Innovation is dead Part 2 editionPrevious: >>4526676
Probably the best example of detail and sharpness on 40MP X-Trans. Still with film grain, sharpness @ -2 and noise reduction at -4. Last example. Modern sensors are so fucking good it really doesn't matter that much if you buy APS-C or M43. Just don't zoom to 100% and enjoy photography.
>>4528920I m this anon>>4528915I view the pics on my 4k 40" tv but send them to my friends on wa. I totally get you but also i like to zoom in at 300% and more and see details in pics. But is just for my amusement and satisfaction. Know moat of ppl don t give a shit or even zoom more that what is displayed on their phone screen. But i ve paid a lot of money for the camera and lenses so i want to see some good results. I know i should be more focused on getting good pictures but sharp pics are low hanging fruits
Unprocessed RAW at 100% so no film grain. Looks much sharper. >>4528930Yes, that's 100% me.
>>4528915NR negatively impacts color, and can lead to a muddier look in skin tones for example
>>4528665>And yes, I can pocket both of thoseI have never met a real human bean who wears clothing with pockets large enough for a camera of any kind that isn't a p&s.
Was playing around with quality settings for fun and accidentally discovered that actually, super low quality JPEGs can look kind of cool and aesthetic. Give it a try, cook some JPEGs at arbitrarily low quality and see how they look. I've gotten best results from qual=0 to qual=10, personally, with most looking best around qual=5 or lower.Tips:>No difference between qual=0 and qual=3. Qual=4 is the first step that looks different from qual=0.>4:4:4 subsampling yields a finer pixelisation effect than 4:2:0, although the actual difference in practice is not always noticeable. I don't think either is necessarily better than the other in terms of achieving the look.>Progressive encoding and optimised Huffman tables have no effect on the look so no reason not to use em.>Smoothing changes the pixelisation a little bit but not enough to worry about imo, mostly just makes it looks blurrier/fuzzier. Actually I think the softer edges detract from the harsh look.Picrel is the one that started it all. Looks like something you'd see in an Amiga game. I'm gonna try printing some of these on copy paper with my home office inkjet to "enhance" the look.>Local dogsnapper likes low-quality imagesPottery. Not huskyfag btw.
>>4528083Oh yeah which one do you reckon I should try getting printed on glossy paper? I'm thinking the very first one.
>>4528085First one or the seagull one.
I use an app called 8bitphoto
Also a dog photogrosophist
This is retarded beyond belief and you have no eye for visuals at all.
Redpill me on screen vs viewfinder debate. Personally I find screen to be way more comfortable. Viewfinder is a total pain in the ass.
>>4497906Samefags gonna fag
>>4498261Because I shoot on a film SLR with TTL viewfinder. That's why not both
>>4508213Don't waste time on /p/?
>>4527184As a follicularly challenged individual who wears baseball caps and prefers composing with a viewfinder this is pain.
>>4497897Screen for 90% of shooting, viewfinder for when it's sunny and you can't see the screen clearly. Both have a purpose. You just don't shoot enough to realize it. Stop masturbating over gear and go outside.
Maybe camera glasses are the way for street photography so you stop taking photos of stranger's backs in public.They shoot video too though vertical
>>4524389>Can record while power bankedUNLIMITED POWAH!
Judging from cop-slop videos, current bodycams appear to do good enough job with 8h recording time.
>>4526030I will not be remembering that since there is no expectation of privacy in a public space, assault is illegal, and the state has a monopoly on violence
>>4527902What's paper legal and socially legal are two seperate things anon.If you get bashed and call the cops, all it takes is two normal looking people to say you were badgering or harassing them or others in a public setting, and the cop is almost guaranteed to side with them. If you get into a 1v1 over it then it comes down to who fights better anyway, because it's literally you vs them and having a broken jaw makes it hard to call for help, and a broken camera leaves no evidence.So either bulk up or fuck up, because the anons otb going "B-b-but assault is illegal!" like you are laughable.
>>4527934You are right in every place except America, their constitution guarantees you can film strangers in public, even if a fight broke out and your camera fell down it doesn't magically erases the footage, these little cameras are designed to take a hit or two.In an event of somebody touches you or your camera because you are filming them and you pouch them back the judge will side with you automatically because again American constitution gives you the right to defend your property with reasonable force
I want to get back into shooting film. How's the film and film camera market looking since 5 years ago?
