Help me out, I literally don't see a difference in aperture or depth of field when I change my settingsI theoretically understand how they work, but actually changing them in the camera I don't see anything different
>>4485942holy fuck that level of cope when fool frame suddenly is the baby sensor
>>4485943Are you actually, genuinely retarded? Go use a LF camera then get back to me.
>>4485945get fucked sensorlet
>>4485946I accept your concession. Thank you.
>>4485945>asking if a rapefugee is retardedHe is literally a bioweapon meant to lower the IQ of europe
why do you guys all not like ken rockwell?he seems cool and his photos are prettyi dont get itplus he has good advice on his web-sitemaybe we can appreciate him in this thread?that would be nicei will post my favourite ken rockwell photographs
>>4480999>Just one of many superior photographers /p/ drove off because he was objectively better at this than themstfu ken.
>>4480999>husky>corgi>doghair>superior photographerswowmany background blursso full framesuch dirty car windowbokeh dogesuch artmany fur on negativewow
>>4485746Correct.
>>4481223Negative film blows highlights to white all the time wtf are you talking about? You can recover some of that in a scan but if you want a properly exposed photo of anything that's not in direct sun on a sunny day your sky is going to be white (just as an example)
>>4485746>shoots through window>still sharper than fujifilmbased snoy dog
Which camera bag do you currently own? Does anything currently compete with the McKinnon Sling in terms of price+quality+features? Trying to find one of a similar size that will be comfortable enough for moving around.
For me, it's the 225. It is very deceptive in how small it looks when closed up, given how much it fits. Plus the quality of materials and everything is top tier.The only thing I would change is adding snaps to the carrying handles, so they could be removeable.
Trying to find a camera bag but I don't know what I want and will be picky.
>>4485800Based Billingham enjoyer I scored an Eventer Mini for around $150, it's a nice upgrade from the Hadley Small Pro
>>4485602
>>4485920Nice. I used to use a Hadley Small from the 90s which was a hand me down. Recently the nylon fleece insert started degrading and leaving fine green dust on all my gear, so I specifically sought out a replacement that has the smooth woven interior without the soft fleece. Not a bad run for a 30 year old bag though, and the main part besides the insert is still in very good shape.
Should i get a Sony zv-e 10 II new or a Lumix S II.My goal is 4k 30fps with the highest dynamic range possible, 10bit log and fast sensor readout speed (low jellow)
>>4481494ghoulishglad I decided against Sony
>>4481545search Bunkr dot io for "littlerobin"
>>4481556
>>4481441you can do that with a lumix s5. better images, before the faggots ruined the sensor with phase AF
>>4481589chat is this real?
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
>>4485641>I've got a Samsung phone and I can directly transfer the photos from the camera to my phone.How?
>>4485641>>4485642>>4485643>>4485644Not bad at all! If these were sold in leafland for less than 50 leafbucks I'd get one. Nobody sells em yet though.
>>4470128Buy a cheap phone, you'll get shit results then
>>4485691USBc to USBc cable
Can someone tell me what lightning equipment I would need, to recreate either of those photos?
>>4484812the continuation of any species is an extension of its reproductive drive
>>4456338they talk about technicolor and kodachrome here so
>>4436289I'm not being facetious. Annoying people is a big part of art.
>>4485502No one wants your shrimp
make love not warring
I shoot black and whit 'art' photos.I print a lot. So i spend a lot of time looking at the details of each photo. especially if they're hanging on my wall.that being said, i have a conundrum which, surprisingly, isn't well covered on the internet:>would you say a leica monochrom, or a medium format (with more bits and more sensor real estate) would produce better black and white images?
>>4485349He’s a "whitey gotta pay" faggot so yes. Cattle.
>>4482927So, by that logic if I look down walking on the sidewalk and there's dogshit and it makes me pause for a second and swerve around it and it makes me dryheave with the dogshit smell...that means it has artistic value?
>>4485693Do you think dog shit can't ever have aesthetic value?
>>4485349>I don’t know shit but this is the impression I get, and it’s why everyone else is dumb, not me,Yes hi I was wondering if it were possible for you to give us more reason to think you’re a stupid asshole? Just in case there are 1 or 2 people left on earth still giving you the benefit of the doubt.
>>4482927>look at meee>attention economy dur hurrrrghSocial media brain rot cancer.
Film photography is better due to low sensitivity in dark areas. No one needs to see what is in dark areas most of the time. Just imagine this photo with unnecessary crap in shadows.
>>4470768Hello Zach, do you mind putting your name back on so I can keep filtering your posts? Thanks.
>>4485330>No. Resolution (refinement of detail) is related to contrastNo, it's related to smallest unit of information. A smallest subdivision of a storage that is the lowest limit and you can't go below it. Contrast has nothing to do here.
>>4469575>Film photography is better due to low sensitivity in dark areasdigital kicks the shit out of film for low light capture . try again retard.
>>4485559Try what? You both said the same thing.
>>4485559Yeah OP is claiming the lack of shadow detail is good because we normally wouldnt be able to see that much (in well lit scene) so it reflects realtiy in that we tend to ignore less obvious visual information.Anyway learn to read, you ESL Bangladeshi.
and a worse form of it than vidya or movies?
