File: DSC_3124-Enhanced-NR.jpg (4.62 MB, 4984x7476)

4.62 MB JPG

>>4395461

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB

File: IMG_20250107_165114.jpg (4.4 MB, 4096x3072)

4.4 MB JPG

Just stumbled across this old master chef figure I'd forgotten I have

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Model	OnePlus 12
Equipment Make	OnePlus
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	70 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4096
Image Height	3072
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2025:01:07 16:38:57
ISO Speed Rating	1000
White Balance	Auto
Focal Length	13.30 mm
Exposure Time	1/34 sec
Flash	No Flash
F-Number	f/2.6

>>4317399
grown men playing with dolls.... i'm about to die from 2ndhand cringe

>>4399990
Dw anon they normally do much worse things to them

File: P1050222.jpg (3.83 MB, 3904x5232)

3.83 MB JPG

>>4399990
Where do you think we are?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	OM Digital Solutions
Camera Model	OM-5
Camera Software	RawTherapee 5.11
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	350
Vertical Resolution	350
Image Created	2025:01:05 12:26:03
Exposure Time	1/80 sec
F-Number	f/2.5
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	25.00 mm

>>4399940
People arent getting uglier. More content needs to be made and it needs to be cheap so they are hiring uglier people. The majority of people are ugly so hot people are in high demand. Society literally pays them to exist.

So, basically, islam was right. Burkas now.

>>4399705

You just need to download a photo editing app on your mobile phone and try it out to see what girls are doing.
They are all making their eyes bigger, blurring their skin, messing with their nose and jawline.
Its so easy too, you just slide some sliders.

Also the phones today bake in tons of editing by default.

Everything has a kind of plastic look. Then add in the massive supply of photos now, every girl puts up a photo every day, vs in the past it was rare photoshoots, heavily planned and controlled ie quality over quantity.

Anyway to sum up I shoot girls and bring a film and digital camera to every shoot and take photos of the same girl in the same setup with both. Film is basically done with zero editing, it somehow edits skin by itself and looks nice.
Digital shows tons of flaws and i feel like 90% of my editing time goes to the skin editing on the digital shots and 10% to the film of just colour correction and dust removal. I almost never retouch skin on film shots.

Film is amazing like that, it really does make peoples skin look naturally nice. Sadly no girl is going to bother with film for her daily selfies, as you cant slide all those editing sliders to make yourself way better looking. Therefore they are all locked to their iphone only.

>>4399788
This is why film will ALWAYS be better

>>4399788
>smiling nervous squint
>hair covering wide face
>not leaning forward (look at necklace)

vs

>open dead eyes
>hair moved wide face
>necklace dangling

it's a shit picture taken on purpose

>>4399959
OM-S has god tier colors too, to the point of making tards believe the Kodak CCD have better colors than CMOS, when it's just olympus color processing

>>4399836
Epson does those.

(I myself have only a cheap Brother bw laser for printing text &cet. I order my prints on photo paper from an online shop.)

>>4399836
The G500 is pretty cheap and good for the price, but it seems like it was discontinued and the replacement model is more expensive and isn't widely available yet.
The epson A3 ones are supposedly good, but also 3-4x more expensive.

>>4399962
I got one of those Epsons (ET-2721) and they're really good.

Haven't had a dried out printer head ever since (the ones in my old Canon printers always dired out after a couple of days) and refilling is quick.
Prices for ink are low as you can simply buy third-party ink for almost no money. Quality-wise I don't see any differences when printing.

>>4399997
>Prices for ink are low as you can simply buy third-party ink for almost no money
I wouldn't do this. Even with first party you'll spend way more on papers than on ink without risking poorer color accuracy. Then again, that particular one only has 3 colors, so color accuracy isn't going to be stellar either way.

If OP can at all afford the 6 color A3 printer, that's what I'd recommend.

>>4397804
I'm not a lens design expert but as far as I'm aware it affecters wide-angle lenses more, because it reduces or removes the need entirely to reverse telephoto elements. Rangefinder lenses are generally smaller because of this short flange distance and also because the vast majority of them lack autofocus. You'd be surprised how much bulk autofocus adds to a lens.

Yeah kind of retarded to pay anything upwards of 100 bucks for analog point and shoots. They'll all be dead in a decade and unrepairable due to electronic components.
At least for me fully mechanical is the way to go.

>>4399966
>At least for me fully mechanical is the way to go.
I could buy like 12 electronic cameras per your 1 mechanical

>>4399966
>irreplaceable 70 year old spring breaks out of nowhere and the 7 parts that came loose with it destroy several brass gears and a cam follower. time to hunt ebay for a new one after being told by uncle joes camera repair that naptha wont fix this one.
>meanwhile, elechads: *jumps the burnt trace and replaces a standard issue capacitor* wow that was easy *realizes one of the few mechanical parts left broke during disassembly because 30 year old plastic* FUCK

>>4399979
I never got the idea that mechanical cameras will last forever. Spares are gonna be scavenged from parts cameras no matter if mechanical or electronic with IC's (fully analog electric cameras can be fixed with the Conrad parts catalogue)
Like, no nigga, you're not gonna sit there with a jeweler's file and make your own gears or build jigs to make mainsprings.

