The "House Deposit Tripod" EditionSeriously, what is this?Previously: >>4513965
>>4516911>dpreview’s comparison tool is faked and every camera produces good results on their test chart in actuality:o
>>4516913DPreview is the Linus Tech Tips of the camera world.
Bump limit, new thread >>4516915
>>4516911it's still bad lol
Accuracy and the mundane will be the next big thing.
Hey /p/, after years of slowly learning the basics of photography, I think I'm ready to get into the world of portraits. The one small issue is that I don't have any good sources of references other than here for learning the different poses, angles, lighting, and everything else to make decent photos. Don't get me wrong, there are amazing threads that pop up here, but with the gear talk and the shit posts, I really want to branch out and find some from the outside. Instagram is what most people say, but I also want to find stuff that's unconventional or just really creative. So are there any websites, books, or photographers you anons can recommend to check out? Also would love to hear some tips and pointers for a noob like me starting out, especially when it comes to "directing" and posing a model
>>4516521Fill flash, even on camera works well. You can also use a softbox to block out the sun, blending the flash power with the background. >>4516625>>How do I take photos with no shade at all? >Get in the shadeWtf
>>4516694>What's the best way to deal with shooting in harsh light, I often find myself at midday in an open area>Find shade or if not possible try xyzPretty easy to understand if you aren't retardedUnless OP is only ever shooting in the middle of a field, shade is always never far away on a sunny day
>>4516625>>4516703I ask because there's a nice open park I like going to, but there's no shade close or tall enough to actually use when it's the middle of the day>>4516694I do have a speedlight for on camera flash, so I'll probably use that. I did some further research and saw that people also reccomended getting an nd filter for wide aperatures/bokeh? If so, I might also look into getting that
>>4516709Shooting in completely lit areas, with no depth in foreground or background, and bokeh blasting is a recipe for the flat "green screen" look.This guy does tons of just natural light photos on sunny days, but you can see he almost always is leveraging the shadows when possible, or just shooting towards the sun.youtube.com/@caliallstaring/videos
>>4516709You don't need more advice - you need hands-on experience. Put a speedlite without modifiers on your camera, learn to use the zoom, and go shoot. Before messing around with NDs, change aperture to achieve native sync speed.
Insta and whatever else thread for wherever anons post their photos.https://www.instagram.com/mondatta.photography/Do any of you tend to go for certain themes and styles? Or just try anything?
>>4516525Thank you kindly!
>>4516526You're welcome anon.
>>4512319I think I still follow the old one.It's been a while since my last shot, but I still have my camera. I hope one day I can start taking portraits.https://www.instagram.com/fjtsc/Nice to see the old posters still checking in.
>>4516522>I'm just trying to understand how photographers approach social media when it comes to protecting their work.There's 3 ways, first registering your photos under law but this should be done only if you print a book and register its contents as a project, not every individual photo unless the entire session was to pull one single photo. Expensive in the long run if register every photo, also overall tedious, but fool-proof.Second way, which is what anon mentioned, is having the original RAW. It contains the metadata and nowadays it also can be backtracked to a singular camera via noise analysis, hence why you have to edit an overlay of grain if your picture has some illegal or questionable content as cops can profile the noise to a specific camera and other photos taken with it.That includes the JPG, and like anon said too, if you have different shots from the same moment it also tracks, but mind this that if someone claims all the pics by law you practically end up not owning them anyways even if you have all the proof, particularly if they have a good lawyer. So uploading them to sites that give you default copyright claims is a good move, and that's the third way, uploading to those sites and reading the settings. Flickr gives default rights but you can set it to creative commons royalty-free among other legal stuff, sites like Instagram makes you default give them the rights to distribute your pictures as they see fit, they won't seek ownership if you publish or do stuff with it but they can use them too without asking you.Hidden watermarks are also a thing, some anon long ago hid it in vegetation or clouds.
>>4516594Wow, thank you for all this info and the detailed response! I’m definitely screenshotting everything you guys shared I really appreciate it !The hidden watermark idea is really good idea.I actually bought a kodak charmera a while back and have been enjoying it, and I also have a Panasonic Lumix GX85 with a 12–32mm lens. I like street photography, but I’m mostly trying to just focus on shooting more consistently and not worry too much about settings, and just seeing what I like and what I want to shoot. Talking to you guys honestly makes me want to start using my Lumix more. Thanks.
Who the fuck likes this focal length? What is its purpose?
>>4512760>capital B Beautyleave it in the 19th century
>>4462881very nice tits and feet ; I nutted to this
>>4462866>Who the fuck likes this focal length? What is its purpose?Great for construction and indoor photography, and sky/astrophotography.
idk mane
Thought the sky looked really beautiful and haunting so I took this photo with my phone. An hour later the thunderstorm arrived.
>>4503753sky out 10. Would reply again.
>>4503753This looks amazing. It feels like being there. It looks real just like real life.