Everything is just escapism. At least photographyinvolves the creation of something.
>>4485240>>4485241Seething snowggers. Lol imagine contributing less to math and science than the balkans
>>4474681>a worse form of it than vidya or movies?only a retard would try to entertain this point.
>>4474681Its not that deep lil bro
>>4485237>our eye color is direclty related to our bheavior, to our intelligenceI love that any time I think I must have encountered the absolute dumbest manchild in the world, I can get on this board and within minutes one of you will prove me wrong.
Post photos you like.
So, which of the big companies is going to be the first to offer an affordable 100mp camera?Fuji is obviously already out there, but this thing is Eight thousand dollars. I suspect that when it happens (eventually) it will be Nikon. I feel like historically they are the company which has introduced high end features at a lower price.
>>4482703> 6x7 is clearly 80mp>645 is 100+mpWhich one is true?Yes, this guy in his clinical lab tests using extremely fine grain film stocks managed to get crazy resolution out of 6x7. Do you shoot 6x7? Can you provide me with a scan with 50mp of resolved detail? I doubt you can. I doubt anyone in this thread can, because as I said, those numbers are not attained by 99% of medium format shooters.
>>44827826x7 is 80mp on an old ass drum645 exceeds 100mp with modern scanning equipment
>>4480592>So, which of the big companies is going to be the first to offer an affordable 100mp camera?if you want 100 mp you are retarded. learn what pixel pitch is.
>>4480592Theres a bigger chance of the next iphone hitting 100MP than boomer mirrorless cameras
>>4485650100 mega pixels of ai slop and other assorted computer gimmickery. No thanks, I'll stick with the "boomer" mirrorless, even though mirrorless cameras only came about after the boomers had already started to die off.
The pursuit of being in the right place at the right time to capture the perfect sky no longer holds its former value when that very sky can be synthesized from colored pixels. When a dramatic reddish dawn or an approaching thunderstorm is conjured with a few strokes in Photoshop, or when a telephone receiver in a model’s hand is seamlessly swapped for a sneaker using Adobe Firefly with context-aware lighting adjustments, the photograph was, at best, merely raw material. Even the need for initial raw material is obsolete, as AI can generate sophisticated images entirely ex nihilo.Even the tangible, physical nature of the print offers no reliable refuge: A picture developed on photographic paper from a negative, held in the viewer's hand, might still originate from a digitally generated negative, or the photographer might have used analog means to re-photograph a digitally produced and printed image.In sharp contrast, painting remains a sanctuary of authenticity. Within a painting, the physical labor and the direct interaction of the artist with paint on a substrate are inherently stored and visible. The viewer holding a painted image recognizes the unique signature, the texture of the applied color, and the clear intentionality of the human creator behind it.While robots can wield a paintbrush, they cannot yet fully simulate the human touch. The immediate, non-reproducible trace of the human creator in the finished work remains the key differentiator. Traditional, handcrafted creation is reclaiming its significance.This shift in perception is already evident at art fairs which do not show specifically photographs: Visitors often walk past photographs but pause thoughtfully before paintings. In art, people are not seeking the perfect illusion; they are seeking the visible, verifiable, and therefore authentic trace of another human being.
>>4485261I would reproduce with her if you know what I mean
>>4485169I print in darkroom only, so sounds like not my problem pal
>>4485169yes photography is deadyou should stop doing
>>4485169>schizo rantdidnt read lol
No refunds editionLast thread: >>4482008
>>4485687yes
Since I've found myself working with lights more and more at work I've been looking to up my lighting game a little bit in home environment.This little shitter looks swell as fuck, what's the catch?
>>4485572Assumptions often leave one in a bind.
>>4485626One needs to know which primes work best for their style of shooting. For me its 35mm and 50mm equivalents.
>>4485589>I think you're really overestimating how not-great most DSLR primes actually wereThere were good ones and bad ones. The good ones are far superior overall.
Random photos you took at night
>>4481540iirc the blossoms pic was on bessa r2m with voigtlander 35mm nokton classic. film probably expired kodak max
Rollercoasters are a great medium
Can UV filters help to reduce purple fringing?
>>4481608>Doesn't understand T-stops or why they exist
What even causes that?
>>4485444Fringng? Lack of optical correction which allows aberrations. What are aberrations? Normally different wavelengths of light bending at different values which means red and purple hit the sensor in slightly different areas and so on.Vintange lenses will normally exhibit some strong fringing since they didnt quite get there yet in terms of optical engineering, but it's also why modern superzooms or teles or even your wide aperture normals are like twice the size of vintage stuff: extra elements and better engineering that requires larger glass surfaces will aid in reducing aberrations at the cost of, well, cost and size. Purple fringing seems to be the most common but I never looked into why, just that some photography software has inbuilt adjustments specifically for it.
>>4479561based Darktable enjoyer. Raw chrom ab also works great
>>4479561also if you go into >lens corrections and then manipulate >tca override to align the red and blue channels in the RAW, you can actually eliminate almost all fringing entirely, it's an incredible feature that I randomly stumbled upon watching a DT youtube tutorial
