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
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
you should be asking where the curved fluid-filled sensors are. You know, the sensor type that animals have.
Selling prints and exhibiting are great but that’s not really the bread and butter of art photography. Have you guys never tried to publish your own photobooks or zines? This YouTube channel posts small press photobooks and has interviews with photographers: https://youtu.be/RV9OX4o4ITQ?si=3juCfOxR4AIip2v0If you make your own imprint, you could take all the profits and royalties from sales. It might mean working for not much money but it’s a better side hustle than most other arts and crafts.
>>4528091I have a bunch of photographs i made ‘round 4 years time at an amish farm in central NYS. I made them with an ex/friend, it was his property, and he died this year. I wanted to make a book with those photos, but I don’t know how to end a story that doesn’t really have an ending as I left for norway before he passed. It eats me up inside and I want to do this for him, but of course I have my own ideas to disseminate as well. So many possibilities. Text? No text? Allegory? Straight to the point recount of our times together? I don’t want to do some sort of Yale bullshit where the documentary photograph becomes something else, but… I’m afraid I don’t know what to do.
>>4528091>Selling prints and exhibiting are great but that’s not really the bread and butter of art photographyDo you mean that selling book usually brings more money? Or that books are the best way to showcase photography?
>>4528091We have a zine thread already >>4438872, plenty of folks making and posting their stuff there.
>>4528103Get/make proof prints of all the possible images you want and start story boarding/brain storming by yourself and/or with a trusted friend or friends. Write a few paragraphs, pick a few quotes or poems or whatever. Have peoppe who knew him do the same. Get everything laid out. Just start the process. You don't need to figure everything out before you begin. Get the idea out of your brain and into reality as step number one.I often find that my best ideas and inspiration come after I've started working through my original idea and it may take the whole project in the totally opposite direction if that's what needs to happen. Sorry for your loss norwaybro.
>>4528091Photography is probably the worst artsy hobby to make money from. The ranking is probably something like: photography > writing > music/performing art > drawing/painting, from most difficult to easiest.
I bought some slides off eBay and scanned them. These are from the 60s to the 90s. The majority of them appear to be from a family on the west coast, but some appear to be from the Philippines.
>>4527943Thank you.
This one said Aruba 2/67 on it.
>>4527890What did you use to scan them? My grandpa wants go digitize a bunch and he got a shitty rig off Amazon...
>>4527890Really cool!Thanks for sharing
>>4527890>>4527945These 2 are taken the same day. Lady in the white shirt with blue, green, red and yellow in the second photo can be seen in the window of the first photo.It is fascinating how forgotten and discarded amateur snapshits are somehow more interesting than most things produced today.
Any Nokia or 2G cellphone camera photo lover here?
>>4528232
>>4528233
>>4528236
>>4528238
>>4519716fooji
Innovation is dead Part 2 editionPrevious: >>4526676
Actually I do jerk it to pixels sometimes. Everyone does cause it's fun.
Probably the best example of detail and sharpness on 40MP X-Trans. Still with film grain, sharpness @ -2 and noise reduction at -4. Last example. Modern sensors are so fucking good it really doesn't matter that much if you buy APS-C or M43. Just don't zoom to 100% and enjoy photography.
>>4528920I m this anon>>4528915I view the pics on my 4k 40" tv but send them to my friends on wa. I totally get you but also i like to zoom in at 300% and more and see details in pics. But is just for my amusement and satisfaction. Know moat of ppl don t give a shit or even zoom more that what is displayed on their phone screen. But i ve paid a lot of money for the camera and lenses so i want to see some good results. I know i should be more focused on getting good pictures but sharp pics are low hanging fruits
Unprocessed RAW at 100% so no film grain. Looks much sharper. >>4528930Yes, that's 100% me.
>>4528915NR negatively impacts color, and can lead to a muddier look in skin tones for example
Was playing around with quality settings for fun and accidentally discovered that actually, super low quality JPEGs can look kind of cool and aesthetic. Give it a try, cook some JPEGs at arbitrarily low quality and see how they look. I've gotten best results from qual=0 to qual=10, personally, with most looking best around qual=5 or lower.Tips:>No difference between qual=0 and qual=3. Qual=4 is the first step that looks different from qual=0.>4:4:4 subsampling yields a finer pixelisation effect than 4:2:0, although the actual difference in practice is not always noticeable. I don't think either is necessarily better than the other in terms of achieving the look.>Progressive encoding and optimised Huffman tables have no effect on the look so no reason not to use em.>Smoothing changes the pixelisation a little bit but not enough to worry about imo, mostly just makes it looks blurrier/fuzzier. Actually I think the softer edges detract from the harsh look.Picrel is the one that started it all. Looks like something you'd see in an Amiga game. I'm gonna try printing some of these on copy paper with my home office inkjet to "enhance" the look.>Local dogsnapper likes low-quality imagesPottery. Not huskyfag btw.
