>>4459543
>got btfod
>empty insults
typical, I accept the concession

>>4460348
>Alaris is just Jews.
ftfy

This move pushed me over the edge. I just put my last film camera, my beloved RZ67, on marketplace. I don't shoot it anyways and absolutely hate the entire dev, scan, edit process for film. My GFX 50R is good enough. rest in pieces. I really loved the idea of film and exclusively shot film for 3 years. oh well. Guess I'm no longer a luddite.

>>4460765
>absolutely hate the entire dev, scan, edit process for film
>really loved the idea of film
>exclusively shot film for 3 years
lmao what a retard

>>4458756
>I took a fucking media story at face value
are you retarded? Kodak's in a better position now than they have been in a while. >>4458876
They are not about to stop, you CNN-believing retard. Do you guys seriously think whatever subhuman moron they hire to ask a bot to write tidbits about shit online knows anything about, well, anything?

Kodak is restructuring their debt or something like that, and they are legally required to say they don't have the cash on hand for their current debts, and then the usual fucktard journalists completely misunderstood and wrote and article on something they could have understood with five minutes of research.

>>4458892
The whole pension thing was holding them back, and has been for years. The pension fund apparently has a huge surplus, so they're trying to rework it and use that to pay off some of their debt. They'll probably be fine.

They also recently invested in major upgrades for their film coating line.

>>4458983
It's not true.
You should stockpile film anyway though. I have a minifridge full of velvia plus a bunch of consumer level stuff, it lets me take advantage of sales and good deals and I always have a small stockpile of fresh film when I want it

Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.

File: 163308905_381050935570110(...).jpg (53 KB, 526x826)

53 KB JPG

Tfw gf

Honestly getting a gf ain't unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide + kerosene, just make them laugh, feed them their favorite foods, do shit that says you thought of them, dick them down once in a while and don't be an asshole.

I fully acknowledge that I hit the girlfriend Powerball and will probably never get this lucky again ever in life.

>>4460974
>even sugar has a gf
suifuel

>>4460975

It ain't hard man.

Shoot your shot, maybe you'll get lucky. If I can do it, anyone can.

i love women so much it's unreal

>>4461059
fag

>>4459560
desu, I've never understood why they're called CIRCULAR polarisers when the actual important filter part is a linear polariser (hence why rotating it matters). The circular polarisation is done on the already filtered light as linearly polarised light messes with autofocus.

>>4459560
Very easy to test. Look through the filter at your monitor. As you spin it you'll see the screen get darker and brigher (or yellower and bluer if you've got it backwards). That's what happens when two polarisers meet; your monitor uses a polariser as well. Note not 'all' monitors actually polarisers, but yours probably does.
Also quite easy to see if you go outside and spin it around while looking at some foliage or bush in the sunlight; at a certain orientation the greenery looks more vibrant. That's the angle you'd want to use if you were shooting in that spot and wanted to make that bush look better.

>>4459568
>make that bush look better
That's what I told your mom last night. lmao

>>4458705
am I missing the joke here, or do you guys not know about exposure bracketing?

>>4461084
Exposure bracketing is for people too lazy to peep rgb histograms and work with the flat picture profile

Merging brackets = phone photo

>>4452299
>why do you care about photographers
indeed, why would you, photography as an artistic institution is polluted by worthless trash that either knew the right person or belonged to the right tribe and never produced anything of value.

such is life in ANY "art form" that is predominantly american. even the spaniards are not immune from the american nature of photography-as-art.

what these people actually exist to do is justify the anonymous transfer of money in tax-free havens without anything actually exchanging hands because the "art" stays in a swiss warehouse

Interesting how this doesn't get deleted.

>>4460762
Why it should? This thread is about a photographer. Are you retarded?

>>4448161
I'm not reading all that but I agree with you.

>>4448161
40 years of going around making photos of poor people
> look mom I'm showing societal issues, that's important right?
how original

>>4458065
can't see about 40% of your photo but that's a nice-looking sky

>>4460852
Originally posted as "which shots are from Sony" because people bring up the Sony green so often
Someone else made it all green for the memes

No one could pick out the Sony(s) in the original btw, just got
>doesn't count if it's edited
>the point is you shouldn't have to edit
>you should edit, but sony editing requires more extra work

>>4458181
Needs more contrast and b&w correction. It's too grey. Also, there are a lot of artifacts that you need to clean up. Often they're not distracting but these are because they're in places where your eyes are going.

>>4458319
Better. Still lots of artifacts - especially on the black of his shirt.

>>4458689
I like this, comp is good, but the grad filter is too much. Makes the sky muddy. I'd probably have just ditched the sky all together.

>>4459186
Very good. Best in the thread.

>>4459363
I'd like to have seen a tight crop to get the people with cellphones out of the shot.


Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>4460855
As we speak the 4chan specific sony hate brigade is making shit up in another thread.

Are they paid?

