What is it with people that shoot on film?Film is expensive to film, develop and scan.Yet what do they do? They film the most mundane bullshit.Traffic lights. Or some mediocre bullshit to some obscure indie song.Why do they all do this?If you're gonna spend hundreds of dollars. Atleast film something good. But it's like they think the vintage aesthetic will make their shit good.It's like they just want to see what their mundane boring life would look like on film.
>>4471441Its $200 for capture one as a one time fee and then a lifetime of laughing at grain peepers for the cost of electricityOr just shoot jpeg. Its lower quality and if the camera fucks up some setting you’re boned, but lab scans do worse
>>4471456Tell me more about this spy camera please.
>>4471460sorry it was the 90sDicomed Big Shot 60x60mmhttps://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61105838tl;dr not worth even if you can find one
>>4471481Dang. Massive pixel pitch. If it worked well it could be a cool one to use.
>>4471459Capture one expert
Post photos you like.
>>4471419
>>4471420
>>4471421
>>4471422
>>4470053Welcome back cruz
How often do you all go through your digital files and purge? I look back and realize a lot of my digital photos are unnecessary garbage, it amazes me how when i shoot film I take high quality photos I want, whereas when I review my digital shots I end up cringing that I even took a large majority of the picturesDo you guys purge your digital shots often?Do you find yourself reflecting back at how awful some photos are that you took and unnecessary such as landscapes and random street photography? or even people you don't even interact with anymoreI see why film is the superior method
>>4471426Never, I just buy more storage. Even if a photo is dogshit I can still use it to learn from, and re-take a better version in the future. I have never deleted a photo since I started shooting, I'm currently at 7TB.
i'm pretty aggressive when it comes to purging. instead of deleting one by one, i just select the pictures that somewhat decent. then select the rest and delete all permanently
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
>>4470095iirc its full of aislop fakery
Why can't I get this fucking thing to focus sharply reeeeee
Ok, so after some research I've determined that refractors and Maksutovs are the best for purely planetary views. Let's say I just want the most detail and zoom when looking at the planets, and astrophotography and DSOs are merely a bonus, and I have a budget of ÂŁ2,000. Would a Sky-Watcher EvoStar 150 be a good starting point for me?
>>4470703A refractor would be a poor choice given your budget. You're not going to get a focal length long enough to get clear view of the planets except for really chintzy no-name stuff which is probably going to have poor optical quality. Also likely to have a horrific f-ratio/aperture so that rules out astrophotography and DSOs even as a bonus.A catadioptric telescope (e.g. Maksutov/Schmidt-Cassegrain) is fine but is probably overkill for cost/complexity for what you're looking for. The best telescope would be an 8" Newtonian telescope on a Dobson mount (usually listed for sale as a "Dobsonian telescope" as a bundle together). They tend to be very affordable because people have figured out really efficient ways to make precision parabolic mirrors, they're not cheap because of lower quality. You get a massive focal length and massive aperture for cheap. Only intimidating part is collimation, but you can buy cheapo laser tools to help with that + youtube vids. Can't do much astrophotography but the huge aperture ("light bucket") allows you to see faint objects so a lot of deep sky stuff will be easy to see.
would like into astrophotographything is, im a /fgt/-fag and 99% b&w shootercan i get by with a leica visoflex and bellows for astro?also is astro in b&w even worth it?
Here are my bad photos of a theme park. I only took a 20 year old digishit with me. EnjoyA photo of the hotel is mandatory
These honestly just look like they're from a smartphone, there's not much of that typical digishit flaws in them that you'd see 20 years ago. Funnily enough you've bought a camera that is too good.
>>4471014The lf1 is in that weird territory of pre 1” “large sensor” cameras that were made to compete with the canon S series, but were too late in time because the rx100, gx7, and cell phones were taking over. They’re fun because they provide manual controls and such but image quality wise the 1.7” ones were always cellphone at best in good light.
>>4471014>>4471017lf1 anon here...i didn't post any images here yet...i bought it..saw that fat hair on sensor and dropped ituntil today when i fixed it...will take it out soon.
>>4452698>DevagI'd like to D her vag, if you know what I mean.
>>4464056
>Tried rangefinder camera for the first time>Yashica_Electro_35_GTN.jpg>Felt absolutely like shit to shoot>The shutter sound boring>Felt awkward to holdRemind me again why people like film rangefinder? Not to mention that my friend bought it used and the quality of the viewfinder itself is quite terrible. so like, why? Do I need to try Leica or something?
>>4451975>the shutter sound boringare you really this much of an autist?
