>>4458769
36 is too many, you won't finish the roll. 12 is not enough, you finish the roll and miss some good shots while you're reloading. 18-24 is the ideal number of frames, you finish the roll by evening and can develop them at night.
>>4458638
honestly one of the best trichromes I've seen, usually the colors are all fucked up but this looks natural

Fuck you reciprocity.

File: Untitled (34).jpg (2.24 MB, 2492x2054)

2.24 MB JPG

New egg picture just dropped. 18 min exposure at f64. Txp320 has terrible reciprocity.

These dried palm tree leaf chunks have really beautiful texture on them. I will be taking some more pics of them.

>>4458932
How did you get your egg to hold still for so long?

File: 20250812_211126.jpg (2.2 MB, 3758x2538)

2.2 MB JPG

Behind the scenes for all to enjoy. I got these c stands with extension arms recently and they have been incredibly useful for all of my studio work. Neewer brand. 120ish bucks each and suprisingly decent/sturdy quality. Would recommend.

First time using a cloth and I don't like the weird texture it gave the background. Next time I will try out some black/gray paper instead.

>>4458934
Lullaby song, sedatives, and some sticky tack if neither of those work.

>>4458802
The only success that matters with a camera is taking the picture you want. Anything else is a distraction. Especially paid gigs.

Maybe it's time to think of a more local impact. Maybe you aren't making an impact online but you could find things in your community or creative ways to make your lifestyle involve photography more in a meaningful way. A really basic thing to do is learn how to go to the thrift store and properly pick and save money on frames. Take the old stuff out and put your photos in.
Maybe you could make a personal website, something simple like a gallery and a bit about who you are. Nothing crazy. Just enough so that if you meet someone IRL who's interested in your photography while you're out shooting you send them there with like a stack of 100 business cards you printed for 15$ at Walmart. And you could start uploading your images to something like Getty, or even to subject appropriate Google Maps, or Wikipedia, or other places they'll likely be seen. Lots of Getty dudes don't have social media because their photos need to be on Getty. If you're more of an artist than a stock photo guy then maybe get into printmaking beyond just inkjet? Invest in a printer so you can print on plastic transparency paper so you could make high-quality cyanotypes and such. Maybe read about the history of the Pictorialists. Let things like hashtags take a backseat and make it more about what your lifestyle actually is in real life, not just on the internet and on the computer with everything on screens. And I don't just mean your house. Or convince me why there's no opportunity in your community for something interesting.

>>4458716

Rocks and leaves…
And in black and white…

>>4458812
Are you implying lua did better
because she really didn't.

>>4458667
>Please show me a replacement for old Instagram if you know one, because I don't.
https://fotoapp.co
do not start your identity politics drama there

>>4458173
It's also a lot better for lower end cameras which is why it has all the AI noise reduction. The raws from my "disposable" cheapo m43 camera turn out much better from DXO editing than capture one. The raws from my Z8 turn out better from capture one and kind of look like shit from DXO.

File: 1753553835819923 - Copy.jpg (2.77 MB, 3083x1348)

2.77 MB JPG

>>4453010
Just combine the low frequency detail of the jpg with high frequency detail of the raw for the best of both worlds.

>>4458829
What program does this? Looks useful for fuji raws

Or maybe capture one should fix their noise reduction

>>4458837
I used photoshop. Look up a frequency separation tutorial. Separate the frequencies of the raw. You'll have a low frequency layer with a high frequency layer above it set to linear light, then do the same to the jpg and paste the low frequency layer from the jpg in place of the raw's low frequency layer.

File: 1454864282461.jpg (345 KB, 1200x728)

345 KB JPG

>>4458837
>>4458843
Repostin for the oldfags

>>4458578
>they'd give him like $200 cash
Sounds right

>>4458578
Even if he did one wedding per day, five days a week, that's 50k a year. That's hardly a killing.

>>4458578
lmao /p is so poor they think 200$ is a lot of money

OP didnt put it on a crop right

>>4458578
Even considering 2010 pricing,
$200 cash for a wedding is a reasonable "tip" for someone that charges $2-4k per wedding
$200 cash to actually shoot a wedding is poverty tier pricing, and could easily put someone in the red
Most people making a killing at wedding photos during that time also used much better gear than a D40 + kit lenses, just like you don't see most wedding shooters nowadays using entry level bodies + kit lenses.

File: 192A8304_02.jpg (2.62 MB, 6240x3510)

2.62 MB JPG

Not sure how happy I am with these.

