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
Think about it logically.The A7C series, despite its warts, is:>responsible for a massive portion of E-mount adoption>bestselling>revealing of an enormous market for compact yet usable full frame stills MILCsWhy hasn't anyone else copied the concept? inb4:>A7C bodies are e-waste trashYes, that's why I want somebody else to try it.>Sigma, Panasonic, NikonThey all pussied out hard and catered too much to videofags. The fp could have been perfectly fine if they had traded the heatsink for IBIS and made the EVF solution less massive (ergo, added a hotshoe and copied Leica's Visoflex). Meanwhile, the bf is the fp but even less functional. The S9 caters to vlogfags above all. Without a viewfinder you're more or less fucked if you want to manual focus. Same for the ZR.For this to work, these faggot product engineers need to get real. A small body, ideally 61MP, with IBIS, reasonably sized grip to not have to skimp on battery life and SD card(s), and a modular tilting EVF. It's really that fucking simple, and Sony has proved that it's not only technically and economically feasible, but also a very good business move. So why haven't they done it?
>>4498758Sounds like a skill issue dude. People were doing bird in flight with manual focus SLRs. Buy whatever you want
>>4498762>lonely weirdo boomers were spending all day photographing birds until the got some good photos for the bird magazineAnd? I actually have a fucking life, dude. Birds fly all day. My girlfriend only does a cartwheel every now and then but she wants a photo of it every time. You do retakes or cope with a zone focused 28mm that looks like a phone photo, I’ll just take the fucking picture and go back to living in the moment. You fiddle with your jpeg settings and practice your autofocus joystick skills. I’ll take the pic and a sip of beer. You live cameras, I’ll live life.
>>4498763>Girlfriend wants pictures of her doing cartwheelaLmao is your girlfriend 12?I don't shoot jpeg unless I have a reason for it and I don't shoot Fuji unless it's a specific client requirement that only Fuji has support for. It's just pretty silly to say their cameras are that much worse. Besides their awful menu system they function the exact same way as every other major brand. Your telling on yourself for being a noob more than you are warning people about anything
>>4498763>he doesn't have a studio a strobe setup to capture gf doing cartwheels.Stick to your phone, pathetic normie.
>>4498693>Its a test chart thing all cameras have done since like, 2004.In 2004 cameras had AA filter or optical low-pass filter which prevented moire.Recently Sony and others started deleting these or incorporating uselessly weak filters resulting in trash like pic related.
UglyNot sharpNear black and whiteRed eye effect uncorrectedPhoto of the decade
>>4498250it gets the job done.https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rpU51S26hrA
>>4498250Healthy reminder that most photos that are important to people are not important because they were captured with the most hypermodern 300MP mirrorless gigacockextender snoynikkcannotImportant photos are important because they capture an image that people want to see, or would otherwise not be able to see.
>>4498607I didn't want to see it though.
>>4498610>Doesn't want to see this parasitic nonce face any consequenceWhy do you love nonces, anon?
>>4498250https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/feb/20/how-picture-former-prince-andrew-leaving-police-custody-captured>When news broke of Mountbatten-Windsor’s arrest, Noble jumped into his car and travelled the six hours from his home in Manchester to Norfolk. He told Reuters there were 20 police stations where Mountbatten-Windsor could have been, but after a tipoff, he headed to the station in the historic market town of Aylsham.>Hours passed and Noble had made the decision to pack up and start heading to a local hotel, but moments later he was called back: Mountbatten-Windsor’s cars had arrived. This moment as a photographer is terrifying, the chance of getting a well-exposed, sharp image from a moving vehicle in complete darkness is like winning the lottery.>Noble shot six frames. In the era of film that would be like taking a single frame and crossing your fingers while you wait for it to be developed in a lab later on. Two of the images were blank, the next two showed police; one was out of focus, but the final frame was well composed, sharp, clean and well exposed.>Despite the unflattering nature of the picture, there is no doubt about the degree of skill – and luck – needed to capture it. Noble would have been contending with reflective glass, which often makes it impossible for a camera to focus. If it does, then getting enough light to hit the subject to allow for correct exposure is the next challenge. Often high-speed flash units are used to create light where there is none.>Then there is the timing, with a fast-moving vehicle the photographer has fractions of a second to hold down the trigger and hope their shutter speed is fast enough to create a sharp image. All this while attempting not to get hit by a car.>“You can plan and use your experience and know roughly what you need to do, but still everything needs to align,” said Noble. “When you’re doing car shots it’s more luck than judgment.”
