1/20
>>450628327/20
>>450727628/20
>>4506390I agree but it's pretty close to how it presents in real life so that's how I kept it. But I do agree.
>>4504222It's a random snapshit but the colors and lighting are great nonetheless. Now that I look at it it's probably the best photo ITT.
>>4508293I agree, some of the black and whites especially a couple of the reflections are initially a little more attention grabbing and well composed but the tones in the cloud and sky of the OP image despite it looking less carefully thought about make for a better image that keeps your eye moving around the frame
Theme: TransportationAll submissions must feature transportation—cars, bikes, boats, planes, trains, etc.Vehicles should be capable of transportation so no photos of abandoned, or incomplete vehicles, loose wheels, scrap parts.All photos must be taken during the current challenge month. No old or archived shots.Get creative and enjoy the process. Unique perspectives are encouraged!
>>4507052Very nice. I did a passenger lap in an F-Type around the Ring a few years ago when Jag had Dale Lomas doing rides for them. Was absolutely mega, and sounded amazing.
>>4507063It is a magnificent animal. One of the last real wild things to be produced on that island. Good subject to try out my, "new to me", 300mm f4.
>>4507143Absolutely - I look forward to seeing some results
New thread: >>4508732
Anyone getting this? The analog fags crying about its price have not seen top end FF mirrorless digital prices I guess.My main issue with it is that panorama is useless for online sharing, a portrait oriented camera like the Fuji 645 point and shoots make more sense for premium film cameras.
>>4508368>You replying to me is doing the same thing you're complaining aboutI wouldn't have anyone to call out if people stopped doing it to begin with >the only difference is you're not self-aware enough to admit it.The real difference is I don't go around the board being dishonest
>>4508369lying to yourself is dishonest :)
>>4508369Arent you the fuji fanboy whiner that got caught being a photo thief? Collagefag aka partially stolen portfolio fag?
>>4508320You're fucking brain dead.I said the problem is social media, not digital.If you just want wide for social media you can just use a smartphone ultrawide lens and crop it vertically.Widelux is for people who want something different, and analog.Nobody cares if you don't want it. It's happening and people will buy it. It exists for a reason.
>>4507645>$5000 camera and they won’t even spare the cash to have a human write the copylol. ChatGPT design the camera too?
Brazil here and there: People and places
>>4503103familiarity breeds contempt, my brotherfwiw, I think they're aesthetic photos in general
>>4503107this one seems overexposedand it doesn't look greatisn't film meant to be prettier than digital when overexposed? is black-and-white different or is this a defect of your scanning process?>>4499755portraits this soulful are not often postedseems like a wonderful person
>>4508545i like your portraitseven though this one is hazy it's still very nice
>>4508549Thanks>>4508550I don’t thinks it’s the films fault, that was on me learning how to properly expose and the subject also seemed nicer in my head, didn’t manage to properly put my vision into the result. Yes she’s wonderful!
>>4508551Thanks, I would really like to focus a bit more on portraits
Ideally aggressive flash photography.
>>4501121Thanks for the rundown anon, I only have a A11 Flash and one of those Ulanzi RGB lights, hopefully they should be enough.
I used flash on some farm animals one night. They didn’t mind.
a different timeplease enjoy this humble bumpI hope your interesting thread survives
Overheating editionPrevious: >>4505369
>>4508608>This is from a Bayer sensorThat just makes it even worse.>corner of four thirdsSo because you couldn't post good X-Trans you resort to shitty corners of micro four thirds?Hilarious.>which proves that the "issues" you see on the decently processed images on the right are in your imagination.Nope.That image quality was horrible. Notice how I just said that was awful and didn't claim there were worms.Sensor layout affects quality but the lens and rest matter too. If you post garbage it doesn't matter what sensor was used. Come back when you actually have what you consider to be a good candidate for high quality X-Trans.Also, there's a reason why any serious quality oriented systems either settle for bayer or pan/monochrome. There isn't a single valid use case for X-Trans in any high budget situation. You will never convince museums or archivists that x-trans is anything but inferior Not even Fuji themselves consider it worthy for use on their fancy cameras.You are arguing against reality.
