I tried to check out other online places for photography and it was utter dogshit. Is /p/ really the last bastion for would-be auteurs?
>>4525380You sound mad and autistic and he sounds based. Sorry that Sony has sucked longer than you've been alive.
>>4525383god we're gay here, at least /k/ had the Salesman who posted booby trap and detonator plans and died on a trip to Syria in 2014 trying to obtain surplus Stg.44s
>>4525156>>4525163Recently discovered this one guy who does conventions etc in a fun wayhttps://nikitateryoshin.com/
>>4525163I think there is no objective way to say what is interesting or not, but my feeling is there is not much you can convey with a photo of such performances. You are taking out too many information from the show, the music, the movements, and the mood of the public which is probably the main thing that make those interesting in real life. Why don't you try to photograph those cosplayers in conditions where you truly have the opportunity to showcase them and their costumes, such as posed/studio shots with matching background and good light? This way you wouldn't have to compromise with what they wanted to do for a completely different context than a photo shoot. >>4525433 impressive style
>>45251181/8 handheld with no visible camera shake just means you are SHIT at developing your photos or use SHIT lenses, or, more likely, you have SHIT eyes.
Nikkor 85mm 1.4G focuses in the wrong place if you stop down to f2.8 or f4. If you are taking a headshot 1-3m away and focus on the eyes, AF puts focus 1 cm inside the head. Eyes will be totally blurry. How does this lens have such a good reputation when it fails so basically at its core task. WTF were the designers thinking. I am on a film camera so live view focus is not an option. Unusable shitlens. https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-nikon-af-s-85mm-1-4g/#Focus_Shiftthe 105 1.4 is even worsehttps://blog.kasson.com/d850/nikon-105-1-4-on-d850-cdaf-pdaf-focus-shift/also wtf is with these captchas it is getting too hard to post here
>>4525382I went back and re-edited it without the profile corrections and shit so OP could see right off the bat what it does. the 1.4D is known for its green/magenta spectrum sphereochromaticism wide open, still a great lens. Nothing you can't correct in post.
>>4525373>so sharp you see the pores on that fat cow>not sharp enough but it's ok I GUESSwhy the fuck do portrait photographers sperg out about sharpness when most of the time it's not flattering to the post wall hags they shoot?
>>4525373wow that pic is really informative thanks. the spherical and chromatic aberrations are pretty thoroughly "vintage" (her arm, the jewels) i think i will just yolo and live with the 85mm 1.4g focus shift
>>4525382Yeah thats a nikonm dslr thing. only retards use them
>>4523979You need to use AF fine tune on DSLRs.Not a problem on mirrorless.>>4523986Not true. I have AF-S 85mm f1.4 and f1.8.1.8 has a smaller offset at +5, while 1.4 is a whooping 15+.But with those settings, they are absolutely excellent. My D800 remembers the fine tune setting for each individual lens, so I just set it and forget it. My Z6 delivers perfectly focused shots without any special setting, because it is a mirror problem.Also, my AF-S 50mm f1.4 needs a -2 fine tune.
groundskeepers and hikers unite!post your most grandiose landscapes
>>4525292is this mars
>>4525397film doesn't work on mars because the silver in the film needs oxygen to oxidize
>>4518497
Apologies if this is more suitable for /gear/ but what are the pros and cons of different full frame systems for landscapes and is there a recommended "gold standard"? I'm mostly looking for more megapickles and better dynamic range, a lower minimum ISO and better low-light performance than the hard-working K-70 I currently own. Digital MF seems great but I don't do photography for a living and don't have a trust fund.And to keep things more on topic I'd appreciate any feedback on this older photo. The crop works pretty well IMO but it was also something of a necessity because I had some crap on my filter and didn't realize it until later. Oh well.
guys pls help... my tc-201 got stuck on Helios 81n and I can't remove it.the lever is half way down and has slight play, but there's no way I can get it to move, I can't get any shims anywhere, and the screws on the back of the tele are stuck and I even stripped one... is there anything can be done? I smacked it tried rotating and whatever else, do I need to drill out the screws on the back of the tele now?the aperture ring is overhanging so I can't get to the pin itself...
