I'm gonna dump the pictures I took on my first trip to China and share my impressions along the way. Save for the snaps, I mostly shot analog with my F90x, and with my gf's mju.I'm very much open to criticism.
>>4521866i tried to correct the overexposurebut there is only so much that can be done with something like this
>>4523726why? the original is totally fine, this looks terrible.love the set anon; yes, they are mostly "empty", but they are nice and cozy, I really like how the reds pop on most of them... made me want to visit too.how many days? did you get a rental or just used the public transport?
>>4522983Chinese people are very outgoing, so it shouldn't have been problem to have made this journey more a documentary of life in China. All sorts of people took photos of us so. >>4523933Thank you. I must become bolder about including some more life into the scenes. We went for 25 days and traveled between the cities by train. Some family drove us to the wall at Huangyaguan.
>>4521763Great shots, should post some in the film general
China is honestly one of my most favorite places ever visited. people are friendly, cities are clean, food is fantasticthis thread makes me want to returntop tier thread, op, thanks a lot.
Theme: FoodAll photos must be taken during the current challenge month. No old or archived shots.Get creative and enjoy the process. Unique perspectives are encouraged!Previous thread:>>4519751>Go highlight your choice of best pics!
>>4526309Was it busy moving when you took the picture? Or did your stomach grumble so much that you were shaking?
>>4526309>>4526290I see the bar is nice and low, as usual. Almost touching the ground there in parts.Good thing this isn't a limbo competition.
>>4526309dawg wtf are you eating??
>>4526290
>>4526670If you have a three digit IQ score you are literally not like the masses.Every national IQ is grossly overestimated. For example, in much of Asia they only allowed the best to be tested to put figures on the map and the real average is in the 80s. The average IQ of white people is in the low 90s. What we believe to be the average of 100 is actually the elite. And the elite aren't even particularly intelligent.
>>4526806I hvae dropped my D800 on asphalt and concrete many times. It works just fine.
>>4526811goodin the alternative scenario you would have been fucked in the ass, just straight into your butthole, because repair costs more than it's worth now, and even in currently sold equivalent camera official warranty does not cover anything and camera isn't rated anyway
Idk I'm just tired in general everything is so fucking exhausting, social media is garbage we've lost two generations to brain rot now.The Chinese are playing the long game, they aren't stupid. A distracted society strung out on dopamine addiction and fentanyl is ineffective in battle.
>>4526815where do you think tiktok came from sugarthey have their own equivalents (xiaohongshu, douyin, weibo)
as a beginner, should i buy a 55-250mm lens or a 50mm lens? i dont know specifically what i want to shoot yet.
>>4526461that's a weird concession
>>4526466no one likes your overly-sharp sterile bullshit but you. but by all means, enjoy your sigma """art""" zoom lens that is twice as large and twice as expensive as a prime and produces chatgpt-tier photos.
>>4526657Nta and I don't really have any stake here, but why the fuck are you manlets afraid of using gear that has any mass to it?Is the purse meme real? Ofc you'd be retarded to whip out your beeg white lens at a mall but besides shit like that, I don't see the problem with carrying actual tools.>inb4 muh leatherman just werks
>>4526717size/weight is just another irrelevant spec for nophotos to min/max argue about
>>4526717Its always a reference to weddingslop ("holy trinity") and sigma art/snoy G master styled primes>Carry bigger lens that costs 3x more>photos look AI generatedThere's a reason "gearfag" and "pixel peeper" became such cutting perjoratives that micro fool turds users began feeling a false sense of confidencehttps://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1698397/>sigma 35mm f2 shoots landscapes as well>sony gaymaster photos look uncanny and harsh
Does anyone have any recommendations on where to find good scans of essential photobooks? the wiki links are all dead
You can find some in the usual places for books. Though quality will vary, some are good, some have overcompressed jpegs that totally defeat the purpose for a photobook. Don't expect perfect full resolution either way.Another avenue for reviewing the classic photographers is there's a bunch of videos on youtube of people going page by page through a book.
>>4521074Please spoon-feed me sir I'm not so good with computers sir
check archive.org
internet archive
People have mentioned it before. But the "mirror", and books annas/zlibrary stole from internet archive got this really weird compression. Even for files with comparable sizes. Someone mentioned it happens when you try to de-DRM ia books. But who knows the actual truth.
>he takes pics landscape
>>4525363Oh you're the color accuracy autist. Yuck
>>4525428Apparently they either couldn't figure out how to implement it again without it still having some security issue or something, so it's unlikely to ever come back. The whole site was running on an extremely outdated versions for years as I recall and I guess that feature won't work now. But I do miss being able to see the settings used. We got to have all the gearfagging disappear from /rpt/ but we also lost being able to view settings that achieved certain photos.
>>4525518I remember a year or so ago when someone was taking intentionally bad photos of the garbage on their desk with a FF and an MFT. Even in those conditions, the FF photos had better light rendition, more accurate colors, and retained much more texture even with a shallower DOF.
>>4525222
>>4525641But how was the microtonal harvesting?
Bald editionITT people who don’t take photos or own cameras discuss how the camera they might consider buying later is the reason their theoretical future photos look badLast containment thread >>4525019
>>4526655Some used prices are complete nonsense.> New GR IV - 1450 Euro> Used GR IV on MPB - 1350 EuroWhat's even the point.