>>4460856
>Needs more contrast and b&w correction. It's too grey. Also, there are a lot of artifacts that you need to clean up. Often they're not distracting but these are because they're in places where your eyes are going.
>Better. Still lots of artifacts - especially on the black of his shirt
noted. i wanted the first one to be gray since it was quite overcast. thakns for the tips

File: 472585808_128758944583736(...).jpg (79 KB, 1080x813)

79 KB JPG

>>4460413

No but I did get a Leica M3 without the Red Dot Tax(tm)

>>4452594
Love this photo, great work!

>>4460439
i dont understand your salt because one, leicas are for the long haul and have a stock of parts that will be there long after the last gear/spring in a zorki snaps and the last soviet lens is unusably moldy, and two, they're not even that expensive and if you sold every piece of gear you do not genuinely need and have to force yourself to use, you could have one good film camera for life.

File: 471182205_679968474400127(...).jpg (107 KB, 1080x813)

107 KB JPG

>>4460459

That's a Canon 7s, I gave up on Soviet rangefinders. It's not salt, Leica M cameras are fuckin dope. The Canon 7 does the same thing and costs about 300 bucks and you don't need to spend out the ass for M-mount glass. It's got a huge bright VF that is on par with the M3 and I can change framelines for 35, 50 85/100 and 135 and it's parallax-correcting too. You can get away with 28 if you count the very edge of the VF. The meter on mine is also dead-nuts calibrated and works very well.

Soviet lenses are good though, as long as you find a good copy made during the Khruschev years. I will admit, with what I spent finding a good copy of each loens I probably could have just bought an M3 and been done with it. I went through 3 85/2's to find a good one and I still had to open it up to make it perfect. Most of the rare stuff I got from Fedka and that was where I found my good 85.

Most of the time they just need grease which isn't hard. I have a Leica IIIb system too with a full set of Leitz lenses, I went with the 7s because I could keep my fully-sorted KMZ set with lenses from 20 to 135 and just put a better camera body behind them. The IIIb is nice too and with the 35 and 50 I can fit it in my pocket.

Besides, why spend the money for a Leica when these exist, which are German, and have *very good* Schenider and Rodenstock lenses.

>>4460491
OP here. I'm really glad you're happy with your soviet options but what you said only made me even more glad I went for a Leica in the first place.

>>4460780
kys

File: 2024_0919_18391700.jpg (4.27 MB, 5224x3483)

4.27 MB JPG

>>4459815
Don't try to be famous, get your butt off the couch and go shoot.

>>4460798
Lil bro straight assmad after getting btfo'd xD

>>4460819
kys newfaggot

>>4459815
>Inb4 street is not art nor a valid form of photography
I mean, that's true, but I guess you could become successful and famous at street snapping with the right connections. Just don't mistake it for actual photography.

>>4455016
I got my first camera when I was six years old, a Samsung S630. Anyway, I took photos every day with that thing during the holidays. One night, I looked through the menus. “Format? What’s that do?” “Do you want to format your card?” “Yes.” “Are you sure?” “Yes.” Anyway, I cried.

>>4458368
f

>>4458368
damn. that one hurts.

File: E8870EAC-EB4B-49A0-AA15-3(...).jpg (104 KB, 750x549)

104 KB JPG

>>4455016
Cool camera!
When you went to go rewind the film, did you press in the 'Film-advance release button' on the bottom of the camera? It has been a long time since I used mine, but I seem to remember having to press this button to rewind the film. Have fun!!!

File: Welcome to p.png (663 KB, 1895x1056)

663 KB PNG

>>4455016
>what should I do now since I have my camera?
Have fun (this should be a banner btw)

4:3 all day everyday.

File: sony-a7cr-specifications-(...).jpg (164 KB, 1026x1536)

164 KB JPG

>>4460325
It doesn't matter

Just don't be a megapixellet and you can use any ratio you want

>>4460642
Chad mode > activated.

>>4460327
That would be 1:1

I shoot ropes over 12:5. Pretentious as it is.

>>4458520
>GRAINcheck.
can you blame the man?

>>4457174
He posts up images the size of postage stamps.
Hate his stuff and those who mimic his "style"

Bryan Birks, Ramsey Kiefer like the other anon said, Robbie Maynard, Nick Carver, and Small Photo Book Club. I like channels that focus more on the art rather than gear faggotry. There arent many that do this.

>>4458520
At least you know he actually must love her
>im quietly certain he’s hit Birgit from Lomography at some point though just to remember what tits are like when they’re not ankle weights

Some of these youtubers post here. Scary innit. I might have called ____ a tranny to his face here once despite generally liking him and getting reciprocal shilling. He doesnt know it was me thoe.

A few have referenced this place even (iykyk, i wont blow them up)

>>4453343
>In any male dominated hobby
opinion immediately disregarded

There's a big difference between taking a photo with my old Canon 60D vs my recent R8 and anyone who claim otherwise is lying to themselves.
I agree that gears with a 1 or 2 generations difference don't matter that much but if they are 10 years apart it's as clear as day.
Can I take good photos with my $180 phone? Sure. Composition and lighting knowledge still matter quite a bit. But do I wish I had my R8 available instead? Also yes.

