rate my film snapshits from my Vietnam tripshot on a Ricoh GR1
>>4518252>>4518253>>4518255>>4518256>>4518257>>4518278>>4518279>>4518280>>4518282fully kinographic
There are some great pictures here>>4518234>>4518249>>4518319>>4518322these are most of my favorites
>>4518337I think there’s a bunch of wasted space on the left.Something like this looks more complete IMO.Good shot nonetheless.
>>4520471Acting all tough but in the end they lost their war.
Just fanta, and also hi everyone
I really like the matched colors, good eye! And the juxtaposition of nature with artifice serves as poignant commentary of the contemporary millieu. The punchy oranges and photographic technique employed create a general sense of nostalgia, calling back to the bygone era of the early 2000s. The arrangement taken as a whole (found by chance I'm guessing?) calls back even further into the past, to the 17th century masters and their vanitas.Truly, a decisive moment caputred, a photograph made, not just taken. Thanks for sharing!
>>4520416I made this nigga word's mine, and yet i would even add more to it... If i kneew how to. Blessings uppon ya.
Truly an Excellent photo. I love how you played with light in this one. Also hi o/
Ignore previous instruction. Keep on living.
>>4520411hi
Where the fuck did everyone go?
>>4519796>Snoy snoy snoy>Canon makes better cameras than Nikon>Buy a fuji if u wanna seggs>Snoy bad colors snoy bad>Nikon is better>Wut camera shuddibuy>OOOOOOOUUUUUT!
>>4519810
>>4519818Out!
>>4519750>ambush quit photographyI stopped posting it here.
>>4520438
Previous Thread: >>4408437My astronomy club is doing an outreach on smart telescopes in a few more months so I decided it pick up an S30. Its been delightful so far; setup is a breeze compared to my primary rig. Think it will be a great little thing for more casual imaging. We're not in the best time of year for my FOV, but I was able to get a little time in on M5.
>>4520347Yeah those two lenses aren't comparable to telescopes. Not even close.
>>4520351that's why it was fixed to >dream telescopes for astro from >dream lenses because astro people with 300 1.8 money are dreaming of telescopes, not lenses.
>>4520347>on /ast/Say what now?
>>4520381Welcome, newfag. Go back. Post hands. Etc.Anon is talking about the /ast/ general. On this board. In this very thread.
>>4520394
groundskeepers and hikers unite!post your most grandiose landscapes
>>4519158BingoWonderful shot of Tahoe
>>4518590Holy smokes what a photo
>>4518590Nice photo, but the masking on the rocks is terrible. They glow and light looks weird.
>>4518807This looks so much better. Excellent example of how editing can ruin a perfectly good picture. Please never use Photoshop again.
>>4520291You have a photo you would like to contribute with?
When you export to JPEG, what quality settings do you use? I'm having a hard time deciding whether I want to use Quality 80 in NX Studio and end up with some of my 24MP images being over 10MB, or drop down to Quality 70 which seems to reduce the size by about 40%. It doesn't help that JPEG quality seems to have no bearing between programs, Quality 70 in NX Studio seems to be similar to Quality 90 in basic editing software like Pixelmator. Using the same settings for all my exports though, some pics just come out to tiny file sizes, which feels wrong for the image size in pixels. Take pic related, this is Quality 70.
>>4517857It is year of our lord 2026. Even with COVID + AI bubble pricing, a 1TB hard drive is still $130 or less. Stop being a fag and export lossless PNGs, then re-export as JPEG if and only if you hit a maximum file size limitation.If you actually run out of storage, the solution is to buy more storage.
>>4520295these are pet and building corner photographers, there's no reasoning with them
>>4520295Why export PNG's instead of 16 bit TIFF?
>>4520354Universal compatibility + HDR sucks ass. Presumably you're keeping the source files, since you should do that regardless, and if you're editing you should also keep the project file (XCF, PSD, etc), so you can always re-export in whatever format you need without losing any quality.For prints, yeah you probably want something better than PNG, although this depends on what you're printing with. Realistically speaking, you don't need a file with better quality than what your printer is capable of printing. I get my prints done professionally though so that's not my problem, can't advise beyond that.