>have OM-1>also have pentax, before I bought the OM-1 bought a lens for the Pentax from camera store, after buying the OM-1 I said fuck it and exchanged that lens for a 12-45mm F4>now bought the 12-100mm F4 because it was on specialI basically have no need for the 12-45mm now. I was thinking I'd keep it because it's smaller but now that I have the 12-100mm it really isn't that big, as I was expecting. So at this point I think I'll sell it, is it worth finding a second hand 12-40 F2.8 for lower light stuff or should I just keep the money?
>>4508621>There isn't a single valid use case for X-Trans in any high budget situation. You will never convince museums or archivists that x-trans is anything but inferior
>>4508720Haha, even cherry picking the meme spot in this scene you x-troons still get completely BTFO.Z6 III is the same megapixels and completely your resolves the X-H1 everywhere.GFX 100 downsampled leads to a much sharper image, with almost no moire.D850 is a meme here because it's perfectly positioned to be in the moire zone.High budget users would have access to better or more suitable equipment. For STARTERS they would fill the frame with the subject when possible or find a sweet spot specifically for avoiding moire (could be moving it slightly) or swap cameras entirely.
>>4508760With its more organic photosite layout which reduces interference patterns, it's easy to see why X-Trans is the choice of discerning archivists.
Psyops used to be believable. How did they go from Apollo 11 to this? This couldn't fool even the ones who fell for WTC7. Even Soviet airbrushing was more believable. How did they reach this level of embarrassment? There's an obvious equivalence between what Jeets post to social media and this. Must be some H1B in charge of making the posts. It's not just the dishonesty but the laziness or incompetence (or both) that goes with it. Disgusting.
>>4506648>Zapruder 2.0We no longer have the technology to go there ;)
>>4506648>>4506650>Cole Tomas AllenVery strange, usually successful assassins get their middle name (John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, Mark David Chapman) but failed ones don't (John Hinckley). There's a change in the script obviously.
>>4506659Yeah but this one was a nasafag. I bet he wanted to stop Trump from making it obvious the moon landings were fake.
>>4506605The dystopian thing are you terminally online faggots
>>4506560>spend $250,000 to remove history
Hard Work editionPreviously: >>4503435
bread?
>>4507666Some baby bugs are brightly colored so predators may think it’s dangerous, even if it’s not. I used a fancy macro setup with flash and diffuser.
>>4507828>>so predators may think it’s dangerous, even if it’s not>LET ME SEE YOUR WAR FACE, SOLDIER!Hell anon, I just reread your image description: 60-ish stacked images??? I didn't know it was possible to stack so many. Is this the power of OM System? They must have all been taken in very quick succession.
>>4507860I used a focus stacking PC program so any camera can do it, but MFT depth of field is especially good for macro
>>4505440>>4507461soothing
I was hiking last week with my camera and when I reached the summit this couple approached me and asked me if I could take a couple pictures of them and asked me how much it would be. I've never charged for a picture so I said it was free, but they insisted and gave me $20 for like 10 pictures. This left me wondering and I started doing some research. I found out people pay THOUSANDS for shitty wedding pictures, also those shitty car pictures with tons of filters on them, people actually charge money for that stuff. What the heck? does this mean I can actually make money with my camera?
>>4496837a tall, succesful extroverted sexhaver abusechad
>>4494123you paid 330 money units got camera and couple talking to you something like that
>>4496837newfag
>>4496837go back
>>4494123wait until you learn about the trades
> NATIVE 35mm f1.7 main lens with 1 inch sensor> Dedicated two-step shutter button> Co-developed with Zeiss using Zeiss lens coatings. > Global releaseAnyone else going to buy this beast? This phone will replace an X100V.
looks like nobody here has this phone. my girlfriend has. It's absolutely fucking worst. All its photos come out oversharpened and with TOO MUCH detail. Faces look like wrinkled mess with it. I haven't played enough with it yet, but got very bad first impressions
>this lobster is too buttery>t. totally not a lobster merchant
>>4507587>no photos posted, as alwaysyou can't even take a picture of a fucking flower with you """girlfriend's""" phone and show us how shitty it is?
