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
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.
>>4488218>what's important are the memories you captureYou can't deliver an executive video package with memories and feelings, you need specs to justify the product under the eyes of suits
>>4487820Mission failed, We'll get 'em next timeI should probably start with super8 or a bolex
>>4488327Since the fuzz questioned me about my crypto profits I can no longer buy cool gear like that. ;-( I guess I’ll go back to using my phone. Lenses and tripod and support shit make stuff like that super expensive. I wish nobody questioned me about my crypto money. Getting gear and toys was super fun, but (for me) it’s over now.
>>4488327$5000 on a 16mm film camera in 2025 is not well considered. All you’re going to use it for is holding the lens in front of the film and running the shutter, and everything else you’re gong to do much better, capably, consistently and practically instantaneously in the software editor after developing. All that beast gives you is a regular service bill high enough you could buy another bolex with the money instead.
>>4487998or you could go full doyle
Welcome to /m43/general!m43 sisters, we are known to be adventurers at heart. While Wormfags and Snoybois debate mtf charts and x-trans rights, we go out and explore the world around us. Capturing its beauty within m43's infinite depth of field. In this edition: I am back to m43. I've sold my huge bulky Nikon Zf after realizing that I'm way too feminine to lug around such a huge piece of Japanese technology and I got meself a brand new OM5 Mk. II.I also got a GX9 to live out my closeted homesexual street photography urges. Picrelated is my sane financial choices in one picture. Enjoy!A list of m43 youtubers you should totally watch if you hate yourself:Landscape (leaves and rocks):Guido v. (OM1) - https://www.youtube.com/@GuidoVanDeWaterHenry Turner (OM5) - https://www.youtube.com/@HenryTurnerphotoWaterfall Joe (OM1) - https://www.youtube.com/@WaterfallJoe/videosIan Worth (OM1) - https://www.youtube.com/@ian_worth/videosComment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>4487940That's a nice shot, I love the colors and textures.I hate shoulder bags so I can't comment. Just make sure it's not too small for your gear and also not way too big, and keeps what you need accessible.
>>4487576Post your work faggot
>>4487948I never had a shoulder bag myself. But I know that any photo backpack I never really use because it's a hassle to put it down, open it, take gear, put it again upand those gen-z sling bag manpurses I can't stand (also I'm too fat so it would look funny anyways I guess)
UPDATE: My wife kicked me out of the house and I'm living in my camper now.How are you doing, fellow m43 sisters?
>>4488405If this is satire it is a hell of a commitment.
Random photos you took at night
>>4488201Correct. You can tell from the constellations alone?
i'll toss another one ine>>4487329playing? you're not even holding the controllers>>4487466rounded aperture blades maybe ?
>>4487466>Focus stacking and lower exposure in post?Not a bad idea if you shoot static scenes.A strong diffusion filter will soften up the sun stars, but the end result is messy and probably not what you're looking for. Finding an optimal lens for the task is another option. Like the anon above me suggested a lens that has rounded aperture blades (dedicated portrait lenses often use those to prioritize shape of bokeh balls) might be of use here. I'd just add that increasing the number of blades creates a similar effect. Lenses that have a high number of blades are better at keeping the round aperture shape as you stop them down.Some kind of a slow, wide kit zoom will also have decent depth of field wide open, though might not be up to standard in optical quality .
>>4487466>Focus stackingOnly good for anything that doesn't move. Can still produce some weird artefacts. Try it but be prepared for either some fucky nonsense you hope isn't obvious or to put in some work in post to make things look better>Lower exposureIn theory yes, because you'd reduce the brilliant points of light to regularly-exposed light. Doing this is going to make your scene very, very dark without HDR bracketing which causes its own headaches similar to focus stacking (and you'll still need to edit out the sunstars on the brighter frames for the stack).I vote you look for a slow aperture lens with rounded blades. I used the RF-S 18-45mm for a short while and while it was optically meh, it has these features and is a decent example of what you'd want. Since it's a whopping f/6.3 @ 45mm, you could theoretically get your whole scene in focus if you were far enough away. HOWEVER, there are better lenses suited for this task, this is just what I have some relevant experience with. Lots of modern lenses have rounded blades wide open for better bokeh, but sharpen intentionally stopped down to get sunstars on purpose.>https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/dof-calculator.htmYou can use this to rough out your DoF if it's any help in picking what kind of focal length is useful. If you were say 20m away from your focus point and shooting at f/11 with the mentioned lens, you'd end up with a 60m DoF. You'll probably still get some faint, shitty sunstars at f/11 though.
