How does /p/ feel about zines?They seem fun. You print your stuff, distribute it however you want, and people look at it. They might toss it in the trash but at least you made an impression.You can make them for pretty cheap. I made some lo-fi DIY-style ones with my visual art at home using just an inkjet printer, and I've been dropping them in random places for people to find.Anyone ever make zines?
>>4438872This thread and its posts inspired me to make a little Zine that I gave to my wife as a card for our 10y anniversary. I won't share that one as its a series of photocollages of us over the years. Did the whole thing in GIMP. I went on a trip to Europe recently so I'm going to tackle that next and try and share it here.
>>4502432How many pages was the zone?
>>4486971>>4486970whoever she is tell her that I'm going to jerk off tonight thinking about cumming on her
Tourist from /lit/ here, you guys are inspiring me. I think I'm going to make and distribute a poetry zine.
>>45030048 pages, I did pic related.Did the design for Letter paper, forgot to add bleed/margins so had it printed on Tabloid sized paper centered and scaled to fit. Happy accident that made it a nice size after some trimming with a ruler and razor.
I want to buy a Christmas gift for a girl and I thought of a polaroid as a great gift for her. My question to you, /p/ederasts, is whether it's worth it and not just a meme
You won't be fucking her
>>4482270>gift for a girlsay no more
>>4482270>Christmas gift>it's April 1st
>>4502842>>4502843He cute
>>4493284From searching it looks like it cotss around £35. Is that what you're finding too?Do you know what stuff they do or don't have? A filter, a tripod, or some batteries can make a good camera related present.You can also get a camera clip in that sort of region of expense.
Spring editionAll video related questions and discussion is intended for this thread. Here we discuss techniques, gear and anything else related to capturing video footage. Please don't pretend to be an expert if you don't know what you're talking about. Kindly leave your ego at the door.Posting short films/scripts or other work you've done is encouraged.We tend to use and recommend DSLRs/mirrorless cameras because they provide phenomenal picture quality for their price, have large sensors (ie the same size used in high-end cinema cameras, and larger) and have interchangeable lenses.In contrast, consumer camcorders often have much smaller sensors and a fixed lens.>STICKY - https://text.is/QZ1J>Helpful guide, additional books and more in-depth FAQs - https://web.archive.org/web/20200926115310/https://pastebin.com/kG0gRmTZ>NO ONE CARES WHAT AN EXPERT YOU THINK YOU ARE. IF YOU’RE ASKING BASIC-AS-SHIT QUESTIONS, YOU CAN’T BE ALL THAT GREAT. SEE ABOVEPrevious thread >>4493514Quick FAQSComment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>4502971RAM price is crashing, please god let SSD be next
>>4502998Yeah, but do they keep them intact as archive/backup or do they wipe their drives after a certain amount of time has passed? Upload to cloud storage and reuse the drives then?
>>4502998Dudes that use a separate SSD for each shoot charge their client the cost of the SSD. They don’t pay for the SSD out of their pocket.
>>4503007as archives>>4503041that's not what i'm getting at, i'm saying if you've been at it for a long time you probably have a closet is full of drives. i'm only semi pro and i have dozens of those samsung t3s
>>4503006>RAM price is crashingI call bullshit. DDR4 and DDR5 Sodimms might be, but desktop-grade UDIMMs and RDIMMs are absolutely not.
Brazil here and there: People and places
>>4500319100%
starting a new one since the last one is reaching limitI recently bought myself a new softbox, the exact one in pic, and it works surprisingly well. The issue is that it won't stay open all the way, so I need something to prop it open. I've found that using a credit card and ID card work pretty well, but I don't plan on using that for obvious reasons. Anyone have any suggestions to help a retard like me, something light and small?
>>4502821Following up for >>4502625This was taken on a D810 with a 17-35mm f2.8. 12 year old body with a lens that came out +25 years ago, and you can have both for under $1k. There are dozens of bodies and lenses that would perform just same or better for that kind of shot, so neither of those really matter that much. Any FF with a 17mm lens will give you the same perspective (or APSC with like 11mm). What would matter a bit more for this shot gear-wise is the lighting. The photog would've had the camera set up, with 2-3 off camera flashes, all connected by wireless trigger (like a PocketWizard). You can gel flashes to give different color, Benoit Paille is a good example of this and used to be the subject of many threads here, but I don't think that's what's actually going on.https://gbuffer.myportfolio.com/off-seasonI'm unsure for the lighting of the building, the area as of 2023 on street view had no lighting infrastructure, and its possible it was the moon, but could be another light source like car lights. The exposure was 10 seconds, so you're getting all that ambient on the building, while only exposing the foreground with the flash. Different lighting sources explain the difference in color and softness vs hardness of the light. Most of the color look probably just comes from long exposure at night + flash. If you wanted to recreate the color shifting aesthetic, something likehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYVvChotk1ousing radial and linear gradients in Photoshop is an easy way, and a technique used by our own 5hoeThe location is about 8 miles off the coast, so you're seeing dense costal fog. This helps with the "atmosphere" of the photo, and contributes to how the light glows (just like "foggy streetlights"). Picrel is the same scene, but with less fog.So basically, got out on a foggy night, use long exposure for soft ambient glow, with flash for for a harsher different color lighting in the foreground.
