Eclipse editionFormer thread: >>4519819Took this one in Paris as the eclipse was winding down. Spanishbros, post your eclipse pics.
Ok I post another crappy photo and we can all move to a new thread.
>>4525694>new thread didn't happenit's over for /rpt/
>>45257472 more weeks
>>4525747If you have a recent photo you should be the change you want to be in this world instead of waiting for someone else to do it.
>>4525776>>4525747migrate>>4525845
I want to start a /p/ monthly, or tri-monthly, photo competition where the prize is actually desirable and relevant to photography: film rolls. Of course, they’ll be cheap, readily-available film stock like Ultramax 400 or Gold 200, or whatever else is easy and inexpensive to get ahold of, but the problem is this: how shall voting stay honest, and how shall the winner’s address stay anonymous when I send him the prize? I don’t want the poll’s integrity to be compromised, nor the winner’s anonymity. Who has some ideas for how this could be set up?
>>4525798Excuse me, I do the bulk of effort post critiques and info on here and have actually served as judge for local photo contests
>>4525819How about we have a pre-competition competition to elect judges? We could probably get away with a public vote for that. You could even have unlimited submissions, but 1 per trip, and then each trip that wins a judging position gets to judge the real competition.
>>4525816>some you may like>and some may now rig your poll with the help of a brazilian, $3.50, and a VPN
>>4525824Well yeah the seething autist nophoto made the worst photographer on /p/ poll after getting shit on for the 999th time by yesphotos.Of course he was going to rig it. Wouldn't you?
>>4525824ALSO. The creator of the poll rigged it before and after huskyfag aka ken rockwell aka mossad agent 69 rigged it, so I say it was a fair play.
I took this photo with a friend of mine as a souvenir but like there's something I did wrong and that this photo doesn't look very good to me, do you have any other tips on what I can improve in this photo /p/?
>>4525715well it's all blurry because the camera is too bad at focusing and resolving detail in low light, and there's no subject so it's just some kind of empty void
>>4525715put it on a tripod and expose it for 30 seconds
>>4525799OP here I liked this model it even looks like an album model
does anyone take photos of abandoned buildings ?
>>4525606These sorta count, I guess.
>>4525606Most of the abandoned factories hoses etc in my city got demolished and the remaining ones got big fences and sensors, cameras that will alert security.
Is the dji pocket 4 a meme if I want something small and handheld for travel and cinematic videos? it's like $700 which feels expensive as fuck but I don't know what else offers the same at the form factor. it's also not available in the US which is extremely annoying and would force me to pay $50+ for import fees
>>4525670Fuck off nigger >>4525019
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
>>4525113Laowa makes some crazy ones
>on the hunt for an ff lens equivalent of xf 18mm 1.4>canon charges 3k, lets try nikon>good lenses, crap bodies. lets try soney>bodies look promising.mp4>viltrox or sony 20mm... kind of>viltrox 26 2.8 is the closest. >2.8>ffguess i dont need a fucking camera
Thypoch 28mm f1.4>hunt for an ff lens equivalent of xf 18mm>bodies bodies bodiesDo you want a lens or a system you dumb freak
>>4524709I don't think anon knows either.
>>4524732>>4524709He already has the exact lens he wants which is the XF 18mm that goes on a Fuji X body. I think he is trolling
>>4524354I love this big brain schizo nigga
>>4524360The 35mm f/1.4 is fucking glacially slow and noisy but it makes my dick tingle in a very similar way to my 50mm Summicron
I tried to check out other online places for photography and it was utter dogshit. Is /p/ really the last bastion for would-be auteurs?
>>4525380You sound mad and autistic and he sounds based. Sorry that Sony has sucked longer than you've been alive.
>>4525383god we're gay here, at least /k/ had the Salesman who posted booby trap and detonator plans and died on a trip to Syria in 2014 trying to obtain surplus Stg.44s
>>4525156>>4525163Recently discovered this one guy who does conventions etc in a fun wayhttps://nikitateryoshin.com/
>>4525163I think there is no objective way to say what is interesting or not, but my feeling is there is not much you can convey with a photo of such performances. You are taking out too many information from the show, the music, the movements, and the mood of the public which is probably the main thing that make those interesting in real life. Why don't you try to photograph those cosplayers in conditions where you truly have the opportunity to showcase them and their costumes, such as posed/studio shots with matching background and good light? This way you wouldn't have to compromise with what they wanted to do for a completely different context than a photo shoot. >>4525433 impressive style
>>45251181/8 handheld with no visible camera shake just means you are SHIT at developing your photos or use SHIT lenses, or, more likely, you have SHIT eyes.
Nikkor 85mm 1.4G focuses in the wrong place if you stop down to f2.8 or f4. If you are taking a headshot 1-3m away and focus on the eyes, AF puts focus 1 cm inside the head. Eyes will be totally blurry. How does this lens have such a good reputation when it fails so basically at its core task. WTF were the designers thinking. I am on a film camera so live view focus is not an option. Unusable shitlens. https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-nikon-af-s-85mm-1-4g/#Focus_Shiftthe 105 1.4 is even worsehttps://blog.kasson.com/d850/nikon-105-1-4-on-d850-cdaf-pdaf-focus-shift/also wtf is with these captchas it is getting too hard to post here
>>4525382I went back and re-edited it without the profile corrections and shit so OP could see right off the bat what it does. the 1.4D is known for its green/magenta spectrum sphereochromaticism wide open, still a great lens. Nothing you can't correct in post.
>>4525373>so sharp you see the pores on that fat cow>not sharp enough but it's ok I GUESSwhy the fuck do portrait photographers sperg out about sharpness when most of the time it's not flattering to the post wall hags they shoot?
