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
Where the fuck did everyone go?
>>4519050>that name>not f/4.5
>>4509938>who can't be assed to throw their piss jugs away in their roomThe meta is to just piss out the window.>severe crippling soul-crushing depressionI'm sorry to hear that.I hope things get better for you.
>>4510283Sweet
>>4510876>at some point i also just stopped taking as many photos because i had shot almost every location in my local area, so i really only get my camera out for trips now.You or your friends never do anything worthy of documenting?
>>4519038>>4519049Barkbuddies just hasn’t been the same since basset died
Insta and whatever else thread for wherever anons post their photos.https://www.instagram.com/mondatta.photography/Do any of you tend to go for certain themes and styles? Or just try anything?
hi guys Born Raiderz hereig: https://www.instagram.com/bornraiderz/i need to find the best way to grow my acc to be eligible to join kick partners and be invited into streamer uif you guys know anyway to boost followers with a small budget and are willing to help an absolute troglodyte as myself please reply or DM me
profile screenshit
>>4497338This is a troll post right? No one is actually this cooked in the head? Lol
Kinda fell off the past two years but getting back into it. Shoot mostly landscapes. @dannyglenn__
>>4518741its a palestine supporter obviously>no one is illegal on stolen land except for people who succeed on it fuck them everyone should be poor and dumb -leftism
Gear Fail EditionPrevious: >>4516915
anyone use lightdow filters?
ahahahahahahahahaha
>>4519067This entire post is flat out wrong. >>4519068Of course its a lumix shill posting liesTruly… no lies, no lumixZoom in windows are not the same as being able to accurately see the whole DOF at onceAlso they stole that idea from fujiAnd sony did it betterAnd nikon did it even better by just enabling the usual detect and confirm aspect of af to mf mode
>>4519078>top seller when its not even out yet>panashills: but sir we had open gate many year ago sir…Such is business when you make the highest quality pro cameras
>>4519053i'd be interested if i was in the business of shooting portraits on 35mm/ff, or if their m lenses were rf coupled.
Redwood EditionPreviously: >>4510615
If it flies, floats or ducks..
>>4519024clean your sensor dude
>>4519018Sorry mang but you've knocked this during the exposure or something because everything that isnt the water is harsh to look at because of the blur.
When you export to JPEG, what quality settings do you use? I'm having a hard time deciding whether I want to use Quality 80 in NX Studio and end up with some of my 24MP images being over 10MB, or drop down to Quality 70 which seems to reduce the size by about 40%. It doesn't help that JPEG quality seems to have no bearing between programs, Quality 70 in NX Studio seems to be similar to Quality 90 in basic editing software like Pixelmator. Using the same settings for all my exports though, some pics just come out to tiny file sizes, which feels wrong for the image size in pixels. Take pic related, this is Quality 70.
>>4517950> if pixel peeping shows zero discernible difference, what would be the point of saving at a higher quality to begin with?Compression artifacts differ based on what image they are applied to. For example, applying jpeg compression to a very clean digital image will save a lot of space for no apparent quality loss, but on a film photo, the grainy areas will turn to mush pretty fast.My point is that pixel peeping is not an effective method of deciding what compression to use, unless you have infinite time and want to pixel peep every image before applying compression. Just apply a standard compression recommended for your purpose and you'll be fine.>Almost any print you'd make would have smaller details than blowing up the image on your monitor, so if that doesn't show a difference, why would a print?Correct, prints usually work well even at low quality. But there is cases where it won't: again, fine details may look mushy, dark areas blocky, etc. So it's better to be safe, especially if you have a modern computer with terabytes of storage that can hold more or less an infinite amount of jpeg image.For safest, I wouldn't go below 90. For good quality, I would go 80. For web and Instagram where pic quality is not important, I would go 70. Under that, artifacts will appear even at low magnification.