Its already been better for years
>>4495593In a few years camera phones are all going to literally be ai slop
Im gonna be visiting an orthodox church and i want to capure pictures with prominent earthy tones, super saturated reds, yellows and gold. Wouldnt mind if it has some balanced blue tones too.I think the place will be ok lit, but it wont get much sunlight i think. What filmstock do you guys suggest?Ektar 100 and kodak color pluss are the only ones i can think of. Which one is superior in this case?
>>4507263>its a place of worship! it would be much too disrespectful of me.I just use a tripod when I take photos in my church(es)either way something you'll have to be careful of is white balanceI don't know of any church that's lit with high-CRI white lighting, at best you're going to get something like tungsten (picrel)
>>4507353… or whatever this is, that p800 reacted very poorly to (the lighting looks closer to tungsten irl)
Kodacolor 200, tripod, f/8, 1 second shutter.
>>4507354>>4507353Piss yellow-green is the color of cheap domestic LED bulbs. Our eyes are more easily fooled by the peaky spectrum than a camera sensor is. These bulbs have shit color reproduction and will fuck up some cameras so hard that neutral white balance isn’t even possible.
>>4507465>Piss yellow-greenI generally don't color-correct but tried it out here and that's what it turned out to be yeahhaven't had a problem with my digital camera that I've noticed, but I've taken less digital photos in churches
It would be used exlusively for taking pictures of products. I was thinking of just using my Samsung S23 since I'm kinda poor but then realized that's retarded since presentation is literally everything.Budget is around $1,000 max, prefer around $700 or lower.Insights appreciated.
pick a frame from s23 video
>>4499913unironically a sigma foveonBayer filters cause moire
>>4506945do pixel binning for web presentation and moire gone
>>4506945They cause color moire, but low resolution itself is still the direct cause of it in general. Foveon isn't immune to moire in greyscale patterns and fabrics are common sources of that.The only appropriate camera for photographing clothes is 3D rendering software.The second best approach is a Fujifilm 100MP with 400MP pixel shift mode in a studio.Next best is maybe a Phase one.Other than that, a SNOY or Nikon with pixel shift.Then there's Foveon.Then there's low res/normal bayer shit with an effective OLPF but soft.Then there's low res/normal bayer shit without OLPF and copium as you edit away the problems.Then there's giving up and shooting at f/32 trying to soften the images and still relying on editing out the leftovers.Best case scenario is literally shooting film.
>>4499913how do you even end up in this situation? like you told a client you'd do product photo knowing full well that you don't have a camera, let alone knowledge on how to use one?
Post em
>>4500730
Canon EOS M50 (shitty cheap mirrorless)vintage Canon nFD 200mm f/2.8 lens with 50mm extension tube.
Man I love flowers.
>>4507578It's a crime winter here is so damned long.
anyone else lost the will or enjoyment to take photos? i dont know how to get it back and even all my fave youtubers are saying similar things. that makes me worry that its over : (
>>4503681Sounds more like you lack discipline for shooting and basic file organizationWhere can we see some of your photos?
>>4503819>simply ask about names of photographersI know too many, i tried to give you a better plan rather than indulge in your namefagging behavior which won't make you progress>huge paragraphsLearn to read nigger, i have nothing else to say to your dumb ass
>>4503796I'm retarded and keep fucking up loading it or rather, I did once and now I get paranoid every time I load it. Also I have the viewfinder model (I've stuck a cold shoe rangefinder to it) and it's just kinda slow and finnicky to operate, plus the shutter speed dial is stiff. I didn't pay much thank god but it's possibly my most frustrating camera to use. I actually took it out this weekend, just couldn't enjoy it, never felt confident that I knew I was getting what I was shooting.It's mostly my skill issue but I think I just prefer SLRs and would rather carry the extra weight.
