Go /p/ro.>Want:• Expect criticism regarding your uploads.• /p/ is for photos: so feel free to post them as often as possible, even if "image unrelated" to your text. • Use "Recent Photos" threads if you are shy or only want to post a small number of photos. • Raw Files which can be collectively edited for discussion of post-processing techniques are encouraged. • Please check the catalogue for similar topic(s) before creating a new thread.>Do Not Want: • Go to >>>/wsr/ for specific Photoshop requests. • Gear threads are discouraged but permitted. Keep in mind that many users simply hide these threads. Want to learn more? • The /p/ Wiki - http://archive.today/15tYK
>>4510835The guy who fucking started this mutant deformed dog breed i hope he suffers in hell. The only gs that should be accepted should be working gsd, the ones that look like normal dogs not the ones with fucked up back legs.
>>4511142Spends tens of thousands £ on gear, still stars ave angel wings in the corners. Thanks for stopping me in searching for a better milky way lens
>>4511151Sorry I lied. I only took that pic a little over 2 years ago.>>4511256That was taken with a graflex xlsw with the old style 47mm super angulon and horseman 6x9 back. Super fun and simple camera that costs under a grand. The dust was free. :D
>>4511260>>4511168I was never complimenting the terrible practice photos you took of your mutt. The two egg photos you posted ITT are the only good photos you have ever posted here. Everything else has been pretty garbage, every bit as bad your husky owning alter ego’s landscapes.
>>4511271>schizo nophoto has shit taste in dogtography.Thank you for the compliments, angry lil guy. If you post some exceptional work, like I have, I would love to return the favor and give you some big props as well. :)
In April/May I went to China to my brother’s wedding and took a bunch of photos there. Since I’ve got a lot of photographs, I was thinking about getting some feedback as I’m trying to improve and got that feeling that I’m stuck. My photos doesn’t have a well defined style, so the compositions and color grade floats a lot.
>>4509819may I ask what do you use for shooting?
>>4511178I miss exif.
>>4509953>>4509828>>4509952These are really cool!
I'd try simplifying things and exclude more
>>4510294>>4510480>>4511223Thanks! I’m glad that you liked >>4511178Sure, I’m using the Canon R8, most of my photos were with the RF 100mm f2.8 and the RF 70-200 f4. For the wide angles, I’ve used the RF 16mm. >>4511241It came out pretty nice also, it gave the dog more emphasis.
night scenes editionprevious >>4501719
>>4504432Subtle Tung Tung Tung Sahur. Very nice
>>4503437really nicepreserved the highlights,neat framingnatural perspective“vibes”
>>4503527interestingsomewhat abstractvery moody
>>4503528a truly ugly branchstraighten the horizon at least
>>4503536too much light>>4504999not badsly, cheeky, aloofa lot comes from posture
New to 4 Chan my name is Olivia
just b urself olivia there's no rules except post photos, talk about photos, and don't talk about not photos.
>>4510489bro why is there spaghetti all over the place here
Hi Olivia,Welcome, you will probably come across some very bitter and mean people here and realise 4chan isn't the place for you.However, if you are determined to stay, stick to the /RPT/ (recent photo) threads, or other threads specifically about photos. Most of the most active threads on this board are unfortunately about buying camera gear or having arguements.Good luck
>>4510464>tldr: just shoot photosWhen you take a photo, try to have a clear subject in mind, or at the very least intresting elements. When you take a photo, what looks good to you in person will not always translate to an image as it has to flatten and compress it, and you lose a lot of the small details as a result. I'd reccomend going through the threads and looking through them, avoiding the arguments and gear talk and focusing on the pics themselves. Find ones you think look nice and interesting, and think about what you like about them. Lastly, the most important advice of them all, go out, take photos, and just have fun
Thanks for the advice
Why are they so bad at taking photos?
