Well nobody else is gonna so here we go, here's a RAW/EDIT thread. I've provided some of mine, a few of which I've edited in the past but also a few I've never touched. Links:>Daylight Landscape with Semi-Challenging Lighting. https://files.catbox.moe/9lc3dk.CR3>Backlit Wildlife (bin chicken) Scene. I was never happy with any edits.https://files.catbox.moe/ctd0mg.CR3>Interior Low-Light Figurines. https://files.catbox.moe/l1fmr2.CR3>Panning Motorsport Scene.>also pic rel own edithttps://files.catbox.moe/c84va5.CR3>This thread is less about the merits of a particular photograph, and more about how to edit and change them. CONSTRUCTIVE feedback is great, but aimless shitflnging is for the other threads>I wholly encourage more of you to post RAWs, as I enjoy giving it a crack myself, as do some other anons otbComment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>4489255There's no detail at all in most of the black cow (too high iso) so I decided to run with it and go for the fake film lookwtf is this captcha ffs
>>4489494your mistake was to take photos in that lightno amount of editing will fix this idiotic beginner mistake
>>4489506>Sees a nice looking cow>won't be back in the countryside for months if not years>want to take a photo to remember and look back upon trip away from wagie cagie>swiftly remember that random anonfaggot #378 wouldn't approve if I took the photo right now>get lawn chair out and wait for le golden hour because omg muh heckin 4chin updoots>waste entire day for one cow photoOnce again we find an anon not understanding the idea of the thread. Learn to read you ESL
>>4489494I actually like the crop putting them on the other side. Nice. I need to learn to stop avoiding cropping so much.>>4489506That wasn't my edit, but as I said when I posted the RAW, these were among the first photos I took on my camera, and it was done out of a car window while driving fast. I didn't know yet how to properly expose, let alone dial in different settings at a moment's notice. I took over 10,000 photos on that trip and a great many of them are ghastly from a technical perspective, but I caught some really interesting moments, and many of them were accidentally exposed nicely, or are serviceable enough to salvage and show to people who don't care/know any difference.I would much rather be someone who takes photos in poor light conditions so I can practice and learn, than to be someone who takes no photo at all. :)
>>4488575>Goats in their house>1/8000 sec at f / 1.8, ISO 100>50 mm (RF50mm F1.8 STM)https://files.catbox.moe/y42vip.CR3picrel my attempt at an edit
What's /p/'s opinion on one of the most viewed (online) photographers?>Sex And Takeout is an ongoing viral series on the unnecessary and unkind social boundaries and cultural taboos forced upon women’s bodies. By indulging in sex and junk food, Bahbah proposes a celebration of the self. Inspired by her personal battle with disordered eating, Sex And Takeout is a declaration of overcoming guilt and shame. Through this series, Bahbah unpacks expectations of femininity and challenges her own standards of beauty.
looks like an art school project, bad lighting included
>>4488227>>4488228>>4488229tasteless shit from a trumpfag no less. Were you friends with epstein too?
>>4489587>muh trump The left can't meme
>>4489587dup btfo
>>4488133>[silent moans]even if you aren't deaf you couldn't hear thatthese captions don't make any sense
New thread[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Pixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1000Image Height667
>>4485108>>4485109Yes, Sky-Watcher 300P GoTo. I was going to get the non-computerised one but my dad told me I would regret it and it's worth the extra money and I can still get the fun out of manually finding objects. I have to say I'm glad I went with the GoTo. It's been the same here, I've used it once since I bought it three weeks ago because it's just been shit weather but the radar looks good for tomorrow night so hopefully I get a good night of viewing the outer planets + the Moon. Mine was advertised with 20mm and 12.5mm and that's what I got. Maybe they changed it and forgot to update it. And yes, it's Saturn and Titan (the gold one to the left). I'm going to try and tinker with the mirrors to get them better alligned because I noticed some aberration especially with Jupiter, I want to buy some higher power eyepieces soon. Did you get any use out of the phone holder yet? It seems really chinky and cheap and I don't really fancy messing about with it in the cold trying to take sub-par pictures.