>>4503832>I know too manyAll you had to do was list some, you wanted to turn into something else lolI know plenty too, and I bet I've been doing photography a lot longer than you have, I just wanted see who you would recommend
I take them as I please
1/?This is the review of an OM-5 micro 4/3 camera. I am a full frame user, and I bought this camera to have a small, fun, attractive camera to take snapshits around town. I own or have owned a D850, Z5ii, Z6ii, basically every Nikon DXXX DSLR, D500, Z50, etc. This is my first M43 camera and I was not sure what to expect, so I am chronicling my impressions both for myself, and for other photographers who are looking for a small, fun camera. Ergonomics: This camera is outstanding IMO. For me the Nikon FF cameras are in this weird middle spot that is ergonomically uncomfortable for me. They are either too small or too big. The D850 and my D7500 fit my hand fantastically. I will always have a Nikon DSLR because they are so comfortable to hold and use. The OM-5 is smaller to hold than my Z5ii for example, and that gets it out of the uncomfortable middle ground. With the Z5, I’m always between holding it in front with all of my fingers, or just 3 – there isn’t really enough room for all 4, but with 3, it feels a little insecure. With the OM-5, three fingers fit perfectly. There is enough grip on the front and a great thumb rest on the back. The buttons are very well placed on the camera body for operation while shooting. Simply put, this is a very comfortable camera to hold and shoot. For reference, when I am walking around and shooting, I grip the camera the entire time in my right hand, and have a wrist lanyard for safety. This can be fatiguing with a larger DSLR (the D800 in particular had almost no thumb rest and it was agonizing to carry. The D850 is much better, but is just heavy and gets tiring on the wrist after several hours). The D7500 is extremely comfortable in this regard because of its blobmera shape and light weight. The Z series FF cameras are in the middle ground of just “ok”. The OM-5 was very good.TO BE CONTINUED
>>4502704>he did what his headmate saidjust because you dont take your meds doesn’t mean you have to choose to be a schizo, anon
>>4502679Gonna preface my response with the standard M43 hate: Shit cameras, shit lenses, blah blah, not really worth it outside of getting them dirt cheap and basically look like a phone.Anyway, with that formality taken care of, camera looks fine. The 40-150 is soft as fuck on the long end (and not really spectacular on the wide end) but is the cheapest tele you'll get for the system so it's not bad value per se. The pancake is a little fucky because mixing oly/pana bodies and lenses never quite works right, but it's fine. The pancake will be infinitely more useful just because it's not absurdly soft and slow like every M43 zoom.Oh wait,>$1000 USDFuck me sideways that's expensive. Don't do it anon. The body is like $400-500 at most, the tele is worth a whopping $80, and the pancake iirc is around $200. Classic boomer ebay mentality of "I know what I've got".
>>4502729Thank you anon, this is solid advice and I really appreciate it. On the price, this seller accepts offers, so I'm going to send one in for 800 (from summing up your itemized prices) and see what happens. I'm also going to contact them and ask if they will be interested in selling the body separately.
OP, you claim that...>Simply; the IQ is very good.>The lens was very sharpThese photos say otherwise.Instead of using 4000 ISO as an excuse for this, can you upload some properly exposed RAWs at the base ISO?I like the idea of a smaller camera system but it seems like there are some serious issues with the downsizing that shits on IQ. It seems more like a decent video platform than anything viable for stills in my opinion. Maybe decent for macro too. I wish it were better but when the general consensus seems to be "use AI noise reduction" or "just fix it in post" or "it's good enough" it's kind of hard to believe anything else.>>4489319Not that guy, but my guess is M43.Just has an ugly look.>>4489353This also has an ugly look.>>4486842Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>4502679I paid $75 dollars with a pancake and a small zoom in 2023 and that felt about right for it. It's seriously not even as good as my Xiaomi Ultra phone. Do not pay meme money for one. Monitor only shooting is pretty bad too.