>>4487466I assume diffraction spikes dont take much of the image so a simple fix would be take the same composition exact to pixel at a much wider aperture, and then blend the layers in photoshop, it would be a tad hard but nothing impossible,
Anything smaller than MF is cope EditionPrevious: >>4485653
>>4488263Correct exposure is correct exposure, no matter the camera. Assuming working light meters and non-tricky metering situations, if camera A says the correct exposure is EV 5, then camera B will say the correct exposure is EV 5 as well. How you expose for that EV is up to you- do you open your aperture? Your lens may not open far enough, and you may not want that shallow a DOF. Do you slow down your shutter speed? You may not have a tripod or image stabilization to prevent shake, or you may be introducing too much motion blur. Do you increase ISO? You may be introducing an unwanted level of noise. This is all science. No camera can magically produce a correctly exposed image at a light level of a given EV outside the constraints of the exposure triangle.Here is what you CAN control: Lens aperture. A faster (lower f stop number) lens can open up more to let more light in. Faster lenses are generally more expensive than slower ones for a given level of quality.Image stabilization- this comes in three flavors: IBIS, which stands for in body image stabilization (stabilization of the sensor), OIS, which stands for optical image stabilization (stabilization inside the lens), or physical stabilization, such as mounting the camera on a tripod or setting it on a table or the ground.ISO performance- different cameras exhibit different amounts of noise as you increase in ISO. Some look terrible by 3200 ISO, some can salvage something useful out of 25k ISO. This is another area where all other things being equal, high ISO performance can cost more. All other things are, of course, rarely equal.Sensor size- this one is kind of adjacent, but it is worth noting that the size of your sensor has a practical effect on your depth of field. In general layman's terms, the smaller the sensor, the greater the depth of field for any full frame equivalent focal length, and the larger the shallower. I'd explain why and give examples, but post too long
Is the canon 17-40 mm F4L worth getting? I am looking for a zoom for lower focal length. I got the 50 mm 1.8 and the 85 mm 2.8 and the 70-300 mm from canon, which I don't use that often. Or maybe get a prime lens for wide angle?
>>4488392It is probably the softest EF l series zoom. Cheap for a reason. However, a constant aperture ultrawide is cool regardless. If you don't care about corner sharpness then go for it. If you don't like it you can always resell it. I doubt that these will go down in value as they are easily adapted.
>>4488392God no, it's horridly soft. It was garbage when it released even because Canon couldnt make an UWA lens to save their lives at the time.I wouldn't touch that or the 16-35 f/2.8L version I. I would maybe get the 16-35 f/2.8L II if you were getting a great deal but it's still not that much cheaper to the vastly suprior 16-35 f/4L IS which might be my favourite lens these days. I got mine for $650 AUD without much looking whereas the 17-40 f/4L is about $350-450.Theoretically UWA is a great candidate for a prime lens, but I can't think of anything outside of the 14mm f/2.8L (and it's still $1000+) that I'd consider "better" than one of the good zooms, and it still has its own problems.If you are on crop which I didn't think about but you didn't specifiy, the EF-S 10-18 IS STM is fantastic and I used it for a good while before going full frame. I got mine for $150.
>>4488392Tamron 15-30/2.8 VC, you're welcome
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.
>>4487850>I stuck a slow focusing lens in a D4 and now I'm mad, what should I do? Oh, that's right, complain on /p/ that the D4 is slow!Skill issue.
>>4487859Personally I wouldnt buy a nikon DSLR because im not a retard or a child molester
>>4487862What a pedo thing to say
>>4487813cringe>>4487785based
>>4487866>vertical grips>duplicate controlsThe D4 has those things already and doesn't need a grip bolted onto it.>>4487849D2X is a very fine camera, if I hadn't got the scorching deal on my 4 I may have got one, I looked at a couple. I like the bigger screen on the 4.>>4487822I did get this for the FPS I do motorsports from time to time and things moving at speed. Realistically, you don't need more than 20mp unless you are printing super huge like above movie poster size.Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
If you had a time machine, what historical event would you shoot?
>>4485251What don't you like about their answers? Posit something.
>>4486032You'd get the CIA special.
>>4485966Well soon more people will start paying attention to the fact that everyone who knows anything about anything has been increasingly pointing out that it's overvalued to fucking bejeezus and back, & then you'll get your chance.