Elechads truly do just keep on winning.

>>4399360
>>4376661

>>4399541
But how close is it?

File: twomoths.jpg (1.4 MB, 3841x2564)

1.4 MB JPG

>>4399360
No anon, it's a big secret so stop posting them and delete this thread.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Exposure Time	1/200 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Lens Aperture	f/5.7
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Focal Length	250.00 mm

>>4399360
Delete this post, we don't want them knowing.

>>4399965
Who is them?

File: R1-09016-028A.jpg (1.95 MB, 2011x3000)

1.95 MB JPG

>>4399842

File: R1-09016-029A.jpg (2.03 MB, 2011x3000)

2.03 MB JPG

>>4399843
Also need an nd filter

File: R1-09016-015A.jpg (2.03 MB, 3000x2011)

2.03 MB JPG

>>4399844

File: R1-09016-003A.jpg (1.86 MB, 2011x3000)

1.86 MB JPG

>>4399845

File: 1735874090751243.jpg (721 KB, 1170x1133)

721 KB JPG

>>4399761
>how much do you usually make at cons
I think you know the answer to that question
>bookings
Now we're talking. Conventions are for networking and bolstering your portfolio, without which you'd have nothing to show if you wanted to bag a private shoot

>>4399287
IP address: India

Disparate pretentious nonsense

Photography is dead for the same reason ALL art is dead. It’s an insular circlejerk similar to 4channers sharing and building upon memes while trying hard not to come off as an outsider or newcomer (unless they are hella schizo) - and there’s a lot of schizophrenia of course. The elevation of mental illness in the arts was a huge mistake but noveltyfags gonna novelty.

>>4391686
honestly if the punishment for art criticism and reviews were death we’d see a massive improvement

also see: the state of fine dining
>would you like some deconstructed tomato soup with your breadless bread plate, sir?
tastemakers and their midwit followers did this

>>4391612
I didn't watch Poor Things, but I watched The Lobster, Dogtooth and The Killing of a Sacred Deer
you'll see that an aesthetic sense is not "the main thing he has going for him" (also as if it wasn't enough for a good photographer – maybe not a great one, but for sure enough for a very good one)]
>>4391669
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
ok nophoto

>>4391494
>really great film director
LOL

Some good shots honestly; cool to see some of the background of a film production.

>>4399432
That's it? My dad one tens of thousands of international photography competitions, and then he taught me everything I know, and now I have won over one hundred thousand international photography competitions. I started off young so I had a bit of a head start. :D

Before you ask I don't share my photos online. I'm sure you've seen them before. Frankly, I am prolific.

>>4399413
I should know better than to engage with the cinema take. So I won't.

>>4399428
>Its [sic] pictures of other peoples [sic] art.
What?

Either way, my point still stands. Art or not, using one focal length for a period of time will help you know what FOV that focal length covers, so you can appropriately choose the focal length(s) that suit(s) you thereafter.
Maybe it's just one. Maybe it's three. Maybe it's all the ones between 70mm and 200mm. I'd argue that starting off with all the focal length at your disposal hinders creativity because you can just get the shot without thinking too hard about it, so your shots would end up all the same. Someone else might say the opposite is true, and that's fine if they have a good reason for it and it works for them.

I took out my 28mm prime today and it inspired me to take some boring ass building corner pictures

>>4399917
28mm is great for creating drama through distortion and size distances.

File: P1090419-Edit.jpg (3.55 MB, 3574x2681)

3.55 MB JPG

>>4398006
Just keep shooting, notice which photos work for you and which don't and learn from that.
In the end progress is gradual and almost invisible; but it is there.
I look back at photos I took after my first year of photography that I thought were great at the time and they now just feel average, same with photos from even just a year ago.
I will also advise you to get a decent old point and shoot that you can keep with you all the time, if you're always practicing photography you'll get better faster.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Panasonic
Camera Model	DMC-LX3
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 13.3.1 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2024:07:25 09:36:06
Exposure Time	1/200 sec
F-Number	f/5.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	80
Lens Aperture	f/5.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	12.80 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB

File: sooon.jpg (146 KB, 2185x1261)

146 KB JPG

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2024:12:20 15:49:18
White Point Chromaticity	0.3
Exposure Time	1/100 sec
F-Number	f/6.3
Lens Aperture	f/6.4
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Focal Length	250.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	6000
Image Height	4000
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: IMG_0377 Raw and Processed.jpg (2.44 MB, 3648x2736)

2.44 MB JPG

Is my image overexposed or is it light pollution (both?)
Single exposure, taken in a Bortle 5 area.
Canon 6D 50mm @ f/1.8 10 sec ISO 3200

Left is raw, right is after processing in lightroom. Trying another 10 sec exposure tonight using 1600 or 800 ISO.

