Film photography is better due to low sensitivity in dark areas. No one needs to see what is in dark areas most of the time. Just imagine this photo with unnecessary crap in shadows.
>>4485702This
Film photos are just pleasing to look at. You can tell when a photo is taken on film.
>>4492047Are these a woman's BREASTS!?On my blue board?!!??!
>>4492714NoHe’s a man, so it’s SFW.
>>4492047It's pleasing because tits, not because film.
Reply if you're a real mf'er
>>44914156x6 TLRs are a lot smaller than you'd think.A folder is probably always going to win on compactness, but zone focussing and composing with the brilliant finder on my Ikon 515/2 sucks. My Microcord (Rolleiflex copy for all intents and purposes iirc) is smaller volume wise than my 35mm SLRs.>>4491421I understand the packing purposes issue but personally when I've travelled with my folder I always brought a 35mm SLR anyway because I knew the folder was so limiting.There are a few folding rangefinders, like the Mamiya Six, Voigtlander and Zeiss made them also. You could always get a hotshoe rangefinder and mount it to your folder.tl;dr Like you say if you bring the folder you will want a 35mm also, so the TLR is there if you want to replace both I suppose. Unless your folder has a rangefinder already in which case I think wanting anything further is GAS.
>>4492500>HotshoeI meant cold shoe but you get the pointPicrel is from my Ikon 515/2 on a trip to Vienna where I just had a carry on bag. I still managed to pack my Praktica TL1000. I've done small day hikes with the same set up without issue.
>>4492708kat
>>4483220>sekonic l-308xmost comfy and good for it's price.
literally unmogged even to this day
>>4491626>12MPlollmao even
>what is the d800
>>4491649Same, Bro. I half-filled my freezer with Portra last year.
D700 + Ikelite 200DL + Sugma EX 28/1.8
I just got an old digicam and the previous owners didn't delete all the photos. I took a peek and some of the pics are actually kino.
>>4490341He did it on purpose.
Using recuva on about 100 old memory cards I have probably only gotten a couple that had somewhat decent photos on them. It is amazing just how terrible the average snapshitter is and how they all take the same type of shitty photos. One card had a ton of folders on it spanning over several years where they had taken photos of everything from baptisms to funerals.. all family events. One card had several full frontal nudity photos of an elderly man taken in the mirror on vacation. It feels somewhat wrong to peek into the lives of others though.
>>4489096Postem!
I got some on a digishit I bought for cheap, but they're boring: two cars, probably photographed for a listing. And some family photos with a baby.
Once bought a used camera phone that contained a video of a guy doing an uncanny voice impersonation of Herbert the Pervert from Family Guy.
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
>>4488213Oops. Sept. 10, 2015.
ZV-E10 + SEL55210 taken last week iirc, obviously cropped
Best I can do with a Ricoh GR
photos of my cat Rupert that i took on my phone which at least trace amounts of thoughtful composition, as per the board rules I like this shot because it really focuses on his face, which is cute
>>4491431Looks like a tiger on the preview
middle child of another cat and the corgi
>>4476475You fucking nigger chud kill yourself
What are the best socials or search engines nowadays to discover relatively good photography?I've found Pinterest (without the adds) to have the best recommendations by far until now. What the hell happened to Instagram? Something that was born to be focused on photography in the 2010s became some sort of life people's blogs. Not even that, the recommendations are absolutely horrible, worst than things like Youtube. Sadly, it's one of the only ways for some kind of online social presence, and if you opt out of it, you regress to anonymity.I remember there were some online Russian sites who used to archive good stuff, like gallery.ru
>>4491761holy shit I thought you were talking shit so looked up the s5 pro.https://www.flickr.com/groups/fujis5/pool/with/54494318943That looks so much better than the z9 photos its not funny. I even had to look up what was going on sensor wise, its a CCD. Why the fuck isnt this technology getting pushed? this is the type of thing I would actually want
>>4491762An s9 photo.This is very good color for digital, some of the best ive seen.
>>4491762CCD isnt doing the colors its limited editing latitude (CCD has almost no DR) making the manufacturer write good data instead of lots of data and the users having better taste on average (digital MF and nicer canon DSLRs write lots of data but the users shoot and edit better as well)
browse the PDF outputs of FIAP salons. endless fun seeing the best of the best boomer photographyhere's a list. just look at the previous years winners and stuff. endless hours of entertainment.https://www.myfiap.net/patronages?field_fiap_patronage_number_value_2=&title=&title_1=&name=&field_profile_org_name_value=&custom_category=All&custom_section=All&field_cntst_sched_closing_date_value_op=%3D&field_cntst_sched_closing_date_value%5Bvalue%5D=&field_cntst_sched_closing_date_value%5Bmin%5D=&field_cntst_sched_closing_date_value%5Bmax%5D=&field_cntst_sched_exhibit_date_value_op=%3D&field_cntst_sched_exhibit_date_value%5Bvalue%5D=&field_cntst_sched_exhibit_date_value%5Bmin%5D=&field_cntst_sched_exhibit_date_value%5Bmax%5D=&has_salon_catalog=All&has_salon_file=All&items_per_page=50&order=field_cntst_sched_closing_date&sort=desc&page=1
>>4491761your a fucking snoy using nigger bitch
I was the anon thay said i fucked up my first roll of film like 2 months ago. Well, I got the roll of film back, and the light had only ruined like 8 photos so, 16 were pretty ok, besides looking like shit because I'm new to this. I especially liked this photo, but it looks kinda retarded.