I took the front of the lens out but still can't get to the latch, need to take apart more but not sure how
>>4524211nvm it can't be reached like that.I'm fucked. I have to drill.
You need to take apart the tele, although the stripped screw is a problem. I'd try to get a good screwdriver that bites into the screws that you can take out first, also use WD40.
>>4524244I tried penetrating oil and acetone, didn't budge.I think I'll try ordering a micro tap set to try and unscrew it like that.hopefully it works and I won't have to drill.
I drilled it.1mm cobalt bit did good job, and a small extractor.the AI-S passthrough rod from the tele got jammed up somewhere, maybe on a screw hole of the lens. I left it out of the assembly.
A $120 camera is all you need
>>4522382True if you're in a high trust nation. Bringing your fancy Iphone 17 pro to pajeetstan, africa or italy will only paint a red bullseye on your back and using shitty burner phone that is shitty enough that these cretin wouldn't bother mugging you means that you're getting shitty, washed up pics most of the timeCheap point and shoot camera is still have its place in the world, especially third world
Didn't want to make a new thread, but what does /p/ think of the Pentax Q as a first digital camera?
>>4524752Here's a picture of one, it's a tiny interchangable lens camera from about 15 years ago.
>>4524752i have a pentax q s1 but i don't use it as much as my casio digicam because it's somewhat hard to use and not actually that compact if you want to carry more than one lens.
>Youtube video>This stupidly cheap camera no one gives a fuck about is all you'll ever need, just $100>15 minutes later>Check prices>$600Tired of this
lemme see your shots for the moon!this is mine btw captured with canon 2000d 55mm i can not remember my camera settingsi gave it some edit with lightroom this is first time with DSLR
>>4525104>ridiculous luxuryThey've literally been to the moon. Just bring a camera next time >Image limit reachedFar out. What do you want me to do about it?
>>4525107>They've literally been to the moon.Duh.>Just bring a camera next timeYou think they forgot one last time?>>4525091>How hard would it be to get a camera set up on the moon to get the eclipse perspective from the lunar surfaceI rephrase, it's a frivolous waste to send a mission dedicated to getting an image of the Earth during a lunar eclipse. Stupid, in fact.>predicting, "I meant as part of a bigger mission"Yeah, that's not what you wrote.>>4525107>What do you want me to do about it?Nothing. Was meant as a general note. Should have put it in a new message to avoid confusion. Oops.
>>4525085Tripod is not the issue. I tried to capture the last lunar eclipse and got shit result. After some digging turns out that you need a tracker as the moon is to dark an you need like 1-2 sec exposure time to get good results. Not doable with normal gear. Anything below 1/50 i think will result in blurry photos on 200 300mm or you can go crazy with the iso.Can t post mine coz max images.Was a good thread with lots of info. And good pics
>>4525167NewThread:>>4525386>>4525386>>4525386
>>4525071Sure when is it?
>Take a shot>Let the model review it >The model gives a look at the tiny LCD with dead eyes without soul, trying to act like has been focused on the shoot all the time and gives the phph's mansplaining (actually an active excuse or justification of his incompetency complex) about how this photo composed, lights, what's the catch of it blah blah short compliments like >"mm hmm.", "It's beautiful.", "Wow.", "Okay." without the pupils moved 1nm.Photographers who force their models review their shots are pussies. They elicit positive responses from their models who's not responsible of the decisions during the process to dilute their responsibility as the leader of the project, the whole team of the photography.It's like the single moms who march with their kids on strollers front of them in a protest.
Was this an attempt at humor?
>should I value a woman's opinionProbably not anon.
