i don't know about the print longevity to UV or whatever, i haven't placed any near sunlight or anything so i have year old ones that still look great. ink replacements are pricey though pretty well almost the 1/3 the cost of the printer each time. honestly i'd say for most people just sticking to a service is probably best unless you're really gonna be cranking out that much at home.
>>4478219$550 at Walmart is absolutely hobbyist justifiable. A service is cheaper whether for a few prints but actually much cheaper especially if you are cranking them out. But the convenience of being able to proof prints quickly at home is worth it.
Alright. I'm getting an ET-8550 (based on recommendations from the other thread, >>4472235). Hopefully they don't fuck it up in transport, should be here before the weekend. Got a deal on a refurbished one that appears to be in working condition. Wish me luck anons. If it works, next step will be going autistic on paper choice and ICC profiles.
Three Color Gum Printing 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: What enlarger do you own and do you do more color or b&w prints?
>>4478084>>4478101
>>4478268This thread has taken an extremely dark turn.
I just ran a new roll of Kodak 200 and Fuji 400 through a cruise ship x-ray scanner twice. They claimed the last one was "film safe" and it looked relatively mobile. They were still inside the camera. How fucked am I.
>>4478215>>4478214movie camera would be the correct wording, I think. Video refers to an electronic process whether analog or digital but both still very much not film.
>>4478377There's no real thing as "film safe." Those rolls will never be exactly the same as they were before going through, but that doesnt meant they'll look like shitI imagine Cruise shi x rays are way cheaper and low tech compared to airport x rays. Since the ISO you had was low I think you'll be fine and still can get some good photos out of them. But there's no guarantee
contributemostly wanted to experiment with the 'natural' setting on the K10DI think I used -2 saturation, 0 contrast, +1 sharpening but I adjusted it here and thereI also played with color correction in the WB but it wasn't too greatalso, /digishit/ general bread
>>4477580Cool!I like these a lot. The jpg look and lighting is nostalgic to me. The limited DR lends a particular look, though I may have added some exposure compensation to some of these, they're a bit dark, but it's a nice look. Thanks for sharing.
>>4478137I've never known a pentax camera to not have some arbitrary cheap-out, so I guess that checks out. Even the LX I once owned has this same takeup spool design as the one found on the super A, which is like a plastic drum housing lots of little plastic spindles that were supposed to pinch the film. The drums fall to pieces as release the spindles inside the film bay. Very unfortunate.
>>4477941Oh I've got heaps indeed. Never checked befor, but it seems there are 55110 files in my photo folder. Maybe 25k raw, 30k jpegs. give or take. But very much crap of course. I just almost never ever delete.was thinking of a phone thread recently too. xz-1 is from olympus. A point and shoot.
>>4477538>mfw Hunter Line localGot any of Kurri Kurri and Cessnock, few old run down 70s-80s era shopfronts
>>4478316nar man, would be cool thothey’ve got soul
Maybe nobody cares and maybe I'm dumb to be surprised but I just want to stress how unglamorous actual pro photographers - and creatives in general - are.A lot of them are kind of losers. The image I had of photographers being cerebral, well-rounded and cultured guys has not proven to be true at all.I work in healthcare but I run a small business doing sound engineering work. I do very specialized work recording live concerts and classical music, usually working alongside photographers/video crews. A lot of them are honestly just fucking weirdos, at some point I probably was too. It's a bit like pic-related (apologies for normie meme)I mention this because prior to this I did much more paid photography gigs, but I got sick of it because a) the profit margins are a joke and b) I didn't fit in with the people there and they knew it. I'm not saying I'm better than them, but it was not the focused, intellectual crowd I hope for.An anon here once saidA that he got into photo-journalism because it is a field that vagrants and ne'er-do-wells can get into and I 100% see it.Older guys are good though, they're always helpful and polite.
>>4478205Only half true. It's sad to keep seeing people conveniently identifying photography with painting. The essence of photography is objective.The essence of painting, drawing is subjective, abstract.
>>4478198you sound upset anon. perhaps you should rope yourself
>>4478327>missing the point this badly and being so incredibly wrong.Lol
>>4474424define art
>>4474424It's simplistic, but the essence of the images photography breathes can be artistic. Some of Salvador Dali's photographs are artistic. The creativity in painting may be, how can I draw this well? Photography is, how can I capture this well? I'll give you an example of how photography can be difficult. Draw me a lion in real detail... Okay... Now photograph a lion in its habitat. See the skill in photography?
