>it now cost $20 to develop film only with no prints or scansAHHHHHHHHH
>>4411869its really not that hard to develop it yourself
Why the fuck is it more expensive to develop black and white film as opposed to color film? That's fucking insane.
>>4489845C41 is a standardized process that is uniform regardless of film speed (pushing/pulling aside), while b&w can be done different ways to achieve different outcomes and also requires different timing for different film speeds (unless your lab is doing rodinal stand dev I guess). More complexity = more expensive, while every lab has a machine that basically does c41 for them.
>>4489845B&W dev is done by hand, and C41 film is done by machine automation.I've seen a moderate rise of C41 B&W film being sold locally this past year or so. Local shop has sold a lot more XP2 Super than even HP5 according to the owner. The film is like an extra two bucks per roll but costs 2/3rd the dev cost at the same store so it's actually more economical.Besides, think of how much time it takes you to dev a single roll at home. Even if you've done it a hundred times and have all the chems ready to go, it still takes you a good 20-30 minutes to go through everything all the way to drying. I'm not surprised shops are charging $20 USD a roll to have an intern spend a solid half an hour on a single job.
>>4489852also that's the reason you never give your BW film to a lab because they don't know what look you want and they just use $something. if you shoot BW film you have to develop yourself to keep full control of the process. otherwise you could just get a digicam and shoot the monochrome JPG profile. same amount of control - just less cost.
Previous Thread Image Limit Reached: >>4474697Incidental Northern Mocking bird outside my balcony. Didn't have a picture of one yet.
>>4489818sick. I am going to PR this winter. bringing camera of course. I prefer wimbrels
>>4489817You're doing pretty well considering you're colorblind. If it's Deuteranopia you're pretty fucked, but if it's just some minor red-orange colorblindness then it shouldn't be a huge deal.>F11 is as wide as my lens goes with a 2x converterAre you shooting a 400mm f/5.6? with a 2x? Can't really get any better of a setup for 800mm without spending $10,000>This was also 12800 or 16000 isoThis is completely personal opinion, but if I was shooting this high of an ISO I would be turning NR off completely and shooting B&W. The chroma noise disappears and the luma noise is tolerable. In some cases it can look like a faux B&W film this way (but grain looks way better than luma noise ever will). Yes you lose the vibrant colors, but you're colourblind anyway so if anything it would be far easier for you to see what the photo looks like for other people.
>>4489860Yep, snoy 100-400. I can't afford a 300 f2.8I prefer it over the 200-600 because of size/weight, and I use it for landscape as well.I'm not afraid of iso, and I did not denoise or really crop this image at all. It was actually fairly ETTR'd so 16,000 looks ok. Just seems a bit blocky because of the compression down to 4-ish mbPicrel is a cat in my hotel room.
>>4489857Nice!I had a lot of fun. It's great for birds, but I kind of regret not going out specifically to shoot wildlife.I just got a bunch of random pics on resort or around old San Juan.Also, it's much pricier than say, Mexico. I was blindsided a bit.Picrel random bird on an umbrella at the resort. Not sure what this is, but they were everywhere.
"Merry Blobmas" Edition.Previously:
>>4489669thanks
>>4489467Neat! When did you take this?
photos
>>4485032These are boring af on multiple levels. The subject is boring af and then you stripped it of colors. Seems like a high school assignment for architectural shadows. Idk why anyone would freely choose to make this their subject. Depressing in a dumb way. Sorry so harsh tho, just bein honest. Hope this helps.
>>4452672composition is way off
It is time.
>>4484547>not naming the thread /pp/Missed opportunity
>>4489463I really wish I had brought my camera there. It would have been worth the hassle.
>>4489580I did have a camera with me, but also forgot to recharge the battery AND bring the spare battery with me...