What do I need to get set up for developing orthochromatic film at home?
>>4503062A darkroom and redlight if you want to do it by inspection. Otherwise the standard paterson daylight tank will do you fine. Ortho is developed with exact same process as pan films.
There are like millions of setttings, how do I know which one is the best in my particular case?I've tried to watch some tutorials on Youtube, but couldn't recreate that super fancy feeling you're getting from fashion magazines. For example pic rel is my slop, is it possible to fix it somehow to make it look decent for Instagramm at least?
>>4502661it was CER25, asphalt stage. Almost no dirt tracks... sadly
Since this is the unofficial /cum/ thread (old one is 2 posts from hitting the limit) I took these pics of my '16 WRX STi last weekend Left = Super Takumar 55mm f1.8 M42 lens from late 60s, thorium element iirc with some yellowing Right = Pentax 35mm f2.4 DA SMC AL released in 2010Body = Pentax K70 APSC DSLRAll shot raw and editedI think I just left the takumar at a wider open aperture (since its manual) so it had more subject separation while the 35mm was at f6.7 and f8
>>4503037I did notice the DA 35mm had more of a cool tone (blue tinge) I had to keep editing out, while the takumar's warm tones worked better. This car can be a little annoying to take pics of, its a blizzard white in the sun and if you take the highlights out it gets more of a cream color (crystal pearl white k1x)
>>4503038
>>4503039oh i like how these 2 came out but these are 35mm da
I am going to post random images I made which I have also edited and I would love my /p/iss bros to give me feedback on my composition, but mostly editing style... or direct me towards an editing style that would fit me.>feedback on composition>feedback on editing>direct my towards my own styleStarting with opening image...
>>4502571feels like multiple images collaged together (in a good way). lots of changes in texture from mountain side to road to bushes to machinery to lake to mountains. nice>>4502580nice textures and lines and light>>4502595whysit purple? nice composition. i like how the bridge is well lit but everything else is dark, really focuses on the bridge nicely. if it wasnt this weird purple i would save it.
>>4502566The worst thing that can happen when you trespass is you get told to leave
>>4502645>and why are their bikes sideways?you need to go outside more, autist.
>>4502811bad bait. im going to block you so i never see your stupid comment again. bye
>>4502562One pattern is you make a lot of use of high contrast and large "blocks" against the sky. >>4502567is a prime example of this. Most of your photos are about silhouette, not all but most. You can actually see this quite well with how often you tilt your camera up to the sky, like in: >>4502564I personally wouldn't have done that, I think cropping the base of the bridge off creates a bit of an odd termination and whilst the sky is pretty it means my view of the bridge isn't complete.
I absolutely hate setting up and using a digital scan rig... it takes an obnoxious amount of setup time and space: >is the backlight on/charged>is the macro lens focused>is the tripod + riser putting the camera level + the right distance to the film>is the mirrorless camera charged + ready to goThinking of 3D printing a DupliHood or something but not sure how much better that really makes it. This is all feeling like a very autistic waste of time. Even most labs, if you pay for "high-quality scans" they're still super doctored / not close to raw. I'm not going to pay 1 million dollars to buy a ticking time bomb dinosaur like a Coolscan 9000. I would instantly preorder a Knokke if it did 120. Does anyone have any recommendations
>>4502801Just get a flatbed scanner. They kinda suck for 120/35mm, but you can get them to work well with a bit of calibration and all that.
>>4502801These are all such non-issues holy hell.>thinks flicking an on switch is difficult>doesn't have a charging station for their gizmos>focusing a completely stationary camera at a completely stationary object is hard somehow>obviously I need to HOMELAB a solution to these pressing concerns
>>4502801Isn't the setup usually just a one time thing and you can just scan all your frames?