>>4399889
f/1.8 is speedy, going to get a lot of photons. Overexposed. Try a lower ISO.

>>4399889
That edited result looks rather good. Any particular steps you've made? I try and go for similar looks but I always end up making the sky look retardedly noisy or dark

>>4399889
If you're looking for a backdrop image with trees, the trick is to do a short exposure to capture the trees, then a long exposure to capture the sky. Doesn't look like you're using a tracker, so a single second exposure of the trees at a medium-to-high iso for the background, and a low exposure around 100-200 to capture the background, and overlay the images.10 seconds untracked will give you star tracking like that. I would do 5 seconds and multiple exposures and stack them, then recombine the background the still backdrop and recombine.

>>4399280
Get S lenses poorfag.

File: bafkreidgzdvkqkcgta6lmr6c(...).jpg (401 KB, 1999x1334)

401 KB JPG

>>4399254
>muh snoy

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1999
Image Height	1334

File: c6ce7c3016b0c11a813ca7d41(...).jpg (63 KB, 640x478)

63 KB JPG

>>4399910
imagine scrolling through an endless shitheap of japanese tranny erotica, and in your post nut clarity realizing there's a sony in your favorite set and that it has the potential to troll /p/

truly a sad existence

>>4399914
there is also a canon blob and a m43 shitter waiting for their own time to be posted, no worries

>>4399910
um our response sonysisters??

File: IMG_9392.jpg (454 KB, 2000x850)

454 KB JPG

>>4399855

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS Rebel SL2
Camera Software	darktable 4.6.1
Photographer	n0ll
Firmware Version	Firmware Version 1.0.1
Lens Name	EF50mm f/1.8 STM
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2024:12:04 21:24:29
Exposure Time	1/400 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2000
Image Height	850
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Time (UTC)	21:06:20
GPS Status	Measurement In Progress
Geodetic Survey Data	WGS-84
Date (UTC)	2021:11:07
Exposure Mode	Manual
Focus Type	Auto
Metering Mode	Evaluative
Sharpness	Unknown
Saturation	Normal
Contrast	Normal
Shooting Mode	Manual
Image Size	Large
Focus Mode	One-Shot
Drive Mode	Continuous
Flash Mode	Off
Compression Setting	Unknown
Macro Mode	Normal
White Balance	Auto
Exposure Compensation	3
Sensor ISO Speed	224
Color Matrix	129

File: IMG_9888.jpg (2.5 MB, 2000x3000)

2.5 MB JPG

>>4399856

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS Rebel SL2
Camera Software	darktable 4.6.1
Photographer	n0ll
Lens Size	10.00 - 18.00 mm
Firmware Version	Firmware Version 1.0.1
Lens Name	EF-S10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2024:12:04 21:24:22
Exposure Time	1/160 sec
F-Number	f/4.5
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	3200
Lens Aperture	f/4.6
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	10.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2000
Image Height	3000
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Time (UTC)	17:51:38
GPS Status	Measurement In Progress
Geodetic Survey Data	WGS-84
Date (UTC)	2021:11:20
Exposure Mode	Manual
Focus Type	Auto
Metering Mode	Evaluative
Sharpness	Unknown
Saturation	Normal
Contrast	Normal
Shooting Mode	Manual
Image Size	Large
Focus Mode	One-Shot
Drive Mode	Continuous
Flash Mode	Off
Compression Setting	Unknown
Macro Mode	Normal
White Balance	Auto
Exposure Compensation	3
Sensor ISO Speed	320
Color Matrix	129

File: IMG_9152.jpg (1.1 MB, 2000x1312)

1.1 MB JPG

>>4399857
Last one I'm willing to put out for now.

The rest that I've got edited have people in it, wouldn't want to post something here without permission from them.

Oh yeah, >>4399189 counts to this too I guess.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS Rebel SL2
Camera Software	darktable 4.6.1
Photographer	n0ll
Firmware Version	Firmware Version 1.0.1
Lens Name	EF50mm f/1.8 STM
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2024:12:04 21:24:34
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/2.5
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/2.5
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2000
Image Height	1312
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Time (UTC)	21:57:51
GPS Status	Measurement In Progress
Geodetic Survey Data	WGS-84
Date (UTC)	2021:10:02
Exposure Mode	Manual
Focus Type	Auto
Metering Mode	Evaluative
Sharpness	Unknown
Saturation	Normal
Contrast	Normal
Shooting Mode	Manual
Image Size	Large
Focus Mode	One-Shot
Drive Mode	Continuous
Flash Mode	Off
Compression Setting	Unknown
Macro Mode	Normal
White Balance	Auto
Exposure Compensation	3
Sensor ISO Speed	160
Color Matrix	129

