Why do so many, if not all, "gear doesn't matter" phototubers, have super expensive cameras, usually full frame?
>>4441780The Leo-Wetzlar 420.69mm hairy planar
>>4441793One of the most based lenses in existence.
>>4441645>uglyimagine being visually retarded when you have a hobby that requires visual literacy.sorry bro
>>4436107>phototubersewww
>>4441788Kek absolutely rekt
Most photography isn't art. But that doesn't matter, because it's able to do things art rarely can. Photography is a vial for a memory, it makes the intangible tangible. This feature is even more potent in black and white photography. Even more potent if there's some motion blur. So don't be sad your "snapshit" will never be art, be glad that you captured what your eyes could only see for a split second just for it to vanish into nonexistence. Advocates of cineslop say it's sculpting in time. Photography is making time meaningless, cutting right through it and spitting in the face of Chronos. That's why La Jetée is genius, beneath the superficial time travel argument lies the fact that photography is how we travel in time. It's how we make the fleeting eternal. Just think of how the accounts of deja vu phenomena skyrocketed after the introduction of photography, it literally pierces the matrix of time in the minds of those who experience it. I'm certain that if we one day gain the ability to control time, photography will be a huge part of that. Time is first and foremost about perception and only photography has what it takes to train the brain to be able to take charge and go from passive observer to being the one in control.
>>4434298ironic cope because you suck. nice
Bummp
>>4421701most paint isn't art. but that doesn't matter because it can do things art can't. paint is a medium for the four walls of your home, it can capture the sunlight. photography is a medium, retard, what changes it is what you do with the thing. you probably just suck
>>4443126>most paint isn't art. but that doesn't matter because it can do things art can't. paint is a medium for the four walls of your home, it can capture the sunlight.>photography is a medium, retard, what changes it is what you do with the thing. you probably just suckI meant photography as a human activity
>>4421701You need to fucking kill yourself.
what's /p/ like? I just got into this for like a month now, a friend led me his film camera and I found out that I enjoy film photography a lot, largely probably has to do with the fact that I love movies and Adam Curtis's documentaries. Anyway I just wanna know what is it like on this board. what's up homies. any tips on film photography? here is one of my shot of my first ever roll! (it's a shot of cowe near my place)
>>4446701there is a light meter but i didn't know that it's overexposed cus it looks fine, can't say the same thing about this picture though, it looks nice but i hate how white the sky it :( cus in the reality, it was so blue and there was contrast between the white and the blue :(((
>>4446697See /p/ sticky. Go to great photographers section. Checkout all of them. Then do this "Look at them. Why do you like some, why do you not like others. What makes them good, what makes them bad." Try to imitate them, like ditto imitate them in the start. Then mix and merge the your influences to create a your own style. You may develop your visual style with this method but you'll never develop a worldview by just looking at photographs. The way that you look at the world, your own observations, study, memories, your life, the country that you live, your religion/philosophy etc. will all influence you to choose your subject and impact your work.Three essential books on photography:>Photography: The Whole Story by Juliet Hacking(History)>The Photographer's Eye by John Szarkowski(for general understanding of photography)>On Being a Photographer by David Hurn(especially for the chapter On Subject)If you're big on philosophy and theory then >Camera Lucida by Roland Barthes >Towards a Philosophy of Photography by Vilem FlusserIf you like Adam Curtis then checkout these photographers:>All photographers in New Topographics exhibition>All photographers related to Dusseldrof School of Photography
>>4446719holy shit thank u
>>4446703If you're shooting a camera that tops out at 1/500 with 800 speed film maybe, but for most daylight shooting you'll have plenty of shutter speed. Now, can you shoot wide open without an ND or some super slow film? No, of course not, but that's a bad digislug habit unbecoming of a filmchad
>>4446716It's risky, but underexposing can give you amazing results.Or get a cpl filter.
I'm trying to seriously learn about photography as art, and I'm reading, but I just don't get itTake A Sea of Steps for instance, I'm reading this primer and it says:>"Remarkable for its composition and sense of light and space, the photograph conveys the climbing up the stairs, as if analogous to ascending toward the divine serenity symbolized by the illuminated archway">"he vertical lines of the columns rise out of the curve of the steps that seem to flow and swell like ocean waves; what Evans' called "a sea of steps."Like, I don't get it. I just don't get composition, what they mean by form and structure, I DON'T GET IT
>>4439250LOL. No fucking way bro. Believe what you want, but I'm telling you it was not me.That is clearly not my writing style either.