>>4528083Oh yeah which one do you reckon I should try getting printed on glossy paper? I'm thinking the very first one.
>>4528085First one or the seagull one.
I use an app called 8bitphoto
Also a dog photogrosophist
This is retarded beyond belief and you have no eye for visuals at all.
Egg anon should look into Josef Sudek; his still life photographs are amazing.
>>4528070:D Yes he was an early inspiration for me. I really like the tonality he achieves with his prints.
Redpill me on screen vs viewfinder debate. Personally I find screen to be way more comfortable. Viewfinder is a total pain in the ass.
>>4497906Samefags gonna fag
>>4498261Because I shoot on a film SLR with TTL viewfinder. That's why not both
>>4508213Don't waste time on /p/?
>>4527184As a follicularly challenged individual who wears baseball caps and prefers composing with a viewfinder this is pain.
>>4497897Screen for 90% of shooting, viewfinder for when it's sunny and you can't see the screen clearly. Both have a purpose. You just don't shoot enough to realize it. Stop masturbating over gear and go outside.
Maybe camera glasses are the way for street photography so you stop taking photos of stranger's backs in public.They shoot video too though vertical
>>4524389>Can record while power bankedUNLIMITED POWAH!
Judging from cop-slop videos, current bodycams appear to do good enough job with 8h recording time.
>>4526030I will not be remembering that since there is no expectation of privacy in a public space, assault is illegal, and the state has a monopoly on violence
>>4527902What's paper legal and socially legal are two seperate things anon.If you get bashed and call the cops, all it takes is two normal looking people to say you were badgering or harassing them or others in a public setting, and the cop is almost guaranteed to side with them. If you get into a 1v1 over it then it comes down to who fights better anyway, because it's literally you vs them and having a broken jaw makes it hard to call for help, and a broken camera leaves no evidence.So either bulk up or fuck up, because the anons otb going "B-b-but assault is illegal!" like you are laughable.
>>4527934You are right in every place except America, their constitution guarantees you can film strangers in public, even if a fight broke out and your camera fell down it doesn't magically erases the footage, these little cameras are designed to take a hit or two.In an event of somebody touches you or your camera because you are filming them and you pouch them back the judge will side with you automatically because again American constitution gives you the right to defend your property with reasonable force
Fastest and easiest NON-WEBSITE way for a retard to convert shitloads of JPEGs to lossless JXL? Even better if I can convert other formats with the same program. I know GIMP can export JXLs but doing it that way for every single image I want to convert one at a time would take forever and a half.
>>4527637>10.33MB file averageNot bad, actually made me check my count and while it's far fewer files it's still 300GB~. Anon might just be poor or a protocol autist. Fits the board quite well now that I think about it; OP obsessing over the minute, almost irrelevant specs while avoiding basic stuff like:>4527601>squeezing a 7.59 MB PNG down to 1.37 MB... storing photos as PNG and fundementally misunderstanding compression.
>>4527602Yeah converting to lossless JXL via GIMP resulted in a 4.6 MB file, so Converseen seems to be lossy-only. More specifically it's using "default" settings which are compression/maxerror=1, effort/speed=7 - the filesize matches exactly. Apparently compression=1 is "visually lossless" which is interesting, but I'm not sure if that has the same data integrity as being actually lossless. I'm on Windows btw not Linux.>>4527603>RetardDuh.>You can batch edit with GimpI had no idea. Needs a plugin called Batcher (for modern GIMP, old GIMP used BIMP instead which was what I tried first before realising it wasn't being maintained anymore, whoops), but this seems to work nicely.>>4527609>Nobody mentioned that it's completely pointless to convert from jpg to jpgxl?No, I was told the opposite, supposedly you can losslessly convert any JPEG to JPEG XL and get a smaller file, however I may have misinterpreted this as making the file itself lossless rather than just not losing anything in the conversion, as I tested converting a JPEG to lossless JXL in GIMP and the resulting file was about twice the size, though still smaller than a PNG so not necessarily a bad outcome if so.>>4527636I'm a believer, I think Apple supports JXL natively now, and both Firefox and Chrome have "experimental" support, whatever that means. You can turn it on manually pretty easily in Firefox via about:config so of course I did exactly that as soon as I found out. Not sure what Linux's status on JXL support is.>>4527641>Anon might just be poorThe opposite actually, I've got plenty of space and was prepared to convert everything to PNG since I prefer lossless formats, JXL just has better compression. And I've been wanting to use it ever since I found out about it back in 2023.Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>4527681 (Me)I found a different tool called XL Converter which can do lossless JPEG transcoding explicitly and unambiguously, which is good since now I have a definite example to work with and compare against. My test image was 3.13 MB, lossless transcoding to JXL reduced it to 2.59 MB, however exporting as lossless JXL from GIMP increased it to 6.73 MB, so I guess "lossless" in the context of "transcoding" isn't the same as the file format itself being lossless like I originally thought. I surely knew this at some point in the past but forgot. Exporting as lossless PNG resulted in an 8.91 MB file so it's still an improvement at least. Interestingly, loading the transcoded JXL into GIMP and then exporting it as a lossless JXL actually results in a BIGGER file size than exporting the original JPEG as a lossless JXL (7.73 MB vs 6.73 MB). Bizarre.
