Shallow dof is extremely abused in photography but especially in videography and basically the ultimate youtube/netflix lazy trash signifier at this point. In 2026 we're deepfocusmaxxing. Reject bokehslop.Retvrn to composition.
>>4497981What lens?
>>4497739I love the sun.
>>4497599 Only a retarded american could turn variable aperture blades into a polarizing black and white issue.
>>4497615>>4497614Do you not take any photos your self?
>>4497981commie bloc lens boke
Well I ordered a used Fujifilm GFX 100s for 3k and the Gf 50mm f3.5 for a little over 600$. I've been doing a series of suburban/urban landscapes late at night and was previously shooting with a Nikon z7ii and the 35mm f1.4 and Voigtlander Nokton 40mm. I think the 50mm should be a pretty good light weight option but I was also looking at adapting some pentax 645 and Mamiya glass. I've also heard the Mitakon 65mm f1.4 is pretty good. Any suggestions or tips for someone who hasn't ever shot digital medium format?
>>4501978What a good opportunity for you to share some photos with us
>>4502002Not sure what kind of pictures I can share—nothing particularly fancy or interesting from the past two months.I suspect the images might end up being used to argue about the “superiority” of one piece of hardware over another, which isn’t very productive in my opinion. At the moment, I’m only using the Mamiya 80mm f/2.8 AF, so there isn’t much variety in the shots anyway.I can share RAW files later, but if the goal is to compare hardware performance, that really requires controlled tests. For me, it’s more about whether I like the results without having to heavily tweak the RAW files just to get pleasing colors. From what I’ve seen, I actually prefer the output from the Canon 5D (classic) over Sony bodies, although Sony performs better in low-light conditions.The P65+ is excellent when there’s plenty of light—colors come out the way I like with minimal adjustment, and I’m satisfied with the results
>>4502010>I suspect the images might end up being used to argue about the “superiority” of one piece of hardware over another,Yes, let's keep the arguing over gear to text only lol
>>4501981>t.esl
>>4502010Thats pretty good. Try ETTL with flash if you havent already. Those backs really excel in a studio setting. I've got a emotion 75H and a leaf aptus with the same sensor. They're annoying cameras to use and technically demanding, but the pictures are definitely worth it.
Be honest
>>4501600pointless given how cheap decent 120 used cameras are
>>4501600I'd buy me a Nikon F if I were you. Never heard of Olga
Depends. Do you want a camera that does what a Holga does? Then find a cheap one secondhand and have fun with it. Otherwise, just don't get one. It's a one-trick pony, but sometimes that trick is what people want.
>>4501957/thread
>>4501600I reckon you are better off with an agfa clack you can get for under 10 bucks.
Just out of curiosity
>>4501605>>4501607>film thread >open>Inbreed brandfags fighting
>>4501816Canoniggers win again and BTFO the Snoy. Stay mad.
>>4501602If you want a shitty film camera with "character" just get a 30's late model Kodak Brownie 2 (one NOT made of cardboard!) or any other working lowest end 120 camera. Mine was £2 + postage and looked and smelled like it had spent last 80 years in cold attic. While finder mirrors are corroded and lens bit fuzzy it works fine. The single meniscus lens is surprisingly sharp for what it is.
>>4501602I've had a lot of fun with the Kodak waterproof disposable.
>>4501999Agfa's waterproof disposable is quite nice as well.
Redpill me on screen vs viewfinder debate. Personally I find screen to be way more comfortable. Viewfinder is a total pain in the ass.
>>4497912> going off the histo and light meter was a far better idea >instrument flying but for cameraswhere's the sovl
>>4498781I have no idea why this isn't more common. There are so many situations where it is highly beneficial.
>>4501583not present
>>4499264lmao
>>4497900One of the dumbest fucking things I've ever read here, and I've been on /p/ since fucking 2005
>>4501067now go out and get em tiger!
>>4501272I haven't used it yet, but this was the last good picture I took with it. Thanks for the encouragement, anon.