>>4484962The yearly Rothschild sacrifice parties in Antarctica
>>4484967fpbpIf I had a time machine, I would have gone back and shot more portraits of my brother before glioblastoma took him.forever 30
What the actual hell is wrong with my editing and photo something looks very wrong in the photo and I can’t decide on what it is I’m trying to get like a vibe Juno claspo but it doesn’t really fit that vibe
>>4485288Your a CHAD WITH 10 girls on u when I tell you I trust your advice, you are the best photographer I have ever seen in my lifetime and I have lived for very long you are the ultimate ultimate chad
>>4485288Your face is so lickable
>>4484922>What the actual hell is wrong with my editing and photo something looks very wrong in the photoGet an OLED screen
>>44849220 dynamic posing, prop use or lighting and you still cant see what's wrong? Just give up
This was shot on a Canon 5D 12mp and edited in LR 3.5 on a Pentium 3 1ghz Dell c610 laptop with 2gb of RAM running XP SP3 on an IDE 40gb 4200rpm spinnydiskYour arguments, all of them in this thread, from all of you, are invalid.
"Merry Blobmas" Edition.Previously:
>>4488292If you're referring to the black borders, I think it frames the picture nicely. although I think the edges are a bit too straight, if that makes sense.
Which rpt am I supposed to be posting to?
>>4488391This is a gear thread sir
>>4488399They all are
Previous Thread Image Limit Reached: >>4474697Incidental Northern Mocking bird outside my balcony. Didn't have a picture of one yet.
>>4488316
>>4488394
>>4488395Ostriches be curious
Why are photography YouTubers so shit? They mostly churn out boring nontent while dressing like a copy of a copy of a copy of someone who thought he might closet cosplay Ansel Adams. Who are they aping?Almost all have the cadence and tone of a best buy sales associate either slowly conniving a golden HDMI cable sale or postponing their suicide on a Sunday evening only since their parents are still alive; with no in-between.I meet smarter and more interesting people IRL at camera club or local stores, so it's not as if this hobby is exclusively for people prescribed Klonopin and SSRIs.Half of them are just talking head slop direct to camera talking about what gear to buy (micro four nerds)The ones that do teardowns and repairs of gear are usually fine, but those aren't exactly photo videos at that point.The only guy that does the "video of taking photos" thing I can stand is Nick LoPresti since he doesn't talk like he's constipated, but lately the lack of constipation has become a problem since he's been diarrhea-shitting up my sub box with low-effort commentary videos sitting in front of a green screen. Idk who he's aping there, 2016 twitch? Don't like it, especially one where he and his wife are politisperging about shit like how "they can't use Google search for inane things because it'll track you" for what feels like several minutes.Snappiness may be my second favorite even though he looks and talks like a queer (he has kids so I guess he isn't technically). At least he does ridiculous things with cameras that are more interesting than "I walked and took a photo of something and had some ennui about it".Also, I hate gxAce with a passion, dead horse of a gimmick beaten into dust at this point. 80% of his videos serve no purpose to the modal viewer since they're just a rain-dance to the corporate marketing teams to get them to send him gear. (Also combining sloppy wet deep-throat glazing prose with an aloof tone is uniquely excruciating to listen to.)
>>4487615Is this confirmed or just based on him being extra moody?
>>4487613His new gf is a dog? I guess he is from 4chan
The problem is that you're watching gearfag youtubers rather than educational youtubers.
>>4488387>educational youtubersit's funny that normies need three dozens videos explaining exposure triangle lol
>>4466377>why don't people who post on an anonymous hair curling forum to protect their anonymity want to go to a meetup irl and break their anonymity?Because the niggers that go to them are as stupid as you?
Barnes and Nobles editionPrev: >>4485000
>>4488381I believe slop like this goes in the other thread >>4487411
>>4488190bitchin'
>>4488384>still seething
Thread theme: https://youtu.be/QR75ti4mN_A?si=N-UtB79FhGkJOuBO
>>4488365>only one interior photo in the threadAre car interior photos just not really a thing?
>>4488380Well you see anon, you likely need to *own* the car to do that. (Or have a mate with a nice car, or be at a show that lets you into the cars)Also, interior shots normally need pretty wide lenses which not everyone has access to.As opposed to the highly ubiquitous "hey look at that car over there".
What's /p/'s opinion on one of the most viewed (online) photographers?>Sex And Takeout is an ongoing viral series on the unnecessary and unkind social boundaries and cultural taboos forced upon women’s bodies. By indulging in sex and junk food, Bahbah proposes a celebration of the self. Inspired by her personal battle with disordered eating, Sex And Takeout is a declaration of overcoming guilt and shame. Through this series, Bahbah unpacks expectations of femininity and challenges her own standards of beauty.