Not sure how visible it will be after compression, but there's a skydiver with a huge American flag in the distance.
>>4516497Nice drunk driver friendly street design
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
Let this guy outside yesterday. Heavy crop.
>>4513969Hawthorn/st marks fly. Every year there's a bajillion of them in my area for a few weeks.
Pictures with potatoes in them give me a quarter chub edition.
>>4515359Mmmmm, tasty...
>>4515739we need a /p/ hall of fame threadit would be great if oldfags could contrib anything they saved from anons posting last decadeI’ve got a folder of about thirty or forty images
>>4515739these photos look like shit. ur retarded
>>4516383>>4516018>>4516017Someone’s mad he didn’t get in the hall of fame
>>4515739?? maybe three of these are remarkable. better photos than most of these can be found in every rpt>>4515154tried too hard? anon didn't try nearly hard enough. for one, the people in them are barely noticeable
For the past couple of years I have been practicing photography with "circuit bent" cameras I have built. I am gonna share a few pictures, give some explanations as to the hows, and hopefully inspire some people to pick up this form of photography.Just a disclaimer here, I haven't edited these photos at all besides maybe cropping them. These are how to the photos come out of the camera.
Last one for now.
>>4516370I love every shot ITT but especially this one. The melting effect I love.
>>4516370you printed red and purple pla over your photo?
All of these are just snapshots
>>4516336>No one really does that anymore.Days ago i posted what i consider the best lenses for Nikon F and i don't think anyone read it>>4516340>userbase is so small now that any feedback is welcomed at allWe are at year 2006 or alt-imageboard levels, you now know what it feels like but to be fair old forums that had decent activity also died down, the Bentacks forums, Manual Focus Lenses, even mid-life dentist crisis forums like FredMiranda.After the plandemic it all tumbled down.
>>4516282>>4516298I want to see the RAW too
>>4516362>>4516282The TIFFs are missing from that roll, but you get the full JPG and NEF.https://www.filemail.com/d/fcubnwmlypcggqo
>>4516437
>>4516443PROOF digital is superior and looks like real life! Film subscriptiontographers btfo!
First post on 4chan. Not really a photograper, and is exactly underqualifed to be called a proper "photograper"Call me a faggot because this picture sucks or what ever, just tell me of its bad. Call it shit, ass, retarded I DON'T CARE. JUST SAY SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
>>4512579Yeah, he's Broly squatting, so what it's not illegalPoint still stands, the subjects and their thematic contrast are clearly visible, and will be even if shown in a semi-detailed exhibition format of 8x10 seen at a 50cm distance which is 20ish inches in muttric system.Attached is an image sized 7x10 if you are seeing it at 96PPI, 960px vertical side, 768 horizontal side would make it 8in but in this case due to crop ratio it is 672ish, so a 7in.The example inside of a so-called broly squat, black framed, is a normal exhibition size of 5x7 if seen at 96PPI, that might be a bit too small but OP might print it at 8x10 anyways as it is doable at 300DPI, he's just 20 to 25 pixels shy of the 2400x3000 pixels needed if he opts for the cropped version provided before.
Did this monkey attempt any more photos?
>>4512728Your crop, aside from brolly ass, is retarded as it loses the original environmental context from the shooter's perspective.The feeling of squalor is massacred; the grime of the river is not as apparent, as is lost the fact that the subjects are fishing in a shitty, polluted, decaying canal and not against the ocean or something. You literally cropped out a source of flowing water, you fool.Your crop is bad, just like your photo of chairs in a tree is bad (and banal).>>4512280I like it, but you're limited by your equipment; the finer details that would make the photo are blurred. Other than that, good job
>>4516349>Your crop is bad, just like your photo of chairs in a tree is badwat, i haven't taken or posted any photo of " chairs in a tree", take your meds>loses the original environmental context from the shooter's perspectiveYes but compacting the composition gives more room to the hobos and makes the juxtaposition between their "under the bridge" conditions and the fancy building more obvious/explicit.>the grime of the river is not as apparent>lost the fact that the subjects are fishing in a shitty, polluted, decaying canalIt is in the left-side crop shown here >>4512288, it is not lost>You literally cropped out a source of flowing water, you foolThat is true but that is a sacrifice i did because my subject priority is the juxtaposition, not the squalors' condition>canal and not against the ocean or somethingAlso an intelligent observation, again i had a crop priority. To have everything in the composition this would need to be a large-format image and shot at a slightly different angle to avoid the corrugated roofing in the mid-right side while maintaining the water source.>the finer details that would make the photo are blurredLike so.
