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
Rate my snapshits
This one's from the active line in the same vicinity. Also underexposed as shit.
Shot some portra 800 next. Really impressed with this film.
And finally some Ektar 100. This is my second favourite film (Ektachrome being the first, and Portra the third). I'd love to try some of the Fujichromes but the prices are simply ridiculous.
>>4494058Maybe just me but I wouldn't call this particularly under-exposed. It could do with maybe a pinch more exposure just to bring out a fraction more detail in some of the darker spots. But definitely not bad, if it were exposed any more I think you would lose all detail in the sky.Beware the white and black subjects as well, it's tricky to get blacks to be detailed without blowing highlights and tricky to get detail in white areas without heavy under-exposure. In situations like that I tend to just meter the blue of the sky (altho this can still cause whites to be overcooked if the source of light is reflecting off them too much).I would say picrel (it's a bad photo but a good demo) is probably the "ideal" of what an exposure should be (for colour), to some extent I think you might be too often shooting into the shadows or the light in a scene. Which would work great for B&W but is a bit of a pain for colour. >>4494057What on earth is going on with the scanning of those leaves on the trees. How have you scanned these? There's almost a grey fringing or haze around a lot of the shapes in this picture.
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.
>>4493184uh no self destruction is feminist and dog pics are bad because theyre wholesome and dont give me a bonerin fact i am so confused by people who take photos of dogs and cats that i think they must want to fuck them. i literally can not comprehend anyone having non sexual thoughts about a warm body so i call better photographers than me dog rapists every chance i get. t. >>4493183
>>4487730What's wrong with this photo? It seems fine to me. I could see it in playboy. >>4487745>>4487870this is a good photo. BUT It looks like a stock photo for some article about food play during sex.
>>4488006>Eating garbage "food" in excess, without any cultural occasion, tradition, or symbolism but "STOP! TELLING! WOMEN! NOT! TO! GET! FAT!" (read in the claps) is not a celebration of the self. It is degenerated behavior for anyone over the age of 16, regardless of race, religion or culture.Most of these women (at least the ones posted) are a healthy weight Only 2 are fat.
>>4493296and soldiers in propaganda are fit, healthy, and happyits just vice propaganda targeted at womenthe world does not need whisky and marlboros womanit needs whisky and marlboros man to take a hike
>>4487726>>4487727>>4487729Reminds me of the Black Series by the Mondogo Collective out of Argentina.
>solves 90% of your color grading problems>makes muh colur basedence a complete meme>never talked about on this boardgo figure
What kind of actual cuck defends snoy colors, nikon autofocus, canon cripplehammering, and fujilumixolympuspentax existing?Japan is not known for fast paced innovation or improving basic design flaws, or competitive pricing, at least not anymore, and their monopoly on cameras is a large part of why the camera market is perpetually bleeding back down to 1970s “cameras are only for professionals” levels. >inb4 well they were slightly worse at some irrelevant shit/4k raw video 10 years ago and relative to a 5d classic all cameras are great
>>4493776>>never talked about on this boardThat's because this is a photography board not a videography board. There is a website called reddit for people like you.>>4493794facts
>>4494049>spend 10 minutes learning to to edit colors>can now use any brand and get whatever colors you want>this is a bad thing
>>4494052>people like youand what would people like me be, exactly? professionals that use industry standard tools who have proven their value since the 1970s?you sound like a seething toddler
>>4494051>their monopoly on cameras is a large part of why the camera market is perpetually bleeding back down to 1970s “cameras are only for professionals” levels.no, its because everyone is poor and has cell phones with decent photo capabilities in their pockets that they can finance easily if they're too expensiveanything fun has been trending down in sales because everyone is poor and don't have disposable income. sports cars, gaming consoles, cruises, etc wherever you go
2026 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 larger) 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 >>4482295Quick FAQSComment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>4493961I have 1.8 primes but never go past 2.8. Lens isn’t as sharp when you max out too.