>>4517986I save my RAWs on hard drives at home, these files are to dump in my camera roll on my phone/iPad for showing people, sharing online, my own casual viewing. Those devices have limited storage. Saving to 90 or 100 quality is notably sharper but at huge file sizes, since I already have the RAW backed up I can always "reprint" from that at a super high quality if needed.Since JPEG quality numbers seem to vary by program, I've been using Irfanview to view the quality of JPEGs, it's got its own arbitrary scale but I can compare between programs now at least. Irfanview says that the Quality 80 from NX Studio is 90 JPEG quality, while Quality 70 is only dropped to 87 JPEG quality, but crucially it adds 2x2 chroma subsampling. I imagine coming off a bayer sensor in the first place the chroma subsampling has virtually zero impact, so that seems to explain the minimal difference in quality despite the huge file size difference. I have no idea how this compares to Lightroom's outputs as I don't use it. If someone wants to post some various outputs from Lightroom I can get the quality levels in Irfanview to have a point of comparison. My suspicion is that any "pro focused" image editor (Lightroom, NX Studio, etc.) has a JPEG scale curved to a higher quality than say, Paint.NET or Pixelmator.
>>4517913biggest difference I found is in the shingles - more grainy in higher quality, but it's very subtle. I can't see it at 100%. I think not worth the bigger file size.
how do you guys do context-aware compression? so that faces and important details get less compressed and blurry backgrounds more
>>4519074I don't worry about that
Summer 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 >>4499500Quick FAQSComment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>4518050I never found a good place for my film shorts once Liveleak was shut down
I made a dctl plugin to shift people’s skin tone slightly green on a subperceptual level. Enjoy! Perfect for sci-if color grades and other use too.justpaste dot it/fniqljpst dot it/57uU5I posted it as a just justpaste.it link because it was too big to fit into a comment.I think you need the studio version of resolve to run it.
>>4518772I remember you!
>FX5Thoughts?Still using that DSLR formfactor, I'd rather get the pyxis at that price point. Those Sony batteries are terrible.
>>4519059>Thoughts?Really good on paper. Ergonomics sound terrible. Has (almost) nothing that the canon c80 didn't do years ago (ibis and open-gate).The camera has to restart to change framerates or recording codecs. That alone is basically a deal-breaker outside of a controlled studio set.If you're running-and-gunning, the s1ii (or r6v) are the obvious choices. If you're in a controlled environment, the pyxis 12k, c80 or even the fx3 seem like easier choices.
Remember when everyone would come to this place to post fun photos and critique each other? We can and WILL have fun photo generals here again and not just another gear threadYou do actually take photos with those expensive cameras you're buying, right anon?
>>4518998thasnk. here's another simpler frame>>4518999nice trips. you got a similar look to mine there
>>4519000>the plan is to assemble a text and photo travelogueThat would be cool to see. Daniel Milnor does a lot of text/photo collage type stuff worth checking out. He's not my favorite photographer, and his audience is mostly boomers, but I admire his enthusiasm and pursuit.>you got a similar look to mine thereI think we're speaking the same language. visually speaking.if you have a site or something to follow, count me interested. if not, all good.
>>4519001thanks. no website yet but i plan to make one on wordpress.
>photography hero grows oldIt's not fair bros
>>4519042There is no evidence to support the holohoax as taught on the history channel
>>4519057There is no evidence to support hitler and the nazis being half as smart and cool as presented on the history channel otherwise. The history channel is lies all around. The holocaust still happened. Did they have demonic suffering assembly lines out of a slayer song? No. They just killed people. Like animals.
>>4519058Not exactly a holocaust then, eh?
>>4519066>the history channel told me it was all gas chambers, ovens and mengele! so the holocaust never happened because thats impossible!The fucking holocaust museum tells you quite explicitly that ~2/3s of deaths were summary executions and soviet style genocide via purposeful neglect, particularly in ghettos, and between the holocaust, combat, and exile europe went from 9.5 to 3.8 million Jews. Those Jews were not recent migrants either. They had lived there for hundreds of fucking years. That is a genocide. There are 200 million whites in the US. Would you call it a genocide if 130 million were killed or expelled?You antisemitic fucking retards call a few thousand dead “palestinians” a genocide when they were sheltering muslim militants in a dense urban area and the only cohesive national identity they have ever had is “we want all jews to leave or die”. Otherwise they were random people from all over the area that got kicked out of their actual home countries and a smattering of actual natives like the samaritan jews and palestinian christians. Exactly no muslims were ever native to “palestine” (judea).