Screwdriver and Patience
>>4501020they just feel nice to use, but I started on nikon
I did so many stupid thing to my Nikon - for example once I tried to clean the sensor with a vacuum cleaner, suprisingly my camera still works like nothing happened
Have you ever taken a still life photograph? What did you learn from it? I am not good at it yet, but it is my favourite genre of photography. I like the idea of trying to execute a concept, telling a story with visual grammar and narrative, but there are many factors that can ruin a still life photograph. Pic related needed better composition, angling, leading lines, better props, a better background (preferably with a backdrop because the white wall does not add much), and maybe a better table. It was fun nonetheless, and I think I learned something during the shoot because I tried so many arrangements under a time constraint and learned about workflow.
>>4497502>egg based still lifesIs this place real?
Still life is easy in that you can do it with anything, anywhere, any time, but doing it well is another story. The best at it have put a ton of time and effort in, but you don't have to go nuts to get something out of the practice. I'm a photographer, but also a former assistant to a number of product/still life shooters, and it's a great discipline. When I was starting out, I didn't appreciate still life, but it's great. And to >>4501930 yes, it's real.
>>4501931Wow another egg poster. Nice. Very cozy egg shot. Do you have any more?>>4501930Many famous photographers have photographed eggs to great effect. If you don't mind analyzing photographs they can carry some pretty strong symbolic meaning. Fragility, life, birth, safety, etc. The shape of an egg is also really excellent to illuminate and photograph. You can create some pretty interesting visual contrast because an egg is so perfectly round and smooth. Very good practice. Here's the 8x10 I ended up taking of that scene. :D
>>4501935Not really, I shot that like 20 years ago and I think I've done others since but have no idea where they are. But here's one of my favorites by still-life master Phil Marco
>>4501942Fire egg pic. I love the found object + egg combo. That glove tells a whole ass story.
Why does it happen anyway? I feel like this is something which adobe could work on giving us a tool for in Photoshop. Something which cancels out edge glow but also can be adjusted by depth etc.(I know edge glow can be removed with a new layer and clone stamped with Darken mode on)
>>4501805anon what do you think phones use
I don't think I've ever had to deal with halos, and I'm not sure how it turned out this way. The only sharpening I apply is a light unsharp mask just after downsampling.
>>4501841Tiny sensors, shit optics, and a lot of slop post processing?
>>4501844if your camera settings are ideal you won't have to use much sharpening, people get artifacts from turd polishing with the cope slider trying to undo the fact that they missed focus again
>>4501845Yes yes and yes, but also a bayer filter.
>>4492310What kind of girls is the prettiest: Nikon girls on Canon girls? For me personally a girl with a Canon is not a girl at all
>>4500722It sounds like you have made up your mind already
>>4500675Put your tripcode back on retard, no one here likes you
>>4500702> sheseesyourdick.nef
I'm ashamed at the number of fitting images I've made with ai :(
Back at it!Previously: >>4497687
>>4501658Sony A7V with one of the new film looks.
>>4501658yeah its fuji 400 from a minolta freedom 160ccame out really good honestly
>>4501658iPhone 17 with a film simulation in post
>>4500660Looks like Linux mint wallpaper
Hi,Took this photo today. Bad editing aside, is there a way to find what the most brighter stars actually are?Facing directly south
>>4499957i guest in less than a sec that the upper one is not a star but a planetalthough i can identify orion and sirius in les than 5 seconds in a clear night sky, there are too many stars visible in your photo and was hard for me to actually call it. had to resort to chatgpt
>>4499958>had to resort to chatgpt"you're right — that's not the sun. I apologize"
>>4500091He got this one right tho. Checked with my astronomy app after
>>4499912
Use Stellarium - and you won't need help from anonymous homosexuals ever again.There's also a book Turn Left at Orion, more for telescope users, but it points your attention to things you typically see throughout the year. Coincidentally, these days you'd see Orion, which is hands down the best constellation.
I took this photo with my phone, then edited with Lightroom Mobile. Is good? Or should I improve something? Im newbie
It's an ok photo, but that's all there is to say.There is nothing that makes this picture interesting. Think of it this way: nowadays people can entretain themselves with a million different things on and off the internet, and sadly don't have the attention span to endure a 30 second video. Why would anyone look twice at a picture of a road? The scene, the composition, the colors are good, but there is nothing that makes this stand out, there is no story being told. What if a deer was crossing the road? A cyclist? What if you framed this through a clearing in the leaves? What if it was taken from an unusual angle?
