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
"Merry Blobmas" Edition.Previously:
>>4489625Nice CORNER OF BUILDING.I mean at this point jfc.
>>4489669thanks
Post em
>>4489596
>>4489597
I don't want to buy a new flagship every two years. I just want to have a nice pocket camera and keep my midrange for a while. My old olympus pocket camera lasted for almost a decade. Preferably nothing more expensive than $700
>>4489617market price, not sale price>$200ishLumix LX3/LX5/LX7Nikon CoolPix P330Olympus XZ-1/XZ-10PowerShot G10Samsung EX-1>$350ishRicoh GR Digital ICanon PowerShot S120Olympus Stylus XZ-2Nikon CoolPix P340Samsung EX2FLumix LF1Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>4489626Thank you, knower
>>4489617rx100 is the only good one and any of the old models are fine and cheap
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
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.
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.
