File: Screenshot-2021-08-20-at-(...).png (69 KB, 870x576)

69 KB PNG

>>4401306
is that a reference to the richard avedon audrey hepburn shot?

File: media_GUP0XI3WoAAigsC.jpg (162 KB, 1000x1000)

162 KB JPG

>>4401388
Not sure myself

File: hose (47).jpg (583 KB, 2560x1440)

583 KB JPG

This has long been one of my favorites

>>4402490
grim weeaboo rubbish, awful lighting. next.

>insert Peta Jensen model pics.

File: 1738374164224316.jpg (4.74 MB, 4672x1869)

4.74 MB JPG

>>4402733

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	GIMP 2.10.36
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2025:01:31 20:40:52
Color Space Information	sRGB

File: R1-01245-0009.jpg (1.33 MB, 1800x1800)

1.33 MB JPG

>>4402519
portra for me. i know it's overdone but it's the cheapest color 120 film online

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	GIMP 2.10.38
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:09:26 15:25:20
Color Space Information	sRGB

NEW THREAD

>>4402826
>>4402826
>>4402826
>>4402826
>>4402826

>>4402799
that nigger mad ugly

>>4402470
damn medium format is pretty smooth grained, even in kentmere. i just wish my local shops got kentmere 120 in stock, they only have hp5, fp4, and delta

File: IMG_1950.jpg (1.67 MB, 1800x1200)

1.67 MB JPG

/p/ cock?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB

>tfw saw a beautiful ruby throated humming bird doing a display 5 feet from me but I didn't have my camera with me

>>4402292
>>4402395
I should go to the cemetery and take some photos of the peacocks there sometime.

File: DSCF7150.jpg (4.89 MB, 6240x4160)

4.89 MB JPG

>>4402353
don't buy fooj
>>4402395
/p/cock.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-H2S
Camera Software	Capture One Windows
Photographer	Shiro
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.2
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	84 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Exposure Time	1/4700 sec
F-Number	f/1.2
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	160
Lens Aperture	f/1.2
Brightness	7.4 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	56.00 mm
Comment	UwU
Image Width	6240
Image Height	4160
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>4402292
>>4402403
pull back your highlights

No more birds.. I wish I had a real camera...!

>>4402420
Does anyone even make cameras with pixels larger than 6um anymore?

>>4402445
I have absolutely zero clue. It's a 33mp ccd sensor from 2006ish.

>>4402396
>>4402398
>>4402415
just got this video rec'd - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oOWWb8dp04
it all makes sense but i never thought about these things this way.

>>4402451
cameramakers could solve this problem by making iso just a field in the exif rather than baking it into the raw files, and using digital gain for jpegs
then total dynamic range would be a flat line (two flat lines really), though of course you would get more headroom the higher your ISO was
but they won't because dpreview would bitch about "fake iso"

>>4402451
honestly this video is based. I'm OP and I had no idea what the fuck matt was talking about, but this guy is describing the sensor in the same way the detector in mass specs are described and I do have experience with that and how they often had dual sensors (light based specs might be the same too, honestly but I only had experience with those in college, not professionally) where in mass specs, or at least the one I used, one detector basically counted the physical number of ions hitting the sensor and the other detector was for when there were too many ions to count so it needed to convert the ions hitting into a current and then measure the current through a resister or whatever. the thing that fucking sucked about this is you had to make sure the 2 sensors agreed because they could be independently calibrated and it was fucking annoying if your data range needed to use both sensors

>>4402425
pretty much, yeah

>>4401072

and do not fall for the editing meme, anything that takes longer than 10 minutes is a non starter.
You want a quick preset, really quick freq sep once over for 5 mins, quite dodge and burn on the eyes and hair.
Long gone are the days of hour retouches on a portrait, you need to be able to produce finished product in 2-3 days or model/agency will be pissed.

Opie here, thank you all for all the answers. Appreciate also the detail and guidance. Will go this weekend shopping and try to stick to m budget. but it is a great start already, of course trying to spend more time shooting and less time correcting! Thanks, thanks, thanks!

>>4401380
strobist is the resource to check out.

>>4401072
Can we see some of the strobist work you do?

>>4400926
>P.S.2 Jessica Chastain is a goddess
she has nice teeth, I'd like to have them

the sensor size is similar to that of a basic smartphone camera. is the front of the lens clean?

File: factory_reset.png (162 KB, 1008x344)

162 KB PNG

>>4386390
This is the correct answer
if this don't fix it it's probably fucked

>>4397326
>>4397328

Pretty

>>4386386
>Shutter speed: 1/25
Way too slow to capture movement (should ideally be about 1/250 - but if you are lucky and/or have very steady hands you can get some handheld shots down at around 1/60)
>ISO 200
Way too low indoors without proper lighting
How far you want to push it really depends on what camera you're using and how much noise you tolerate. But 200 is for tripod studio perfection, and basically never needed.

Lastly, stop using "modes". They are retard crutches, which will just make your shots worse and stop you from learning how to use your camera.
Learn the exposure triangle, fiddle around with S, A and M. And turn on Auto WB to avoid the green and magenta tints you're getting.