As a liberal woman, people who have a problem with expensive cameras make me feel unsafe. It is a deeply bigoted prejudice with roots in white chauvinism and fascist feudal systems where only the educated male lords had the right to even participate in the arts. We should be less like fascist europeans and beocme a more global and accepting culture where anyone can buy the newest sony and then share it with all their friends. Stop gatekeeping, listen to marginalized voices. Buying a sony a1 "he didnt need" could put a young urban POC onto the fast track to success if it turned out he had talent. Do anti-gear people really want poor black boys to fail? How racist of them. It could also be conceptualized as discriminatiom against gay males or jews because they tend to earn more money, and therefore achieve better representation in photography than white people who spent most of their money on wives, children, and loans.

It is henceforth proven that discriminating against or making microaggressions towards sony users and other users of nice cameras is racist, sexist, and even homophobic and antisemitic.

>>4460593
10/10

>>4460593
Checks all the boxes without tripping the Jannie and spam filters. Well done.

>>4455544
dogfucker thread

I don't get it. >>4455545 is nice, but what artistic merit is there to taking a photo of real life and simply display it as is? Is photography just a scam?

>>4460415
>but what artistic merit is there to taking a photo of real life and simply display it as is?
framing is artistic. photography is a fiction created by the photographer. that photo could be staged but it gives the illusion of being real but it is not. there is a lot of editing(decisions) hiding behind it.

if you think shots like these are easy then pick up a camera and try it. world is filled with mess, it will fuck you up.

>>4455575
>>4455576
>>4456435
In terms of artistry there is no reward in these two. Is just explosiveness gore. Light is shit. Focus is shit. Composition is shit.
Is the third one a fucking screencap?
>>4455578
But in this case, one cannot avoid the shocking aspect of death, but the shoot has been elaborated. Even the aspect ratio has been considered.

>>4455545
>>4455550
>>4455553
Only good photos itt

Why are cameras so expensive?

>>4461389
It's worse. Only if you know exactly how it operates, you have a 50/50 shot of getting something in focus. Seems to be some randomness in how focus is acquired, as refocusing on a stationary subject with a tripod-mounted camera gives a different focus distance each time.
Give your camera to a stranger, and their pictures will be OOF 90% of the time.

What's worse is the purple fringing of my fujinon lenses. Still have two cameras, but have given up on the X system.

sugma

>>4462240
they aint

i dont think cameras are real

>>4460287
I would like that very much. I’m the peruanon from fgt.
help yourself and save any you like or don’t like

>>4460289
Okay! Cool I am 8x10 film guy. Cheers bro

>>4460238

<3

>>4460226
Note my critique was against Snoy fanboys, not Snoy cameras themselves.
I mean, don't get me wrong. I hate Snoy cameras and you wouldn't catch me dead using them, but I fully admit that's just my preferences.
But you can't tolerate the idea that not everyone is a snoy fanboy, and thus anyone who doesn't want to use snoy is a "gearfag" because, as you're incapable of understanding other people have different preferences than you, they're focusing on irrelevant-to-you (which you mistake as absolutely irrelevant or even imaginary) aspects of gear because you can't see a camera as something more than a device that has a spec sheet.
You probably have trouble understanding concepts like "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts."
These patterns of thinking are all classic hallmarks of autism.

>>4460513
>No one:
>Some butthurt homo: Snoy snoy snoooooy *writes cringe fanfiction* sony people only care about specs waaaa ;_; *cries in rectum ravaged weiner wiggler*
Awwww, u poor babby. Did /p/ call the hipster brand you fanboy for shit again? Poor babby.

>>4460341
I'm going to go out of my way to put — in my posts just to sew doubt

This is dumb as hell. Fuck the shills.
Also, if the phone can use technology X to reach the IQ produced by high end camera, then what would prevent the camera manufacturers from using X to improve their image further. I'm not talking about this shitty project in particular. I'm talking about any imaging technology.
A phone cannot contain a sensor of the size of that insid a big camera, it's just fucking physics. When will phonefags (especially the apple faggots) realize this?

Also this is my daily fuck you to adobe and anything they stand for. I hope they die and anyone who uses their service got their photos trained by AI and go out of business.

>>4460445
Japanese would rather sudoku the whole company than sell modern tech to a pleb market segment.

>>4460445
>then what would prevent the camera manufacturers from using X to improve their image further
photographers and engineers have different ideas of "image quality". all of this tech was already applied to cameras and then rejected by the market (except for astrophotography peeps and those who use cameras as high end scanners) because of the smearing of motion and fake looking images.

small sensor photography can be very sharp and have good dynamic range on paper but tends to lack actual detail and look overprocessed