>>4488210>"nazi">"shoot up a fuckin school"Not helping your case, schizo.
>>4488210>Mental problems on sleeve: Promiscuity and gluttony are immoral behavior and glorifying them degrades society. This is just women emulating male vice instead of setting an example. And no wonder this is pushed, companies profit excessively from selling products that support and compensate for unhealthy lifestyles. I wonder why companies are so immoral? All the people who own them look kinda related....>Perfectly sane and mentally stable: you ignorant, paranoid little nazi fuck. Eventually you will either get medicated or removed from this world, depending on whether they get you before or after you shoot up a fuckin school. idgaf which, but have you considered inserting large vegetables in your anus instead?
>>4488296You speak to the sort of goblin that says asking why jews are exempt from ukranian drafts is antisemitic
>>4488296It’s all the idiotic shit you just throw in casually to try to make your point, between your cringe Nazi rhetoric is the part that I like. Apparently in your absolutely fucked understanding of this species, gluttony is a male problem and women are just imitating it? Bc bitches don’t overeat and have eating disorders & turn into whales? You do alternate between sounding like a total fucking moron and like you’re one realization (that education is a Jewish conspiracy brainwashing the children) away from being featured on the news face down.
>>4488370Gluttony as a glorification of the self IS a male vice.>I am the manliest man here. I can eat more, and worse, food than anyone else. I eat pizza every day. I eat burgers for breakfast and steak for lunch. Beer is my water. Whisky is my blood. Salad and quiche are for gay fucking bitches. I'm having a great time. Et tu, BITCH?This is distinctly male. It's a masochism ritual adjacent to eating whole hot peppers raw. It's a low grade pain/eating bitterness test. It is distinctly masculine.And regardless of what it is, it is BAD FOR EVERYONE INVOLVED AND SHOULD NEVER BE ENCOURAGED.>that education is a Jewish conspiracy brainwashing the childrenOh, certain facets of education are absolutely jewish conspiracies. Critical race theory and modernized equity (each maintain jews as a people who deserve to remain distinct and privileged) are distinctly jewish concepts. They are mandated by jewish religious belief. Another jewish aspect of education is framing all american wars as for global peace when they only advance israeli interests and establish central banks which inevitably tie back to 100% jewish families that owe their wealth to charlamagne. You know jews exist and aren't a boogeyman right? They are the white privilege you heard so much about.Until they're sick of non-jews, then they're not white. They're oppressed.
Should dishonest photography be shunned?
>>4488290>I must have missed where you suggested it was something else causing the distortion?I didn't, what I cared about was dispelling the fiction that the lens was distorting the shadows.
everybody taking about the moon itt needs to be executed also what the fuck is dishonest photography? any image at all could be considered dishonest because it is a single view of a single instant of a subject or event, its like how people talk about how much they hate "bias" or "indoctrination/propaganda" when what they really mean is they dont like it when others treat a perspective other than the mainstream perspective on a topic as truefor example: >teaching kids in school to be liberal capitalists = cool and normal>teaching kids that liberalism and or capitalism might be bad = evil indoctrination and brainwashing literally every perspective is biased and its the same with photography literally every image could be considered a lie based on the intentions of the person framing the imagei think the only thing that could actually be considered dishonest is how people use an image to make their audience feel, if i took a photo of a dead Palestinian killed by an israeli JDAM and the zog used the photo to say it was actually hamas who killed the kid or to say it was somehow the kids fault he god the bomb dropped on his head that would be dishonest but the photo would not be
>>4488318Capitalism does not exist. It was invented as a strawman to propagandize neo-feudalism aka the unending struggle towards real communism. And its greatest triumph is convincing americans that its real and business are the equals of the state or else the entire country is logically obligated to go full commie. You will also find this “jedi” mind trick in other debates. And not just lefty insanity like veganism and population replacement either. It is also used by the right wing. You must adhere to ____ or your world will end if you ever stop being a hypocrite, and anyone can do anything they want and you cant logically complain. Know this trick. Fear it. Hate it. And remember the more you acknowledge ISM dichotomies the more powerful they become.
>>4488318>also what the fuck is dishonest photography?The Bahbah thread is a great example of it. Photography done with the pretense that it's presenting some deep truth when it's just navel-gazing erotica peppered with some critic bait. The faux rebellious aspect of it is also part of the dishonesty. The photographer is playing it safe while pretending to be some daring maverick. The idea that it's speaking truth to power when it's actually just power talking. It's corrupt to the core, there's no sincerity in it. Another example, hobotography.
>>4488206lol they forgot to shoop in the stars
