How do I get over the fear of using my camera in public? I got a fancy camera but I've never taken any shots with it because I'm too scared to go outside with it and use it
>>4474445>I found out afterwards that they were renting me out for sex very cheapLook at this guy over here, with a job, in this economy
>>4475841Not with that attitude you y
>>4456736>be attractiveNo anon, you only need to not look like a creep or autistic retard. Walk around normally with decent clothes and a camera, and smile back when people react positively to the novelty of having a camera pointed in their general direction. That's it.I admit I'm a semi-retarded beginner but that works for me regardless of gear. Last week I had tons of cool little interactions with people after taking their pictures, including cute women, they know you're a photographer if you act as a photographer.>>4475841I find zone focusing to be alright if you're not a leica 1/1000 powerwalking autismo, you stop, look at the viewfinder and quickly fine tune focus, bam, quick enough to avoid reactions. Or just look retarded and stick around for half a minute fiddling with your camera until avoiding you is too much of an inconvenience, I think that works too. I don't like doing >>4482890 because it feels dishonest and makes you look like a creep instantly.
>>4494726>>4494728outside of tourist spots its probably not very common to see people using real cameras
>>4494903I live in a really big city, so there's no way they don't see big cameras on the street. Maybe people here just don't like their photo being taken or something, I don't know, but anyone non-tourist looking just seems to dodge cameras.
Are Kodak and other film manufacturer's going to get heemed by $95/ oz silver?
they'll be fine
i mean they're raising prices regardless if it goes up down left right
digichads winning BIG TIME
I received this exact camera from my family along with some Fujifilm film. And it also has the exact same lens as in the photo... Would it be a good start to learning photography? I know it's not the best camera in the world, but it's the one I have.I have a digital camera, but I don't know... I'd like to see what it's like to photograph in analog.
>>4494748Just have someone else develop them for you. Most people do this. Self-development is very niche.
>>4494748If you don't have a good digital camera to "scan" your film then forget about self-development, just send them to the nearest hipster lab. I don't think buying a film scanner is worth it, and you can buy a DSLR/Mirrorless later once you get more comfortable with the hobby.
>>4494802>>4494768Excuse the question, but just to get a point of comparison, how much does it cost to digitize the photos you take analogically?In my country, each photo costs 50 cents of a dollar.
>>4494883Just to digitise? Free technically but the inital cost for me was about $1500 for body, lens, and scanning equipment like a backlight etc.
>>4494886YES! Just to scan each photo from the negative.
>camera error editionPrevious: >>4490470
I'm so retarded,I bought 4 whole prime lenses for my APS-C camera without checking they were APS-C lenses.Turns out they all were. But I never bothered to think it would matter if they were full frame lenses
>>4495124It wouldn't really matter, other than they'd be a little larger than they needed to be and maybe cost a little more. But if you like how a lens performs that shouldn't stop you.
>>4495125I might sell one of them. I bought it because I had none and it seemed to have decent reviews but honestly I'm not a fan of it (Sigma 30mm f1.4 DC DN). I have to overcorrect stuff with it and I end up using it at F2 minimum. Barrel distortion is way worse than any other lens I used. I don't know if it's a product of just being an older lens. I have 2 viltrox air F1.7 lenses, both are really light, small and sufficient for what I want. I don't have to worry as much about having them fully open. Only problem is autofocus is ass in considerably lit "low light". I have a meike 55mm F1.4 lens and it's fucking nuts. God I love this fucker. Not even the 1.8 pro that everyone shilled to me, it's a cheaper one.I don't know if it would have made more sense to just buy a pricier kit lens though instead of having this collection
>>4495128That Sigma is a crop lens, from reading a couple reviews it's far from a bad one. Lenses have got quite a bit better in recent years especially the cheap Chinese stuff though.
I'm waiting for my first camera to arrive anons. Canon AF35ML. Crossing my fingers it's fully functional (I got it from a very old and well rated camera account on eBay, they said it's battery tested and working). Anyone ever use one? Thoughts on old, cheap point and shoots in general?
Are technical cameras the ultimate endgame?
>>4494661>and the autofocus is better than every nikon, fujifilm, panasonic, and pentax ever madeAlready true of the EOS-1n, let alone the 5D2, to be quite honest with you, senpai.>doesnt need magic lantern for ISO settings to work correctlyML doesn't change anything about the operation of the ISO settings in the OVF, only the live view. Most of what ML does is live view only with the exception of the shooting section, so stuff like trap focus and intervalometer. Counterpoint, the 5D2 has interchangeable focusing screens, whereas the 3 does not. The 2 also has a better reputation for reliability than the 3, and the 2 is usually a fair bit cheaper. Though I will admit these two cameras are currently in close competition for the best digital camera you can buy when measuring by price per performance. How lucky we are that our hobby has technology that ages so gracefully.
>>4494662>They pack better and are lighter weight than an rb67.Yeah but the rolling boy just operates like a normal camera, albeit a somewhat unwieldy one. Technicals don't really work outside of a studio and a tripod is a must.