>>4527681>losslessly convert any JPEG to JPEG XL and get a smaller fileJPG is already lossy. You are just preserving (and adding) loss in another format. If you wanted a smaller file, you could export your RAW (lossless) yo JXL, but no one uses JXL, so it's not a great idea. For saving space, webp is the go-to option.
>>4527575bash script on linux
I want to get back into shooting film. How's the film and film camera market looking since 5 years ago?
>>4526705go get it thenyou're not getting any younger, your eyes aren't getting sharperwhat difference does it make whether the pen f is $50 or $500, that's much less than a plane ticket, and the film costs nothing compared to parking
>>4527613Gotta save up just a bit of cash first then wade through [NEAR MINT] - Has many fungus on Ebay
>>4527718grown man can't save up a few benjamins over 5 years
>>4527745I spent the Benjamins on other things. Had a few months last year where it was tough to find work, too, so I racked up a bit of debt. This year is different, so I'm going for it.
>>4527747cheers then
Henri Cartier Bresson would use a digital autofocus point-and-shit cam these days.
Cartier-Bresson would pay models to pose candid street photography and make videos about it on Youtube these days
>>4527661Someone put actual effort into making that image. I bet they could actually afford the camera of their dreams if they put that effort into making money. Kek
>>4527665AI isn't someone. Pay attention and behold all AIs do this.>Thing: Descriptor, descriptor.>Statement. Statement. Conclusion.>It's not A, it's B.>Excessive sarcasm>Passive aggressive>But hey>Nothing like>Question? Question? Dismissal.tldr its a mechanical redditor
>>4527666Ah I had a feeling it was ai, but it seemed a little too detailed to be 100% ai. I will still laugh at whoever prompted ai to make the image. They are definitely just upset they can't afford one.
>>4527669It even got wrong aspects of the actual camera, there's no rewind knob on a Leica M (it's digital).It made a mockery of a Leica, a Fujislug tier contraption.Pic related is arguably more authentic than what OP posted, a machine forgery not unlike the Moon that Samsung got caught faking. "Computational photography" and electronic "viewfinders" will blur this line even further, unlike OP people won't know they're being fed AI fabrications.
rate my film snapshits from my Vietnam tripshot on a Ricoh GR1
>>4518205>>4518220>>4518249>>4518255These ones stood out. Do more like these, less like the others. Also, please curate your work better - there are a lot of lazy shots here. It's obvious you are not thinking much before hitting the shutter.
How was the weather any Vietnam? Any concerns about getting fungus and excess moisture in the camera? I've heard tropical and humid countries are hell on gear.
>>4518201Great thread, anon, I enjoyed it.
>>4518291This is good
>>4525344It was hot and humid and the little led screen of the Ricoh GR1s that I had just bought from eBay stoped fully working. But those cameras are not known for their reliability. I had a Ricoh GR1 screen fully go out one time when I was in Bali but it then started working again after a few days.
Why do companies ship cameras with the viewfinder missing? What causes this behaviour? Why do people buy them? What is the use case? I can't think of any reason to intentionally design or buy a camera without one. It's not like the viewfinder somehow makes the camera worse, or makes it appreciably heavier/bulkier, or appreciably more expensive. It's just useful with no downsides.
>>4527420I said a shitty EVF, a crappy low res LCD and plastic optics. Obviously a 5.6m dot OLED with glass optics is much more expensive than that but that's not what was being discussed.
>>4527441No EVF is goingvto cost 10 dollars to add, no matter how shitty you think it is.
>>4527420Yeah it was extremely expensive to add an evf to this >>4526814 camera. 11 dollars is extremely expensive to somechuddy out there.
>>4527521Regardless, my point wasn't that they were super cheap.
>>4526425My Sony RX100VII doesn't have this problem.
>Sony makes the worlds most used number 1 reliable professional camer-ACK!Last containment thread: >>4525985
This one has strong grain effect added.
This one is backlit so you can see dynamic range a bit better. Subject detection AF hits right on the eye as long as subject is more or less stationary. It kinda falls apart with moving targets.I don't claim those images are any "good" they are just technically correct snaps with 0 editing so you can see what xtrans can do. I can't post my better pics because they usually have faces on them or could give out my location.
which one should i pick ?Just for little sessions in very small rooms for little portraits, nothing fancy