I guess I can add this to the list of reasons I prefer shooting film. She's not seeing shit till I get it all developed.
let's see your photos anonif you have done any
>>4522234Funny how she looks like Ornella Fleury in the thumbnail
Only A Canon Is Good Enough™Last: >>4523190
>>4525052Dpreview and pxlmag are not objective dataDpreview uses inconsistent tests with a worse program than darktable and bad lens selection, combined with tint corrections to hide bad color science, cheating with bad lighting, or both. Use photonstophotos and adjust for dxomark measured ISO. pxlmag dramatizes differences with bad photoshop skills and a lack of real world references. Use photos of average height (6ft2in) men holding cameras instead.
>>4525057plxmag is poorly coded, use camerasize.com/compact/ instead which is accurate. Pic related is a good example, 10% difference in height, listed by pxlmag themselves, yet the pictures look the same.Below, the accurate comparison by camerasize. Frens don't let frens use pxlmag.
>>4525017This. Bro simply cannot rotate an apple in his head.
>>4525009
>>4524988Posted it again award
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
comfy
>>4526499>where I sit waiting for the new /fgt/ to be bakedYou did it! Image limit hit!Nice little narrative image to wrap things up.
And with that said: >>4526501>>4526501>>4526501
>>4526301To be fair really old trucks are worth taking pictures of in general
>>4520942This is not true at all. I remember when film was popular, you would always want the negatives so you could make extra copies of pictures you liked and give them away to your family. My parents have given away tons of family pics to my grandparents and other relatives, and they always made sure to have the negative and make copies first.
I could make it work for landscape, interiors / cramped spaces or macro (if I had macro UWA), but I just can't make it work for anything else. Sometimes I feel like my 17mm is in an awkward spot where it's either too wide or not wide enough, but I'm probably just bad at it.TL;DR how do I git gud?
>>4524726Using UWA = Your background carries equal if not greater weight to your subject. Even with shallow DoF apertures like f/2.8 you're still getting most of everything in reasonable focus, so you no longer have the ability to blur out undesirable elements. Telephotos kind of always give you the option to have a single subject and fuck all else, which is simpler to manage.This makes things inherently challenging. You need more stars to align for the photo to look good, or more planning. Even Ren Kockwell's lead-addled mind put it together correctly when he surmised that UWA lenses aren't for getting everything all in. Sure you can do that, but there's far more potential at hand.Take your pic rel for example. What the fuck did it being ultrawide add to the photo? There's nothing interesting about the background other than it's open and empty, which could have been shown with a narrower focal length while also making the people and birds more prominent. If the point was to focus on the vast ocean then there's too much going on with the foreground to draw the viewers attention that way in the first place.
>>4524731>Telephotos kind of always give you the option to have a single subject and fuck all else, which is simpler to manage.That is true, although I rarely do that. There's something else.>What the fuck did it being ultrawide add to the photo?If I were to try and make a positive case, it adds context of the vast and empty ocean as well as of the shore to the photo. It depends a lot on the medium, you wouldn't do this for a 4x6, but it makes a lot more sense for big formats where the edges are in the viewers periphery. Though I don't know what Mr. Schwier's intentions were.I'd think UWA can help create a strong leading line in the sense that it connects with the viewer (you can imagine if the rope in the image was a bit bigger).Maybe the issue is also that it requires specific conditions to work, and then I'm lugging the lens for little benefit most of the time, as well as little in the way of experience.
>>4524739>it adds context of the vast and empty ocean as well as of the shore to the photoThe people in the shot distract from this too much. If it was one or two people not in motion then I could get behind that idea, but as it stands the photo is a bit all over the place in terms of where the viewer is meant to focus.>I'd think UWA can help create a strong leading line in the sense that it connects with the viewerThis is true if you can leverage how UWAs make close subjects appear larger. Otherwise there's nothing it being ultra wide has added.The final thing I can say in terms of usefulness, is that they tend to show the viewer the perspective of the shooter. That can be a double-edged sword.
https://www.voigtlaender.de/lenses/vm/15-mm-14-5-super-wide-heliar-asphaerisch-iii/?lang=en
>>4524743>The people in the shot distract from this too muchI think you misunderstand. What I mean is that when the medium gives you the space (like a big print in a hallway), you should be able to use wider context as your border where it is not meant to be the subject. I mean this more generally though; in case it wasn't clear from the watermark, that's just a random photo off the internet, since I needed some for OP.