>>4502861>focusing a completely stationary camera at a completely stationary object is hard somehowHow much do you do this? Every time you even slightly bump any part of the setup it mangles focus. Getting the camera on the same plane as the film is especially sensitive. >>4502865It's not really a one-time setup since you have to recalibrate it every time you use it which involves adjusting all or most of the fixtures.Leaving it up also takes up a lot of desk space
>>4502878I use my normal tripod and a free-floating backlight pane. I just have sufficent space on my table that I'm not tripping over everything.It takes me a whopping 90 seconds to fetch the gear out from their storage and set them in place. I've marked the points on my tripod I've found best to use with faint permanent marker so it's zero fuss going back to ideal distances/angles. If I were being really precise I'd get a 30cm ruler out since my lens gets 1:1 bang on from that distance, but I havent needed to do that since the first few setups.Idk what to tell you, I've never struggled like OP has. Maybe it's the lack of parkinsons or the fact I have a clear working space that isn't crammed in my Hong Kong-style bedroom. >every time you use it which involves adjusting all or most of the fixtures.Mark the adjustments like I have. It does save time.
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!
Bad insomnia lately. Been walking around with a camera for couple hours before bed hoping it wears me out.
>>4490365First time posting.
>>4499049
What are the best lolympus options for landscape?
I'm an amateur photographer, and last year i took some pics (november and december). Here are some of the ones i liked the most
>>4495798>>4495063> Most people don't mess around with the colours of film Although technically correct it's a misleading statement. If you shoot film routinely you will find out the colors are highly dependant on how the scan were made, and many film stocks will look like dogshit if you make them scan by a random shop that doesn't know what they are doing (harmann phoenix...). So yes most people don't edit because they don't give a fuck, yes when you open the jpgs from the shop in lightroom it's already over, but being involved in the color editing process is a big part of film photography in my opinion. And it's actually the same for contrasts, if you are satisfied by the midpoint the scanner from the shop automatically picked for your photos that's great, but if you want a bit of creative control over the image you cannot leave it to the machine.
>>4495009cool contrast >>4495010very blurry>>4495011cool but blurry>>4495012mehCool pictures but the sharpness is shit, are you shooting with an Ektar H35?
>>4495010blur adds to it i like it
>>4495009Oslo er en dass!
>>4495063RA4 printing a color negative is almost entirely a color editing process. You add or subtract individual levels of CMY filters to dial in the print color.
1/?This is the review of an OM-5 micro 4/3 camera. I am a full frame user, and I bought this camera to have a small, fun, attractive camera to take snapshits around town. I own or have owned a D850, Z5ii, Z6ii, basically every Nikon DXXX DSLR, D500, Z50, etc. This is my first M43 camera and I was not sure what to expect, so I am chronicling my impressions both for myself, and for other photographers who are looking for a small, fun camera. Ergonomics: This camera is outstanding IMO. For me the Nikon FF cameras are in this weird middle spot that is ergonomically uncomfortable for me. They are either too small or too big. The D850 and my D7500 fit my hand fantastically. I will always have a Nikon DSLR because they are so comfortable to hold and use. The OM-5 is smaller to hold than my Z5ii for example, and that gets it out of the uncomfortable middle ground. With the Z5, I’m always between holding it in front with all of my fingers, or just 3 – there isn’t really enough room for all 4, but with 3, it feels a little insecure. With the OM-5, three fingers fit perfectly. There is enough grip on the front and a great thumb rest on the back. The buttons are very well placed on the camera body for operation while shooting. Simply put, this is a very comfortable camera to hold and shoot. For reference, when I am walking around and shooting, I grip the camera the entire time in my right hand, and have a wrist lanyard for safety. This can be fatiguing with a larger DSLR (the D800 in particular had almost no thumb rest and it was agonizing to carry. The D850 is much better, but is just heavy and gets tiring on the wrist after several hours). The D7500 is extremely comfortable in this regard because of its blobmera shape and light weight. The Z series FF cameras are in the middle ground of just “ok”. The OM-5 was very good.TO BE CONTINUED
>>4502672Why did you choose an OM-3 of all cameras?
>>4502700A guy with a husky told me to get that one.
>>4502704>he did what his headmate saidjust because you dont take your meds doesn’t mean you have to choose to be a schizo, anon
>>4502679Gonna preface my response with the standard M43 hate: Shit cameras, shit lenses, blah blah, not really worth it outside of getting them dirt cheap and basically look like a phone.Anyway, with that formality taken care of, camera looks fine. The 40-150 is soft as fuck on the long end (and not really spectacular on the wide end) but is the cheapest tele you'll get for the system so it's not bad value per se. The pancake is a little fucky because mixing oly/pana bodies and lenses never quite works right, but it's fine. The pancake will be infinitely more useful just because it's not absurdly soft and slow like every M43 zoom.Oh wait,>$1000 USDFuck me sideways that's expensive. Don't do it anon. The body is like $400-500 at most, the tele is worth a whopping $80, and the pancake iirc is around $200. Classic boomer ebay mentality of "I know what I've got".
