5.4 is out, what do we think bros?
>>4489704This is me. Like for 8+ years now. I'm getting there. I want to quit Adobe but I can't quite get the look I want. But again I'm getting close. I have a preset that's nice, but I just can't get it to work with flash photos. AI denoise is a must for me also as a nightlife photographer. Some people are working on AI denoise for dt but I can't try it with my 5700XT. Or I have to try to reprogram it myself so it works with the pytorch and ROCm version that my card can use. But f dat
>>4490252Try the new version with the agx module. This was always one of the reasons I have returned back to LR. The greyish shit. I know exactly what you mean. But with agx you can get there
>>4493699Yeah everyone telling me "sigmoid sigmoid" until I used agx and all my troubles were gone
>>4493698i own capture one and never cared. it was like $200. AI denoise? tacky and tasteless, just grain vs sharpened inpainted mush. its for birds and weddings yknow. fucking 5dII at ISO 12800 still looks better than 35mm film but maybe LR renders noise worse. ive heard its sharper and more obnoxious instead of soft and creamy like film.
>>4489612>He seeks gainful employment from photography and editing in 2013+13, the year of AIrofl
I was hiking last week with my camera and when I reached the summit this couple approached me and asked me if I could take a couple pictures of them and asked me how much it would be. I've never charged for a picture so I said it was free, but they insisted and gave me $20 for like 10 pictures. This left me wondering and I started doing some research. I found out people pay THOUSANDS for shitty wedding pictures, also those shitty car pictures with tons of filters on them, people actually charge money for that stuff. What the heck? does this mean I can actually make money with my camera?
>>4494123Only if you buy the newest one and the biggest lens otherwise your photos are suddenly bad even if they look the sameIf it werent for normies mirrorless wouldnt sell and we’d all still shoot film
>>4494123People pay for a crafty photographer like for a good plumber or any other craftsman . Apply the appropriate formula and consistently deliver satisfactory result to client. It's the art which does not pay, nobody would want a plumber who builds works of art from pipes.
Could anyone give me a noob intro to editing and color grading photos?I have no idea what I'm doing.
>>4494088Thank you, anon. But why do half of this guys photos look like this?
>>4494091That's just his stylized artwork. Notice the skillful color balance. If you dig a little deeper you'll see less stylized pieces of art he has masterfully created.
>>4494091he was 100 years ahead of his time in 1999 and he's still 100 years ahead of his time today.but seriously, what do you mean you have no idea? like technical aspects of the program you're using? plenty of autists make youtube tutorials for ever program under the sun to understand the basics. or do you mean you don't know what's "right?" because there is no right or wrong beyond what you (or your client) want from the image. your OP image for instance doesn't seem to have an obvious color cast and the contrast seems reasonable, which means you're doing fine for 95%+ of applications where you'd be taking a photo imo. if you or your client want a specific look its mostly about defining that look and making it consistent between images, which aside from controlling things in camera to create consistency is basically just a matter of finding a look you or the client like and then (honestly probably through a lot of trial and error initially) bringing the images you're going to use in line with that look.if you're talking video I'm clueless so maybe someone else can answer as to that
if it looks good to you thats what mattersdont pay for some hack youtubers edit colors
>>4494087>I have no idea what I'm doing.Good. The first and last word on editing and color grading is "the eye is the final judge."
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?
>>4493521Sounds like a perfect street photography camera on paper. And holy shit, that slow motion sounds impressive. I'll have to look up clips.
>>4482267I wish phones had optics at least like this
>>4493703There are kits that replace the lens with a M43 mount.
>>4493840Reminds me of my Pentax Q with the K mount adapter.
>>4493840ahh yes, the ribcage
Rate my snapshits
Last one
>>4493929a bit Washed Out. turn the lighting down and view make slight adjustments until you know what looks closest to the real image
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.
>>4493184uh no self destruction is feminist and dog pics are bad because theyre wholesome and dont give me a bonerin fact i am so confused by people who take photos of dogs and cats that i think they must want to fuck them. i literally can not comprehend anyone having non sexual thoughts about a warm body so i call better photographers than me dog rapists every chance i get. t. >>4493183
>>4487730What's wrong with this photo? It seems fine to me. I could see it in playboy. >>4487745>>4487870this is a good photo. BUT It looks like a stock photo for some article about food play during sex.
