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.
>>4499482
This is a prototype, because I'm still waiting on items to arrive, but it's going to be all about the American Dream.>>4499287Nice angle.>>4497502Love the leading lines and forms here.>>4497511Great colours and composition.>>4499255This is very well done. My only critique is that you could have gone deeper with the angle or made the egg sit a bit higher, but you have a fantastic idea and it's executed almost perfectly.>>4499479>>4499480>>4499481>>4499482>>4499483These are beautiful. What lighting do you use? The yellow light works really well.
>>4499553thanks Anon. you're too kind. as for the light - it's just a normal desk lamp with a philips 2700k lightbulb.I hardly play around with it. I generally place it left side, a bit above and tilted mostly downwards, not directly on the subject. sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. also different lenses and different film stocks. as an example >>4499481this was taken with the daguerrotype lens from lomography which tends to be very soft even stepped down. pic related is among the first pics of still life that I took. It's meh (the stem pops too much imo), but the film stock is great Adox HR 50.
>>4499553Thank you. Here is another test shot with a bit more refinement to lighting and composition that I took using photographic paper rather than film.My stupid film holder has a light leak, which you can see at the top. The shadow cast on the egg won't be there in the final image either.This test was to see how a shallower DoF would look compared to having everything in focus. I'm going to try and get everything in focus for the final image.
Who the fuck likes this focal length? What is its purpose?
>>4499333>>4499330What do your guys landscapes look like?
>>4499333>>4499335irrelevant to the topic. The 35-100 remains useless, no matter if you replace it with a 90V + wide angle or with a 90V + tele. Whatever floats your boat. But the 35-100 remains useless.
>>4483516The older I get the more I find this appetizing. I guess its because women look less cute as they get old.
Widest focal length on the kit lens
>>4462866that's also why I hate all these "elevated kit" lenses. Bro, fuck your 24-70 f2.8. It sucks. It does not have the quality of a 50mm prime and its not a useful zoom range either. Give me 20-100 or a prime. Everything in between is a waste. Unfortunately, no manufacturer does this.
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
I have a 100 2.8 macro which I use for scanning and the ocasional portrait/detail shot. I cant get into macro pictures because they freak me out, especially bc I have intense trypophobia (google it at your own risk) and everything seems to have little holes in it when you zoom in. On the other hand I think its very interesting looking at things close up, maybe I need exposure therapy
>>4498521raynox have some clip on clip - off system. that is why i m considering itgodox mk12 kit is more expensive (almost 2x times - you get 2 flashes and 1 trigger though ) and seems harder to diffuse. considering the 860 as is very powerful and can be used as a normal flash for other types of photos. i suppose that mk12 could be too. will put it on my wish list. if it comes on sale at good price i ll consider it
>>4498563Macro flashes don't need to be diffused to the same extent because they're usually much closer to the subject (diffusion is most effective at mid-range flash distances)Also the idea behind the MK is more sculpturing and less uniform exposure
>>4498494yeah i got some cheap ones and put a doublet element in front that i took from a vintage manual zoom lens, total is 4 additional elements on top of a zoom PnS
>>4476905>A well done beginners shot like most in this thread.What the FUCK did you just call my photographic capture!?
Previous Thread Image Limit Reached: >>4487815
Critique please. Already know it's a bit blurry from low shutter speed, that's my fault for using 100 iso film. What else can I improve?
>>4499497Why the fuck is it sideways. Hopefully this shy fella posts properly.
So, which of the big companies is going to be the first to offer an affordable 100mp camera?Fuji is obviously already out there, but this thing is Eight thousand dollars. I suspect that when it happens (eventually) it will be Nikon. I feel like historically they are the company which has introduced high end features at a lower price.
>>4499682Strait faxxx>>4499665Cope>>4499687And seethe
>samefag meltie with reddit spacingFilm won
>>4480592>first to offer an affordable 100mp camera?stfu noob. High mp and small pixels are what is making photography fucking soulless. talk to ai about pixel pitch. This is a big reason why digitshit picture still have fucking soul.
>>4499741i forgot to add this is extra retarded because of AI upscaling with is insane for adding resolution, and software that can combine images. Do you never put 4 pictures into one? total noob. AI can upscale, but it can't give the soul that is pixel pitch or dynamic range.