>>4489784Little did you know, even if you’d taken charged batteries, you left the SD card at home…
How do you do it?I've been getting more active with my photography for a few years now and it's starting to get messy.On my hard drive I have my pictures in different folder by year and month, so it's quick and easy to just clear out my SD card.Then in Lightroom I pick the images I like and want to use and put them in a collection. However usually I make one collection per "set" and very rarely group any of the collections. Only have a group for shooting at protests, one for portraits and a few for some multi-week trips I took that resulted in multiple photo-sets.In my context a set is just a collection of images with a similar theme or from the same day that I post on social media or send to friends or whatever.Having an ever growing list of collections seems like a problem waiting to happen, especially if I want to go pro one day, so I was wondering how you guys manage it? The only thing I've seen online that might be a good idea is maybe grouping my collections by location to make them a little easier to sort through when I end up visiting the same place multiple times.
>>4489705Year > Session / EventMonthly doesn't really make sense to me (and is just bad if you ever can't recall which month an image was from)I do usually have two Snapshot folders for everyday type stuff, one for fist half of the year and second for last halfI'll usually have a Misc folder too for files I'm tinkering around with (think studio comparison tool)All exported files end up within the same Session folder so I don't really have to bother with viewing through LR/C1 if just browsing finished images.Switching to individual session folders instead of importing to one massive LR catalogue has been the best change I've made for both organization and workflow.Trying to link / group up "similar" images from different sessions always seemed like a waste of time to me.
I export to a google docs folder called export. Photos are named YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM:SS.I print maybe 2 dozen photos a month and put them in a photo album in order with labels, that's my real organization method.
>>4489728For reference, I shoot ~150k frames a year
>>4489728>>4489731I shoot at a considerably less volume than you, but I use year > session/event as well. I find it easier to recall and fetch photos past photos this way.
binder full of negatives (as well as a box with a bunch of older ones I haven't scanned yet), and then digitally all the scans are just in one big folder on an external and the ones I bother to edit/convert to jpg live in folders by yearits probably not the best system
2025 Halloween in Itaewon and Hongdae, Korea10/31~11/1Out of focus edition1/100And if you have some from the halloween you would like to share, please do.
>>4482910Nice one
>>4487585hah thanks
>>4480507Stop being mean.
Why are photography YouTubers so shit? They mostly churn out boring nontent while dressing like a copy of a copy of a copy of someone who thought he might closet cosplay Ansel Adams. Who are they aping?Almost all have the cadence and tone of a best buy sales associate either slowly conniving a golden HDMI cable sale or postponing their suicide on a Sunday evening only since their parents are still alive; with no in-between.I meet smarter and more interesting people IRL at camera club or local stores, so it's not as if this hobby is exclusively for people prescribed Klonopin and SSRIs.Half of them are just talking head slop direct to camera talking about what gear to buy (micro four nerds)The ones that do teardowns and repairs of gear are usually fine, but those aren't exactly photo videos at that point.The only guy that does the "video of taking photos" thing I can stand is Nick LoPresti since he doesn't talk like he's constipated, but lately the lack of constipation has become a problem since he's been diarrhea-shitting up my sub box with low-effort commentary videos sitting in front of a green screen. Idk who he's aping there, 2016 twitch? Don't like it, especially one where he and his wife are politisperging about shit like how "they can't use Google search for inane things because it'll track you" for what feels like several minutes.Snappiness may be my second favorite even though he looks and talks like a queer (he has kids so I guess he isn't technically). At least he does ridiculous things with cameras that are more interesting than "I walked and took a photo of something and had some ennui about it".Also, I hate gxAce with a passion, dead horse of a gimmick beaten into dust at this point. 80% of his videos serve no purpose to the modal viewer since they're just a rain-dance to the corporate marketing teams to get them to send him gear. (Also combining sloppy wet deep-throat glazing prose with an aloof tone is uniquely excruciating to listen to.)
>>4463763>and the ones that aren't are tutorial videos that only appeal to beginners.beginner videos are honestly some of the best. Every now and again theres something really really simple or a cool trick that i just had never gave much thought too and they end up making me play around outside of my comfort zones with the cameras that i do have. A lot more than ones aimed at "higher skilled" photographers and the feeling of the video is>have at least 20k in gear to try this first>how to let editing do 90% of the legwork instead of taking better pictures
>>4473148I still enjoy his content and I've been watching him since he was doing videos for redwolfairsoft
>>4466377The man who discovered DNA even said blacks are genetically prone to low intelligence get over itThere are a few good men but overall they’re unevolved. Natural civilizational selective pressures could fix their race in about 500 years but only if you stop giving them gibs and actually treat them as equals. As poorly as you treat single white male "failures". Truth hurts. The best time to start is today. Do business, not charity, with africans. And let the failures fail. Let them be disproportionately failures. It is the only way they will ever be our equals short of lethal eugenics measures.
