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
How to fix your color science editionPreviously: >>4521485
>>4522926Move slider on computer - >:'(Turn dial on camera -> =D
>>4522927Garbage in, garbage out. Expose your shots correctly to begin with and the results will always look better no matter how much you do or don't edit them. Photoshop is no excuse for sloppy work.
>>4522926True, makes sense when you consider professionals never edit
>>4522933>was using ALO since I use RAW+JPEG>found out later it boosts the shadows in the viewfinder>RAWs always end up underexposed to save the highlights in the JPGs and boost the shadows for the JPGs
>>4522933Edit on computer -> >:[Edit in camera -> :DEditing photos is an unavoidable part of photography. Always has been, always will be. Even with a perfect exposure.The reason that guy chose to take a seemingly underexposed image for that mountain shot is because he was exposing for the highlights. Digital cameras have excellent shadow recovery and shitty highlight latitude, so he just lifted them in post. If he gave the scene any more exposure he would have blown out the sky.You do the exact same thing except opposite for film, which has excellent highlight latitude and shitty shadow recovery.
REDRUM 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: RC or fiber?Previous thread: >>4516071
>>4522923>unknown storage conditions.Yeah that's my issue, I have absolutely no idea how it was stored for the first 15 or so years of its life. It might turn out amazing, it might turn out like ass.>>4522929>E100 is probably closest of the in production stuff, $50AUD give or takeYeah you're right. I tend not to use slide film though since the development costs are always more. Is E100 pretty good looking? I'd really like to try some new film that is pretty colorful and not too warm, I'm a bit tired of warm so something neutral or slightly cool would be fun for trees during winter.>But isn't what >>4522820posted for a 3-pack?Fuck it is a 3 pack, I missed it like a retard. The price is sort of close to here then, with a 3 pack being about $32USD. I'd still rather get Kodak or Fuji for just an extra dollar or two.
>>4522930The nice thing about slide film is that you can just scan it and remove the color cast if it has one. Works quite well. If you intend on projecting it may not be worth more than a "for shits and giggles" type roll if you don't mind the dev cost. It sorta takes away part of the fun of actually viewing the slides under magnification, but even with some color cast it's still pretty nice.E100 looks fantastic and is actually slightly cool toned. May be exactly what you're looking for, but it is sold out everywhere online right now. :'(
>>4522931>May be exactly what you're looking for, but it is sold out everywhere online right now. :'(Aw shit you're right, I was about to say I found one place that has it but it's 120 film.Any other good alternatives? I want to start getting back into film again, despite the heavy costs. I'm going to be doing some trips across Asia shortly and I'd love to take some film with me (assuming it can go through that x-ray scan stuff at the gate without issues).
>>4522932None at all, aside from buying some on the secondary market or shooting b/w.One thing you could do is purchase a pale blue filter and use it with typically warmer films like gold. You may only lose like half a stop to filter factor, so it isn't too inconvenient. Its fairly common for people to put a warming filter on for e100 to balance the cooler tone.
>>4522935I might look at a blue filter then. A lens I bought came with a red filter attached and I ended up removing it since my photos were warm enough already, it was just a bitch to get off since it seemed to have fused to the threads after probably 20+ years of being on there.Maybe I'll use the blue filter with 400 film so I can at least keep shutter speed up.
I thought freeware was a meme until I tried RawTherapee and Darktable, and quickly realized the amount of neetbucks I would've saved had I not used Lightroom sooner. I don't even take pictures regularly. Why do photographers shill a corporation with comical levels of greed?
Because I've been a professional photographer for 25 years, I've used raw therapee and dark table, as well as a lot of other programs, and they are both stunted compared with photoshop and its myriad capabilities and plugins. If you can't afford less than 20 bucks a month for the world's premiere photography program, you probably shouldn't be treating photography as anything more than a casual pass time.