>>4480592What I don't get about this thread is that you pretend as if there was a choice. There is only one manufacturer for digital format. Fujifilm.And Fuji will not undercut the used market 2 generations old GFX100S. So get that one or don't get into this category at all
2026 editionAll video related questions and discussion is intended for this thread. Here we discuss techniques, gear and anything else related to capturing video footage. Please don't pretend to be an expert if you don't know what you're talking about. Kindly leave your ego at the door.Posting short films/scripts or other work you've done is encouraged.We tend to use and recommend DSLRs/mirrorless cameras because they provide phenomenal picture quality for their price, have large sensors (ie the same size used in high-end cinema cameras, and larger) and have interchangeable lenses.In contrast, consumer camcorders often have much smaller sensors and a fixed lens.>STICKY - https://text.is/QZ1J>Helpful guide, additional books and more in-depth FAQs - https://web.archive.org/web/20200926115310/https://pastebin.com/kG0gRmTZ>NO ONE CARES WHAT AN EXPERT YOU THINK YOU ARE. IF YOU’RE ASKING BASIC-AS-SHIT QUESTIONS, YOU CAN’T BE ALL THAT GREAT. SEE ABOVEPrevious thread >>4482295Quick FAQSComment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>4499490Depends on the use case, just like everything
Bump limit reached, new thread>4499500
>>4493553Check what you power frequency is in the country you are going to then apply the right fps. Shooting at 25fps PAL / 50FPS NTSC is mainly to allow your frame rate to sync with a country's power frequency so that you don't get flickering. You can shoot at any frame rate you want etc 24fps in europe if you have full control over all the lights you are using and can guarantee you are using cine lights the whole time.
>>4493572The movement is too fast for the frame rate thus your are seeing artifacts. Choose your base frame rate for your project ie 24cine or 25pal then double it for your specific scene with fast motion. 24 -> 48. 25->50
>>4496228Don't think of it as payment. As in a monetary payment. Think of it as providing appropriate compensation, that doesn't leave people out of pocket.If I were you I would offer to cover transport and food costs and say that you are doing a creative spec piece for experience. Other people who want or need the the experience over money should be ok with it. It's kinda a take it or leave it approach and you can't expect the best. If you are expecting the best out of your collaborators and want to work with professionals you need to pay to get that level of quality.
Think about it logically.The A7C series, despite its warts, is:>responsible for a massive portion of E-mount adoption>bestselling>revealing of an enormous market for compact yet usable full frame stills MILCsWhy hasn't anyone else copied the concept? inb4:>A7C bodies are e-waste trashYes, that's why I want somebody else to try it.>Sigma, Panasonic, NikonThey all pussied out hard and catered too much to videofags. The fp could have been perfectly fine if they had traded the heatsink for IBIS and made the EVF solution less massive (ergo, added a hotshoe and copied Leica's Visoflex). Meanwhile, the bf is the fp but even less functional. The S9 caters to vlogfags above all. Without a viewfinder you're more or less fucked if you want to manual focus. Same for the ZR.For this to work, these faggot product engineers need to get real. A small body, ideally 61MP, with IBIS, reasonably sized grip to not have to skimp on battery life and SD card(s), and a modular tilting EVF. It's really that fucking simple, and Sony has proved that it's not only technically and economically feasible, but also a very good business move. So why haven't they done it?
>>4498754On the upcoming eclipse tonight, I'll show you the difference between a 600 F4 Nikkor, 200mm 18 Canon and a 1200mm f5.6 Canon.Yes I am that guy.
If I could afford it right now I would by myself Sony A7III or iV with Sigma 24mm 3.5 lens. It looks pretty good setup.Canon R6 with 28mm lens would also be fun. Kinda like how the Canon looks.
>>4499837Canon ergonomics are superior but the R6 is now 5 years old, try to find at least Mk2 if not Mk3
>>4499866Yeah, but A7III is also old and old means it's cheap. Im kinda leaning more into Canon, since Sony does not have a good 28mm lens. With a 50mm lens the setup would be pretty much perfect.
>>4496217>>4496218When they bought up Minolta, they used their concept but for some reason abandoned it with the dawn of mirrorless cameras.Their early SLT and SLR models even improved on it, only to do a full 180.