Previous Thread Image Limit Reached: >>4487815
watcha lookin at dog CUNT
BeholdThe roadrunner in sphere mode
>>4498739accidentally did the sideways thingsorry these aren't that great, I'm not a photographer
>>4498748you took a picture. you are now a photographer
Here we go againPreviously: >>4495770
>>4498584t. the guy that don't understand the tilt shiftit's not that i don;t find it interesting it just looks wierd/unnatural. watched some yt videos about tilt shift lenses after your post and still don;t understand why the focus blur behaves like this in your foto.in all tilt shift lenses pics i've see all look like macro pics. out of focus in front the subject, out of focus behind.
>>4498701>in all tilt shift lenses pics i've see all look like macro pics. out of focus in front the subject, out of focus behind.See that's the thing. Using a T-S lens, that's sometimes the goal. To get a different look that you otherwise could not have any hope of replicating without the lens mechanisim. But~, T-S lenses have a couple of more "legitimate" uses.>AIf you want to keep your f/stop low but you want to get things in focus that are not the same parallel distance from the camera sensor. You go form the plane of focus being a (mostly) straight line running parallel across your shot || to something angled that follows the objects you want in focus |/(I couldnt find the pic I think of which is three green apples positioned on a table but all are in focus and everything off to the sides is not)>BCorrecting perspective distortion. This is mostly for use in architectual shots. Software correction is also pretty good these days so it's less of a necessity but correcting it with optics (the T-S lens) avoids ruining pixel-level details.>don;t understand why the focus blur behaves like this in your foto.Your sensor is a flat rectangle. The image plane your lens projects is a flat circle. The two are designed in tandem to have the sensor capture the image the lens projects onto it. The image projection and sensor should be completely flat against each other in theory.With a T-S lens you're moving the angle that the image projection lands on the sensor from 180* to something else like 150* or 200* (in either the X or Y axis). Only the portion of the image plane that still lines up on the sensor wafer is going to be in focus which is now no longer the whole projection.
>>4498707Ty homo
>>4497986What were the colours like in this one? i feel like b/w is not doing justice.>>4498214liked this one a lot
There has been a lot of discussion about camera brand color science lately so I thought it would be interesting to take the same shot and change the ICC profile in capture one to each of the 4 major ILC brands and post them unedited to see if /p/ can spot the differences between default color science. In a day or two i'll post the results and we can all see how close we got.
Reveal time!
>its another “i fucked with the white balance to make sony green” episodeIts retarded. Ive used all 3 brands and sony is always reddish neutral, canon is always too cool, and nikon is green tinted. The z7ii is the most green tinted camera ive ever used other than some micro four thirds garbage.
>>4498740Yep that's exactly why I switched off Sony. Made everything super green and gross. Gave people corpse skin too
>>4498744Why do you samefag and lie like this?You know the whole wide world outside of /p/ only has one issue with sony, and its blobmera bazookazoom boomers with sore hands whining about the cameras not being rubberized behemoths, right?
>>4498751What's samefagging?
I have never created a piece of art that I like. I never came back to anything I did months later and thought to myself "hey, this is neat".I can't use my hands to create shit. I can draw geometric shapes. I have nice handwriting. I can play open chords and bar chords on guitar. But that's where my physical skill set ends.I picked up a camera because my hands are no good. Only to realize that it's probably not my hands, it's my brain. I have little to no visual imagination. I can memorize rules that make photos look more pleasing, but I can not get beyond that in terms of intent with my photos.Over the last ten years, I resigned to the realization that I can't create anything because I have nothing to say. I have no personality. I have no opinions. I have no stories. Just things I point my camera at.
>>4498730>every anon otb
>>4498731It is because posting pictures would actually be detrimental to my argument. Also, I don't want to be doxxed.1. The one you have with you2. It's all about the light3. The point of photography is to go see what's out there4. Film is better than digital because it forces you to shoot with intent5. This is really important, so remember this: real photographers don't "take" a picture, they make an image
>>4498730You are incorrect because I am objectively a better photographer than you. No I won't post photos.