>>>/pol/535690276cANON confirmed P*lish, he posted the same picture in the OP here before
>>4510978>only one person knows about RogozinFaith in the phony "landings" is at an all time low
only a true betamale shaves
>>4511033As the American empire collapses I am sure they will admit it on an official level as well, ensuring that any semblance of national pride is eradicated.
>>4511035a true gentleman, you mean
Predator and Prey Edition?>Previous Thread Image Limit Reached >>4494783
How do i into bird/reptile/aquatics ?Like what’s a good starter kit
>>4507097Sony, big expensive lens, and then start an insta account and take bokeh shots of the same animals in your immediate area over and over and make sure to get that good shot of you holding the big lens.
>>4501111>using the old fim camera inherited from grandpaeven though the picture is nothing special I'd still say it's based, good for you
>>4504546>>4504552the naturalistic colors were way better. why are you (y'all?) saturating your shots to high heaven?>>4504554>I just push the saturation and brillance sliders in Anseldo that less
>>4503692>I can't do that, it would be too fakewhat did he mean by this?
Photos taken by the Soldiers who were there.
>>4508294>best thread on 4chan atm seconded. that mortar at night photo is gonna become by lock screen me thinks.
>>4510847Maybe I should make a second ??
new thread here>>4510927>>4510927>>4510927
Picasa was a treasure trove of Korea and Vietnam war photos from random vets. I saved a lot of them and have them on a drive somewhere.
>>4511007serve them up please:)here >>4510931
I think it's neat. Finally not a re-release of something or gimped to make room for something new.
>>4510537The x100 does not have a FF lens, retard.
>>4510820Yet why would you get one over an even cheaper RX1RII besides slightly better battery life and quicker to use EVF? The lens was already underspecced for the 42MP sensor, so no reason to even bother with 61MP. At least the II had something neat with the variable optical low pass filter which was gone on the III, and it still had a tilt screen.
>>4510828Mark II Sony bodies were an unusable janky mess>>4510820I would gladly get a firesale RX1rIII for $2k
Fix the dust issue, put in a newer sensor, and boom: lx100iii.
>>4508975I like it except the motorized zoom. Slow and long-term the mechanisms are a lot less reliable.
Just dumping these sunset pictures i took on my HMD fusion phone the other day.
last one. hope you enjoy anons.
A Humble Noob's Film RollsPresented Chronologically
>>4510029Diffusion filter examples I've seen look really good, so it's worth a try, but you have to make sure you pick a really high quality one instead of a cheap one. I'm an Aus anon too and I'd love to stick with film, but the prices of film itself and the development costs are insane for just a regular 24exp roll, so it's more of a special occasion thing for me now.
old non-gear /p/ being held up by one Newcastle / Maitland anon with a pentax pas i assume?
>>4510689my sister in law's nikon fm :--) she lent it to me while she's overseasI have more film to develop, very exciting probably not going to get a film pas since I like ILCs. thinking of getting a 20mm lens... can't get wide enough with 24 and 28 is painful.are you on the east coast? I think I saw someone post pics from coffs harbour a few weeks ago
>>4510125i've been contemplating selling my digital gear to get more film stuffI really like the aesthetics of film. I usually use film LUTs on my digital photos but that doesn't get the whole picture... film really glows. a medium format film camera and lens is a lot cheaper than a digital one, too :-)
>>4510729those are fun to shoot with. you're on the verge of something, keep shooting and posting. thanks for the pics
>>4510692cool pic :)
After much positive feedback to the /m43/ general I re-thought the whole thing. Why limit to one mount if the defining defining feature is the aspect ratio?Let's have a /4:3/ general for all the based chads who shoot in 4:3 ratio!Welcome: Everyone whose system shoots natively in 4:3!Also welcome: Those who accept the superiority of 4:3 and crop their 3:2 (cringe) images to the 4:3 (based) ratio.Not welcome: Everyone else.Topic of the first /4:3/ general ever: Are 5:4 and 6:7 based, too? Or are they just tryhard?Discuss!