>>4488006>Eating garbage "food" in excess, without any cultural occasion, tradition, or symbolism but "STOP! TELLING! WOMEN! NOT! TO! GET! FAT!" (read in the claps) is not a celebration of the self. It is degenerated behavior for anyone over the age of 16, regardless of race, religion or culture.Most of these women (at least the ones posted) are a healthy weight Only 2 are fat.
>>4493296and soldiers in propaganda are fit, healthy, and happyits just vice propaganda targeted at womenthe world does not need whisky and marlboros womanit needs whisky and marlboros man to take a hike
>>4487726>>4487727>>4487729Reminds me of the Black Series by the Mondogo Collective out of Argentina.
>ctrl f: sqt>noneI'm going to start this one off with a stupider question than usual. Say you were asked to shoot a few wedding shots at the last minute and all you've shot before was rocks, leaves, birds and the odd landscape or building corner... what do? Asking for a friend of course but pls reply quick.
>>4493815IIRC if you change the ETTL-II settings (for Canon but check your camera regardless) there's one called flash priority instead of eval or face eval or whatever that should prioritise sending a bigger flash. The other two try and strike a balance between background light and subject but flash priority should do what you're asking for.Could also set up a C mode with the auto ISO settings to be a narrower band if you'd still rather a balanced background exposure
Is there a worse camera than the d-lux 8 to spend that much money on? what are better options if you want something compact, impossible to fuck up, easy to use, convenient to travel with?
>>4493970>Leica>4/3rds>$1800 usedLeciafags are mental.Get a Ricoh GR.Literally any edition. I and II have a pop up flash but no IBIS, III and IV have IBIS, no flash. The older the cheaper. All are good.>compactThe only literally pocketable good camera.>impossible to fuck upGood ergonomics, nice menus, etc. Just don't take it out in the rain or in the middle of a dust storm.>easy to useYes.>convenient to travel withYes.
>>4493815If you're using flash, that's one of the best reasons to be shooting in M
>>4494009>can't readNigga he's using auto ISO. It doesn't matter what mode he uses if that's the case, the ISO is going too high instead of favoring increasing power.
After much positive feedback to the /m43/ general I re-thought the whole thing. Why limit to one mount if the defining defining feature is the aspect ratio?Let's have a /4:3/ general for all the based chads who shoot in 4:3 ratio!Welcome: Everyone whose system shoots natively in 4:3!Also welcome: Those who accept the superiority of 4:3 and crop their 3:2 (cringe) images to the 4:3 (based) ratio.Not welcome: Everyone else.Topic of the first /4:3/ general ever: Are 5:4 and 6:7 based, too? Or are they just tryhard?Discuss!
here, a phone photo
>>4494003Yet another
>>4494004Another one
>>4494005And here, the last phone photo
>>4494003>>4494004>>4494005>>4494006Conclusion: I really like the 4:3 format and am glad, that smartphones also have this sensor ratio. For me 5:4 is also a top contender, but so far, I took better pictures with the 4:3 and 3:2 format. Maybe it is really how the format influences the choice of composition. With 1:1 and 4:3 it is quite easy to make a pleasing composition. I‘d really like to try 7:6 someday…
I'm really lost on how much sensor size matters, because while I read tons of gear stuff here and the most detailed explanations, in reality the photos taken with a small sensor still look good to me because it's about composition, feelings, emotion, subjects and things like that.So what's the deal with sensor sizes
>>4486385I don't like this it's bad
>>4486371Nice shit post lol
>>4486368>>4486367>>4486363>>4486385Cute doggies. May the children of heaven be blessed at heaven's gate when they all pass into the after life.
>>4486110this is HYPERKINO
>>4478850Any proof?Take digicam with 1mpix sensor, take photo with DSLR, resize to 1mpix and compare.