File: 73e298ff-6449-4315-a1ce-b(...).jpg (17 KB, 400x300)

17 KB JPG

>>4397328
Seems to be the only reasonably taken shot besides aperture being wide open.
>>4401734
Won't help him. There are no physical controls on this toy camera to control exposure settings.
OP, ditch this piece of shit, get something with some actual control dials that will allow you to adjust ISO and aperture at minimum. One dial is enough for this if there is a modifier button. The camera likely isn't broken, just poorly set-up and inherently difficult to take control of.

>>4398535
BurtGummer is one of the best oldfag photographers on /p/

>>4398584
t. definitely not GurtBummer w/ trip off

>>4398347
>F3.2
What
Is it a focus stack?

>>4393323
this shit fire flames

>>4393388
should have been colour you

>>4401654
this, perspective distortion is the proper name. that said op is generally correct. if you're shooting from the same distance a 75mm on mft will look the same as a 150mm on full frame; subject will be the same size and have the same perspective as well.

>>4401873
Yeah, but the amount of background blur, the diameter of any given bokeh ball will be half at the same aperture. On the plus side your in-focus area will also be about double on mft.

can you guys say m43 instead of mft I keep reading it medium format. thanks

>>4401904
>MFT = MFTurd
>M43 = Micro 4our 3rds
>MF = Macro Four (Thirds)

>>4401904
male to female

>>4401292
not bad, I thought Americans gave up protecting their country

>>4401551
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGPSeHvILRo

>>4401292
>t-they're being whipped!
Even with institutional power, lies still have to be somewhat believable.

File: GPdmOgQXAAAE5EN.jpg (181 KB, 1071x714)

181 KB JPG

Anything from global geopolitics works

>>4401737
>keeps trying to win at scam shops
ngmi

>>4401795
unironically true, i look on buyee (rakuten/yahoo auctions) and the only time you find a deal is weird shit like us/eu region locked sony cameras sold in japan (because they're exclusively in english and not nipponji)

otherwise the prices are identical to what you find on usa ebay most of the time

>>4401844
Japanese fleabay sellers are often overpriced.

File: kitamura.jpg (261 KB, 1200x710)

261 KB JPG

>>4401632
If you're in Kyoto, there's Kitamura Camera. Across the street from Kyoto Tower.
There's also Yodobashi and Bic nearby, but those are like going to a Best Buy.

fujiya in nakano has good prices due to weak yen + tax free. if you're not a burger then lol mileage may vary

>>4401701
*the modern internet
Ie: social media
Usenet was almost as bad but it wasn’t as pervasive

Sharpness is absolutely not relevant to primes. F2.8 zooms made them obsolete outside of astronomy since before most people here were born. Now even the cheap ones from tamron and samyang take photos that can only be distinguished from ones taken with primes by pixel peeping mid distance test charts on HR/UHR cameras or a:b’ing bokeh ball size by retaking the photo on each lens. But standing on their own, the photos aren’t instantly recognized as from zooms instead of primes.

Maybe life is different for crop sensor and a7rv people, with their tiny pixels?

>>4401697
I don't even know why someone would care about edge sharpness wide open anyway. If you want a sharp background you need to shoot at f/8+ anyway

>>4401758
One situation I can think of is astro. But other than that I can't come up with a situation where you'd be shooting something flat and also in low light. I suppose there are landscapes where you'd be focussing far enough away that you could get a deep enough depth of field for it all to be in focus at f/2.8, but you're going to be using a tripod anyway especially if you know it's going to be low light.

>>4401703
>Maybe life is different for crop sensor and a7rv people, with their tiny pixels?
I don't own any zooms, but I'll blame it on format. For M43 the 20mm pancake means I can fit the camera in my coat pocket and I don't think there is a zoom that is as fast as the 75mm 1.8 or at least not that fast with that price. Plus I have the 60mm macro but that's a different thing. idk how good old zooms are/their cost for the pentax 645 I have so I just have the 75mm 2.8 kit lens and the 150mm 3.5, that's like a 45mm and a 90mm and I have a 50mm ef, but that's just because I had the lens lying around from when I used to shoot apsc and its the only lens I had that was EF mount and not EF-S so I figured I might as well drop $50 for a film body since its not much and I have the lens and a bunch of 35mm film my brother gave me anyway

File: wideportrait.jpg (2.26 MB, 2220x1836)

2.26 MB JPG

>>4401553
>The size of objects behind your subject are changed with FL
The relative size is changed by your perspective, not FL, which just gives you a particular framing for a given perspective.
Zoom or not, if you want to change the relative size of the background, you do need to move with your feet.
>>4401544
Just depends on the type of portrait you want to take. I like 50 for most vertical portraits, 35 for horizontal, and 85-135 for more narrow / headshot.