>>4494014fwiw better lenses don't suffer from this as drastically as cheap consumer f/1.8 or f/2 primes.All my f/2.8 and f/4 zooms are very acceptably sharp wide open. In fact now that I think of it, it might be just one of those fundemental laws of physics that's out to fuck us since the vast vast majorty of lenses are not acceptable below f/2.8
>>4493961>shoot a big portion of a personal project wide open, even up closeare you shooting shit that doesn't move?
>>4493980how did you deal with music when editing it like that?
>>4493624dont review any morejust pick a shot and make a first draft version now
How does /p/ feel about zines?They seem fun. You print your stuff, distribute it however you want, and people look at it. They might toss it in the trash but at least you made an impression.You can make them for pretty cheap. I made some lo-fi DIY-style ones with my visual art at home using just an inkjet printer, and I've been dropping them in random places for people to find.Anyone ever make zines?
>>4493910>Like every photography community isJust off the top of my head the entire ethos of the lomography community is about not being super technical. So looks like you're talking out of your arse again, no shocks there.I think people who get hung up on semantics and technical nuance are all retards of the same strain so I guess you fit in perfectly with that 75%.
>>4493906THANKS BRO I JUST REALLY LOVE SUPPORTING THE HECKIN VISION 500T RESPOOL MARKET!1!!>>4493909I'm an american, clearly. otherwise how could I be so stupid as to enjoy things?>>4493910photography being light drawing can mean its a drafting tool or it can be understood as the most fundamental rudiment of visual art, which is what most artists regarded drawing as until the early 1900s. drawing from life allowed an artist to learn the fundamentals necessary to create narrative paintings. Early photographs followed the trends of the arts, not just being used for portraits but also being used to convey narrative or fantasy. early movies lacked audio and while some used interstitial cards to convey dialogue or framing many simply allowed the visuals to unfold and for the audience to derive meaning in the same way they would from viewing a painting. There's a reason why the best movies by almost any metric you can come up with to define best movies have great cinematography and coherent visual aesthetics. because aesthetics matter, and visual language matters. Photography as an artform allows communication along those axes.tl'dr, visual aesthetics matter and i think cool photos are pretty neat and I like taking them
>>4493915lomography is literally about buying gear to skip most of the editing process
>>4493923>Lomography, or simply lomo, is a photographic style which involves taking spontaneous photographs with minimal attention to technical detailsThe entire point is about experimentation with what you have, not "buying gear" to cheat a process. Nor relying on the usual technical perfectionism gearfags go for. The whole issue is that gearqueers endlessly waste time discussing tech specs and assume this can buy their way into good photos.
>>4494046But what they actually do is buy plastic cameras, ewaste, moldy vintage lenses, and meme films to get instant kitsch. The asceticism is fake. Its a “vibe” not a real conviction. Performative. Feminine. It says “i shot on a 5dii and 24-105 until it broke” but it does a funko pop collection but with cameras.
Both of these images were taken with a Sony Mavica.
This one too
Have you taken any to share?
What's the second one?
>>4493994It's one of the Abu Ghraib torture photos.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse
>>4493979No, but you can look at the rest of the photos the person took on their trip to New York here.http://www.larrygc.com/wtc.html
>camera error editionPrevious: >>4490470
>>4494017Nice, what do you generally use it for?I've been wanting to downsize because I'm tired of heavy cameras and lenses, but the versatility that lens offers is hard to pass up. Especially because it wouldn't be an all day lens. I'd use it 1-2 hours or something and then switch back to primes. So I doubt the size and weight would be an issue for me.