>>4488688wtf is wrong with you lol
>>4488600best shot itt
I kinda like those pics. Have a nice vibe to them :)The sun looks nice, warm and cozy there
>>4488600Agreeing with some posters. Vibey.I’ve been experimenting with film recently and hope my night shots turn out as neat but I’m expected some totally unexposed frames off my disposable.
>>4491659>totally unexposed frames off my disposable.yeah. f/9 at 1/125 (give or take) is 10 stops too dark at night with 100ISO film, and 8 stops too dark with 400ISO film, or less than 1% of the required lightunless you used flash and subjects were close enough
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: >>4376661
>image limit reachedShall we wait until spring to make a new thread? All my insect bros are gone, literally nothing to shoot :(
>>4485226Use a tripod and pray for a still bug / no wind. Let the AF motor do it for you. The rocking method is unreliable because there's little chance you can go perfectly forwards and backwards without any lateral movement whatsoever.>>4492505Could just get a thread going with some old photos, no harm in that really.
>>4492539Is macro defined as 1:1 or greater, or is it just images "in the spirit of" taking pictures of small things?
>>4492540Technically Macro is 1:1. In practice, anything involving "small" subjects and/or higher than normal magnification is macro photography. Better to think of it as a general idea than a clearly defined rule, and if anyone gets all high and mighty over you using a 0.4x lens or something then that just means they're a massive faggot.Back in the day when basically every lens was between 0.2x and 0.1x magnification, the only way to get proper macro photos was with a dedicated macro lens (or bellows). These days more and more everyday lenses feature higher reproduction ratios with 0.5x being fairly common and normally the point that companies will slap the Macro moniker on it. Hell, my 100-400mm lens has a 0.42x ratio without trying, and it would be more than enough for decent enough macro.
>>4492553Yeah that's how I feel about it also. I do a lot of 8x10 snapshitting type stuff around 1:1 and it always makes me chuckle a bit when I consider posting a picture with my entire hand in it or something in the macro general because technically it is 1:1.It's more fun to remain within the spirit of macro and post photographs of small things instead. :D
>Can’t stand my self
>>4492547
I will post some more examples.
>>4490978A studio product photo. The result of much planning and position, a lot of very good lighting equipment placed intentionally and probably done by someone experienced, and what is likely a full frame digital camera using a short-telephoto prime lens with a moderately wide aperture in-use.Emphasis on the lighting. If this was lit half-assedly or was just a photo using direct-flash or natural lighting it would look far, far worse than it does.I don't see anything that gives it away as film.It's also probably photoshopped a fair bit, as it is a product shot.
OP you should check out the 1989 edition of the BH&G cookbook
>>4492529Sinar P spotted.
>>4491182I wouldn't be surprised if it's large format, for studio shots that was the norm. Crazy how digital just wrecked everything.
>>4492532You could always use a technical camera with a 120 back, but I don't really see the point when doing product photography like this unless you really needed the additional DoF that smaller formats afford you.
I take photos on a Sony Mavica. I'm not a photographer per se, but I think this will be my new hobby now.
>>4491828Sir I’m going to need proof that doll is at least 18
>>4491828Why did you make two threads?
Post em
Buge
>>4492474Holy shit this is amazing!
I just found a vintage camera museum page and thought maybe someone here might be interested in ithttps://licm.org.uk/livingImage/1930Room.html
>>4492511Cool. Another really fun one is to look up the old 1800-early 1900s newspaper photography ad archives. Tons and tons of really neat old photography ads for film, printing seevices, lenses, etc.
Seems like a good site for old camera enthusiasts
Got a Fuji X-E5 kit for Christmas. Sharing the first pics SOOC. Not the best photographer, but I can tell I’m going to love using it. Plus it’s my first camera that’s truly mine, so how could I not love it?
>>4491989Wow that's pretty good lol. Definitely a /p/ approved camera.
Took a trip to The Museum of Russian Art in Minneapolis. Was pleasantly surprised by how beautiful everything was. Not that I was expecting it to be bad or anything. Just liked it way more than I thought I would.
>>4492387The girl in the middle is probably my favorite out of all the exhibits. She’s so full of life and hope.
>>4492388Obsessed with the teeeeny tiny hand painted matryoshka. The bigger ones are cool and all but she’s so detailed.
>>4492389Also, here’s the film recipe if anyone wants it. I forgot what it’s called but it’s very versatile.