It's 2026 - here are my new years' resolutions:I'm going to leave this godforsaken board. This is a fucking highly negative place infested by gearfags, chartfags and the mentally ill. This board sucks all the joy out of the hobby. A bucket of crabs so to speak. I'm also going to leave all other photography related forums and communities. It's full with nophoto assfags who are just frustrated at their own lack of photographic skill and try to pull down everyone and anyone to their own level of incompetence.Cya fuckers.As a parting gift I'm giving you a bunch of shitty firework pictures.
>>4491670>people who take good photos the first time every time and know how to use a camera? lame. just because people are willing to pay you doesnt mean you’re better than me, the secret king!kek
>>4491673>le motte and bailey Not to say I think these are good photographers, but I'm talking about the Many from your statistics who photograph people and things they don't care about to earn a living
>>4491675Learning the technical side is so easy it's not even a protected trade anywhere
>>4491681Right thats why you’re so successful at it
Status report on Syrian bro?
What's a man got to do to optimise prime lenses here? I want to take reasonably good photos without breaking the bank but I feel like I'm getting bogged down by the maths. Will I always be held back by this unexceptional camera or is it perfectly capable if you're not a retard?
>>4493792https://www.blog.juliatrotti.com/pictures/canon-50mm-nifty-fifty-portrait-photographyOne of many examples from that little lens>>4493800>the photograph is dark and blurryThis is just knowing how to use a camera. If you don't know what the actual problem is, your pictures may very well be just as dark and blurry even with something much better.If your photos are too dark, change your exposure settings, same as you would with any other camera.There are different kinds of blurry. If it's blurry because of movement, either you or the subject, use a faster shutter speed. If it's blurry because not enough is in focus, use a narrower aperture. If it's blurry because the focus is wrong, learn your focus system better.
>>4493800homie you're just new lol keep shooting and you'll get quicker.
oh dick pics for sure
>>4493792Most of what you're saying means nothing. Take the photo in whatever way makes you happy.The gear itself is perfectly serviceable with reasonably high sharpness and clarity from that lens. Shooting at f/2.8 or below will give you less ideal results but at f/4 and above the 50mm is a great performer. Sure you could get a nicer body for like $100-200 but that's up to you.>>4493800>I feel like it or me is just not responsive enough that by the time I figure out the focal lengths, the lighting, the shutter speed, the aperture I miss the moment and the photograph is dark and blurry anywayTake the fucking camera off of M mode. You don't get bonus points for making it harder on yourself. Stick the thing on Program or Av mode. Program might make more sense for you now since you're struggling but I like Av mode for most use cases as you still have full control over your DoF.Program mode does the work for you. You can still mess with parameters by 'adjusting the program' with your control wheel, it will just move your aperture and shutter speed around. Set your ISO to something that allows you to keep your shutter speed reasonably high like 1/125th.Buying more expensive gear only gives you more controls like a rear dial or a joystick or whatever. Useful but not mandatory to take good photos.
>>4493792>muh mathsNigga you don't even have the photography vocabulary to verbalize why you think you suck right now. Just search for a free photography course for beginners on youtube and start from there.You don't need to be a wizard to be able to shoot manual, just a bare minimum knowledge of exposure triangle and your camera's interface. And honestly if you can't figure this shit out with a T7 give up, you'll never make it, there's people still rawdogging T3is with the kit lens and doing just fine.
Give me your most abstract images related to cameras.
Can we please have dogs licking cameras.
>>4492137The peanut butter is perfect. Just skip the bread and bring in a dog.
>>4493901WHY ITS ALWAYS SOMEONE ELSE AAAAAAAAHOh its a Leica III,forget it.
>>4493901dat sexy nazi SS serial number!>Want!
started looking at photos i shot back in 2008-2010ish and decided to do a dump.
I wish I could go back to the Vancouver of 15 years ago. I fucking hate the post 2017 era. Thank you OP.