>>4396882
It's all on price tiers unless you're pentax

Sony's SLR style bodies post-2019 have thorough weather sealing than sony's rangefinder style bodies and GM and G lenses have sealing while non letter lenses do not have the same degree of protection.
Nikon's professional full frame bodies have weather sealing but the most thorough weather sealing is reserved for the Z8 and Z9. Nikon's S line lenses have weather sealing but others do not.
Canon's professional full frame bodies have weather sealing with the best reserved for the R1 and R3. From the R8 down it gets worse. Canon lenses not branded with "L" do not have weather sealing at all.
Olympus bodies market weather sealing heavily but the OM-1/EM-1 series is the only one with actual full fledged sealing. It's downgraded for the OM-5/EM-5 series and absent lower. Only ZUIKO PRO lenses are weather sealed.
ALL modern pentax cameras and their lenses are fully weather sealed! Old lenses from the film days are not.
Panasonic varies by lens, no easy branding to follow.
Just don't get a fujifilm wet unless you're a gambling man.

>>4400152
Ignore the Sony schizos that get easily triggered over anyone pointing out their gear isn't anything but perfect. She literally promotes Sony products in her other videos. Snoyboys just dont want to admit their color science is horrible.

>>4400456
She promotes whichever brand gives her free gear

Sony color science is great. I don't see anyone else having this green issue except on the old a7iii with its inaccurate AWB, not even her, all her other sony colors are really good even with the a7iii which is hard to grade properly, so I'm assuming she cowtowed to panasonics demands for one small, little-watched review where the top comments are all ESLs. Definitely some shilling going on there but it was probably worth the free s9 to her.

>>4400041
>optically inferior

Proof?

File: Screenshot 2025-01-26 103729.png (1.22 MB, 951x898)

1.22 MB PNG

First wedding of the year ended up being the rainiest I've ever shot. Was calm, then downpour started as soon as things got started, and everyone got absolutely drenched.
Didn't think to take a wet gear pic, but here's a crop for the anecdote. Zf and X-H2s held out just fine while getting equally drenched.
The real MVP of the day was my dry bag backpack though, kept all my other gear safe and sound to and from the venue. Most everyone else's bags/backpacks got soaked through just being outside, and even had 1 phone rip. Thankful I stuck with black clothes too.

>>4399889
That edited result looks rather good. Any particular steps you've made? I try and go for similar looks but I always end up making the sky look retardedly noisy or dark

>>4399889
If you're looking for a backdrop image with trees, the trick is to do a short exposure to capture the trees, then a long exposure to capture the sky. Doesn't look like you're using a tracker, so a single second exposure of the trees at a medium-to-high iso for the background, and a low exposure around 100-200 to capture the background, and overlay the images.10 seconds untracked will give you star tracking like that. I would do 5 seconds and multiple exposures and stack them, then recombine the background the still backdrop and recombine.

File: 1729383581475149.jpg (3.83 MB, 6048x4032)

3.83 MB JPG

I fucking hate starlink

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

>>4401755
It's kinda fun seeing all the satelites that would otherwise be lumped in as another star.

>>4401755
>>4401764
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1o1PNCjtwE

File: cartard.jpg (11 KB, 213x202)

11 KB JPG

>>4401569
>I've worked at a print shop which offered c-type, dye sub and pigment inkjet prints, and I can assure you that everyone who brings their printing to a lab is a fucking idiot
Ah yes, the ol' "everyone is a retard except me"

>>4401679
In inkjet, a pigment printer is visibly superior for density/saturation on matte paper. Most B&W prints will also look better from a pigment inkset, regardless of paper, because they have a more neutral tone.
Pigment prints are more UV stable too, but less durable if they'll be handled.
On gloss or lustre though, dye-based printers look just as good or better. Glossy paper has far superior dynamic range as well, and dye based prints can be handled a little bit without much harm. A dye print framed behind glass and out of direct sun will still last for years, but you should keep a duplicate print of anything really important stored in a folio.
Dye printers are MUCH less prone to clogging. This is very important for a home printer which (be honest) will be used infrequently. You may as well yeet your Pixma Pro 1100 into the trash if you don't print anything for 6 months and the head clogs. Ask me how I know.
Sharpness-wise, any of the modern multi-ink Canon or Epsons deliver the same results, and there's not really any consumer technology that beats them. I have a Canon Pro 100S, which is 12-year old technology now; it's essentially equal to the very best and newest 14-pigment Canon models for sharpness.
Commercial-tier machines aren't sharper, they're literally the same tech scaled up for roll paper and bigger ink tanks. What that does mean though is that they will give the same "check details with a loupe" resolution over a 6-foot wide print if your file has the meat in it.

>>4401680
Civilians can barely wrap their head around the difference between a transmissive and reflective medium, let alone gamuts, light sources, profiles and calibrations for everything.
A person doesn't need to be actually retarded to be functionally retarded in a technical setting.
Mr "I sent my files to 5 different labs and have ranked their results" obviously thinks he's very clever with his calibrated display but doesn't even know how much he doesn't know yet.
If he had a clue, getting a perfect result would be as simple as asking what machine/paper they were using, if it was calibrated regularly and if they're able to print without corrections, and sending them the appropriately prepared file.

>>4401569
Dove into you mums printing hole you cheeky monkey sod you

>>4401680
>quotes wrong post