>what do I look at there's no guy doing a thingYou ever read a post and just know the author is mentally 16 years old?
>>4501115Based roads autism
>>4500652i think i like what you were maybe going for, but it's a bit overcooked. something about the sky and the most furthest hills in the background are just fucking the vibe up bad. it's like almost-HDR-but-not
>>4500655Midwit take.The phone didnt do this, OP's over editing did.
So is everyone using Lightroom or what? I already have Affinity 2 and would like something with a permanent license for library as well.
>>4462455lightroom is for losers, use darktable
>>4501407I don't mind being logged in their family system because I love Nikon, but blocking Russia was just stupid.So many companies don't really care about people, they only care about their social image and money.
>>4501409Why. What are the benefits?
>>4501414NTA but being able to dictate the order of processing operations is neat for more experimentally minded people, or people who are trying to dial in things in an uber-specific way. i hate it though, rawtherapee is the best free one, with the benefits being that it's the best and it's free.
>>4501409Lol what a shit take. Adobe is bad and its subscription and mandatory creative cloud are bad but LR still cannot be topped by presentable results. Maybe C1 comes close.Darktable is just shit with shit results having a miriad of modules that only capable of missing the point in a miriad of ways. Even RawTheRapist runs circles around it just for having normal controls.Darktable was shit back then and somehow they managed to make it shittier now, it will never be good, lolIf you want results you will end up using LR either by succumbing to the subscription machine or sailing the seven seas. It will give you results. And I am not talking about AI tools sloppery.
Since I'm unlikely to ever get any kind of Xpan camera, I thought it might be interesting to post some wide crops from two cheap digicams and a phone (Fuijfilm J20, JX500 and Nokia Lumia 520) taken over the last few years. The JX500 has a scratched lens but nice colours and I think it does OK.Some of these I've posted before, some I haven't.
>>4500620As I posted previously, this is something to try (I haven't finished with these old Windows Phones yet). The only 'real' camera I've owned that had a panorama mode was my first digital camera – a Canon Powershot A70. I remember it being pretty good, but I never really used it.
>>4495236Nice bread, OP. I've been fascinated with the format for while as well because my new phone's camera app has a built in xpan mode. Ever since, I've also been using my "real" camera for taking multi-shot panos quite a bit in the past year or two>>4495271>X-Pan is a format only fit for very specific use casesI personally really like the format for high alpine photos. It lets you capture a sweeping landscape without making the mountains look small. It's also nice for dramatic subject isolation if you have a plain scene
>>4501043That is a very good use-case indeed, look really good!Putting three together often works really well when the subjects match this well
I enjoy these threads when they appear.Though I usually crop to 12:5.
How do directors and cinematographers shooting on film know what anything is going to look like?Do they do test shots of everything in advance of actual filming to figure out the proper lighting and film development?Are any of these tests archived anywhere?Searching online is useless these days, I need good references and sources for this, not AI poisoned slop
>>4500336Uss a lightmeter and your eyes for a really long time and you'll get there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_tap
>>4500336It's a science and not really easy to fuck up once you know the formula. There is also a lot of flexibility in editing when it is slightly too bright or dark, and adjusting colors.
>>4500336Film for movie stock is a bit different than film stock for photography. The stuff is much more carefully calibrated for exact ISO and color characteristics. Usually you buy film like that in blocks, that is, large reels made from the same lot. You could do this in film photography too. The stuff Macy I also 64 but it will include something on it that gives you exact reading if it's out by a third of a stop or more like ISO 50 or ISO 80.You also do test bits of footage on the film testing out lighting etc etc and that's why you watch the dailies. To look at any weaknesses or errors in exposure or color balance
>>4500336You'd just get used to it. It's like how a lot of people that have been using cameras will know how the exposure will look based on the shutter speed, aperture and ISO without having to look at a light meters.Say you wanted a standard midday sunny scene, 1/250 with f/8 and 100-400ISO will look pretty good.