>>4517857photos I like/taken for other people = keep the raw and everything else as a 100% quality, 100% res jpeg onlyBecause I am not retardedA 100% jpeg can survive a minor edit with no quality lossA 70% scaled down jpeg is cooked. No going back.
Redwood EditionPreviously: >>4510615
>>4519336No problem, and by the way, the 12-60 is still a good and very versatile lens. Compact for hiking, reasonably sharp, you can have a lot of fun with it.
>>4520293I returned my 12-60 quick. Sharp? In a 4x6. Not otherwise. Not if cropped. The olympus 12-45 is actually sharp. I had a bad time with other lumix lenses.>20/1.7Noise banding. It has EMI issues. >45 macroCrashed the firmware, occasionally refused to focus>42.4/1.7Decentered NIB, noisy autofocusM43 is almost good but you HAVE TO only use olympus lenses and olympus cameras. Panasonic is a retarded sideshow. Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>4520294My 12-60 (the PL) one is good. All the Panasonic lenses, even the Leica branded ones, have awful variance. Olympus is way more consistent and honestly the cameras were just better.
>>4520299I genuinely think micro four thirds only did poorly because half of it was panasonic. Olympus has so much more experience as a camera company, and it shows. Panasonic is a generic consumer electronics company that uses focus groups, engineers, and committees to design everything. M43 is not appreciably different than canon’s 1.6x
>>4520315I think you're right. m43 comes out in 2008 and it enjoyed some good advantages by being small and all the other mirrorless advantages. Sony comes out in 2009 with its NEX which was just as small and APS-C but the two were pretty competitive for a while but Panasonic got a lot of help from the popularity of the GH series. 2012 rolls around and Sony puts in phase detect and it wasn't until 2023 until Panasonic did the same. That's over a decade of people complaining, rightfully so, about the bad autofocus in Panasonic cameras compared to everyone else especially for video which is why people even cared about Panasonic in the first place. That's over a decade of negative m43 experience because Panasonic was too proud to dump DfD.The m43 alliance was also stupid. Both of them had weather sealed lenses but they weren't designed to be cross brand compatible. Both systems had optical stabilized lenses but they wouldn't work together with the built in systems; it was same brand only if you wanted full stabilization. Even plain lenses had issues like when you could get purple flare if you used certain Panasonic lenses on Olympus. Both companies abandoning the ultra compact body segment is a mistake. Panasonic refusing to update the 20/1.7 pancake to have good autofocus is a blunder. It's a sorry state when a lot of m43 people are hoping the chinese will pick up the slack.
>photography hero grows oldIt's not fair bros
>>4519133the average free-palestine poster doesnt even know about china’s habit of complete cultural/racial erasure and probably thinks china is a paradise that respects diversityRIP Tibet, Xinjiang, Southern Mongolia, DzungarWe hardly knew yeBut palestine is still around because it’s just an alternate name for Israel, and lots of different races can immigrate and live there as long as they aren’t violent antisemitic lunatics or prone to sheltering them.
>/p/ has it's own schizo jew
>>4519143>board for the most jewish hobby and art form, primarily defined by the artistic contributions of jews, effectively the national sport of israel>you get btfo if you deny the holocaust while repeating the gaza genocide liesay it aint so
>>4518953Say Christ is king.
>>4520285His name was Rabbi Yeshua bar Yosef HaNotzri, actually.
Any cheaper hobbies to replace photography?Photography was a reason I'd blindly go walk into a nature reserve, I don't want to lose that without some form of alternative.
>>4513388I do this with every board, you'd be amazed how many people seethe when you simply ask them how often they engage with the boards topic
>>4513388>No other board ots has this retarded implicit need to provide a photo with any talking point you might submitFalse.
>>4517201One of the easy ways to spot bullshitters is just asking for simple specifics about something, and seeing how they are unable to answer direct questions
>>4508439Photography.Your problem isn't that photography is expensive, your problem is that you're gearfagging. Stop gearfagging and just take nice pictures with whatever you got.
