I was the anon thay said i fucked up my first roll of film like 2 months ago. Well, I got the roll of film back, and the light had only ruined like 8 photos so, 16 were pretty ok, besides looking like shit because I'm new to this. I especially liked this photo, but it looks kinda retarded.
>>4488685Prove it.
>>4488687im giving you more education than your parents ever did here. say "thank you for the advice, anon" first.
>>4488688Woah no need to be so sassy. Thank you for the advice, now show me some of your work
>>4488688Stating the obvious is not advice, snapshitter.
>>4488689This
Barnes and Nobles editionPrev: >>4485000
Experimenting with infrared. Couldn't decide on if I liked this at 70mm or 50mm though, so 1/2
2/2
>>4488578>>4488579the power of SNOY colors lol
>>4488586What do you mean? I use a Nikon
>>4488534holy shit it's the electric light orchestra ufo
>"Black and white are the colors of photography. To me they symbolize the alternatives of hope and despair to which mankind is forever subjected." Robert Frank.>"I work in colour sometimes, but I guess the images I most connect to, historically speaking, are in black and white. I see more in black and white – I like the abstraction of it." Mary Ellen MarkI see a pattern. One of making the world increasingly drab to demoralize the people. Look up their early lives.
>>4487132>I see a pattern.I'm noticing too
>>4487459Lmao I actually thought it was just revived from further down the catalog.
>>4487459>>4487568This time accusing jews for good measure
>>4487132>Look up their early lives.If you knew a thing or two you would know almost all museumwhores and theoryfags are child-eating shapeshifters
>>4487607They self incriminated
New color film!!!lucky 200 has finally dropped.Anybody shot it yet? waiting for my order to arrive.
>>4488584Yeah from what I can tell their B&W Lucky 400 is worse than Kentmere 400 or 100 and it's more expensive than either.Maybe if this stuff was like $8 a roll then sure, but I dont see the point.
>>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.
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.
>>4487375they re resin right? fdm would quite suck for that i swear
>>4487387>they re resin right? fdm would quite suck for that i swearYeah the gems in the screenshot are clear / translucent resin. Amazing what you can get in current year.I do 95% of my 3d prints on FDM machines but for gems i go with the resin :)
>>4484714yes that was me, did I hurt your fee fees?
>>4487932>in fact, it was not him.
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.
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
>>4477184k i n o
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
If you had a time machine, what historical event would you shoot?
>>4485966Well soon more people will start paying attention to the fact that everyone who knows anything about anything has been increasingly pointing out that it's overvalued to fucking bejeezus and back, & then you'll get your chance.
>>4484962The yearly Rothschild sacrifice parties in Antarctica
>>4484967fpbpIf I had a time machine, I would have gone back and shot more portraits of my brother before glioblastoma took him.forever 30
>>4488402mofo was ugly like a sin lmao
>>4488402Sorry for your loss. Hope you still have a few of him. Death is just another stage in life. Stay strong Shuggie
this was the absolute peak of digital photography and its all been downhill after here. seriously look at the shots on flickr with this tag and how good they look. mirrorless is super sterile and fake looking, and older than the mkii just were shit to use and had too much noise. seriously dont sleep on these, 5d mkii and some EF L glass has u covered and then u can spend the rest of the money on travel and taking kino shots.
>>4487813cringe>>4487785based
>>4487866>vertical grips>duplicate controlsThe D4 has those things already and doesn't need a grip bolted onto it.>>4487849D2X is a very fine camera, if I hadn't got the scorching deal on my 4 I may have got one, I looked at a couple. I like the bigger screen on the 4.>>4487822I did get this for the FPS I do motorsports from time to time and things moving at speed. Realistically, you don't need more than 20mp unless you are printing super huge like above movie poster size.Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>4488403>The D4 has a vertical grip minus the feature where you can remove itWhy does it need to be so big when an EOS 1n weighs no where near that much and focuses faster? Nikon lost. Canon won. Sorry lil fella, YWN be in focus.
>>4488403Resolution isn't just about printing big, it gives you flexibility when cropping. If the 16mp of the D4 does you fine then a 36mp would get you that with an APS-C crop, a 42mp body gets you a little over 1.6, 60mp gets you almost 2x crop. That means you can use smaller, lighter, cheaper lenses, or simply get more reach with what you have. Back in the day you had to make a choice between resolution and speed but that's not so much the case these days, at least to get an acceptable level of speed (matching the D4) because 20fps is largely unnecessary and just a skill cope.