>>4485111Nice, I sort of tried the phone mount but it doesn't seem to fit very snug, you can't secure it very tight or you'll just end up gouging out bits of rubber from your eyepieces plus if your phone has multiple cameras you'll have to keep moving it side to side when you manually focus, not viable when your target is zooming across the view in <10 seconds. I read that the Celestron phone mounts sit much more secure with the giant clamp but that only solves one issue. Don't do what I did and get a cheap laser collimator either, you'll spend more time trying to collimate the collimator than using it on the mirrors, only to find when you put it in your scope in the 2" adapter it came with that it wiggles around anyway, just use the collimation cap that came with the scope.
First attempt at using Pixinsight
>>4485115Very nice.
Random photos you took at night
>>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.
Been years since I posted here, photo dump.
>>4489438>1 photo of a gimmick shot.Nice dump, loser.
>One photo>DumpIt makes sense, this being /p/ and all
this is his wowzer shot btw, like the strongest of the bunch, the first blow eh. a cocksucking snapshit.
>>4489591but it’s black and white with grain so it’s art
>>4489438Cool pic. Nice thread.
We rate them on the couch together, looking at them on the TV, then I delete the bad ones from our Linux server before sending a big archive to cloud.We do this process once a year, around new year's.If anyone is interested, I'll link the github. What other tools would you suggest that have a high WAF "Wife acceptance factor" for this process?
>>4489605Slave morality, imagine taking photos for the approval of others. You're so henpecked it hurts lol
>>4489605Interesting you make this post just as I began using FastStone as my image viewer. I edit in RawTherapee but it is so bad for quickly viewing photos and culling. It’s way too slow. FastStone, on the other hand, gives me a full-screen view with click to zoom and I can press a button to tag the photos I want to keep then sort out the untagged photos into a trash folder. It’s so much better than RawTherapee.
>>4489609And interesting you say that, because our previous app was faststone. I just wanted a more couch friendly / dumbed down UX.
Give it straight to me, /p/. Are Leica M cameras a meme? Or are they worth it?Mainly for portraits, and rock and leaves.
>>4481817The niche:>3rd generation holocaust survivor who lives in a western metropol and hates it
>>4489483>artificial countertopsLol. Lmao even
>>4489594More like omegalul, eh Tim?>he doesn't even send catalogs to himself, what a poorfag
The glass is decent and crisp, but the price for that is extortionate.
>>4489598Moophurt lmao
>it now cost $20 to develop film only with no prints or scansAHHHHHHHHH
based kodak saving us from filmflationfuck alaris
>>4487718Film isn't a meme. Filmfags are meme.Film is an interesting and unique approach to photography that you can't get with digital, and treating it as such can be a nice experience.Being a delusional faggot about "muh film is three billion megapickles" and failing to see the massive convenience of digital is the meme.
>>4487875This. Film is good. Liking film is good. Other people liking film sucks, those fucking hipster douches. It’s only good when I do it, everybody else is stupid. …*those* hipster douches.
>>4487875>>4487899Nah. Film is a meme. Simple as.
>>4487899This but unironically
Posting all his series. Posting first:Early Works(SELECT WORKS)1984 - 1987
I want to bust a nut on this >>4483088 series very erotic and fascistic.
>>4484380I couldn't upload all his series due to the image limit, but check out his other stuff hosted on his website.https://andresserrano.org/series/budapest
Wow, his photography is honestly shocking and beautiful way ahead of his time to be honest
>>4483069>Mexican intellectuals
LMAO most of this is just edgy shit. Technical skill really doesn't matter if it's ugly>but that's the pointDon't care, fuck off hack "modernity" shits
It is time.
My phone photos mog half of /rpt/
>>4484547>not naming the thread /pp/Missed opportunity
>>4489463I really wish I had brought my camera there. It would have been worth the hassle.
So I see some absolutely beautiful sunrises at work this time of year. Realistically what kind of gear would I be looking at to get better than my phone camera (iPhone 14). Not sure on what I’m looking for, but I would also like it to be capable of low light exposure/ night time for aurora. Literally have no idea on what I need and the options available out there are worst than trying to figure out what caliber you need for accuracy out at 300 vs 1,500 yards. Is the iPhone just good enough for my amateur needs?