>>4451975I like using my Olympus XA rangefinder, mainly because it's tiny and I can carry around in a pant pocket for random family photos whenever we go out.I have no interest in lugging around my SLR when we go to a diner or concert.>>4467778There's a weird amount of people that consider the "feel" and "sound" of the shutter and film advance to be a significant factor in how much they like a camera.IMO the only things that matter are ergonomics, features, and image quality.
>>4451975DESU I'd recommend you do try a Leica. Just go to your local Leica store with your credit card and a roll of film. ask them to look at some of the cameras. Eventually ask to look at one of their film bodies. After you chat with the salesperson for a half hour or so, ask them if it would be possible to do a walk around with the camera. You will need collateral, a card that can cover the camera if you lose/steal it, or gear insurance for rentals that would cover it in case of loss.I regularly walk around with their bodies and it's always an enjoyable experience, just remember that it's polite to buy something every once in a while. I usually pick up the latest issue of the LFI magazine while I'm there.While I do like their film bodies, I also tried a digital rangefinder that had no screen. It's quite literally the closest you can get to shooting film without having to actually shoot film, although I really enjoyed my experience with the MP. Nothing beats the feel and ritual of shooting film.
>>4451975maybe find that epson rangefinder with voigtlander no need develop film
>>4467572>IT'S DA JOOS
I thought someone here might be interested in these vintage Kodak items and Polaroid film. I'm a long time lurker of the boards but have never been on /p/ before, but I thought I'd give you guys first dibs.I'd hate to see these go to waste, shoot me an offer.assefef@proton.me
>>4470597tree fity
5 dollary doors and a button
>>4470597I'll take it off your hands for free + you pay shippingI'm doing you a service here, remember
>>4470597top zoozle
I am going to be honest anons. I am highly ambitious photographer and have a strong desire for critical acclaim for my work but I am not getting it and it is causing me lots of mental stress. I can't mange to live with myself. There are very minimal prospects of getting published from where I am. There is a deep rooted fear in me of fucking up and making mediocre art. I am not even "putting myself out there" because I loath myself that you still haven't forged your style, your education and practice is not complete and also because people scare me. I keep saying to myself one day things will fall into their place then I will be ready to take my shot. I don't know how to get myself out of this pit.
>>4471250statistically speaking you're very likely to do mediocre thingsjust jump infront of a freight train
>>4471250Put your photo on instrgram, go spend $100 on fake likes and comments, and thats it, you are now just as successful as everybody else on there. You will also then realise that anyone you thought was successful was just doing exactly this and then you won’t care anymore. Once you have brought them yourself you will know exactly what fake likes comments and followers look like and suddenly realise that’s all 99% of anybody’s profile has.
>>4471250>Guys help I can't get famous doing <irrelevant, niche, forgettable thing>The age of photography is gone anon. Even at its height you were pretty fucked due to the barriers to entry like cost and knowledge. The barrier to entry is now gone and with it every Ching Chongnese with a phone is flooding the internet with ""content"".You're fucked. Not in a mean way, just like, you're plain fucked. The photography you conduct is likely of decent or better quality, but it no longer matters. All you can do is network your way in like a Joo.We are in the age of videography. More specifically short-format, vertical videography. I hate it, most people here hate it, but your audience (the masses) don't give a fuck, and if your video is longer than 20 seconds you're more likely to get famous by blowing a bunch of dudes and advertising it on facebook. Photography currently sits several notches below that. It sucks but it's reality.
>>4471278It’s just stagnant right now, I have not seen a single photo I’ve not seen before for years now. Somebody needs to create some new tech.
>>4471250With authority of a hobbyist with no public ambition I suggest: work for living and do art for yourself. If you have artistic talent you will develop a style by keeping on it. Even I did. (My 'style' appears to be abstract graphical nonsense with no general interest. But I do like it.)Photography or art in general likely is not the best choice for a living career if you can't comfortably interact with people and you are afraid of doing standard slop work. Because that's what those scary people pay you to do.
Are there any other photographers out there that have similar or better work ? Unironically used to love his style.
>>4470880wtf terry is based? i thought he only had consensual sex that some ho regretted 5 years later. if he’s an actual rapist i like him a lot more now.
>>4470880It’s not rape if she was into it at the time and decided post wall that she regrets all her choices, chuddie. Which is every single time with these guys.
>>4470880Imagine believing some cum gargling roasites.
>>4468966>>4468968that's why I'm still sticking with my XF10, the built-in fill flash serves it's purpose well.
>>4468690>what is your favorite work of his?His pecker in upcoming models.
This thread is dedicated to close-range photographic captures utilising macro-optical imaging configurations to achieve greater reproduction ratios. Got it? Good now upload some shit. Last thread: >>4376661
>>4470513And another one shot on a Soligor 28mmYou ever watched two of these little jumping spiders battling it out? They have little dance competitions waving their arms at each other menacingly. They're charming creatures.