Lovely thread, colors in particular are really pleasant. I'd offer more critique but I suck Highlights>>4489533>>4489540>>4489545>>4489546Most of them reallyWas in vancouver in 2012 for a few months internship at UBC wish I could go back there, thanks for bringing some of the memories back
>>4492360Oh nice, I really like FP4 especially pushed to 400. Never used Pyro, been mainly using Kodak Tmax developer. I'm sure it'll play well with Pyro too. These were all scanned with a mix of a Nikon Super Coolscan 9000ED and a shitty Canon flatbed. I scan now with a Sony a7 and macro lens, wayyyy quicker with better results.>>4492392Thanks anon, appreciate your comments. Get some colour film and have fun! I don't shoot it anymore, bw film tickles the itch for me now.>>4492418Thanks anon <3. I enjoy playing with scale a quite a bit for sure.>>4492421Probably because it essentially was, given it was a Canon flatbed from the early 2000s.>>4492486I want to move back regardless, miss it.Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Great thread and lovely photos. What were these taken on? >>4492523> I scan now with a Sony a7 and macro lens Even med format? Seems so clumsy to stitching several photos together of the same frame. I do 135 with a macro adapter and 120 on a flatbed for now.
>>4493405Hey thanks! The 6x6 is a mix of Bronica SQ-A and Mamiya 6. The 135 is a mix of Canon AE-1P and Stylus Epic.I don't really shoot 6x6 anymore. I do scan 120 rarely and don't find stitching necessary. I've printed up to 16"x16" from single frame scans of 120 that look great.
Haven't posted in a couple of months but got a few rolls developed recently and I'm slowly going through scanning them.Exif: Leica M3 + Nokton 50mm f.1.5 + Vision3 250D (for the first seven ones), then Aerocolor IV for the remaining four.
>>4487619niggers stop posting at 5pm when they leave office
>>4493288Thanks, bro. I also really enjoy that one.
>>4487758>He doesn't know voigtlander lenses are optically on par if not better than lenses these days.
Love the colours in the 250D shots. They don't have a green tint that I see other people get from it. I hate green tints.
>>4493620Right? I don't know how OP does it, these are bright and colorful with tasteful halation while any time I shoot vision3 it comes out with weird color cast that can't be easily fixed. Maybe he's using bona-fide ECN2 chemicals or is just better at scanning. I'll stick to gold and ultramax or the de-remjetted vision3, those come out ok.
Why do some people genuinely not see photography as art? It has existed for over 150 years, yet people still see it as nothing more than a reproduction of a subject. We live in an age of images, where our culture is steeped in the ubiquity of photography; the camera is inside everyone's phones, and proliferates on every app. Keep that in mind when you realise that a good photograph is hard to come by; despite an inundation of images, a truly beautiful piece of art, a stunning photograph, is harder to grasp. A photographer only hopes to make about one or two genuinely good photograph in their lifetime. But even if we narrow our assessment of photography to people who buy the right gear (film cameras, full frame cameras, mirrorless cameras, ecosystems of lenses), we find another issue. How many people in the photography community can even take a masterful photograph? The worst thing I see in hobbyist photography is not necessarily a lack of passion, but a lack of vision. A family snapshot with low technical skill is only interesting to the person who took it. You can find people on Lomography, Instagram, Discord, or Reddit just post photographs that boil down to these elements: >lack of detail or sharpness>tonally flat (i.e., no tone splitting, no contrast between highlights and shadows)>no choice in colour or tones>no pre-production elements that would convey vision or ideas>centre-shot>no forethought about depth of field, especially if someone is just using the same aperture all day like Sunny 16>noisy or grainy for no reason>no meaningful use of negative space>no sense of narrative>flat with no sense of visual hierarchy (i.e., how your eye is supposed to be guided, from point to point)>no ambiguity, so the photo is obviously just about a particular theme or subject
>>4493531With dogshit like this as competition its no wonder people like garry winogrand could succeed
>>4493878See>>4493632
>>4493891history remembered the winnereven with far, far better and more known works than the tree snapshit…weston did not define photography going forwardbresson didwinogrand didthis is for a reason and its not a mass failure or a conspiracy
>>4493897Yeah, just like your favorite genre, pop music.
>>4493900a lot of older music considered fine art now was once just popular. in fact, some of it was loathed and accused of being degenerate, simple, and raunchy. much of new music prescribed as art now is overly pretentious junk, pointlessly convoluted and abstracted so people who aren’t intelligent but are in the know can pretend to be “cultured” to compensate for a total absence of intellect and ability. it will all be forgotten. this pattern repeats often