>>4525373wow that pic is really informative thanks. the spherical and chromatic aberrations are pretty thoroughly "vintage" (her arm, the jewels) i think i will just yolo and live with the 85mm 1.4g focus shift
>>4525382Yeah thats a nikonm dslr thing. only retards use them
>>4523979You need to use AF fine tune on DSLRs.Not a problem on mirrorless.>>4523986Not true. I have AF-S 85mm f1.4 and f1.8.1.8 has a smaller offset at +5, while 1.4 is a whooping 15+.But with those settings, they are absolutely excellent. My D800 remembers the fine tune setting for each individual lens, so I just set it and forget it. My Z6 delivers perfectly focused shots without any special setting, because it is a mirror problem.Also, my AF-S 50mm f1.4 needs a -2 fine tune.
groundskeepers and hikers unite!post your most grandiose landscapes
>>4525292is this mars
>>4525397film doesn't work on mars because the silver in the film needs oxygen to oxidize
>>4518497
Apologies if this is more suitable for /gear/ but what are the pros and cons of different full frame systems for landscapes and is there a recommended "gold standard"? I'm mostly looking for more megapickles and better dynamic range, a lower minimum ISO and better low-light performance than the hard-working K-70 I currently own. Digital MF seems great but I don't do photography for a living and don't have a trust fund.And to keep things more on topic I'd appreciate any feedback on this older photo. The crop works pretty well IMO but it was also something of a necessity because I had some crap on my filter and didn't realize it until later. Oh well.
guys pls help... my tc-201 got stuck on Helios 81n and I can't remove it.the lever is half way down and has slight play, but there's no way I can get it to move, I can't get any shims anywhere, and the screws on the back of the tele are stuck and I even stripped one... is there anything can be done? I smacked it tried rotating and whatever else, do I need to drill out the screws on the back of the tele now?the aperture ring is overhanging so I can't get to the pin itself...
I took the front of the lens out but still can't get to the latch, need to take apart more but not sure how
>>4524211nvm it can't be reached like that.I'm fucked. I have to drill.
You need to take apart the tele, although the stripped screw is a problem. I'd try to get a good screwdriver that bites into the screws that you can take out first, also use WD40.
>>4524244I tried penetrating oil and acetone, didn't budge.I think I'll try ordering a micro tap set to try and unscrew it like that.hopefully it works and I won't have to drill.
I drilled it.1mm cobalt bit did good job, and a small extractor.the AI-S passthrough rod from the tele got jammed up somewhere, maybe on a screw hole of the lens. I left it out of the assembly.
A $120 camera is all you need
>>4522382True if you're in a high trust nation. Bringing your fancy Iphone 17 pro to pajeetstan, africa or italy will only paint a red bullseye on your back and using shitty burner phone that is shitty enough that these cretin wouldn't bother mugging you means that you're getting shitty, washed up pics most of the timeCheap point and shoot camera is still have its place in the world, especially third world
Didn't want to make a new thread, but what does /p/ think of the Pentax Q as a first digital camera?
>>4524752Here's a picture of one, it's a tiny interchangable lens camera from about 15 years ago.
>>4524752i have a pentax q s1 but i don't use it as much as my casio digicam because it's somewhat hard to use and not actually that compact if you want to carry more than one lens.
>Youtube video>This stupidly cheap camera no one gives a fuck about is all you'll ever need, just $100>15 minutes later>Check prices>$600Tired of this
Macro photo of a flower in my garden (shot on Redmi 13C)
lemme see your shots for the moon!this is mine btw captured with canon 2000d 55mm i can not remember my camera settingsi gave it some edit with lightroom this is first time with DSLR
>>4525091How hard? Enough that making the trip for such a frivolous purpose would be a ridiculous luxury.But... you would see a very dimly lit (by the eclipsed reddish moonlight) Earth with a bright red ring around it, and the Sun's corona extending far beyond the red ring.Image limit reached
>>4525104>ridiculous luxuryThey've literally been to the moon. Just bring a camera next time >Image limit reachedFar out. What do you want me to do about it?
>>4525107>They've literally been to the moon.Duh.>Just bring a camera next timeYou think they forgot one last time?>>4525091>How hard would it be to get a camera set up on the moon to get the eclipse perspective from the lunar surfaceI rephrase, it's a frivolous waste to send a mission dedicated to getting an image of the Earth during a lunar eclipse. Stupid, in fact.>predicting, "I meant as part of a bigger mission"Yeah, that's not what you wrote.>>4525107>What do you want me to do about it?Nothing. Was meant as a general note. Should have put it in a new message to avoid confusion. Oops.
>>4525085Tripod is not the issue. I tried to capture the last lunar eclipse and got shit result. After some digging turns out that you need a tracker as the moon is to dark an you need like 1-2 sec exposure time to get good results. Not doable with normal gear. Anything below 1/50 i think will result in blurry photos on 200 300mm or you can go crazy with the iso.Can t post mine coz max images.Was a good thread with lots of info. And good pics
>>4525167NewThread:>>4525386>>4525386>>4525386
When are we getting a camera with a cross-shaped sensor or an oversized square sensor with dark corners? This should already be the standard on the tiny smartphone sensors so I don't have to rotate my phone
>>4524336>Why does everyone hate squares?it doesn't reach as wide and tall if you want to keep using the same lens and be able to take the same photo as with your current sensorthe purple-marked areas you'd lose
I like 4:3
>>4524326A few Panasonics did that too
>>45246854:3 was nice when I had a 4:3 monitor since you can view in fullscreen and it'll fill the screen completely, no black bars. But 4:3 monitors are basically gone now outside of retro stuff so no point anymore imo.
>>4524316Just make square lenses
