Previous >>4537280
>>4538986>what is a trojanCanon, when I thought you couldn't get any fucking dumber.Are you afraid the spooky AI NSA fairies are going to put a trojan in a camera?
>>4538993Just because you mock the idea it doesn't mean it's not true. They put backdoors in everything they can.
>>4538997You are too dumb to understand why what you are saying is dumb. You don't understand how any of these tools work and why what you're saying doesn't make sense. Stop embarrassing yourself.
>>4538986You are trusting c1 to remove moire but you can t code yourselfHow do you know c1 is not sending your photos to reptilians and they send it back without moire?
>>4538955>>4538969holy based
Summer 2026 editionAll video related questions and discussion is intended for this thread. Here we discuss techniques, gear and anything else related to capturing video footage. Please don't pretend to be an expert if you don't know what you're talking about. Kindly leave your ego at the door.Posting short films/scripts or other work you've done is encouraged.We tend to use and recommend DSLRs/mirrorless cameras because they provide phenomenal picture quality for their price, have large sensors (ie the same size used in high-end cinema cameras, and larger) and have interchangeable lenses.In contrast, consumer camcorders often have much smaller sensors and a fixed lens.>STICKY - https://text.is/QZ1J>Helpful guide, additional books and more in-depth FAQs - https://web.archive.org/web/20200926115310/https://pastebin.com/kG0gRmTZ>NO ONE CARES WHAT AN EXPERT YOU THINK YOU ARE. IF YOU’RE ASKING BASIC-AS-SHIT QUESTIONS, YOU CAN’T BE ALL THAT GREAT. SEE ABOVEPrevious thread >>4499500Quick FAQSComment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>4538936I'm talking about cutting directly from the original negativethey edit the temp version digitally but the final version is made directly from the original negative
>>4538874my favorite is the devil's backbone, but pan's labyrinth has crazy day for night
>>4538935Nolan's always been a bit weird, I'm probably gonna get this slightly wrong.Normal way film is edited: Scan the print. shove it into your nle, do some fancy colour shit to get the colours to align with what they'll look like when you reprint, grade/edit the footage, add vfx, print it back onto film stock.If I remember right, most filmmakers will take the digital file from before it's reprinted, and that serves as the film's master - they bake in the film look effects for the digital, which are only there for viewing accuracy when they print it on physical film. So the digital and the physical versions look basically identical but slightly different because the film print has additional physical grain and other shit.But Nolan will take the reprinted reel, and then scan it again and that becomes the digital master.If The Odyssey is created from purely stitching together the physical negative, supposedly skipping the scanning and reprinting part of the process, that would be a clusterfuck. The only way I'd believe it is if they scanned the negative, and used complex software to match the digital to the negative. So when they finish editing in the nle, a machine automatically stitches the physical film in the same way. I don't think there's any editor who will willing go back to the old method of editing now that nles are so common.Any editor who's skilled enough to do that (and a good editor) will have enough money/job security to tell anyone to fuck off if they try to make them.
>>4538944>Any editor who's skilled enough to do that (and a good editor) will have enough money/job security to tell anyone to fuck off if they try to make them.>not doing it for the love of the game and to say you did itngmi
>>4538944
Where the hell do you get models these days? It used to be that you would just go on Model Mayhem or find some chick on instagram and shoot TFP but those days are over. I wouldn't even mind paying for a chick's time, but even that seems difficult these days. Not a lot of chicks into "modeling" these days, no websites dedicated to it, etc. I guess they're all doing onlyfans or something. Any way, anyone got some tips?
>>4532660The tattoo epidemic? Never heard of this in 2020s. But then again I dislike tattoos
>>4524576The tunblr era was truly wonderful
>>4519752If you're in the US, go to the Mexican border. Seriously.
>>4519752My basement, usually
>>4532660>bullshit fake ass pandemic lockdownOkay, chud.OP, get a life partner. Girlfriend, boyfriend, non-binary fuck toy, what have you. They're going to be down to do pretty much anything so long as you properly communicate with them your intentions.
what are your thoughts on putting whitespace around photos like in pic related?
this has its placeand this is actually a pretty good application of it, though maybe without the text
>>4538756if i dont color the border it looks like the frank ocean album cover like in pic related.
>>4538886in some cases like in this picrel even, it's like a double-edged sword. there's a lot to unpack in this one image, the kid splashing water in the pond or even the families taking pictures, and the frame makes you see a lot less of that. on the other hand, the photo has too much going on and the frame helps with that. the frame's thickness matters too. so i think no one in this thread has brought this up but it's worth considering that the frame doesn't only change how the picture looks but what kind of picture it is. if there were no frame it would look a lot more narrative instead of how it now looks arranged. it could also just be that the composition is shitty lel.
>>4538890The picture is too busy and doesnt really have a good anchor. White borders should draw you in, but there's nothing to really be directly drawn into with the pic.