This picture was not taken in Russia, btw. Good luck.
Hahaha lil mouse why don't you pet that lil fucker
Cileles, Jatinangor, Sumedang Regency, West Java 45363, Indonesia
>>4524525Put your trip back on cinefaggot dogfucking nazi glownigger
>>4524561Hello psyop victim
>>4524206Yr mom's basement, yr mom's house, I'm upstairs banging your mom.
This zesty guy makes a call like he drank too much, "uhzahhh!"
>>4524403Even at 1/4000 the background will have motion blur when shooting a fast bird in flight.
>>4519533I got a manual 200mm and went to try more.
>>4524578
>>4524580
>>4524581(there is a bird here if you look hard enough)was going for 1/500-800 cause didn't want to crank the iso. on my camera even at 800iso there's color spec noise... though I'm also probably not exposing properly. manual focus is not as hard as I though but is a bit tricky sometimes. ordered myself a viewfinder magnifier though.
How important is sensor size really? I've been thinking of getting a camera that is both good at video and photo and want to avoid full frame due to its high pricing and big size. A lot of people seem to love the GH series from Lumix but I hear tons of backlash in this board making fun of how mft is obsolete and has " phone tier' image quality . Is the mft that big of an issue when the gh7 has dual iso or should I just go with aps c . I am willing to spend around 800-1300 usd.
>>4518013https://youtu.be/SpUkq6DJZh0
>>4522332The lenses are much smaller and cheaper. Whether that's a benefit for you carrying stuff depends on your setup and shooting criteria, but it will always be a benefit for your wallet. You also get more reach than anything on full frame. There is a 200-600 lens that accepts a 2x teleconverter. That is 2400mm equivalent for a full frame camera. They simply don't make lenses with that sort of reach on full frame and if they did it would be the size of a person.
>>4524207>you could spend $3000 to take a more zoomed in photo of a bird now with atmospheric haze and shimmer at levels fool framers cant comprehend. but guess what? i have the secret power of m43!>@GROK, MAKE MY PHOTO SHARP, VIBRANT AND CLEAR AND REMOVE ALL THE NOISE!>fool framers btfo! the skill of getting closer is DEPRECATED! Hahahaha ear shit poppets! Full frame is over bucko!>-some british hobo
>>4524219Only oldfags remember, k3k
Is that a Messi fan? Lmao L pessi dickriders
I thought he was le gay? Or did he just hire a model to beat the allegations?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BG-5n_lxpI
>>4522971> When you are so obsessed with being gay you believe a random youtuber who almost never talk about his personnal life and shows 0 sign of gayness is gay and his wife is a model he hired to """beat the allegations""" (actually just your mental illness)
>>4522971What the fuck does have to do with photography? I don't care if this man takes it up the ass or not.
>>4522974TRUTH
>>4522974he's got a MAN van though
>>4522971Literally who?
Going to dump a bunch of photos I've taken over time, enjoy. Criticism and feedback is welcome since I want to know what anons think or what I could do better.
>>4523917that's just another version of the "photo is good because I like it". "There is no skill to drawing because I like this drawing in which I see no skill". Whatever question you encounter in life, you can always answer "it depends, it's a matter of personnal preference". Relativism is not an opinion, is just a basic concept to keep in mind and remember most things are ultimately subjective. By denying the skill ceilings are different when learning photo and drawing, you're just refusing to think.
>>4523917Unironically looks kino, reminds me of some of those weird drawings you'd see in 1920s upper class magazines or something.
>>4523484>>4523499>>4523446I like these ones. Adelaide is boring as fuck too so nice job.
>>4523926never there was any mention of "skill" in this conversation.it takes more skill to break the rules than follow them.
>>4523977>there is no rules>it takes more skill to break the rules than to follow themyes