File: 20250116_124423.jpg (2.5 MB, 2848x2136)

2.5 MB JPG

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	PENTAX Corporation
Camera Model	PENTAX Optio 60
Camera Software	V1.00
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.9
Image-Specific Properties:
Compression Scheme	JPEG Compression (Thumbnail)
Image Height	2136
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2024:12:22 16:14:45
Vertical Resolution	314 dpi
Horizontal Resolution	314 dpi
Image Width	2848
Exposure Bias	-0.7 EV
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Height	2136
White Balance	Auto
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
Exposure Time	17/2500 sec
Flash	No Flash
F-Number	f/5.6
ISO Speed Rating	64
Image Width	2848
Saturation	Normal
Contrast	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Focal Length	11.00 mm
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Gain Control	None
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Light Source	Unknown

File: IMGP1124.jpg (2.41 MB, 2848x2136)

2.41 MB JPG

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	PENTAX Corporation
Camera Model	PENTAX Optio 60
Camera Software	V1.00
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.9
Image-Specific Properties:
Compression Scheme	JPEG Compression (Thumbnail)
Image Height	2136
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2024:12:22 16:20:59
Vertical Resolution	314 dpi
Horizontal Resolution	314 dpi
Image Width	2848
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Height	2136
White Balance	Auto
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
Exposure Time	3/2500 sec
Flash	No Flash
F-Number	f/4.0
ISO Speed Rating	64
Image Width	2848
Saturation	Normal
Contrast	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Focal Length	7.50 mm
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Gain Control	None
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Light Source	Unknown

>>4399173
Hey, that's a good point. Pretty sure I just set it when I got my X-T5 and went from there. I'll mess with it today see if it does anything.

Thanks.

File: XT5A2092.jpg (3.16 MB, 2000x2997)

3.16 MB JPG

>>4399181
In case anyone else is curious, turns out it was the camera automatically slapping a lens correction with my 18-55 2.8-4.

I wasn't shocked it was doing that at all, but I was shocked at how much brighter it is compared to RAW.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-T5
Camera Software	darktable 5.0.0
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	38 mm
Maker Note Version	0130
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2025:01:10 22:58:33
Exposure Time	1/500 sec
F-Number	f/3.2
Exposure Program	Shutter Priority
ISO Speed Rating	12800
Lens Aperture	f/3.2
Brightness	0.2 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	25.40 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2000
Image Height	2997
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Soft
Subject Distance Range	Unknown
Sharpness	Unknown
White Balance	Auto
Chroma Saturation	Normal
Contrast	Normal
Flash Mode	Unknown
Focus Mode	Auto
Slow Synchro Mode	Off
Picture Mode	Shutter Prior AE
Continuous/Bracketing Mode	On
Blur Status	OK
Focus Status	OK
Auto Exposure Status	Over Exposed

>>4399162
Do you have DR200 or DR400 turned on? Even DR AUTO.
Those settings underexpose to prevent highlights from clipping

>>4399189
Do you mean that the image is indeed dark (as is the RAW), but the lens correction applied in camera made the JPEGs brighter (this being the "default" you expected out of the RAWs too)?

Did turning on the lens correction in darktable bring your RAW to a comparable state to the JPEG in this regard (ofc not color/WB).

>>4399264
Ah, that could also be it. Totally forgot about that. Thanks.

>>4399306
Don't have the same test images handy anymore but lens correction got it about halfway to where JPEGs came out. It's by no means a major headache but always wondered why RAW was darker sometimes.

My best guess is the lens corrections applied to the JPEG, but not exposed to the RAW, or what >>4399264 pointed out as I've seen some of my other shots with vintage glass doing the same thing.

Honestly I'd rather leave the RAW as untouched as possible since I'd want to edit those anyways, so this is a good thing to me.

Late reply but hopefully that makes sense.

File: Camera_XHS_17370362152761(...).jpg (243 KB, 1080x1406)

243 KB JPG

A NEW CHALLENGER APPEARS

>>4399819
Would

>>4399327
I fucking hate Cinestill, they're so fucking greedy they had an active part in the downfall of film and the dramatic rise in price of the last (almost) 10 years

>>4399835
its a mix. they are obviously fucking faggots with trademarking 800t and then copyright trolling people over its use and trying to fuck other people out of their scam, but they did bring kodak cinestill to the stills market

>>4399813
Instax alone does more in revenue than all of Nikon's camera sfuff

>>4399718
Tampons adapt all mount probably with an m42 adapter on it.

File: despair.png (1.25 MB, 821x1550)

1.25 MB PNG

>>4399718

>>4399650
too soon man wtf