>>4470254Yes. The biggest softbox you can bother buying and mounting is going to help. Reflective umbrellas are also very useful but that's more for things like the watch than living macro out and about. Alternatively you can bounce flash which is super effective for normal shots, but for macro I would recommend only trying that if you have a particularly strong flash.>>4470425>I need a ... monopodHmmmmm, nah. If you're going to do it, do it right and get a tripod with a macro rail. I can see why a monopod is tempting, but trust me all you'll be doing is saving yourself a stop or two of movement shake (omg it's just like ibis goys!). That or get a speedlite and softbox, which is more mobile and versatile, but risks the lighting looking harsh.
>>4470580Great shot!
Are there anons here who are not really photography ppl but still into film developing because the aspect of developing your film urself is fun? I always have this issue where I don't feel an urge to take photos, as I don't have much of a creative bone, but I feel a lot of desire to make my own prints and develop film.
>>4470590comes to think that on 2 occasions i have seen zoomers using a kodak funsaver
>>4470601The thing is I have no way to scan or to enlarge them
>>4470587i don't really care for photography but like the idea of it as a way to remember or save memoriesnot once have i reminisced over photos taken with the phone so i bought a film camera, dev stuff, and a scanner some years backfound that not having the "instant feedback" of digital photography and actually taking the time to develop, scan, and print the shots lets me enjoy them moresupposedly could get away with printing from a digital camera too but i just dont care for it. literally exactly the same as a phone, hundreds of photos to transfer and scroll through
>>4470697Make contact prints. No excuses
Bump
I am going to buy one as soon as they hit the market in early Novemeber. I hope I get the 1987 edition. It's fire. Which one are you hoping to score?You are going to be getting one right /p/?You aren't gonna be a contrarian try hard no Charmera /p/haggot are you /p/? ISHYDDT
>>4470866Is that thing sporting an M43 sensor? Whaow!
>>4470128I just think they're neat>>4470323>>4470376I like my e-m5 mk II, but man is he hideous and talks like he's held at gunpoint.
>>4470794>>4470813>The camera’s built-in flash is an LED, rather than a xenon flash.Shameful. They had one job.
>>4470858>>4470437No. I don't think I will. I'm gonna buy a Charmera instead.>>4470866>Kodak Yellow 1987 EditionOh man. That's the one I want.FUUUUUUUUK. I hope I don't have to buy more than one to get it. Thinking about buying the six pack just to be sure I get one. Could easily scalp the rest to cover the cost I bet.
>>4470152Shoot Ektar at 50 and E6 that shit nigger.
contribute
sad i didn't get any good ice cream pics this summerDNG2VM
>>4471124
>>4471125
Get back out there edition.
>>4459229nikon ain't expensive I got 2
>>4457795>PLAY OATIs it good?
>>4458676Almost dreamy. Darken the hoop a bit, too grey.
>>4458676I’ve seen this before in the /rpt/what are you trying to do? if you explain your idea for the end result we may be able to help. ignore this if you’re just experimenting/iterating.
>>4471056It was a crappy shot so I decided to get all artsy with it. Some old darkroom tech plus some Rockwell.
Is the concept of always having a camera on you to photograph daily life something reserved for the rich (or unemployed)?How are you supposed to create a body of work based on day-to-day experiences when you're in an office for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, slaving away for corporate overlords? The only time I can see myself doing this is on a month-long holiday overseas or something. How the fuck do they do it?
>>4467763God this board is just autism lmao
>>4467770If I got 100 cool photos from 5000 I'd probably just leave the hobby altogether as it's a complete failure considering the cost of each 36exp film roll + dev and scan.
>>4468970>Moop's dogIf he ever had one it probably died from neglect by now
>>4467763I come home, eat, chill for half an hour and go outside for an hour or so. I forced myself to adapt this behaviour because looking at the clock and counting down the hours before I had to go to bed again melted away my life. Giving myself this one hour, leaving my phone at home and taking my Ricoh with me instead improved my mental health.
>>4467763I work retail and I carry two cameras in my bag not including my iPhone 16 Pro Max.I have a Sony A6100 with both a 3.5 15-60 and a 1.8 50mm prime.I also have a Pentax 115m with a roll of Kodak UltraMax 400 for when I want to shoot film.When I'm off work and I go out for the sole purpose of shooting photos, I carry my Leica SL2 with a 60mm Macro Elmarit R.Most of the time I don't use them, but when I do its 100000% worth having them.(plus I have the added possibility of someone stealing my shit and getting an upgrade for free through my insurance.)