>>4406357>>"Remarkable for its composition and sense of light and space, the photograph conveys the climbing up the stairs, as if analogous to ascending toward the divine serenity symbolized by the illuminated archway">>"he vertical lines of the columns rise out of the curve of the steps that seem to flow and swell like ocean waves; what Evans' called "a sea of steps.">Like, I don't get it. I just don't get composition, what they mean by form and structure, I DON'T GET IT
>>4439250He definitely wrote it
>>4406357You either make art, or you jibber and faff about art. Successful artists do both.
>>4446774Cope harder. I did NOT write that.
What three pieces of advice would you give a photographer who wants to take bad photos?
>>4445731Objectively good: my photosObjectively bad: you're photos
>>4445074What's the best one, then?
>>4443257Buy a large format film camera. Stop traveling with a camera. Only shoot at home. Who need new experiences when you can force art into existence through raw creativity?Bring up the size of your film at every opportunity.
>>44432571. be sure an smash ur cam with hamur2. reverse all ur photo scans at randum3. when in doubt, beat harder, just like sex
>>4446554Not muh heckin' studiooooz.
This post is for stupid questions that don't deserve their own thread. >what colour smurf beanie should I wear whilst underexposing shitty motion picture film on empty fuel stations at 2am edition
>>4453484From a sale post?Looks like the front of the lens barrel is dented near "asph."Specks probably won't show up on wide shots, but may appear when zoomed in.
>>4453484it might be dust but I doubt it, and if it is anyone who knows how to take care of a camera would clean it before trying to sell it so the rest of the camera is probably fucked tooand if it isn't this is literally worse damage than any of my cheap soviet era lenses don't risk it
>>4453484You don't normally see dust specs showing up in the photo but they do contribute to making the photos softer. I'd be concerned about that dent as well, it's obviously had a fair knock and there's a bit that can go wrong in those telescoping lenses. Unless it's cheap and (and, not or) you can look at it first and see test shots, I'd leave it.
What site do you fellas use for your Portfolios? SquareSpace, Wordpress, Wix...? I'm not gonna use Adobe's.
I like to goon to my camera content, but my system is nikon f-mount, which makes it pretty difficultSometimes Mrs. Northrup is in vidoes about this system, but for dedicatedly nikonian ladies pretty much all i've got is this androgynous individual:https://www.youtube.com/@CourtneyVictoriaAnd this saucy temptress:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYFbIzI7m3EWhy is it that videos about canon are like 10x more likely to feature a woman presenting ?
Post posed or candid photos you've taken of real people.
>>4446124A new challenger appears.
>>4446097bro they're literally downies
>>4446406Let's see your face, anon.
>>4446124>faked
>24mm to 105mm>f/2.8 throughout on FFIs this literally the most versatile zoom lens to ever exist?
>>4446402>Would you prefer they omit the aperture ring entirely and then you just use the regular dials instead?Why can't you answer a simple question?
>reeeee! you have to answer my disingenuous question!!!No, I don't think I will.
>>4446400I would prefer if canon were ran by photographers instead of printer salesmenBut if canon was good, sony wouldn't exist, so we already know how this has been going and will continue
>>4446460>>4446469>no I can't answer a simple question directly
>>4446386>Snoys make fun of crop sensors smaller than FF>but its a good thing when i cherry pick it!!Lmao
Opened up a free Big Cartel store and ran an Instagram ad for this photo collage I made of a bridge in my hometown, featuring other textures and photos around town.Sold it for $29.99, just to see if I could. Now I'm thinking: how can I scale this? Does anyone have experience selling prints? I also do abstract, non-psychedelic photography.
>>4446438I should add: the quality in this image sucks, but that's because the master copy is like 17 MB and I made this shitty version for the BC store.
>>4446438are you over seeing the print in any capacity? i know its not an expensive print but i wouldnt want something tied to my name going out without having seen it first.
>>4446443The one I sold was actually an inexpensive test run, and it looked good to me. I haven't sold any of the ones on Big Cartel, this was actually sold on my Ebay store (I sell physical media), but he found it through the Instagram ad.
What makes a camera "fun"?
>>4443538when you consistently shoot things you're happy with and don't have to fag out about editing
>>4443538When it makes taking pictures like an activity in itself rather than just a way to have pictures.The Fuji X-Pro 2 is the only camera I tried that really was fun.