>>4498733>being so broke and unskilled you need to use film to scare yourself into not taking photosIts sad to see copers still posting this propaganda psyop
>>4498742Craziest projection on /p/ atm. Nicely done
New thread[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Pixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1000Image Height667
Lunar eclipse next week is on 3/3 and peaks at 3:33am. Everyone hold on to your balls, something is going down.
>>4498074>>4498075what lens?
>>4498667yea but you need a tracker. last lunar eclipse tried to get some good shots but ss went more than 1'' so you get blurry photos or pump up the iso
>>4498702I used a Sky-Watcher Skymax 127 Maksutov telescope with an SVBONY SV305 Pro camera. In this configuration, the field of view is quite narrow, as you can see from the first image. To create the second image, I created a mosaic using Microsoft ICE. It involved roughly 70 GB of data because each sub-image was a stack of multiple frames.
>planetary parade this Saturday>going to be raining hereI hope at least one of you will get a good photo of it and post it here
If I ask some college students to help me model for my photography do I have to pay them or is giving them the pictures for the instagram enough? What is your guys experience in this?
>>4495612It’s also important to note that Sugar was swinging his dick like “don’t just be a guy with camera! Be a CHAD like me!” And then he posts a non-white with a body like an amoeba? We could let it pass if he were not being arrogant, but as is, he needed to be called out>>4495616Why do my looks affect whether or not that model is overweight? Can you see how these two details are completely independent of each other? Maybe I look good, maybe I don’t. Either way, that girl you pictures is obese and shapeless.
>>4495615>about 15kg overweightNigga here likes to fuck skeletons
>>4495625She looks to be about 177cm and about 72kg. 57kg is a perfectly normal weight for that height
>>4485103I used to hire college girls on ModelMayhem to model for me for $75/hr in the 10's but MM is dead because of OnlyFans. I don't know where you hire cheap models anymore.
>>4495615Lets see that recent photo shoot then
any final thoughts on ultra wide angle?
>>4496620>ultra wide>for landscapesHoly retard. They are for interiors and creative product/portrait work.
Idk if 16mm counts as "ultra" wide but I love my EF 16-35 F4L. It doesn't distort the image like fish eye lenses, and in general is very pleasing for just about anythhing: pics of groups in small places, architecture, vlog style filming etc. You can pick one up for under 400Fish eye lenses are another story altogether, the only thing they look good on conaistently that I've seen is those stadium panoramas
>>4496620>>4496645UWA is absolutely okay for landscape but shouldn't really be the default choice. However, the 10-22mm range includes the 24-35mm section which is normally the ideal spot for landscapes AND UWA lenses tend to have less distortion than GP zooms in that range.You can also go for a prime which is often better but also good luck getting the framing right.>>4496650Literally my favorite lens now and most used. I personally think anything 20mm and wider counts as UWA but technically <24mm is.
>>4496645Sorry boss, my mom usually said 'special'
>>4496620I bought that lens for when I got my 40D and now it's on my 7 d. It looks okay Ash outside. I think the ones that I tried to do is showing the nice Vistas when I was out hiking up in Squamish. Too much to take in. My 21 mm on my 6D Mark 2 I love.>>4496645There are no hard and fast rules with that. I've taken great interior shots with just a 35 and my 45. It all depends on the subject and the framing
Shallow dof is extremely abused in photography but especially in videography and basically the ultimate youtube/netflix lazy trash signifier at this point. In 2026 we're deepfocusmaxxing. Reject bokehslop.Retvrn to composition.
>>4497981That is some intense RSA+cateyeing holy sheeit
>>4497599So you got recommended that 'Why Movies Just Don't Feel "Real" Anymore' video on YouTube didn't you?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvwPKBXEOKE
>>4497614I really don't think this one shows the point. In this one, nothing is in focus. Everything has a dull unsharp mask over it
>>4497615This is an example of deliberate defocus. It's to show her alienation from the environment she is like she doesn't belong there is isn't part of it
>>4498686I think anything you have to see on YouTube you have to take with a grain of salt, and some benzodiazepines. Especially that jerk the critical drinker.
I've been taking photos with a 60D since 2012 and feel like I haven't improved much in that time. In particular I struggle with the actual process, often failing to get satisfactorily in focus or sharp images which leaves me unsatisfied even if I think an image's composition is good - I know the best camera is the one you have with you, but that aside I think I could do better. I've selected a bunch of photos I've taken over the past ~4 years since I started shooting raw that I am proud of and would like to dump them here for /p/ to tear apart. I've tried to keep editing unobtrusive, but I'm making this thread on a whim so some edits may be older or incomplete.