>>4522800>freewareThere's a perfectly good "free" version of Lightroom Classic if you know how to sail a ship
>>4522800>DarktableShit>RawtherapeeGood at the absolute most basic level, but lacking in a lot of features. I used it for the first few years of getting into digital photography.A few camera manufacturers also provide their own free RAW editing software and it'll be more color accurate to what you see in camera, so that's a better choice anyway.
>>4522800A capture one perpetual license costs as much as a kit zoom. Only consoomers and actual pros need subscriptions.
Isn't Darktable pretty good now with AGX? I never found it hard to use>Exposure>White Balance>AGX>Tone Equalizer>Color Balance RGB>Contrast Equalizer>then everything else (denoise / lens corrections / capture sharpening)
>I never photograph anything I don’t believe in. If I love working with death, it’s because even in death I find this power of reality that no sculptor or painter could recreate, not even a Michelangelo or a Da Vinci.
>>4522891Correct it’s a graven image. Fuck saturn! All my homies hate saturn
>>4522892You talk about thinking like it's a bad thing. It's very telling.
>>4522906>i ate a plate of shit to THINK about the INTERESTING flavors. Ya got a problem with that ya fuckin anti-intellectual philistine? Hey waiter, get me another! You’re leaving dimensions of human experience on the table ya cuisine hating fuckwit. Hey this one’s got corn in it - delicious!>-modern art
>>4522908I see. Those that think differently from you eat poo poo. My mistake, I see now how enlightened and spiritually awake you are. The almighty creator of the universe must be very proud of you in particular.
>>4522910You’re defending a fed defiling corpses like it’s the only if not most intellectual way to approach death.
Previous Thread: >>4408437My astronomy club is doing an outreach on smart telescopes in a few more months so I decided it pick up an S30. Its been delightful so far; setup is a breeze compared to my primary rig. Think it will be a great little thing for more casual imaging. We're not in the best time of year for my FOV, but I was able to get a little time in on M5.
>>4522513this is what i ve managed7 photos staked with sequatorbe alpha soft sunset preset in lrc to sice up the colours
>>4508584>Went out to shoot the Perseids>Missed every shotStill a nice night
>>4522841how?i ve just falloed some guy yt instructions and set the camera to interval shooting. shot for 2hrs 10s pics with 1 sec between them then went trugh them select the ones with best visible comets and staked thewm in sequator because i m to lazy to install the ps and fuck around with layers and masking and other bssequator did a decent job i thinkalso used all 548 pics to make a timelapsehttps://jumpshare.com/s/xZWKXZAGqmvqLe0MwwYT
>>4522848>https://jumpshare.com/s/xZWKXZAGqmvqLe0MwwYTPretty cool. I don't think I saw any meteors in there, but it was really good video.
>>4522848It was cloudy so I kept having to move the camera in different directions and I was there with friends so I’d get distracted and miss a good shot. Like I said, I still had fun and saw some cool ones.
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.
>>4522483When you do your first focus pull from background to foreground along a row of items, watching them each come into focus, you’ll feel like a geniusI remember doing that shot on piano keys and thinking “THIS IS CINEMA!!!”
>>4522460The cheaper DSLRs just looked like cinema out of the box. With modern cameras that shoot in log or in raw (looking at you blakcmagic) you need to do a lot of work in post to make it look like cinema. If you get it right in camera all you need is an old DSLR, if you want to fix it in post you need a more modern camera and a fuckton of storage to hold everything.
>>4522514Can't wait anon. I've only done TV studio camera stuff before for a few months but all I did was was pan, tilt and zoom. No dollying, lighting, pulling focus, etc. I'm pretty excited by the freedom.
>>4522511Found something that apparently should work:Hollyland LARK MAX 2 with the OWS headphones. Wireless monitoring, apparently also transmits the cameras/phones sound?Problem: its 280,00€Do you guys think a hackjob solution like pic related could work too? Making the phone recognize the splitter and its attachments as one device only.The Dji Mic Mini (2) can pair directly via bluetooth.
What's your go-to lens for video anons? So far I've only been using a 35mm.