>>4538890This snapshit shouldn't even be a squareThe people are cut off, the trees are cut off, you can't see what's going on or where, there's no atmosphere, it's just a square to be an instagram trendtoraph. It's bad.
Remember when everyone would come to this place to post fun photos and critique each other? We can and WILL have fun photo generals here again and not just another gear threadYou do actually take photos with those expensive cameras you're buying, right anon?
>>4538897
>>4538898my favourite
>>4538900Nice photos. The last one looks a little weird. Rear curtain sync would make more sense in that situation.
>>4538901Yess, I can only agree.
>>4538915My dream is it to own a b/w phase one. I wish there was a b/w gfx
Gigantic Pentax news!https://news.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/rim_info2/2026/20260909_042557.htmlShortened takeaways from the pentaxforums summary:1) More Pentax DSLRs are coming. Ricoh is committing to "a new series of digital SLR cameras based on an entirely new concept," built on the K-mount legacy.2) Current K-series production is ending.3) It may be a while.
>>4538585>Cameras are made to be usedPentax DSLRs in 2026 are for neckbeard posers. Off to a bad start.>Yes you will have forced noise reduction baked in your RAWs and you will like itAs if this were good.Now I understand why pooptax is going under.
>>4538638Only an Indian believes scams and "I know what I have" culture don't exist
>>4538666Most canon and sony cameras have forced NR too. Its just too good for amateur gearfags to note on their charts (they published how they detect it so everyone smart circumvented that shit ages ago).
>>4538666>Pentax DSLRs in 2026 are for neckbeard posersIronically the only decent landscapers that aren't shooting medium format nowadays are Bentacks users because they are used to the cameras.I take you are not implying landscape pictures are poser photography
>>4538666hey man I shave my neck okay?
would b-roll footage, the world and society as a whole look less lame and gay if we went back to shooting with analog and digicams without any post processing that smartphones do?
>>4538476Lmao, bitter seething retard. Learn to take advice.
>>4538494Not everyone crops their photos for a phone, retard.
>>4538561No, but everyone who fail to frame their subject well through the viewfinder should crop in post.
>>4532363>back to shooting with analog and digicams without any post processingPost processing exists since photograpgy exists
>>4532363leaves
Autumn colors edition
Hard to edit this one
>>4538217I like it despite the missed focus not much you can do about that but perhaps denoising and maybe a bit of sharpening?
>>4538348thank you, and yeah no kidding, yours looks genuinely great
Was waiting on a kingfisher but got this Wagtail, still need to learn to compose and edit better
Insta and whatever else thread for wherever anons post their photos.https://www.instagram.com/mondatta.photography/Do any of you tend to go for certain themes and styles? Or just try anything?
>>4533577>forcingNigga I emplore you to develop natural relationships with other human beings that involves having a respect and cursory interest in each other's lives. You are not required to be a sperging faggot about a hobby in order to expect a basic level of input and appreciation from the people who care about you. I don't give the slightest fuck about cross-stitching personally, and I still engage with my friend who does it because that's what decent friends do.
what's the appeal of Instagram? It's about presenting photos yet the photo quality is very bad and the website UI sucks ass
>>4533851Social aspects. I would say it heavily depends on what type of photography you engage with, more artistic ones are fine (or better) without it, but when I was doing cosplay/conventions photos, almost everyone expected IG account and once I made one, it resulted in large increase of people actually watching them, sharing and visiting my site, where I upload full galleries. But if you take IG social part out, it's absolutely awful place for photography - no real control over proportions (in carousels it even take proportion of first photo in group, cutting the rest - something I learned only after some time, to my eternal embarrassment), rescaling, little to no control after upload and so on. I treat it as communication front and it works quite good that way.Unfortunately, there is nothing else on horizon that would take over its place. Yes, I know about Flickr, there are emerging projects like cos.place but as long as "normal people" cling to IG, its here to stay.
https://www.instagram.com/dark_indigox/
>>4496839Various kinds of photography using digicams, going for an organic look and shooting whatever https://www.instagram.com/si9net/https://www.instagram.com/si9net/
Lens distortion always irks me, and I always correct them in post process. I like my photos to have straight paralel vertical lines too.Was this taken maybe with something with a big film like a medium format? I assume this should be taken with a lens that has a long focal length...but then it doesnt make sense for indoors.
>>4538411>>Straightening lines in post does not correct perspective>It never has>it never will>it is literally impossible to do without generative AIYeah but that has nothing to do with our discussion because "perspective control" lenses do not meaningfully change your perspective (i.e. the physical location of your camera in the scene). What they do change is the projection, and that can absolutely be accurately corrected for, just like a fisheye image can be accurately remapped to rectilinear. The geometry is 100% sound whether you're using editing software or a perspective-control enlarger.What post-processing options can't emulate, however, is the tilt-shift lens's ability to keep the focus plane matched to your subject. Editing also inherently cause artifacts from the stretching it does (uneven softness, bokeh, noise/grain, etc.).
Tilt-shift confuses me, but I do have an Olympus somewhere in my hoard I ought to fiddle with.