>>4498187>Hard to say without having been there.I don't remember it too well myself, I believe it was an old printing press from the early 1900s and there wasn't much light in the room. Here's another pic of the same machine unedited, just increased exposure>Needs a subject in the far doorframeWould've liked to, but I was alone there. Do you think it's OK to cut off the ground in the immediate foreground by stepping forward?>right side of the mountainI think I see what you mean, that the scene is carrying the photo but there's nothing special about the photo itself. Looking at my files, I have dozens of photos of this scene but none focusing on that valley... Fortunately I live in the same country so it's reasonably accessible.
>>4498274You could AI the white tiled wall to continue behind his head
>>4498055Cutie
>>4498027Hi I'm one of those oldfags here who started out in the film era vintage lenses. There's not many that I really recommend anymore. They have weird looking geometry when you take a photo and oddball bokeh. Not very many I can hardly recommend.The Sonnars from Zeiss, (yeah I know, there's the Russian versions the East German version, they're all copies of this design.) Are nice. The balance speed with good management of the characteristics of the system. My 250 mm on my Hasselblad is a great lens. Just has a focus problems which you can easily remedy with a close-up lens.One that IS great are the Distagons, esp the 35 f/1.4, 28mm f/2.0 and the 21mm f/2.8. That last one is the only one I bought specifically for my Canon 6D Mark II. The 35mm f/2.8 is nice but a bit slow. The 35mm f/2.8 PC is nice for correcting perspective, but not very useful in this Photoshop age.
>>4498712That being said, the stuff you find from Pentax especially in and around the normal focal range from about 20 mm up to 135 are excellent lenses. Just be sure to test the lens out for proper mechanics and cleanliness on the inside from fungus and excessive dust. A little dust is normal on those lenses by the time they are this old.Adapting other lenses is hit or miss though. You first have to find the lens and then a way to adapt it to your system and that can be a lot of work for not very much if any difference.The photos you show are mostly good, you just need to pay attention to the framing of the subject. I find the era of just using a short Zoom on my camera instead of a prime has made me lazy and I just zoom to get the look I want rather than move around.
Color Calibration 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: How much time do you spend post-processing (or printing) a single photo?Previous thread: >>4494610
>>4498671I almost said a failing horizontal shutter, but then it would be just blown out without orange tint. So yeah light leak somewhere probably. What camera?
>>4498674The good old ae-1. I guess I damaged a foam seal between rolls somehow, but the camera also at times shoots with so much slack on the roll that advancing the film won't rotate the spool for 2 or 3 exposures, is this normal or could it be a factor? I picture the film as not sitting flat and flush with that much slack
>>4498671how are you scanning & inverting thesethe blue shift may not be a leak if there's any white balance involved
>>4498685They're done by a lab. I thought about white balance but there's also blueish streaks in a few and blooming at the edges so I think it's from leaks. Could be worse tho, every photo is at least readable and it's quite a vibe
>>4498700Orange leak = coming through the back of the film so it's likely a seal around the rear door somewhere.
>Color Science editionPreviously: >>4495130
>>4498614time to make a photo thread! :D
I'm trying to find a good all rounder travel lens, something that can do RAW and is pretty compact (essentially pocketable). Any advice? So far I've only come up with the Ricoh GR and the Sony RX100.
Is the laowa 100mm 2:1 macro any good?
>>4498684Yes.Good luck getting enough light on the subject at 2:1
>>4498708It just going to be used for product photography so lighting shouldn't be too much of an issue, I was thinking of just using something like this to hold a small torch or something.
>ctrl f: sqt>noneI'm going to start this one off with a stupider question than usual. Say you were asked to shoot a few wedding shots at the last minute and all you've shot before was rocks, leaves, birds and the odd landscape or building corner... what do? Asking for a friend of course but pls reply quick.
>>4498419Why do you reply to yourself like this, zach? You should go find a more supportive community. Like the furry fandom. You’d fit in there.
>>4498432Whos is Zach? Did you forget to take your meds again anon?
>>4498433You realize how stupid this looks when your name and tripcode are a few replies above right?
>>4498434You didnt answer my question. Who the fuck is Zach?
Apparently all threads have to have the resident schizo and their eaqully schitzo goader