>>4458831
nice

File: 192A8185.jpg (805 KB, 4224x2376)

805 KB JPG

>>4458855

File: 192A7927_02.jpg (4.46 MB, 6192x3483)

4.46 MB JPG

>>4458857

>>4458858
what the fuck is that thing eating?
honestly terrifying

>>4449391
>Redmi
nah dude, chink phones cannot into photos

>>4449708
cinefaaaaag

File: DSC_1145.jpg (23 KB, 362x550)

23 KB JPG

>>4449036

what is lq?

File: does this count.jpg (1.12 MB, 3144x4164)

1.12 MB JPG

>>4449036
Taken on my crappy phone a few years ago

>>4456549
Basado

>>4455016
Find, read and understand the user manual for your camera. (Duck search for minolta sr t super user manual, for example.) Then go out and shoot.

>>4457304
You misspelled Canon, who had the far superior lens mounting system.
That being said outside of ((muh professional)) use pretty much all the well known older SLR brands are decent overall. My first SLR as a kid was a NOS Olympus OM10 my grandmother had received as a gift but never used, I used my Mom's Minolta quite a bit, and during that period in the 2000s when film cameras were fucking worthless I bought and sold several Nikon and Pentax cameras just to mess around with them a bit. My two favorites were a Canon F1 and AE1, but they were all fun to use in their own ways.

>>4455016
I got my first camera when I was six years old, a Samsung S630. Anyway, I took photos every day with that thing during the holidays. One night, I looked through the menus. “Format? What’s that do?” “Do you want to format your card?” “Yes.” “Are you sure?” “Yes.” Anyway, I cried.

>>4458368
f

>>4458283
There's some value in gearfagging I guess. If your subject is not particularly interesting (your dog, the moon, etc), you can devote yourself to making the most high-definition photo you possibly can, which requires gear and technique and what not.

>>4458773
Dogs have innate sovl so you dont need to gearfag to shoot your dog beyond wanting competent autofocus because dogs move around a lot. Just disregard panasonic, fuji, and olympus and you're golden. Which is good advice in general. Anything that is good for shooting dogs is also good for shooting women, since all the sexy photos need some movement involved unless you get a very talented model.

Now if your subject is really boring, like google street view photography, cars, benches, street signs, building corners, etc you dont need to question film vs digital, and you dont need to care about resolution. There is no detail or color of note. There is nothing to care about. It's filler photography.

>>4458776
trvth

competent dog portrait on a 5dii with blazing fast super accurate canon autofocus >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> boring backs of heads on a loomix

>>4458049
test

>>4458773
I don't think owning nice gear is all it takes to be a gearfag. It's mostly your attitude about the gear and a little bit what you shoot with it.

If you actually use a nice camera to its fullest potential or try your best to on something other than test charts what is the problem?
/p/ gearfags and the anti gearfag gearfag counterparts have severe goldilocks syndrome and it plays exactly into my first post. If your camera is too nice/nicer than theirs you are bad because gearfag. If your camera is worse or not the right brand you are also bad and your pictures are all shit because of it. Only their camera is the acceptable choice. It's all autism all the way down.

>>4458783
>>4458776
Based, but you do not need autofocus for dogtography. It just makes your life infinitely easier. I guess it depends what you're trying to accomplish really.

>>4458529
Another retard pointless comment

>>4458529
Smart and pointed comment. Thanks for the contribution, tripfriend.

Ignore the haters op. This place is not really a place to share actual opinions and images.

I like pretty much all the shots. A lot of them do look a bit like just random holiday shots, but they remind me of when my family would look at old projector photos for birthdays.

One of my friends recently bought a Leica M6 after having the M11 for a bit. I wish I wasn't a broke and could afford stuff like that too.

>>4458679
You too also have zero reading comprehension

>>4458679
Youve got excellent reading comprehension.

File: 000011910032.jpg (3.82 MB, 3130x2075)

3.82 MB JPG

>>4458140
You can buy old screw mount mirror reflex lenses for cheap. Less than 100 four a 500mm f8
They don't look particularly good but i love the bokeh

dont forget that TTArtisan makes a new manual 500/6.3 in most mounts. its cheap and pretty light and youre not gonna have to deal with the mirror/reflex lens bullshittery.