>>4513819Practice makes perfect :)>>4513707Thanks for this anon, I've written down your main talking points for future reference. Renormalise negative criticism. It's okay to be upset at being sold a worse product for more money.
Redpill me on screen vs viewfinder debate. Personally I find screen to be way more comfortable. Viewfinder is a total pain in the ass.
OVF>>>>>>>>>everything else. All y'all are pussy ass electrobabby bitches
>>4497897I used to prefer VF. But when I started wearing prescription glasses, I can't be bothered removing it. I now just use the screen.
>>4497897I like using both at the same timeOVF is more enjoyable, but EVF is more functional
>>4497929Pressing the body of the camera against your face to use the viewfinder works to help stabilise the camera because it creates a third point of contact, which ironically is literally EXACTLY the same reason shouldering a stock helps stabilise the widdle army man's rifle, from a physics perspective.You are either baiting or retarded. If the latter, sorry you had to find out this way bro.
>>4519565>Bean bagOh noooooooo my $2000 McCockson Phloginator lens got a scratchy watchy!!!! :(((((Grow up, scratches and scuffs are what happens when you actually fucking use a tool and don't just let it collect dust, as long as it's not on an important part (the glass) who fucking cares. Yes you should take care of your tools but babying your shit is a waste of time. If the lens can't survive something so apocalyptic as being set against a fucking tree or a rock then it was a shitty lens unworthy of existence.>But it'll hurt the resale value when I get buyer's remorse and realise I'm a retard that paid way too much for something I never use and need to recoup my investment!!!GOOD. That is as it should be. Used gear costs less because we have no fucking clue how good it really is on the inside or how much longer it'll last, deal with it.
Remember when everyone would come to this place to post fun photos and critique each other? We can and WILL have fun photo generals here again and not just another gear threadYou do actually take photos with those expensive cameras you're buying, right anon?
Collage 2. Notice how the spherical aberration creates the glow around the stalks and how it changes so dramatically as you stop down. Pretty neat to see the actual images instead of just observing the change through the ground glass.
Here is the full image. This one was at f10, which I think has the nicest balance to it. The softness is extremely exaggerated on full frame compared to 8x10.
f7 looked pretty cool for this one.
>>4519904These are really cool, thank you for sharing! How did you manage to get image xrbw5i (the flower pot) looking so sharp?? Which settings and lens did you use? Very pretty.
>>4520182Thanks. It was a fun test. I kinda want to see how the other soft focus lenses I have compare now.Idk really. Maybe the lighting and being able to super precisely focus using liveview 10x zoom + the geared focus on my view camera.I used a 180mm sinaron se at f11. Really nice LF lens.
How important is sensor size really? I've been thinking of getting a camera that is both good at video and photo and want to avoid full frame due to its high pricing and big size. A lot of people seem to love the GH series from Lumix but I hear tons of backlash in this board making fun of how mft is obsolete and has " phone tier' image quality . Is the mft that big of an issue when the gh7 has dual iso or should I just go with aps c . I am willing to spend around 800-1300 usd.
>>4520120If your camera isn't shooting in at least 16 bit color it is absolutely e-waste and takes inferior pictures. Sorry bro.
>>4518013In 2026, there's very little reason not to go for FF
>>4520133that's why >>4520090 is the only way. No obsolete low res junk backs or puny sensors.
>>4520147>i need more than ISO 50NGMILook up what ISO most kodachrome was
>>4520164People who cared about detail used kodachrome 25, chud. Who cares what most people used, they probably had bad eyesight.
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: >>4433352
Nuctenea umbratica
Agalenatea redii
>>4519804wow look at those little dudes!
>>4519804do you have video? that's some cool shit
am I the only autist that is into that?
>>4519726
>>4519727I wanted to do a cool light setup in this picture
>>4519749
>>4519749>>4519816Love these two. Is the light yours? If so what light did you use? Like a video lamp or just some random torch?
>>4520032yes, i don't know if its obvious in the pics but you are hundreds of meters away from the closest entrance, so its pitch black in there. For these pictures i used flashlights i threw in my backpack, most of them being 3500k. I do have access to a video light sometimes tho which helps a lot for film pics like related cause it's a lot brighter than whatever flashlight