>>4443538When the camera becomes an extension of my hands, allowing me to think of how I want to change various aspects of my image, without having to think of how to use the camera to do that, which ruins and interrupts the flow.The moment I have to turn my attention to the camera, e.g. menu diving, it's over. The flow is interrupted. I become self aware and feel like a dweeb standing in the middle of the street taking pictures of strangers (because that's what I am and what I'm doing, but in the flow, I forgot about that). When you're doing photography in the flow, you forget you're human, you forget that someday you're going to die. You forget your girlfriend is probably fucking another guy. You lose yourself, and you become the bliss of photographic ideas and composition.Once you're forced to remember you're a human with a camera in your hands, that's it, the fun is ruined.This is photography without mushrooms, btw. I don't recommend it with mushrooms, becomes very weird and psychologically mirror-like.
>>4443538It doesn't hinder your ability to get the photos you want and in fact makes it easier.
>>4443538Is that one of those thermal printer toy cameras? How is it? I always thought they looked fun.
This is getting out of hand.
>>4445629>giant grip on a body thats not supposed to be gripped like thatYeah, you're retarded
>>4445700>there are rules to gripping a camera body
Whats next, rules to gripping womens bodies? Sheesh
>>4445779>>there are rules to gripping a camera bodyKinda, yeah. If the camera has the shutter button on the top of the body like a rangefinder style, you dont need a big grip. You only need a big grip if the shutter button is sticking out in front, like a DSLR style body, and the grip also helps with bigger lenses that a larger than the body. The fixed lens x100 body has neither. Whats the point of adding a bigger grip when the body is already oversized?>>4445796Yes? You wouldn't hold a woman like you hold your tranny men.
>>4445779I'm gonna grip your body
Hello anons! You might remember me from >>4425207 a while back. I have since set up some very neat desktop servers (both Synology) and I thought other anons may find this information useful.For the storage of highly important and personal stuff, I ended up picking a "DS620slim" filled with SSDs (for low-noise and compactness). With 6x 4TB drives in RAID6, I have 16 TB (14.5 TiB) to work with which can be easily mirrored onto a "portable" external HDD. For the time being, I'm using an 8TB portable SSD and a 16TB external HDD as backups. The HDD is powered off for most of the time to reduce noise, and the portable SSD is used as the "off-site" backup (easily accessible, travels with me). Eventually, I'll need a 16TB SSD as the amount of data stored increases, but unfortunately there are no well-tested consumer products with that capacity in current year. If I end up needing more space for backups, I'll probably just use two 8TB portable SSDs. Additionally, I've also built a much larger HDD array for a lot of the "bulky" data I work with (non-p) that I'd like to be stored more reliably. I'm still a bit unsure about how I'll handle the backups for those: I plan on getting a magnetic tape drive to properly back up this data, but I also want to keep a third centralized copy somehow. Any suggestions? I suppose I could pay money for "cloud" storage, but at that point, I suspect it'd be more cost-effective to simply built a second server at another location and mirror the data. Currently the server functions as a "backup" for a bunch of DAS, so it's not the only copy.The whole process of setting these things up was surprisingly user-friendly. I feel a little silly for being intimidated by it. My main gripe is that Synology's DSM (server OS) gets upset when you use "off-brand" drives (i.e. not "Synology" brand), so I had to use a script to disable the stupid warnings that the server spits out. Otherwise, a very handy solution. Thanks for all of your advice, anons.
>>4445881Always the same thing with you people...
>>4445895I'm just noticing patterns, sorry that you're woke.
>>4445903So am I, what do you think I meant by "you people"? I was noticing your presence
>>4445871Yeah, I already corrected myself when I figured out it was an Italian domestic/enterprise solution here >>4438811. Certainly not a good option for anyone outside of the country, and like I said, their online shills creep me out.
>>4445997picrel is peak euro banter
10-years ago I bought into the EF-S/EF platform. Thrifted a lot of film era EF lenses, bought used EF-s Lenses for cheap ($20 for that 28mm one) camera body got upgraded twice over the years, lived on a tripod and took hundreds of product photos for ebay.... ---------what is the modern day future proof camera mount? Is it the Arri PL mount? I heard even RED moved over to those as well over the years?
>>4444721>L-Mount alliance: well engineeredexplain please
>>4445025Nope, canon cameras arent better at all. They're actually less reliable than sony now. But they are going to survive long term because they aren't dependent on sony, and so is nikon, because they are breaking their dependence on sony.Panasonic, Fujifilm, and Pentax may die if they can not get sensors elsewhere (pentax could probably switch to dalsa CCDs honestly)>>4445980It's a board meme to shill panasonic with doubleplusuntruths because gerald undone probably posts here and gets mad because panasonic forced him to lie or something i forget
>4446016>doubleplusuntruthsthe *what*>>4446016>gerald undonewhomst've
>>4446019i see you dont speak art major
>>4446022no, I fuck them, talking is reserved for my peers.