>>4526533>>4526577looks like they're making both black and silver versions.
>>4526662kek, cost is basically the only reason to go digital over film
>>4526666For me, it's black and silver gelatin)))
>>4526559Right still looks kinda blurred, but less so, and colour is better. I think I prefer it but I'd have to see the whole image instead of pixel peeping. I'd be happy with either.>>4526568Are we going to pretend that colour correction is bad, actually? Is that where we're at now?>But anon wouldn't it be better if it didn't need colour correction at all?Yes but that's not always practical. It's not like it matters that much for digital since you can in fact just correct it. Digital colour is not and never will be real, fundamentally.
itt: post your non-standard color photos. your lomo turquoise, your harman red, your aerochrome, and all the like. I guess if you do weird stuff with your digital sensors that's fine too.shot a roll of kono donau II last weekend, its a blue monochromatic c-41 film rated at ISO 8.
>>4524785realized I never equalized exposure between the different filters, so the darker red is the cause of the blue color castthis looks much better
Trying to replicate aerochrome sooc with my a6000 with the IR filter removed. Using flash gels behind the lens to get the colours
>>4526562
>>4526564
>>4526562>>4526564>>4526565I'd say great job
why do stock photos always have this ugly neutral, super low contrast look? does it have a name? I call it the 'unsplash look', but I don't know why this is so popular. it looks cheap and it is not eye-catching at all.
>>4524460That's what poorly exposed/developed film looks like. Mirrorlesscucks are basically ferrets, they have a tendency to collect trash.
>>4523808>Backlit>Obvious flare>Poor lightingThe photographers are shit. That's your common denominator.
>>4523808Because this>Bro my camera has uhhh dynamic range look at this chart it's 0.8 better at dynamic range>*drags shadow slider up*>full frame is for low light bro why even buy it if you're not gonna shoot at f2 iso 12800 or push shadows 6 stops>*e/c -2*
>>4523810>canon cock deep in the mouth
>>4523808You just know...
What are your favorite modern photographers that you follow on insta, flickr, blogs? I want to follow some more work of others but all the popular ones that come up always are those influencer promoting their gear that they change every month. Many years ago I really liked Takashi Yasui's photos but damn they aged badly.
>>4525741lol what are you talking about what did he do besides post neat pics and vids?
>>4524993>What are your favorite modern photographers that you follow on instagoth whores with huge tits
>>4525049holy fuck that's some pretentious photoslop
>>4525890How'd you get them to follow you?
>>4525891this. fucking cringed lol
nice guy but damn his photos suck
>>4526307He's paraphrasing the AI. Day of the unplugging soon.
All these people are gay for pay, right?
>>4526294Can we all agree the incompetent clankers for the masses are a distraction from what they keep from us all? It's not just the post-truth era and generative imagery. It's also being able to make it seem it's not doable, and simultaneously being able to blame "mistakes" on the clankers like bombing 168 schoolgirls as a tribute to moloch. It's a perfect scapegoat and weapon, in one.
>>4526441One day someone will make a cAnon ai with all your posts and you'll find yourself arguing with it. Should be pretty funny.
>>4526287i think alex webb is objectively goodbut not many others
I'll start
>>4525457The saliva mixed peanut butter is a nice touch. Definitely grosser than my "dog licks camera" picture.
Honey
>>4526342Wow very cute.
>>4526342nice tongue
https://strawpoll.com/7MZ0kRk7rgo
>>4524104Ah, a pentax Q enjoyer.
>>4524123kek, obviously Pentax Q is what I meant :^)>http://www.photocritic.org/articles/pentax-q-s1-announcement>Is the new Pentax Q-S1 all fur coat and no knickers?
So I guess no one wants to participate and this was all for nothing? If so I'll let the thread die!
>>4526045I don't get what this thread is even meant to be.Why would anyone enter as the hacker known as four chan, instead of under their own bame?
>>4526045Didn't even realize it was here, i swear i never saw it in the catalogue
Theme: Night LightsLet`s keep it limited to artificial lights for this month.All photos must be taken during the current challenge month. No old or archived shots.Get creative and enjoy the process. Unique perspectives are encouraged!Previous thread:>>4515121>Go highlight your choice of best pics!
>>4525680What does snapshit even mean anymore
>>4525688My snapshits are photosYour photos are snapshitsHope that helps
>>4525704Ah duh, thanks
New thread: >>4526290
>>4525680thanks. although i felt like >>4520844 might be better than mine.
todd hido enjoyers, share your picsP.S. Please close your blinds at night. I already feel weird enough photographing your home in the middle of the night.
It pisses me off to no end that every photo book is always some bullshit price like $200-$300.
>>4525354intimate distance is a retrospective of all his works and is relatively cheap. is there any point buying house hunting if it's pricier?
>>4524705fuck me i based my entire a level photography coursework off this guy. got a b so was a wise move i guess. love his style. picrel my favourite
>>4525354I picked up 2 eggleston books (guide and the last dyes) for less than 80 bucks each last month, the only photo books that are consistently that pricy are like hardback taschen ones or maybe a super fancy exhibition catalogue>>4524705>>4524706>>4526132damn this is a nice style of photography