>>4489676This is a photography board.
>>4473148I like his stuff, watched him a lot when I was getting into photography, now not so much though.I bumped into Lok a few years ago.
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.
>>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
>>4486706Great shot anon. I genuinely like all your photos here, your shots have a lot of soul. Keep on doing what you're doing.
What makes pic related so uncanny and unpleasant to look at? Is it the lack of shadows? Why would a photographer go for such effect?
>>4488991Most probably homosexuality
If this were /ic/, I'd say body proportions and perspective are all wrong.The combination of the hips being so much wider than the waist (perspective distortion?) and the lighting dropping off too quickly between cheeks and back (local adjustments?) suggests that the lower body is completely detached from the upper body.The lighting also makes everything look fake, but I can't explain that.
>>4489126it's just deepstate wikipedia trannies trying to solicit donations from that one australian schizo that sends them $5 every time someone makes a snoy post
>>4488991>anus_peekkino
imagine taking off her panty and just getting in there and licking her ass
Post em
>>4489596
>>4489597
photos of my cat Rupert that i took on my phone which at least trace amounts of thoughtful composition, as per the board rules I like this shot because it really focuses on his face, which is cute
>>4488893Make a thread with dogs, then.Here's one of mine from RPT.
>>4476319You caught a nice moment here. I think it would be better if you brought up the crop to a little bit below where his feet would be, behind the blanket, and maybe bring it in just a tiny bit on the right so there's a little more focus on the empty space he is looking towards.
Miss you, Avena.
The only good thread on this cursed site. I really wish I could have a cat.
Anything smaller than MF is cope EditionPrevious: >>4485653
>>4489584>voluntarily worseYes, but you conveniently ignore when they are voluntarily betterYou should be equally as critical of other brands for being voluntarily worse too, but you aren'tThere is a processing cost to it, and judging from what cameras it's made it's way too, it wouldn't surprise me if it's presently a processing limitation>Maximum Aperture Lv is necessary for low-light photography and they've only added it to 3(?) of their cameras.So is lowlight EV focusing, which again, you only seem to place any blame on NikonWhy is the canon only at -6.5EV? Why don't you call them out for their own limitations too?>>4489565Sony had the best AF, but if you have AF issue with a Zf, that is user error, mine has been perfect and I guarantee I've shoot with it more and in darker environments than you haveYou should share some examples for us like I asked
>>4489631>A7cII>-5EV with f1.4LOL
>>4489631>You should be equally as critical of other brands for being voluntarily worse too, but you aren'tI don't care about other brands because I'm not invested into them. I'm not talking about anything other than a feature I want my camera, and the camera I wanted to buy to have.>There is a processing cost to it, and judging from what cameras it's made it's way too, it wouldn't surprise me if it's presently a processing limitationZ5ii shares the same processor (EXPEED7) as the Z9, Z8, Zf, Z6iii, but doesn't have it. It may get it in the future, but making the purchase now (to get the holiday discount) is a gamble. I don't want this camera without this feature. I struggle enough as it is on my z50, focusing at f/1.8, then doing two full dial slides to get up to f/8 for my shot.>Why is the canon only at -6.5EV? Why don't you call them out for their own limitations too?I don't care about what Canon is doing, I don't have any Canon gear. I'm not the guy arguing with you. I'm the Nikon user who wants features that exist in other cameras to exist in my camera.
>>4489244is there any real reason not to get the R5 II other than the increase in price?
>>4489633Manufacturers publish these ratings but i had a zf and the focus just missed constantly in situations where the a7c worked fine. Pretty sure they all use different AF targets and modes and weird circle of confusion standards. Like how IBIS ratings are as fake as can be (vibrating table lol)
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