When shooting my paintings, I end up loosing some of the range and softness of the colors and values. Everything looks too saturated and "potent". I'm using a non polarizing light filter on the lens, and on the LED lights, as to not get glare.>Canon EOS 2000D>F/8>4 sec exposure>100 iso>55mm focal length>white balance is set to ambience priority these are the best setting I figured out with the help of AI.No amount of Photoshop can save the inaccurate values and exposure.Right is the photo I took with my phone in sunlight, and it's close to what it looks like irl. Is the issue the lights not being powerful enough?
Now that everyone has that out of their system...>>4444345Shoot in RAW. Use bracketed exposures like anon said. You want a CPL filter if glare is a big issue but you can likely manage that with better placed lighting instead. If that is not an option use a CPL. Use the focal length with the lowest field curvature and lowest distortion available. The 2000D came with the EF-S 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS II by default so I'm assuming that's what you have. Charts are showing either to shoot at 35mm @ f/5.6 or 55mm @ f/5.6. Use a tripod to position the camera then set focus manually using digital zoom.>I'm retarded, I don't know what you mean. You're saying merging a bunch of photos on Photoshop to make one good photo?Correct. The idea is that camera sensors can only record so between max and min values (white and black), so in high dynamic range scenes (the difference between darkest and brightest thing is very large) the most consistent way around this issue is shoot a handful of photos at different exposure levels and blend them to get the best of all worlds. You can get more consistent results using a histogram but a simple method is to:>first photo, correctly exposed according to camera meter set to evaluative or center weighted>second, third and fourth photo: 1 stop, 2 stops and 3 stops underexposed>fifth, sixth and seventh photo: 1 stop, 2 stops and 3 stops overexposed>use shutter speed to change exposure, not ISO. Don't touch aperture or focus. This is why we want a tripod, so you can shoot at 2 seconds long and it not matter.In reality you likely only need two stops max either side of middle exposure, not three. Many programs have automatic blending software that can do the stacking.
>>4444670All of this is just cope for not addressing the lighting. If you fix the lighting, all your problems may go away entirely. Picrel, you can find literally hundreds of examples of this type of lighting as it is the de facto standard for photographing things like art or documents. Everything else is secondary to this.Dealing with polarization might still be necessary, especially if shooting with highly reflective materials, but you need to fix the lighting first.RAW can be helpful and would be best practice for fine tuning colors (a color chart can help with this), and if shooting JPG, should absolutely set WB directly (very easy to do).You absolutely don't need HDR for something like this. Bracketing shots might be convenient for picking an ideal exposure after the fact, but your issues are absolutely not related to a lack of dynamic range. If you want to go hyper autist, then HDR and pixel shift the shit out it sure, but only after you address the lighting first.
>>4444680>All of this is just copeNo, cameras come out of the box with hideously incorrect colors because people want photos of their kids and family to be neon glowing ken rockwell grade memes on their 40% sRGB TN panel laptop screens from 2004.For Canon, you have to change off Standard/Portrait to Neutral or Faithful. Even still, these don't come close to RAW+Colorchecker under controlled lights. RAW isn't about editing it is about avoiding overbaked shit and wrong post-processing, which is what cameras do. The better cameras do better JPEG processing (objectively better, as in closer to WYSIWYG) but still not all the way there. Entry level cameras on the other hand are a fucking meme.He's using a 2000D aka T7, even at base ISO a perfect exposure will still have some visible noise. Bracketing will eliminate that and give him results exceeding what he'd get from full frame at least on the sensor level, the lens is a different story.Even if he just did a 3 shot burst he'd benefit from blending the layers in the most basic way possible just for noise averaging.
Op here, just want to thank all anons who helped me out :)luv u
>>4444345>Right is the photo I took with my phone in sunlight, and it's close to what it looks like irl. >No amount of Photoshop can save the inaccurate values and exposure.Did you try adjusting the gamma?
Just wanted to show some of the concert photos I've taken over the last 2 years. All of them were taken on an old amateur camera Sony a3500 with non-autofocus lenses in most cases
>>4445483who fucking talks like that? how fucking terminally online can you be, holy shit.
>>4445714He's mentally ill because he can't succeed at the easiest art
>>4445714>muh cant speak zoomer -rizz lBruh no cap self bto
>>4445749It's just ebonics retard
>>4445483>>4445749Read your post out loud to yourself. Does it sound like something a functional human would ever say?