>>4519069the irony is that jews were settling peacefully, staking out unoccupied land, until the jerusalem pogroms, and every neigboring country trying to wipe them off the map. only then did they get aggressive. it famously took a decade of rocket attacks and terrorism for them to snap and wreck hamas. but sure the arabs are the victims now that they are losingall they had to do was live next to jewslike 30% of israel… which is arabs that decided it was better to just live next to jews and *gasp* be citizens of a modern democracy
>best autofocus>best lens mount>best hybrid cameras>best full frame cameras>powers the world's sensors>best camera variety >best pocket cinema cameraswhy buy anything other than a sony?
>>4518798>GFX mogsThe X mount
>>4518802Both
>>4516903did
>>4517056schizo
I have a canon r6 mkii because that's the most I can afford and I was already in the ecosystem with my t7i
Hi, I did a short film, you guys might find it interesting. I hope you enjoy. it was shot on a GoPro hero 13https://www.yout ube.com/watch?v=RCrfiNsqFbk
>>4519002This is an achievement in communicating the limited awareness of an animal through cinema, but it’s a bit long for what it isWhat its like to be a dog/10
>>4519004I really appreciate it, thank you so much.
>>4519002not really a short film imo but more of a beautiful demo. I like your style and enjoyed the static lingering cuts although overall I agree with the other poster that it was too long given the lack of a story. If you made a movie or actual short films in this style, I would definitely watch. Good job!
Add it to tmdb
Brand Loyalty 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 would you suffer for your art?Previous thread: >>4511253
>>4518171Both.
>>4518171I use a rangefinder, so yellow 15 for me.
driving across the country next week. i want to take my nikon f100 with one lens. is 35mm f/2 D enough to do everything? although i hate zooms im thinking about a 24-85 vr zoom bc im sick of inconvenient composition with primes.
>>4518724Just make sure it's a good one, some of these zooms can be pretty bad in my experience. I'd take 28-70 f/3.5-4.5, but I can't tell you whether they're consistently good or whether I just good lucky. Either way, sharp, 8/7 elements, 0.20x close up, good size.
>>4517462that looks amazing I'll have to try fomadonget a yellow filter it will make the skies look much better
Why does it happen anyway? I feel like this is something which adobe could work on giving us a tool for in Photoshop. Something which cancels out edge glow but also can be adjusted by depth etc.(I know edge glow can be removed with a new layer and clone stamped with Darken mode on)
>>4513296It's 1800px wide... When you downsize something to 50% (assuming that isn't a crop) it looks sharper. When he looked at the original size it was probably a little soft.
>>4501417>Why does it happen anyway?Some clever programmer (with no photographic experience) decided that the way to make edges look sharp was to increase the contrast among pixels that border very light and very dark areas. So he cleverly wrote some code that does exactly that, and now it looks like the Anime cartoons he's used to wanking off to.
> ITT: I want to boomer-overcook my photos without them looking like I boomer-overcooked them> ITT: why can't Adobe use AI to make it look like I did not miss focus and used the right aperture with a good lens?
>>4519021Work on your bait.
>>4519027Work on your photography.
...
I feel like this picture, and some more, are a bit soulless. How to make it gain some charm while still sticking to God's creation, as-is ? Not editing, rather how to shoot.
>>4518986Shoot in raw instead of letting your phone process the image.
>>4518986Take photos of things you are interested in. For landscape, different times of day and weather conditions can add interest. But if you photograph something you like it will always have soul for you.
>>4518996>if you photograph something you like it will always have soul for you.Based post
>>451898670% of soul comes from the concept not the technique. What are you trying to show or express here? Make series. Photo is weak alone.
