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?
The quality is shit but the audio is great
Kodak ZI8.
>>4483068Man, that takes me back. Remember when Flip cameras were all the rage for what, two or three years there, before “smartphones” really took over? I had a Kodak one that had jelly video like crazy but it could do 720p! Used it quite a bit lol.
>>4483080The ZI8 had a few advantages over the Flip>1080p instead of 720p>Used SD cards instead of internal memory>Mic jack>Image stabilization (whatever that consisted of)I remember I had a "rig" for mine that consisted of a cheap "L" bracket with a couple of cold-shoe mounts that I used for the mic and for an external light. Yeah, it was an interesting time. Smartphones were around, but they hadn't completely taken over. And even then, the cameras on them were just "okay." So to get full HD in something that fit in your pocket AND was under $200 was pretty cool.
>>4473540is that a fucking iDroid?
"Merry Blobmas" Edition.Previously:
>>4488957Bambi!
>>4488959nice set, always cool to see theses guys.
was this image taken on film or digital? https://files.catbox.moe/9jjcnu.jpg
>>4488728obvious film>multicolored grain>missed focus>no shadow density
>>4488735How can you tell the difference between multicolored grain and multicolored noise?
>>4488728dynamic range feels low but i cant really tell thowhat the fuck is this captcha? oh i get it now
>>4488735>missed focusWhere?
Insta threadWill follow anyone>horgen_fotoHad anyone got tips on how to find less popular content?The algorithm is just feeding me terrible tiktok reels with millions of views all day long.
Can anyone guide or help me to recovering my account? I noticed that my account's email got mysteriously changed but I was in the middle of a trip to be able to do anything about it. And now I can't access it at all because the faggot who took it changed the passwords.
What is the best export setting for this piece of trash website? It burled the fuck out of my photos. I uploaded them from website and they were fine but phone they look like they were taken on a fucking potato FUUUUCCCK
>>4488603Zuck will ask you to send him videos of your butthole. Contact the insta team asap
>>4488784That's not due to any export setting. Instagram often just likes to not show the full (Instagram) resolution of images when you view them. Sometimes it "pops in" after a short while, but it has nothing to do with your local connection. It is insta deciding not to give your images bandwidth.
>>4488784I had the same problem. Instagram seems to be optimized for phones (as it was originally designed to be a platform for phone pictures) So if you use high format pictures those appear bigger and in higher resolution on the phone. Anything else will get compressed to shit and only be shown very small naturally.
I just got an old digicam and the previous owners didn't delete all the photos. I took a peek and some of the pics are actually kino.
If the original owner cared about others looking at the photos, they probably would've been deleted.
It is time.
I'm gonna attend a wedding on saturday and i want to shoot some film. It's an african wedding, so there will be loads of bright colors and warm hues. I shoot with a Point and shoot camera (pentax iqzoom), but i own a SLR (Nikon fg 20). I have never shot with an slr camera, and i have no clue how they work. But i reckon the pictures look better on an slr. I have two dilemmas at hand>I don't know which film stock is good for capturing warm hues >I don't know if i should try out the slr camera (or if i should play it safe)i want to capture something reminiscent of picrel
>>4488924>I think it will be pretty well lit inside,NTA. Don't be fooled. Even pretty heavy indoor lighting is nowhere near the LV of the outdoors.Indoors with film I'm normally pushing HP5 to 800 at minimum and realistically to 1600 (but I think it looks kind shit pushed two stops). At 800 ISO I'm only just in a "safe" shutter speed range to avoid camera shake and I need to ask people to stay still for photos indoors.400 ISO film is absolute minimum for indoors and I'd be pushing that one stop anyway. If you're using colour film then fagghedaboudit
>>4488946Portra and Lomo 800 work fine indoors, if a bit grainy. But pushing hp5 will make the grain apparent too.
>>4488846get old gold 100 (2006-2005)
>>4488846it is possible to mount 28mm (if you have one) to fg-20 set aperture to 5.6 and 3.3m focus and shoot day with kodak 100 proimage
>>4488946Didnt understand half of that but what I got is >get 400 isoI dont really like the look of kodak ultramax 400 though. It doesn't look warm, and it doesnt have that "film" look>>4488953I have decided to use the point anf shoot so i dont think i can make adjustments like that.I need to finalize what kind of film I'll be using because im going to buy it later today. Ektar100 or kodak gold is what i am considering right now
Wetplate 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: What alternative processes would you like to try?Previous thread: >>4476005
Last Sunday I went to a flea market and saw a Rikoh 500 RF film camera for 20€ in good condition and it still worked perfectly, was I dumb for not buying it? I've been wanting to get into film photography but isn't film + developing very expensive?
>>4489122Ricoh 500 gx actually*
>>4489122B&W film + at home development is not too expensive. With a cheap camera it will take you many many rolls worth of cost before buying a digital of similar quality will "save" you money.
lemme see your shots for the moon!this is mine btw captured with canon 2000d 55mm i can not remember my camera settingsi gave it some edit with lightroom this is first time with DSLR
Mars (left), waning crescent Moon (over Lumen Field, Seattle), Venus (up, right of Moon) rising Sept. 11, 2015.Nikon D5200, kit 18-55mm at 55mm, f/8, 2sec, ISO-1000
>>4488213Oops. Sept. 10, 2015.
ZV-E10 + SEL55210 taken last week iirc, obviously cropped
Spent two hours at the local book market today. Reached the place a little while before sunset, pushed through my anxiety and tried my hand at taking some photographs.Feel free to post any pictures you /p/ros took at any book fair or local market in your area.