>>4538411>I have no examples or sources just more ramblingSad
>>4538410To the extent this is true, the verticals in OP are also not uniformly straight eitherTry to think more about what the shift is doing to the projected image, and you might level up your knowledge base
>>4538419>Post is fake and gay and only exists because cameras processors are too weak and their screens too inaccurate to interpret sensor data correctly, not to avoid getting it right in camera. The standard for high end digital photography is a hasselblad or phaseone MFDB shooting raw tethered to a laptop running phocus or capture one.Anon, post exists before digital cameras. Digital post is as old as commercially available digital cameras, 1989.Before Blackmagic Design, there was Cintel. And Cintel made the original Ursa, a telecine machine that kickstarted the digital intermediate craze. The first DSLR came in 1991.
Full Spectrum EditionFormer thread: >>4531544
>>4538630That's what happens when you devalue your own photos to the point you only use them to "win" arguments. Sad!Seems like the poor guy has become schizo as well...
>>4538647It is the bane of the marketing victim. They never bothered with technique. They don't even know how what they bought is supposed to be superior, just that it was shilled as such and the price seemed to back that up. Now they cope with buyer's remorse.
>>4538600light bleeding in from the top is awesome
>>4538630I'll do it for him so our dear gearfag can at least learn>>4538623>>4538596two good photosyou'll get there budthe windmills would have made it if they were lit, not hazy, and there wasn't a sharp contrasty foreground distracting from them. shooting raw could have saved that one. the perils of depending on tweaking jpegs on a 3" screen. no matter how much you spend on screens and EVFs, it will never be enough.
>>4538768Actually nvm, the perspective on the balconies is a bit badIt's both focal length and camera position. He needed to get a bit higher and a bit further back as well.tbqh shooting on expensive fuji shit is a downside here. a 5diii+24-105 L would have been a better camera to take out.
How come no one posts here?Photography is a pretty big hobby, and it has become very fashionable to shoot film in recent years, so why is this board completely abandoned?
>>4538772>open gateYou just told on yourself. It was never a photo but some frame from some bullshit video you were making. Videofags are a scourge.
>>4538772Take a picture of a dog licking your camera, like doghair did.
>>4538786>he thinks talking in cine terms makes stills cinek3kit was just filthy stills, to crop that tight you'd need to shoot something like 6K open gate>>4538795Ew
>>4538772Shut up dogfucker
>>4538827You first, pedophile
Previous Thread: >>4408437My astronomy club is doing an outreach on smart telescopes in a few more months so I decided it pick up an S30. Its been delightful so far; setup is a breeze compared to my primary rig. Think it will be a great little thing for more casual imaging. We're not in the best time of year for my FOV, but I was able to get a little time in on M5.
>>4537974>ConjuctionMoon and.... what?
>>4538568Mars, Jupiter and its moons are also in the image.
>>4538573Ah! And then also Regulus. Very cool - thanks!From eastern Australia or New Zealand?
>>4538578Southern Europe
Pic of Orion nebula. Untracked, probably 20 mins worth of 2s sub exposures on a canon 100d at 135mm. Pressing the shutter button every 20s or so isn't that bad.
>>4532032Telling your dog to sit then taking a photo is legitimately more photography than 80% of the photographs posted on pee
>>4532652>le just collect funkocameras for yourself and don't use them as the communication tools they are!manchildren are so fucking gay i stg
>>4532712>"communication"feminine>"manchildren"100% feminine
>>4505329Put your dick in the hole
>>4505215Video was never an art form. It was a novelty. The supposed greats were just rich people who could buy a lot of film and editing shit. Back then, pre-google, even knowing how to get a properly exposed, in-focus shot of a tree was an uncommon skill and affordable digital cameras and editing software did not exist. Simply reproducing dogshit readymade scenes using novel and expensive filming and editing processes was sufficient to get into a film festival - easier if the filmmaker had the right connections, of course. No one wanted to offend any of the established industry darlings, after all.Now the truth has risen from novelty’s corpse and old sacred cows have been ground into burgers. The true art form is and always was literary talent. Writing. Creating a narrative, not filming one. Lying with words. And most people don’t have it. No, most people don’t even want it. So most video is finally revealed as just personal memory recordings and pretentious trash of absolutely zero value (ie: people walking, backs of heads, lingering shots of building corners).And everyone with the power of the true art form (literary talent), the true human act of creation and self expression, has gone to writing, a medium that is 1000x more expressive and allows the artist significantly more room to tell a story, and forms of prose (including screenwriting and literary fiction) usually with a political bent to make a human directed, machine recorded spectacle more interesting than it actually is and try and convince the cattle for a second that it’s not entirely made up.
Hello, I started travelling more seriously in the last few years and my photo gallery is increasing, I want to edit my photos to look as good as possible and I'm curious what filter apps do you guys use? The best one I tried is FilterMe: Photo Editor. And I also tried Snapseed and VSCO and they are solid as well. Are there any good ones out there?
The one you have with you