>>4494022>Free Fuji XT-3give him a nice gift or at least a big hug because that's a $4-600 cameratry to find a adapter for the jupiter-21 it should be a m42...look for m42 to fuji x adapter if you want to try it and other vintage lenses that have screw mount
>>4494022I have never used any Jupiter lenses before but as a Soviet camera enthusiast I'd say pretty much all Soviet glass is acceptable in quality. It won't perform on par with modern lenses of course, but it's usually passable. For the whopping price of "inherited" give it a go with an adaptor and make your own decisions.Some people love "vintage" looking glass, but those people mostly stick to focal lengths of 30-60mm and also tend to be hipsters who won't shut up about how their Helios 44 was used in *insert movie here*.tl;dr depends what you count as "good", it won't match modern lenses obviously.
>>4494029>Soviet Jupiter-21Related link because I thought I'd google some demo images. Seems alright to me: https://fujixweekly.com/2018/02/25/fujifilm-x-a3-soviet-lenses-part-2-jupiter-21m/
>>4494026>>4494029>>4494031Thanks for the help guys! I'll see if I can get an adapter to try out the lens
Planes, Trains, and Automobiles 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: Do you develop yourself or let a lab do it for you? Previous thread: >>4482671
>>4493990It’s pretty fun, you’ll inevitably leave it in auto and because of this it won’t help you learn settings as much as a fully manual mode camera would. I recommend it as a secondary camera because every once in a while I pick it up when I don’t want to think and I just want to shoot.
>>4493990My gf has one and it's a solid camera. You can easily find one for like $100, or under $200 in great shape with a nice lens.>>4494018>It’s pretty fun, you’ll inevitably leave it in auto and because of this it won’t help you learn settings as much as a fully manual mode camera would.This is why rather than something full auto I'd probably recommend something with just aperture or shutter priority for a beginner, probably the former. It will show you the relation between both factors (along with film speed) while also allowing you to take nice pictures that will make you happy and keep you from getting discouraged.
>>4493990My *opinion* is that they are over-priced and inevitably cause beginners to not learn the fundamentals they need to explore more.But I am in the UK, so maybe prices are cheaper for these in America.Personally I would get a Praktica of some variety, MTL/LTL/TL1000 are all good options and were fairly well regarded even back in the day, at least from people I have spoken to. They also tend to be extremely cheap (I regularly see functional examples for under £20, I paid £5 for mine iirc).Also they take M42 glass which gives them a particularly good selection of Soviet/German/Pentax lenses.
>>4493990May I suggest the AV-1 as well?The AV-1 uses aperture priority by default which I believe is more useful, and because nobody thinks of it it's cheaper than the incredibly hyped AE-1. Only drawback is if you want a set shutter speed it's 1/60th or go fuck yourself. If you want direct control over shutter speed then nevermind because as >>4494018 points out you aren't going to actually learn much about exposure without a fully manual mode and using it that way.
>>4494038There are so many non-Canon options that let you go full manual when you want and don't force you into 1/60th speed
"Fuck This Captcha" EditionPreviously: >>4491869
>>4493951
>>4493952
>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.
>>4493815IIRC if you change the ETTL-II settings (for Canon but check your camera regardless) there's one called flash priority instead of eval or face eval or whatever that should prioritise sending a bigger flash. The other two try and strike a balance between background light and subject but flash priority should do what you're asking for.Could also set up a C mode with the auto ISO settings to be a narrower band if you'd still rather a balanced background exposure
Is there a worse camera than the d-lux 8 to spend that much money on? what are better options if you want something compact, impossible to fuck up, easy to use, convenient to travel with?
>>4493970>Leica>4/3rds>$1800 usedLeciafags are mental.Get a Ricoh GR.Literally any edition. I and II have a pop up flash but no IBIS, III and IV have IBIS, no flash. The older the cheaper. All are good.>compactThe only literally pocketable good camera.>impossible to fuck upGood ergonomics, nice menus, etc. Just don't take it out in the rain or in the middle of a dust storm.>easy to useYes.>convenient to travel withYes.