>>4486949Nope, nice to see were still just lying here
>>4486706superb portrait
>>4486706>sickly skin colorsmust be wormji or SNOY
>>4486709It's a beautiful thing to watch someone turn board schizo over your throwaway thoughts. Have fun.
>>4488969>I enjoy ruining the boardPls go
Continuous LED lights are terrible for photography.This is an approximate $2400 600watt continuous LED light.At a distance of 2 meters, it can manage 1/60 iso400 f8 at full power.That converts to f4.8 iso400 1/200 if you wanted to get up to a barely usable photography shutter speed.And if you want to go down to iso 100, you are now around f2.8So $2500 gets you something barely usable on your lowest settings at approx 2 meters, any further distance and it wont work.And if you want to use any modifier at all its all over and you wont even be able to have enough light for a photo.In before just shoot at iso 1600, no thanks, im not spending $2400 just to have to use iso1600.
I have a 3-light Rotolight Neo II kit on the way that I plan to use for bounce-lighting a tiny indoor product photography setup. Sub $200 used.
>>4488585No it depends on the light, ive got the amaran 100xs 2nd gen which is great
>>4488580Yes, they're made for video. Of course there's going to be better options for photography
Bought it because it was more or less it30 but without the need to buy a riserThought the off camera shooting was going to be a gimmick - a fun one, but a gimmick nonethelessIt's not.It's THAT good even with a rather small range of 18m.Just by holding it in your second hand you can get so much creative control.A cheap selfie stick with a tripod and maybe an offbrand diffuser will genuinely let you have studio quality light for incredibly cheap and rather small package.
>>4488982Why the hell would think off camera flash would be a gimmick?
New color film!!!lucky 200 has finally dropped.Anybody shot it yet? waiting for my order to arrive.
>>4488583yeah its alright, shot a roll so far
to think lomography sold literal garbage rolls (some even marked with letters and codes on top of the image) for $20, and still do
Damn I expected chinaslop to cost less than Kodak Gold
>>4488601>>4488638>>4488641its cheaper if you are from a third hole shithole, a roll of Gold cost 15 usd for me. And Lucky its just 9 USD so yeah.
>>4488583I've shot with the BW 400. I just finished my roll of Lucky 200, but I haven't developed it yet.
I shoot black and whit 'art' photos.I print a lot. So i spend a lot of time looking at the details of each photo. especially if they're hanging on my wall.that being said, i have a conundrum which, surprisingly, isn't well covered on the internet:>would you say a leica monochrom, or a medium format (with more bits and more sensor real estate) would produce better black and white images?
>>4487912Did you forget to attach your photo again?
>>4487913Yep, silly me. I totally forgot. Somday I'll stop being such fucking scum. Alas, today is not that day.
>>4487910I like my nikon zr with its huge ass screen
>>4487915Dope choice, I'd love to get one>>4487914Still sad
>>4482924The Monochrom is cool and I'd like to try it sometime. But it's just way too expensive to justify. You can buy a Pentacon Six with a Carl Zeiss lens for $200 and 200 rolls of bw film including development and scanning ($20/roll) for the same price as the Leica without no lens. Double that if you develop yourself, which is half the fun with bw anyway.
contributemostly wanted to experiment with the 'natural' setting on the K10DI think I used -2 saturation, 0 contrast, +1 sharpening but I adjusted it here and thereI also played with color correction in the WB but it wasn't too greatalso, /digishit/ general bread
PICTURE STYLE-1 high/low key adj.-1 contrast-2 sharpening
i give it credit anon for making East Maitland out of all places somewhat interestingneeds more rundown Henny Penny joints
>>4477534Should I nab wunna these lil niggas? I'm torn: on the one hand, the image quality is super flat with no options in-camera to adjust contrast but on the other hand it's a digishit that'll fit in the palm of my hand and I can (almost) pay for it with spare change unlike>*checks notes*literally every other 2000s digicam? for some reason.Wikipedia wanted me to credit this guy LMAO. Nah but, I can respect that.By Joffboff - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=56389131
>>4488930If it's like $20 yes, otherwise no.Also, sort ebay listings by 'for parts'. A lot of cameras listed as broken aren't actually broken and are just missing a battery or something. Hypesters trying to buy digishits aren't smart or brave enough to buy the sketchy ones.
>>4477534Anon these are beautiful
Who the fuck likes this focal length? What is its purpose?
>>4488750get closethat's the fucking secret to phone-like focal lengths. (there's a reason why 28mm looks like snapshits - because it's the snapshit focal length every teenage girl uses on her iphone)
>>4488750If you go wide, shoot wide subjects or get close as >>4488753 said. Seaside shots as well as in-car shots are two examples that benefit from proper wides.
>>4488753>>4488756Word, I'll creep up closer. Or shoot wide landscapes. Also the wider lenses for this camera are expensive. If I can't make 28mm work I'll probably just go back to shooting 50 and 135.
>>4488725i'll see you in court.
>>4488750Get 28mm vision in your mind. It usually can be acquired by getting closer to subject and observing the environment before shootong. Wide angles are difficult because our vision is usually much narrower.But some dudes mentioned about >muh zooming with your feet It's a meme. If you make a change in the distance between camera and the subject, you will get different result. It just doesnt work. On this matter, i recommend to think of composition based on the distance between you and the subject, rather than focal lengh of your lens and the subject.