>>4494679I mean with the right databack they totally do work like a normal camera. They are commonly used for landscapes. Idk if the newer ones have helicals built into the lenses or not, so maybe not great for studio work unless you have one with a bellows..
>>4494662meh if you go on a trip you'll have to take a tripod + every pic will take 15min to set up, meanwhile a medium format is just as fast as a SLR. Basically what this guy said >>4494679
>>4494823You take the lens and film back off your rb67 it will take similar time to set up. Why is 100 speed film easier to use off a tripod than 100 iso? I'm confused by your thinking on this one.
Took this in berkeley, california at Caesar Chavez Park last year of the golden gate bridge looking 8 miles from the west. >>67x optical astral zoom>>Minolta bridge camera (pun intended)I had to tweak the iso speed to get the proper lighting. yes, it was a blood red sunset. August-October is the best months to take photos in California due to the golden-light effect is strongest.
>>4494160OP made a good thread and then completely ruined it with his reply. Tragic.
>>4494684you are a retard my friend
>>4494685Fort Point and Golden Gate good shot. Im guessing late afternoon since the sun is on the western side of the bridge.also I stated in my last post about opposite sunrises when I meant NYC or East Coast Sunrise over the Atlantic vs Sunsets over the Pacific have different lighting due to daily pollution. I'v seen amazing sunrises in NY but nothing like sunsets in San Francisco or LA. So again, its not a over saturated filtration by the camera that often happen. it was natural. also look up 9/9/2020 over San Francisco. looked like Blade Runner the entire day. freaked everyone out. it was like a red beam outside my shades when I woke up
>>4494688just corrected my statement of sunrises. I meant East Coast Sunrise vs West Coast Sunsetyours is an oversaturated red filter nuff said
Random photos from my DSLR taken with a redscale filter on it. not true film redscale, but one day i might do that.
Y'know what? It's neat. What do you set the white balance to for this? Or are you just leaving it on auto?
This reminds me that I bought a set of glass color filters with a front lens mount that will let you use up to three at a time. Maybe it's time to bring it out.
>>44777654chan scrubs metadata, including rotation info, so your images need to have their pixels rearranged to upload in the correct orientation
>>4494438I normally scuff my white balance to be greenscale, so that when the filter is applied, the highlights turn yellow instead of pink. Not sure how to retrieve the exact number, but if you have a canon, set the WB custom to the most overblown highlight photo you have
>>4494519that's good info. first time posting on the site, so wasn't sure of standard practice. good to know the metadata scrubs though
New Ricoh GRIV Monochrome. What's the verdict?>1800€ / 2200$>built in red filter>25mp apsc>28mm equiv lens>very compact and light>no evfI want one because my taste in color grading changes every week and I'm so tired of working my way through lightroom presets and settings. It makes life easier. How does the image quality compare with a full frame image converted to b&w?
>>4494266If it's so consumeristic then the sales must be through the roof, right?
>>4494266>Can't think of something more consoomerist than paying $50,000 for a manual car with no AC or radioThat's what you sound like
>>4494206Uhhh, anon literally every mirror less and dslr is an imagination of a film slr. Dumbass
>>4494316Zoomers like you think all old cameras are the same and the manufacturers milk thisA Nikon F5 is night and day difference to an FM or F3
>>4493926>apscpass
I have way better gear but this little fucker has become a great companion for vlogging, even with all the drawbacksDo you have a favorite flawed piece of gear?
>>4493703There are kits that replace the lens with a M43 mount.
>>4493840Reminds me of my Pentax Q with the K mount adapter.
>>4493840ahh yes, the ribcage
>>4493703I use it in b&w (and blast iso), like a little GR 4 mono. no one ever sees me take the photo
>>4493521noice mangg
I'm really lost on how much sensor size matters, because while I read tons of gear stuff here and the most detailed explanations, in reality the photos taken with a small sensor still look good to me because it's about composition, feelings, emotion, subjects and things like that.So what's the deal with sensor sizes
>>4486110this is HYPERKINO
>>4478850Any proof?Take digicam with 1mpix sensor, take photo with DSLR, resize to 1mpix and compare.
>>4478844Unironic techlet.AI needs good quality input data to work properly. Sensor size affects the quantity and quality of said data (light). How can the AI process an image where half of it is noise and blur?
>>4478830Its the only specification that matters. Everything else only concerns pixel peepers, extreme edits (ie: fixing sony colors), people who expose for lightbulbs and the core of the sun. Bigger sensor = better tonality and more natural DOF falloff
>>4478850>all that matters is what bots and browns on social media thinkWhat a sad life you life. Forever servile to people you will never meet. >you can still take some good photos for instagram>cant shoot a family portrait indoors without flash>but you could do a midday building corner and raj and his 100 bot accounts would “like” it!