Theme: Night LightsLet`s keep it limited to artificial lights for this month.All photos must be taken during the current challenge month. No old or archived shots.Get creative and enjoy the process. Unique perspectives are encouraged!Previous thread:>>4515121>Go highlight your choice of best pics!
cool i just did a little night photography last night!
>>4519751
No matter how many times I try or how long, no matter how many tutorials I watch on youtube, my photos invariably still look digital. What am I doing wrong?
>>4522469Anon setting aside all the shit-flinging in this thread, that's a beautiful exposure.
I miss those lil Kodak thumb scroller cameras.
>>4522624Well ty. I am also very happy with it.
>>4522634You can still buy them
>>4522624LMFAO
>>4520182Thanks. It was a fun test. I kinda want to see how the other soft focus lenses I have compare now.Idk really. Maybe the lighting and being able to super precisely focus using liveview 10x zoom + the geared focus on my view camera.I used a 180mm sinaron se at f11. Really nice LF lens.
How to chose a soft focus lens for my nikon fm2? I'd like to keep it at max 400 euros second hand if it's possible. People get very different results depending on how they use it so it's hard to aim for a specific look. What I like from this thread:>>4519909>>4519431>>4519391Should I just get the EF 135 with a nikon adapter if I like this look? I've also seen some decent results from a lensbaby velvet 56, what's your opinion on it?
>>4522832Kenko MC soft looks kinda cool and very inexpensive. Lens design is a simple 3 element design similar to the cooke triplet/zeiss triotar. Softness is aperture controlled so no additional parts you have to worry about/lose.
>>4522843Great suggestion, thanks. I also found out the nikkor af dc 135 f2 has a defocus mechanism that is like the canon ef 135 but I have no idea if it's worth the price difference when i'm only interested in a heavy vintage soft focus look. It's out of my budget anyway.
>>4519457>Minolta VarisoftYet another lens to add to the list for my SR bayonet cameras
groundskeepers and hikers unite!post your most grandiose landscapes
>>4522889
>>4522894
Nesecito información sobre la piedra de flamel alguien que me ayude a investigar sobre el tema o algo parecido no para boludeces es serio si
Bridges EditionFormer: >>4517511
>>4522561Congrats, it looks like it was taken at night
bee
Color doesn't matter. Today when you can adjust colors just by pressing a button there's nothing more fake than a color. You should only shot B&W. Black and White photography is real and pure. Shape, shadow and light - this is what makes your photography look special, not some bright oversaturation. If your picture looks good without colors then your picture is worthy
>>4522378>Doesn't deny that he’s blandMany such sad cases
>>4522400The American is immunized against all dangers: one may call him an unwashed pleb, academically bricked, brainlet, neuron-deficient or brandfag, it all runs off him like water off a raincoat. But display some signs of being cultured and you will be astonished at how he recoils, how injured he is, how he suddenly shrinks back: "I’ve been found out".
>>4522406>doesn't deny being a brown thirdworldist
>>4502479Love her nails, so perfect
>>4522651>brownKek, not even worth addressing>thirdworldistYou know, I'm somewhat of a rational thinker myself.
What makes Japan such an desired place for photography? I'm really trying to understand the hype around it. When I visited of course the size of Tokyo itself opens lots of opportunities but I quickly notice that it gets repetitive rather fast. All muh taxis look the same, the buildings have a pattern that repeats a lot. If you've seen a few shrines/temples.. in the end they all look the same. Even if you visit other prefectures you won't see much of a difference. Whenever I see camera vlogs or flickr uploads in Japan I now tend to skip because it's always the same. My current number one location would probably be Germany. Still safe enough to bring your camera with you, every state has it's own architectural style. Towns are usually a comfy mix between old medieval houses in the center with grim 60s bauhaus constructions that look really odd. Also home of Leica where this sort of everyday compact photography started. What do you think? What's your prefered location?
living here i find the most interestig thing is the peoplethey all are expresionless most of the timethe fashion sticks out a lot to memore than the neon or cute characters
>>4522799Is this on film?
>>4522818fujifilm™