>>4526705go get it thenyou're not getting any younger, your eyes aren't getting sharperwhat difference does it make whether the pen f is $50 or $500, that's much less than a plane ticket, and the film costs nothing compared to parking
>>4527613Gotta save up just a bit of cash first then wade through [NEAR MINT] - Has many fungus on Ebay
>>4527718grown man can't save up a few benjamins over 5 years
>>4527745I spent the Benjamins on other things. Had a few months last year where it was tough to find work, too, so I racked up a bit of debt. This year is different, so I'm going for it.
>>4527747cheers then
Henri Cartier Bresson would use a digital autofocus point-and-shit cam these days.
Cartier-Bresson would pay models to pose candid street photography and make videos about it on Youtube these days
>>4527661Someone put actual effort into making that image. I bet they could actually afford the camera of their dreams if they put that effort into making money. Kek
>>4527665AI isn't someone. Pay attention and behold all AIs do this.>Thing: Descriptor, descriptor.>Statement. Statement. Conclusion.>It's not A, it's B.>Excessive sarcasm>Passive aggressive>But hey>Nothing like>Question? Question? Dismissal.tldr its a mechanical redditor
>>4527666Ah I had a feeling it was ai, but it seemed a little too detailed to be 100% ai. I will still laugh at whoever prompted ai to make the image. They are definitely just upset they can't afford one.
>>4527669It even got wrong aspects of the actual camera, there's no rewind knob on a Leica M (it's digital).It made a mockery of a Leica, a Fujislug tier contraption.Pic related is arguably more authentic than what OP posted, a machine forgery not unlike the Moon that Samsung got caught faking. "Computational photography" and electronic "viewfinders" will blur this line even further, unlike OP people won't know they're being fed AI fabrications.
Why do companies ship cameras with the viewfinder missing? What causes this behaviour? Why do people buy them? What is the use case? I can't think of any reason to intentionally design or buy a camera without one. It's not like the viewfinder somehow makes the camera worse, or makes it appreciably heavier/bulkier, or appreciably more expensive. It's just useful with no downsides.
>>4527420I said a shitty EVF, a crappy low res LCD and plastic optics. Obviously a 5.6m dot OLED with glass optics is much more expensive than that but that's not what was being discussed.
>>4527441No EVF is goingvto cost 10 dollars to add, no matter how shitty you think it is.
>>4527420Yeah it was extremely expensive to add an evf to this >>4526814 camera. 11 dollars is extremely expensive to somechuddy out there.
>>4527521Regardless, my point wasn't that they were super cheap.
>>4526425My Sony RX100VII doesn't have this problem.
>Sony makes the worlds most used number 1 reliable professional camer-ACK!Last containment thread: >>4525985
This one has strong grain effect added.
This one is backlit so you can see dynamic range a bit better. Subject detection AF hits right on the eye as long as subject is more or less stationary. It kinda falls apart with moving targets.I don't claim those images are any "good" they are just technically correct snaps with 0 editing so you can see what xtrans can do. I can't post my better pics because they usually have faces on them or could give out my location.
which one should i pick ?Just for little sessions in very small rooms for little portraits, nothing fancy
How can a portrait represent something about someone other than mere appearance? Can you draw out an internal character or trait from compositional elements?
>>4523222Depends. If they've been posed or told to have a certain expression, it doesn't express who they are.
>>4523222Everybody has idiosyncrasies, ways to move or do things in a manner that is specific to them.They can be real tell-tale signs of a personality.A good example is how people sit.
>>4523222How can actors act and be anything other than themselves??
>>4523335Demonic possession?
>>4523222If you can, read Camera Lucida by Roland Barthes.
Reply if you're a real mf'er
Test portrait
>>4527373Underexposed. Make it darker overall and the image will appear less flat.
>>4527731Lazy exposure fix
>>4526827looks like someone forgot to aerate their bleachthis will be interesting to fix, since I already cut up the negatives to scanloading a bunch of small sheets onto a reel, like developing mini LF
>>4482575Look into Mamiya Press.
as a beginner, should i buy a 55-250mm lens or a 50mm lens? i dont know specifically what i want to shoot yet.