Planes, Trains, and Automobiles 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: Do you develop yourself or let a lab do it for you? Previous thread: >>4482671
>>4494515I'm not mad, please don't project. And I emphasized more than once that it wasn't doing anything for me, in other words yes, I didn't understand it. I still tried to provide a somewhat constructive feedback, from my non-understanding point of view. So thanks for providing your explanation. I'll be curious to see the scan side by side with the print.By the way, until this post I did not realize that this was a vertical structure. I thought this was a top-down view of stuff lying on the ground. You can tell me I'm dumb for it, but at least for me I don't get any sense of the weight from this composition, and even less that the egg is supporting anything. >>4494523Not going to engage in trolling back and forth, but this reaction tells me I must have hit some nerve.
>>4494567>How would you have added a sense of weight? Is an entire structure being held up by a cracking egg not enough?It just doesn't feel like it is held up by the egg. The top brick just looks like it's resting on the right-most brick, making a safe shelter for the egg, rather than putting it in danger. Also the composition feels very static, being framed on top and bottom with horizontal bricks, and left corner, adding a right angle. Even with the two slanted bricks, it exudes stability, rather than peril and impending doom.>Im also curious why you mentioned the cable in the background and still thought it was laying on the ground. How does that even make sense?I think my initial impression of it being top-down was so strong that I just didn't connect the two facts. Want thinking much about desu, the cable didn't seem too out of place in a pile of rubble.
>>4494577There's really no point when you continue to demonstrate your inability to even look at a picture and ignore important and fairly obvious details in that image.The egg is getting visibly crushed and cracked and your feelings are telling you it is safe lol. cmon bro...
>>4494581Nothing in the picture tells me that the egg is being crushed. What I see when I look at it is a static, stable structure. This is my honest opinion as a viewer, but feel free to disregard it, you do you.
>>4494610>>4494610>>4494610
Here are some shots with people i did.Posting since i moved those in a folder on my dektop recently..might grab some more..
>>4493300Is that a real job? Maybe have to be a doctor or an engineer or an astronaut if you want to take pictures
>>4493652>clutterits a plant broand of all the things one could with with a plant like that and a person, its one of the more mediocre photos somehownice photos, dude.
>>4493851I mean visual clutter. But really happy you chimed in just for this.
>>4493188>nothing is in focusInb4 "that's the point"
>>4494221Yeah they already jumped me for that saying that
Both of these images were taken with a Sony Mavica.
>>4494045I wish I could have been in the Woolsworth building that day at the top and had a 4k or 8k Digital Camera with 120 zoom that doesn't exist. Like a Coolpix P1100 or a change out 800mm or higher. this way you could have seen more details to say whether squibs were truly used or not. but such cameras outside of real film didn't exist. the other thing is showing up 2 weeks prior where all kinds of funny construction just happened to be going on with floors closed down. hide a camera and record their conversation. the Art Students from Israel as wellI dont blame Israel but im pretty sure Israeli Secret service and the CIA helped the Sauds pull shit faggot shit off. You calling me a liar?PS nice shots for the shit cameras they had back then
>>4494163I've thought about being there with my camera so many times it's unreasonable. It's the only nearby event worth taking a picture of in my lifetime, and it had to happen while we were in an awkward in-between period for imaging. Some of the only footage from inside the towers was taken on early 0.3mp webcams and abysmal 2001 camera phones. It's priceless but complete shit quality.
>>4494145Because its hard to be certain he actually did anything wrong. If he was found guilty, just shoot him. Torture does nothing, and usually leads to them just saying whatever in order to make the pain stop. False confessions, fake info etc. Basically no one wins and its completely inhumane and regarded.
>>4494220>Basically no one winsFalse, lot of the time the guy holding the bucket of water is enjoying it.
>>4494229I don't think we should promote that behaviour.
It's 2026 - here are my new years' resolutions:I'm going to leave this godforsaken board. This is a fucking highly negative place infested by gearfags, chartfags and the mentally ill. This board sucks all the joy out of the hobby. A bucket of crabs so to speak. I'm also going to leave all other photography related forums and communities. It's full with nophoto assfags who are just frustrated at their own lack of photographic skill and try to pull down everyone and anyone to their own level of incompetence.Cya fuckers.As a parting gift I'm giving you a bunch of shitty firework pictures.
>>4491670>people who take good photos the first time every time and know how to use a camera? lame. just because people are willing to pay you doesnt mean you’re better than me, the secret king!kek
>>4491673>le motte and bailey Not to say I think these are good photographers, but I'm talking about the Many from your statistics who photograph people and things they don't care about to earn a living
>>4491675Learning the technical side is so easy it's not even a protected trade anywhere
>>4491681Right thats why you’re so successful at it
Status report on Syrian bro?
Your photo must be at least 5 years old. If you are new to photography - share the oldest you got.
>>4493507lol I feel that I’m still stuck in there… not much have changed since
they use us in these captures. it has to be. but what in the flying fuck would need such translations? and fuck me twice on mondays, this fucking captcha expired quickly! fuck you, 4chan coin shoveling fuckface cuntassniggers from hell.
>>4493760
>>4493760>>4493762first was in amsterdam. friends of mine gave it to me for my 30th birthday. 2nd was with my ex-gf in croatia. was a nice trip.
>>4493763>>4493762>>4493760all around 2014 to 2018