>>4489550bit much imo
>>4489553>live in Canada>cameras see 0F for hours on end for years>no problems???
>>4489553You don't need the LCD to take pictures, and what kind of dogshit camera do you have that freezes up under 20 degrees? The screen gets laggy on my z6 below single digits but it's still perfectly usable and the EVF has no issues at all. >>4489541They look awful because even the "good" phone cameras have shit sensors and can only produce anything decent with a ton of automatic processing that makes them look like aislop.
>>4489472>>4489473>>4489474proof that location + eye are more important than gear
>horrid looking sunset snapshits>DIS IS WHY QUALITY EQUIPMENT SUCKS AND CAPITALISM IS WRONG AND PEOPLE WHO SUCCEED ARE ACTUALLY LOSERSget a job and buy a 5div
>shot using smartphoneC&C plox
>>4489486>>4489487>>4489489>>4489491>>4489492crazy vibes need a crazy angleall these shots are straight on horizontalget on the floor.get on your assyou want a filthy shot? then roll in the mud to get the shot.its all too sanitary.
>>4489554dumb
>>4489555cope and seethe.you will never take a good photo.
>>4489559u know u can just hold a camera low right instead of getting on the ground. how dumb are u bruh
>>4489554your highlights look awful, i'll ignore the green tint because its nostalgic to me being y2k af.your subjects and angles are boring and I dont know what youre trying to say other than "I AM OBSESSED WITH AESTHETICS" and vibes. Its half hearted and you dont commit enough at all to anything at all.you have to get lower or get high. get close or dont bother.
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.
>>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?
>>4488983nta but>/p/
>>4488983NTA but I havent bought a transmitter despite theoretically knowing the power of off-camera flash. I envision my first outing with a transmitter, speedlite and softbox to be groundbreaking and literally make me cum from the results.Anon probably had the same revelation.
started looking at photos i shot back in 2008-2010ish and decided to do a dump.
Are CCD bridge cameras the best way to hop into the CCD trend? I don't want to have to get APS-C lenses for a CCD SLR and digital point and shoot seem terrible. Anyone have experience or their own shots to post? TIA
>>4489485Just get a CCD APSC DSLR. Even a <$100 Olympus 4/3 like E300/E500 will give you better image quality. Those old bridge cameras have at best 2/3" sensors and on top of the poor low light capabilities of a CCD make image quality shitty. And that's if you get a good one, its 20-25 year old electronics that at this point are prone to CCD failure, bad autofocus, etc. Pentax K10D and istD, Konica Minolta 5D, Sony a300/350/380/390 all go for next to nothing and the lenses are cheap too. If you made this thread yesterday I would've linked a $40 KM5D that sold on eBay already. If your fear is going down the lens rabbithole or creeping on your current purchases either get something that lets you run those lenses on a modern mirrorless (Sony LAEA4/LAEA5 A Lens to E Mount) or do a Kodak CCD 4/3rds like the Oly E300/E500 (rare lenses + $$$ + they suck at low light anyways)
>>4489485I forgot to add: Nikon D200 is a good option if you shoot Nikon. All the FF lenses work fine on the APSC CCDs...I took >>4489353 yesterday, they're fun to use. But yeah I wouldn't recommend a bridge camera unless you got one really cheap like <$40 and already had lenses + batteries that worked. That particular one (Dimage 7) iirc is a 1/2" sensor, the Dimage A1/A2 had a 2/3" sensor but uses rechargables from the K10D/KM5D DSLRs. Avoid the A200 since those have a battery that's more difficult to getPersonally of all the CCDs A-Mount is my favorite. The lenses are dirt cheap and the cameras get really nice images. I have a KM 5D, A390, and A58 (not CCD but CMOS) that I love equally. My Pentax K200D I want to get rid of (think the sensor is just gone...its "brown" hued) but I just bought 2 K10Ds for $30 each off buyee to mess with. A-Mount lenses are cheap enough you might find yourself collecting them. Honorable mention if you want a camera that isn't a CCD but gives the feel/colors...Canon 5D Classic/Mark II.