>>4505346tripod or long shutter speed, the OM image stabilization works really well Here's a video of Robin Wong taking very nice looking night time photos, using the same camera model as you, with a 12-40mm F2.8 though. That's on 200 iso though so you can put the ISO a bit higherhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcf8AZod1Zg
>>4508342>tripod or long shutter speedshould've clarified, looooooooong shutter speed on tripod or just a longish shutter speed handheld
>>4508342>>4508343I actually just bothered to go out down the street and give it a quick try myself because I haven't actually tried using my OM at night and the results are definitely not bad at all, 200 iso and 1/13 shutter
I saw a gh7 but it was too expensive, gh6 is also still out my budget
>>4510632Consider ghb
Guys, I think I have a problem>be me, chatting in discord with the boys>get @-tagged with cyberpunk exoskeleton camera rig bullshit on youtubebro imagine pulling this out at your kid’s soccer game>mentally catalog my current loadout>A7CII on neck lanyard, daily driver>A6700 on hip, first camera, still good>A7RV on other hip, srs bzns cam>A7IV in tactical dick-carry>extra lenses packed in pouches around back, artsy vintage bokeh grenades>GoPro mounted to forehead for BTS>Instax Evo concealed-carry>already optimized all my gear for hip carry>glass is heavy>lots of glass is heavier>actually exoskeleton sounds financially and medically responsibleComment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>4509796>What on earth do you mean, friend?Rather than swap lenses on 1 body, they want a 2nd body so they can use a 2nd lens without having to swapSensible, I do the same often
>>4509676/thread
>>4509695Robocuck
>>4509798Convenience, speed, ergonomics come at a price
>>450978 #Since when was the last time you went out for a photo walk with exactly one camera, I’ll bet you had at least 3 on you.
And god damn is it rich. There is such high contrast and strong vivid colors compared to the pentax i used before. Picrel was shot with kodak ultramax 400, and i absolutely adored the results. Never have my pics with ultramax been this vivid. I'll post another picture itt to show the difference. Anyhow, the camera gets this funny glare on the bottom. I dont quite know how to feel about it. And I dont know if its fixable. I got this camera second hand, so this was the first roll I shot with it.
>>4510508You would never in a million tries be statistically better than random chance at picking out film photos scanned at a lab by different lens coatings, dont lie to people like this, pretending there is somehow a difference in the end result
>>4510514there is measurably a better result since coatings allow for more transmission by reducing internal reflections. coated lenses are significantly higher contrast than uncoated. coated lenses also suppress flares and ghost images to a significant degree.
>>4510508I havent checked the condition of the camera, I'll do that! Kindof scared its going to be too expensive however.
>>4510518Thats not what I said and not related to the thread question. But nice chatgpt reply
>>4510514I would have to agree. Lenses do have different color (top picrel), but it's usually pretty marginal. Bottom picrel (which is definitely not mine), is the same lab and operator, just on different high end scanners, which shows just as much difference.>>4510436Film stock gets you like 90% of the look in terms of color and contrast, but some lenses are definitely a bit contrastier and sharper. The lens looks mighty soft on the Pentax, what is it and what aperture are you using it at?Assuming this is the same lab, machine, operator, I would be curious about differences in metering / exposure between the cameras. There's some amount of "correction" a lab will do, so while the scans might look similar in terms of exposure, shooting under or over could lead to the difference in contrast.For reference:>Underexposed = Thin negative, saturated colors, strong contrast. Colors can become rather inaccurate if severely underexposed (more than a stop or two).>Exposed at Box Speed = Natural to somewhat strong colors depending on film stock. Good for general purpose landscape shooting when moderate contrast and color is desired, though a little extra exposure typically won’t hurt. >Overexposed = Dense negative, soft colors, subtle contrast. This is often used for portraits to keep soft skin tones. Nearly endless details can be pulled out of the highlights, though tonal separation in details becomes narrower. https://www.alexburkephoto.com/blog/2019/12/17/pushing-the-dynamic-range-of-color-negative-filmIf you got your negs back, you could take a look and see if there is a noticeable difference in density.Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