>>4458674
500mm with no IS or AF sounds like cancer. You'll be shooting at 1/1000th wide open in the best of light which arguably isn't bad for birding as long as you actually manage focus.
You can get 100-400mm f/5.6 IS AF lenses for like an extra $300-400 on top of what the TTFartisan goes for.
I mean yeah if $300-400 is prohibitive for you then whatever, but why not just save money for another month

>>4458140
what for? what body you have?
maybe a mirror telephoto might be decent for your use case
definitely not the sharpest, not the fastest and bokeh is not for everybody, but it's cheap and compact
or just get a smaller prime and shoot in APS-C or with a teleconverter

File: 1137-3415-3.jpg (351 KB, 1400x694)

351 KB JPG

4458322

I knew where to get one I just wanted to cross my T's and dot my I's before I showed up I'm building a car and would like to return to set the record.

You're a nophoto anyway no one cares about your opinion I replied because I felt sorry for you. While I'm out actually doing cool shit your pathetic sorry excuse of an ass is still trolling people on 4chan, go outside and touch grass

>>4458416

Did you go in 2023 when it looked like this? That was a horrible year we ran a short course and a lot of drivers said they should have just cancelled the event, the only people who set records were the slow crowd who only needed a mile or so to set them.

File: 1754374084832114.jpg (1.72 MB, 1333x2000)

1.72 MB JPG

There's a few options
>Expose for the sky only and just make that a thing
>Expose for foreground and live with blownout skies
Both of the above will have a huge say on how you compose your shot. I.e the sky will become the subject, or largely excluded.
Alternatively, you take two exposures, one for the foreground and one for the sky. And then combine them in some software such as lightroom.
There is also physical graduated filters you can use.

>>4458706
I should also say that if you're shooting RAW you can probably correct the expsosure

>>4458705
If you want to solve the problem before you even take the photo, you can use a special filter called a graduated neutral density filter. It's basically a piece of tinted glass that's dark on top and clear on the bottom. You slide it in front of your lens, and the dark part covers the sky, making it less bright and easier for your camera to expose everything evenly.
Another option is to bracket your shots. This means you take three or more photos of the same scene without moving your camera. One photo is exposed for the bright sky, one for the middle ground, and one for the dark foreground. Then, you can use software to combine these photos into a single, perfectly exposed image. This is a common technique for a lot of landscape photographers.

Just use a modern camera with enough DR to expose for the sky and push the ground.

>>4458705
Circular polarisers reduce the intensity of the sky by 'polarising' it. They also have the effect of reducing all light transmitted too. The photo you posted is taken with a CPL, you can tell because at ultra-wide focal lengths they tend to cause uneven polarisation, which is why the sky in the centre of the image is so much darker than to the sides.

>>4458602

that looks like Proust

>>4458668
M43 system can't have an APS-C sensor can it? (like Sony and Nikon have both APS-C and FF cameras with the same lens mount) The lenses are too small in diameter, righ?

>>4458695
negative. same issue EOS M mount had; mount is at capacity.

>>4458693
The book? Les Miserables I think, it's not mine.

>>4458654
absolutely correct

there's more talent in sugar's swollen index finger than there is in this entire thread and the huskyfag-doghair complex genuinely outdoes most of /p/ despite working with less than ideal environments (a bunch of dead grass and ugly pine trees and a farm littered with 100 years worth of garbage respectively)

>>4452737
nice

>>4454407
thanks homie

File: 2585_1264708704.jpg (56 KB, 1024x1024)

56 KB JPG

there's a Panasonic Lumix DMC-LF1 to sell for just 30€
Seller states that there's a slight gray marks if you photograph vertically
he uploaded a test image.
should i grab this ?

>>4457708
>Lumix DMC-LF1
Nah that's a boring generic point and shoot. Get something with a ccd like a coolpix s4 or a canon powershot G1-6. They're a little more money but they're more fun.

>>4452714
nice
>>4452703
soul

File: R1-09270-0034.jpg (696 KB, 1800x1200)

696 KB JPG

>>4458052
>immediate save
definitely check out more of her work. i find that there's a strong gothic element to her work

>beautiful. almost has a yin yang going on
thanks it's more or less why i kept that one.

File: rooftops 02.png (2.21 MB, 2376x1584)

2.21 MB PNG

>>4457849
Thanks friend. Here's another from the series

File: 100S7071.jpg (1.58 MB, 3000x2000)

1.58 MB JPG

>>4458335
neat

File: IMG_20250601_170140270_1-01.jpg (2.15 MB, 3062x3062)

2.15 MB JPG

>>4457537

>>4452766
nah. Maybe bring up the highlights a bit if you can

safe

>>4452560
>>4452561
nice shot
>>4452562
be careful, anon
>>4449946
cozy
>>4449867
Zesty
>>4441297
kek