>>4488493Resolution is also about recognizing that digital looks like shit. Bayer just turns small details into vomit so it takes like 30mp for it to look as normal as 35mm film.
Random photos you took at night
>>4487466>Focus stacking and lower exposure in post?Not a bad idea if you shoot static scenes.A strong diffusion filter will soften up the sun stars, but the end result is messy and probably not what you're looking for. Finding an optimal lens for the task is another option. Like the anon above me suggested a lens that has rounded aperture blades (dedicated portrait lenses often use those to prioritize shape of bokeh balls) might be of use here. I'd just add that increasing the number of blades creates a similar effect. Lenses that have a high number of blades are better at keeping the round aperture shape as you stop them down.Some kind of a slow, wide kit zoom will also have decent depth of field wide open, though might not be up to standard in optical quality .
>>4487466>Focus stackingOnly good for anything that doesn't move. Can still produce some weird artefacts. Try it but be prepared for either some fucky nonsense you hope isn't obvious or to put in some work in post to make things look better>Lower exposureIn theory yes, because you'd reduce the brilliant points of light to regularly-exposed light. Doing this is going to make your scene very, very dark without HDR bracketing which causes its own headaches similar to focus stacking (and you'll still need to edit out the sunstars on the brighter frames for the stack).I vote you look for a slow aperture lens with rounded blades. I used the RF-S 18-45mm for a short while and while it was optically meh, it has these features and is a decent example of what you'd want. Since it's a whopping f/6.3 @ 45mm, you could theoretically get your whole scene in focus if you were far enough away. HOWEVER, there are better lenses suited for this task, this is just what I have some relevant experience with. Lots of modern lenses have rounded blades wide open for better bokeh, but sharpen intentionally stopped down to get sunstars on purpose.>https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/dof-calculator.htmYou can use this to rough out your DoF if it's any help in picking what kind of focal length is useful. If you were say 20m away from your focus point and shooting at f/11 with the mentioned lens, you'd end up with a 60m DoF. You'll probably still get some faint, shitty sunstars at f/11 though.
>>4487466I assume diffraction spikes dont take much of the image so a simple fix would be take the same composition exact to pixel at a much wider aperture, and then blend the layers in photoshop, it would be a tad hard but nothing impossible,
>>4488406Some cropping will also be required if the lens exhibits any focus breathing. Modern software is pretty good at correcting for moderate amounts when stacking, but it needs to be taken into consideration when composing the shot as well.
Thread theme: https://youtu.be/QR75ti4mN_A?si=N-UtB79FhGkJOuBO
>>4488365>only one interior photo in the threadAre car interior photos just not really a thing?
>>4488380Well you see anon, you likely need to *own* the car to do that. (Or have a mate with a nice car, or be at a show that lets you into the cars)Also, interior shots normally need pretty wide lenses which not everyone has access to.As opposed to the highly ubiquitous "hey look at that car over there".
Are bikes allowed...
>>4488365Comfy>>4488418Sure I don't see why not
Should i get a Sony zv-e 10 II new or a Lumix S II.My goal is 4k 30fps with the highest dynamic range possible, 10bit log and fast sensor readout speed (low jellow)
>>4481441name?
>>4481494>only ever one example posted and it was by a known idiotLol, every time.
>>4481494>the image that destroyed /p/
>>4485905ehhh... sure why not.I like the little goblin that crawled out her butt to help pull her clothes off. I'm so glad we're all going to gamble our entire economy and energy industry so Ai can replace everything and everyone as quickly as possible. Finally we can all sit in our little cardboard boxes looking at 6.5-fingered cartoon boobgirls.
SII in general is gorillion times better choice especially if you can pair it with an anamorphic lens. As to DR I've heard stories that older S1 has a bit better dynamic range than SII. Not sure if true.Also I assume you meant ZV-E1 as in the full frame version. ZV-E10 is APS-C. (Both are shite - get an FX30 or used FX3)>>4481494Doesn't really matter for video - as soon as this thing hits Resolve it gets hit with a rec. 709 conversion and (if needed) colorized from there. Generally in video Sony skin colors are usually overly red - not green.