>>4526717size/weight is just another irrelevant spec for nophotos to min/max argue about
>>4526717Its always a reference to weddingslop ("holy trinity") and sigma art/snoy G master styled primes>Carry bigger lens that costs 3x more>photos look AI generatedThere's a reason "gearfag" and "pixel peeper" became such cutting perjoratives that micro fool turds users began feeling a false sense of confidencehttps://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1698397/>sigma 35mm f2 shoots landscapes as well>sony gaymaster photos look uncanny and harsh
>>4525248I'm >>4527247 and the lenses are the 18-55 kit and the 55-250. I have very little experience with DSLRs so take my word for what you will. The 55-250 is pretty nice and sharp. Pictures look nice and bright in good lighting but it's quite lacking in low light. Autofocus is also snappy in photo mode. I haven't tested it in video yet. It's a pretty fun lens overall. I guess you will have to choose between low light performance and telephoto. I will eventually get a 50mm because it goes for like $20 used over but I am in no hurry. Godspeed.
>>4527252*over here
>>4525248I could never be bothered to actually swap lenses that often and for a hobby, just carrying one zoom lens for whatever you wanna shoot is just so much less hassleI got a prime 50 for that sweet f1,4 but I dont notice that much of a differencemy only critique, at least with the zoom I have, is the bokeh looks a lot nicer on the prime when shooting something like flowers or anything where background elements are really close, otherwise they look the same
I'm a poorfag and used exclusively old manual lenses for the longest time because that was all I could afford. Last month I finally bought my first modern AF lens (Sony 85mm f1.8 if you were wondering) and I've been thrilled with the optical quality, it's amazing the step up that happened in the 30 to 40 year gap between it and my previous lenses. I'm finding though that even if I put it in manual mode and manual focusing it just doesn't feel the same to use in terms of joy and I don't know why? It's like I don't feel as involved in the photographic process when using it, whereas the old lenses it was a lot more visceral - the click of the aperture ring; working in combination with the focusing ring and the camera settings to try and push the old glass to its limits and get the most out of it. The new lens just feels too "perfect" and thus feels boring to work with. A lot of the time I just end up sticking it in auto mode with a feeling of resignation.Anyone else ever feel like this?Pic rel taken on a Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm
>>4527220>i dont like your photos, so dont use a camera you likeweakest and yet most common critique on /p/
>>4524398if it doesn't have an aperture ring i don't touch it. focus by wire is also horrible
>>4527220kinda true and reali recommend paying attention to both the technique and the gear. probably you'll end up settling on gear, ie find the camera systems that suit you, and never have to worry about that anymore. whereas the skill end of things you can work on til death.
>>4524444checked
>>4527220yeah, he should take more black and white photos of skinny white girls and homeless people
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?
Stop sign, in Kawazu, Japan.
Little girl grilling mochi? in Yokote, Japan.
sugoi!
All my potato
Will they finally announce tg-8 on 9th? Any leaks?
https://explore.omsystem.com/us/en/pen-body-silverNoooooooooooo!
>>4526864>$1000 for a phone sensor>IPX1 (IP53 already effectively means nothing and performs on par with or worse than non-IP rated cameras, IPX1 means it's screwed together somewhat tightly)*eBay searches for Sony a7c condition:used intensify*
>>4526864>>4526880Both these cameras are irrelevant to the topic. What the fuck are either of you on about. MFTards and Snoyggers competing against each other is like watching the tranny disability hire and the import Bangladeshi fight over a girl.
>>4526882its p relevant. olympus doesn't make new cameras. they re-release old cameras with gimmicky firmware updates so now a six year old sony is a threatening image to m4turdies. asking when they're going to make the new ____ is pointless. they don't make new anything.
>>4526882Thry were supposed to announce new cameras and they came out with this PEN shit. Fuck that, I'm buying a Nikon.
Theme: FoodAll 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:>>4519751>Go highlight your choice of best pics!
>>4526309Was it busy moving when you took the picture? Or did your stomach grumble so much that you were shaking?
>>4526309>>4526290I see the bar is nice and low, as usual. Almost touching the ground there in parts.Good thing this isn't a limbo competition.
>>4526309dawg wtf are you eating??
>>4526290