>>4493815If you're using flash, that's one of the best reasons to be shooting in M
>>4494009>can't readNigga he's using auto ISO. It doesn't matter what mode he uses if that's the case, the ISO is going too high instead of favoring increasing power.
After much positive feedback to the /m43/ general I re-thought the whole thing. Why limit to one mount if the defining defining feature is the aspect ratio?Let's have a /4:3/ general for all the based chads who shoot in 4:3 ratio!Welcome: Everyone whose system shoots natively in 4:3!Also welcome: Those who accept the superiority of 4:3 and crop their 3:2 (cringe) images to the 4:3 (based) ratio.Not welcome: Everyone else.Topic of the first /4:3/ general ever: Are 5:4 and 6:7 based, too? Or are they just tryhard?Discuss!
here, a phone photo
>>4494003Yet another
>>4494004Another one
>>4494005And here, the last phone photo
>>4494003>>4494004>>4494005>>4494006Conclusion: I really like the 4:3 format and am glad, that smartphones also have this sensor ratio. For me 5:4 is also a top contender, but so far, I took better pictures with the 4:3 and 3:2 format. Maybe it is really how the format influences the choice of composition. With 1:1 and 4:3 it is quite easy to make a pleasing composition. I‘d really like to try 7:6 someday…
I'm really lost on how much sensor size matters, because while I read tons of gear stuff here and the most detailed explanations, in reality the photos taken with a small sensor still look good to me because it's about composition, feelings, emotion, subjects and things like that.So what's the deal with sensor sizes
>>4486385I don't like this it's bad
>>4486371Nice shit post lol
>>4486368>>4486367>>4486363>>4486385Cute doggies. May the children of heaven be blessed at heaven's gate when they all pass into the after life.
>>4486110this is HYPERKINO
>>4478850Any proof?Take digicam with 1mpix sensor, take photo with DSLR, resize to 1mpix and compare.
It's 2026 - here are my new years' resolutions:I'm going to leave this godforsaken board. This is a fucking highly negative place infested by gearfags, chartfags and the mentally ill. This board sucks all the joy out of the hobby. A bucket of crabs so to speak. I'm also going to leave all other photography related forums and communities. It's full with nophoto assfags who are just frustrated at their own lack of photographic skill and try to pull down everyone and anyone to their own level of incompetence.Cya fuckers.As a parting gift I'm giving you a bunch of shitty firework pictures.
>>4491670>people who take good photos the first time every time and know how to use a camera? lame. just because people are willing to pay you doesnt mean you’re better than me, the secret king!kek
>>4491673>le motte and bailey Not to say I think these are good photographers, but I'm talking about the Many from your statistics who photograph people and things they don't care about to earn a living
>>4491675Learning the technical side is so easy it's not even a protected trade anywhere
>>4491681Right thats why you’re so successful at it
Status report on Syrian bro?
New Ricoh GRIV Monochrome. What's the verdict?>1800€ / 2200$>built in red filter>25mp apsc>28mm equiv lens>very compact and light>no evfI want one because my taste in color grading changes every week and I'm so tired of working my way through lightroom presets and settings. It makes life easier. How does the image quality compare with a full frame image converted to b&w?
I wouldn't want a cropped sensor for a style of photography where minute grain-scale detail and gradients are paramount.
>>4493939This isn't for the tone, it's for "quick and dirty" photojournalism, weegee type work
>>4493954Weegee used a large format camera...
>>4493956and a big-ass flash>>4493954you cuntAn X-E1 does the Weegee job better
>>4493939I thought I read something an anon posted some months ago where the benefit for a bayerless sensor was roughly the same as going up a format (i.e. APS-C bayerless is about the same as bayer FF).If that's the case it's just a convenient form factor for a relatively well-detailed image at pixel-level. Would I prefer FF mono? Sure. Do I think all mono cameras costing $2000+ is drop dead retarded? Absolutely.Will this thing sell like hotcakes because of the hipster EDC faggots? You bet your left nut it will.