>>4516360im not the guy ur responding too but buddy if ur using words like juxtaposition, thats how u know ur like not good at this composition stuff. relying on cheap tricks doesnt make a good photo. ur photo is like not leveled in a way that make sense for the composition u attemptedlike my first impression is that this dude doesnt know how to straighten something. second the bottom right corner is just useless shit. its just like some shitty plants and its in a super distracting area. third, there's just more distractions on the right side wit that building. theres too little of it showing so it just looks like u didnt even notice it was there when u took the photo.theres no defining points in this photo that create a composition. it literally just looks random.go read some art books or go look at paintings and see what they doand finally the contrast it just too much, like the shit on top of the ship is too bright and the ppl below is way too dark to the point where no one would really notice itComment too long. Click here to view the full text.
I've come into the ownership of a beautiful Nikon F2AS. I love shooting with it but the only lens I've got is a crappy Series E. What are the absolute best lenses I can put on this thing?
>>4516240>The F4 and F5 were top-tierThose are SLRs. And I don't know of many that would call the F4 a great camera in its day, considering the EOS-1 was significantly cheaper and better in every way.
I have a voigtlander 55mm 1.2 for my F3 and i love it
Yeah i misread, still the D700 and D3/D4 are great machines, i do not know how you would dislike them aside from the cheap grip material. D850 is also good but they chassis doesn't feel as good.
>>4516214D700 and D800 were GOATed, I shoot on both and people are still using them
>>4515986are you ai
>Sepia toning is a chemical photographic process which changes the appearance of black-and-white prints to brown.>Most digital cameras and photo software include a sepia filter to mimic the appearance of sepia-toned prints.Post your sepia photos!
>>4516052>>4516053Thank you. I severely underexposed, then post processed and that's how it turned out. Here it is straight outta the camera.
>>4516168I don't think I've seen anyone use color banding like this before. Interesting.
>>4516039>>4516168Did you edit the RAW or JPEG?
>>4516168You've got color banding like that SOOC? What the fuck.
>>4516245>>4516248New camera so just taking a lot of goof around jpegs to see what happens. That plus the underexposure seem to be what's doing it, I'll continue to experiment. Don't remember if I used a recipe.>>4516235Glad you like it.
Known for his pioneering work in color photography and his effort to document early 20th-century Russia.
>>4505507>>4505526>>4505537incredible photoshow much wealth did the russians have?
>>4506887Thank You>>4507208on par with the Germans or Swedes of the time. imonew thread here>>4506977>>4506977>>4506977
>>4505996>>4506000>The lenses had to be in a stack with the center lens on center.if it was taken with three lenses, we'd see way more parallax "CA"but all I've seen is from stuff moving in-frame in different colors, which also implies multiple shots on a single lens>Top left corner roofline is off set in a down/up angle in the top and bottom imagesthe framing offsets in >>4505619 are probably from imperfect alignment when moving the plate between the shots, otherwise the top & bottom images would be offset in opposite directions relative to the center oneso yeah, all evidence points to a setup like Miethe's 1906 >>4505938 on top
>>4511141Thank for your input and I can't argue with the logic.A closer comparison to other three frames would be important.If the declamation in framing observed in the sample I gave is consistently present,I would say no to the theory.You would not move the base the same way each time in other locations for other shots.My description includes your offset angles approach. Center lens straighttop lens 20 degrees downbottom lens 20 degrees up.Odd none of his gear was in any photos. The Mirthe camera seems gigantic and cumbersome. I don't see how you could slide into the next frame regularlywithout a noticeable difference in border framing. Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
sovl: the thread. great work op, it was fun going through all these. the two wars took the spirit out of the world is my impression, something like that anyway.
How to fix cricketing in the audio on s5mkii?I use rode shotgun mic and record on sd (if that matters) and there is a weird high pitched cricketing/pulsating noise/buzz. While video is goated, the audio issue ruined (made audio annoying to work with) in 2 of my films :/
>>4514164My R6II's audio is fucked up not even 2 years later. Internal and external. First I could put the right channel as mono but now the right channel also fucks around. They also took away raw multiple exposure on the Mark II. All brands have their problems. I'm still waiting for FF 3rd party lens support.
>>4515914Its really only sony that has any semblance of reliabilityAs long as it came out after the a7iii and a7riiiAnd you don’t use the shutter as a dusr cover
>>4514255>and fuji have better autofocus than panasonic.he keeps saying this but it's such an obvious lie to anyone who has used both Fuji and Lumix.
>>4515925>i couldnt afford an x-e5: the post
>>4515942Nobody wants x-e5 bro
Reply if you're a real mf'er
>>4514099As the anon wrote, B&W negative film is pretty low contrast intentionally. People used appropriate photo paper (these days variable contrast with filters) and dodge & burn while exposing the wet prints under enlarger. For scans the same shit is done with an image editor.That said yellow filter was/is pretty normal when shooting B&W film outdoors. Yellow filter cuts haze from scattered UV/blue light and makes blue sky more contrasty.
>>4515697I can count the pixels lmao
Guys i got a offerHorizon Perfekt camera for 180€Should i get it ?
>>4516036Could be fun.