>>4502729Thank you anon, this is solid advice and I really appreciate it. On the price, this seller accepts offers, so I'm going to send one in for 800 (from summing up your itemized prices) and see what happens. I'm also going to contact them and ask if they will be interested in selling the body separately.
Ones you've actually used.Give reasons.1. Panasonic - pleasing JPEG, best QOL - lots of features that work well.2. Fujifilm - decent but I didn't like the JPEG detail rendering.3. Olympus / OM system - decent, but I don't didn't like the JPEG colors (tans pushed to red).4. Sony - lots of features on paper but they're half-baked and riddled with needless incompatibilities.
>>44971401. Sony (A7RIV) - Good AF, decent build quality, 61 mpx, 2 memory card slots, can take some lighter rain, decent battery life. Cons? My nose always activates some track focus point while looking through the viewfinder, guess it was made for flat asian noses and not longer european ones. The ”color simulations” are very basic and boring. I’ve never used a Fujifilm but I assume that they are more fun to use but less potent.Its also bulky and draws alot of attention in the streets.2. Ricoh (GRiiix HDF) - Sharp lens, pocketable and stealthy in the street. Decent image stabilization. Feels plasticy, impossible to clean lens from dust (which always gets into it for all owners), superbad battery life, shit AF, shit high ISO performance, 24 mpx isnt quite enough as I want to be able to crop, no weather sealing, no viewfinder.I don’t care about brands really, as long as it feels good and have the features I want such as good AF, weather sealing and at least a 40 mpx sensor. I almost never use the Ricoh.
>>4497140I have used Panasonic, Nikon, and Fujifilm.First I had the Panasonic GM1 - this was my first camera. I genuinely liked this but it had limitations with dynamic range that were challenging. Then lenses were cheap and reasonably good IQ considering the crop factor.I then upgraded to Nikon Z6, a great camera but sadly, the autofocus was not great. Fine for everyday, but not that good for wildlife or sports etc. The lenses were fantastic, I loved this camera for landscapes and astrophotog especially. I regret selling this. I now have Fujifilm X-T4, I bought this when it was on sale and local store gave me a good deal on 100-400mm. Autofocus is pretty good in my experience, image quality is ok, but overall it just feels cheaper than the Nikon. I try and take advantage of the Film simulations and programmable recipes, but this has been a learning curve and I am still not there with it. I shoot jpeg + raw. Jpegs are fine as quick photos to share, but I always want to edit the raws pretty much. I like the Bluetooth and Fuji app for cell. This is a lot more functional than other brands I have used, you can also tether and use as a webcam. This camera is fine but I would prefer the Nikon I had. The sigma primes are a good match for it.
>>4499493it's more that people shooting photos don't know about video tools like scopes, parades, false color et al. if they did, manufacturers would add the features
>>4497140Panavision.Everything else os a toy.
>>4497140>Olympus / OM system - decent, but I don't didn't like the JPEG colors (tans pushed to red).Newer OM gives a lot of control over JPEG colorhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdNulmXBC8E&t=306
What's your favorite lighting, /p/? My favorite lighting is golden hour.
>>4497411>What's your favorite lighting, /p/?Cloudy days with diffused light.
>>4497411basic bitch taste>>4497559>>4497636>>4497862based
>>4497411in the shade on a sunny day, near the edge of where the shade meets sunlight also giant softbox
>>4497411What ever this is!btw >>4502365
>>4497936I bo-came
New Ken Rockwell just dropped! Time to dial those saturation sliders to 11, babyhttps://www.kenrockwell.com/trips/2026-02-route-66/index.htm
>>4501403>looks like he only cranked blue instead of, you know, every fucking colorthats just velvia
>>4501188>socially inappropriatestop lensraping me, shitlord
>>4501290lmao it's a disgusting concrete jungle
>>4501290That's a decent location for cinematography, but rather boring for a photo>>4501403>rawtherapee>raw the rape-eNot a joke
>>4499457He's just colorblind, I am 100% sure of that. Probably Protanomaly.There's a lot of people who never got diagnosed.
Sorry if this is the wrong place to post, but I might as well as here. I'm the type of person to never take pictures let alone pictures of myself. I want to make a dating profile and I need to take photos of myself. Any tips or advice on that as I feel like my photos look pretty bad but in the mirror I like how I look.
>>4502618Ask/pay one of your friends to use their nice camera to take good portraits of you and then also some of you having fun doing things or whatever
>>4502618>>4502623Bad advice. Pictures being too professional leads to one of two things>1) You get seen as a tryhard. Ick.>2) If you’re great looking, your profile will look fakeThe key is just to be good looking and then have someone else take normal (phone camera) photos of you to show that you’re not a loner taking selfies in the bathroom.
>>4502652>woman gets the ick>anon insecure about ickYou want a braindead npc whore and not a free thinking photographer gf. Sad!