Last days of 2025 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 higher) 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 >>4467259Quick FAQSComment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>4488218>what's important are the memories you captureYou can't deliver an executive video package with memories and feelings, you need specs to justify the product under the eyes of suits
>>4487820Mission failed, We'll get 'em next timeI should probably start with super8 or a bolex
>>4488327Since the fuzz questioned me about my crypto profits I can no longer buy cool gear like that. ;-( I guess I’ll go back to using my phone. Lenses and tripod and support shit make stuff like that super expensive. I wish nobody questioned me about my crypto money. Getting gear and toys was super fun, but (for me) it’s over now.
>>4488327$5000 on a 16mm film camera in 2025 is not well considered. All you’re going to use it for is holding the lens in front of the film and running the shutter, and everything else you’re gong to do much better, capably, consistently and practically instantaneously in the software editor after developing. All that beast gives you is a regular service bill high enough you could buy another bolex with the money instead.
>>4487998or you could go full doyle
What the actual hell is wrong with my editing and photo something looks very wrong in the photo and I can’t decide on what it is I’m trying to get like a vibe Juno claspo but it doesn’t really fit that vibe
>>4485288Your face is so lickable
>>4484922>What the actual hell is wrong with my editing and photo something looks very wrong in the photoGet an OLED screen
>>44849220 dynamic posing, prop use or lighting and you still cant see what's wrong? Just give up
This was shot on a Canon 5D 12mp and edited in LR 3.5 on a Pentium 3 1ghz Dell c610 laptop with 2gb of RAM running XP SP3 on an IDE 40gb 4200rpm spinnydiskYour arguments, all of them in this thread, from all of you, are invalid.
>>4488401based blind man
Should dishonest photography be shunned?
>>4488290>I must have missed where you suggested it was something else causing the distortion?I didn't, what I cared about was dispelling the fiction that the lens was distorting the shadows.
everybody taking about the moon itt needs to be executed also what the fuck is dishonest photography? any image at all could be considered dishonest because it is a single view of a single instant of a subject or event, its like how people talk about how much they hate "bias" or "indoctrination/propaganda" when what they really mean is they dont like it when others treat a perspective other than the mainstream perspective on a topic as truefor example: >teaching kids in school to be liberal capitalists = cool and normal>teaching kids that liberalism and or capitalism might be bad = evil indoctrination and brainwashing literally every perspective is biased and its the same with photography literally every image could be considered a lie based on the intentions of the person framing the imagei think the only thing that could actually be considered dishonest is how people use an image to make their audience feel, if i took a photo of a dead Palestinian killed by an israeli JDAM and the zog used the photo to say it was actually hamas who killed the kid or to say it was somehow the kids fault he god the bomb dropped on his head that would be dishonest but the photo would not be
>>4488318Capitalism does not exist. It was invented as a strawman to propagandize neo-feudalism aka the unending struggle towards real communism. And its greatest triumph is convincing americans that its real and business are the equals of the state or else the entire country is logically obligated to go full commie. You will also find this “jedi” mind trick in other debates. And not just lefty insanity like veganism and population replacement either. It is also used by the right wing. You must adhere to ____ or your world will end if you ever stop being a hypocrite, and anyone can do anything they want and you cant logically complain. Know this trick. Fear it. Hate it. And remember the more you acknowledge ISM dichotomies the more powerful they become.
>>4488318>also what the fuck is dishonest photography?The Bahbah thread is a great example of it. Photography done with the pretense that it's presenting some deep truth when it's just navel-gazing erotica peppered with some critic bait. The faux rebellious aspect of it is also part of the dishonesty. The photographer is playing it safe while pretending to be some daring maverick. The idea that it's speaking truth to power when it's actually just power talking. It's corrupt to the core, there's no sincerity in it. Another example, hobotography.
>>4488206lol they forgot to shoop in the stars
let's see them
>>4482004That's a 3d render you fucking retarded liar
>>4486936Are you fucking blind? That's clearly AI generated. You can tell by the mist distance effect it pulled from a video game
>>4486936>>4487112Neither of you idiots know how to reverse image lookup? It's built into 4chan. Start with the triangle next to the [Reply] link."Tower of Terror", DisneySea Tokyo.
>>4488202Yeah, that's obviously the location he used to build training data for his AI model. Glad we're getting somewhere