>it now cost $20 to develop film only with no prints or scansAHHHHHHHHH
>>4411869dont look at it now
>>4411869>started getting back into film since i had piles of expired film i got pre-COVID>development prices all go upFucking shame. At this point I can understand why there's such a big market for film look presets.>>4489845Is it? Some of the labs I go to tended to do B&W a lot cheaper than color, so for a while I was buying B&W for costs reasons.
>meanwhile in Germany>DM drug store>development cost of 0.95€/film (C41)>prices haven't changed in agesfeelsgoodman.jpg
>>4499319>be me>upsidedownanon.harness>only dev shops are dedicated camera stores >entire customer base consists of boomers who don't understand ebay and zoomers who bought 35mm pns's instead of an instax>colour dev is $25 minimum>B&W is $30>"oh wait you wanted scans? That's another $5 anon">film itself is not cheap either unless you're buying kentmere>fuck this I'm deving at home
>>4499320We only have those cheap ass development prices in Germany since there's a large company called CEWE which simply won't give up on film development. I guess the magical word for that is cross-subsidization. Otheriwse it would be one big monumental loss.That's also the only reason keeping me from deving my own films.
With the AI boom, it doesn't matter if your camera is good or bad, you can just ask the AI to transform your flat iphone photo into something much better.With a Light Field Array camera, you can take photos that AI can't replicate.People will need new screens too, screens with 3d depth.
>>4497756They need his glasses lens for efficacy, and his thoughts
>>4497756dodgy chinese workplace safety measures and dubious quality control
>>4497756That's the little imp that paints the little pictures
>>4497756how could it be a 3d picture if you aren't surrounding what you're photographing?
>>4499286Technically a lens does not focus a 2D wave front its a 3D wave front, the way focusing works is that we shift the wavefront in a manner that the object or field we want in focus coincides with the focal point, and ultimately is projected sharpest on the sensor, a light field array, would have multiple smaller lenses behind the primary which would each have their focus on a different plane behind or in front of the main plane of focus. Recording this data ofc means that you need your own file type which basically stacks prob many raws into a single file with a viewer capable of adjusting and viewing it. It does not capture true 3D data per se, but it has perfect clarity at every possible distance from the lens. So just a few frames of data will have more than enough information to extract and make a 3D object.
any final thoughts on ultra wide angle?
Idk if 16mm counts as "ultra" wide but I love my EF 16-35 F4L. It doesn't distort the image like fish eye lenses, and in general is very pleasing for just about anythhing: pics of groups in small places, architecture, vlog style filming etc. You can pick one up for under 400Fish eye lenses are another story altogether, the only thing they look good on conaistently that I've seen is those stadium panoramas
>>4496620>>4496645UWA is absolutely okay for landscape but shouldn't really be the default choice. However, the 10-22mm range includes the 24-35mm section which is normally the ideal spot for landscapes AND UWA lenses tend to have less distortion than GP zooms in that range.You can also go for a prime which is often better but also good luck getting the framing right.>>4496650Literally my favorite lens now and most used. I personally think anything 20mm and wider counts as UWA but technically <24mm is.
>>4496645Sorry boss, my mom usually said 'special'
>>4496620I bought that lens for when I got my 40D and now it's on my 7 d. It looks okay Ash outside. I think the ones that I tried to do is showing the nice Vistas when I was out hiking up in Squamish. Too much to take in. My 21 mm on my 6D Mark 2 I love.>>4496645There are no hard and fast rules with that. I've taken great interior shots with just a 35 and my 45. It all depends on the subject and the framing
>>4498717>>4496620With UWA you have to be at the spot and everything should look kino, you can't just select something and compose for it because as was said everything is in the shot. I found that UWA makes things look tiny especially big mountains so it was much better for foreground objects composed with whatever is in the background. it makes the scene look meh, even spectacular ones so you better select a flower or a rock or bench, something to put in front of the scenery.
I can't find any information about it online. Found some old websites where they have showcased the progression of the Iloca lineup, but it doesn't show this particular variety. Perhaps it is some obscure "in between" model which is not unheard of when it comes to German mid-century cameras.Iloca Electric Texograph 2, T2If anybody is interested I want a million dollars.
>>4496608you can still get old point & shoot stuff for pretty cheap. like nikon coolpix.
>>4495491It's a specialized variant of the Iloca Electric. Taxographs were used for specialized document/text reproduction or medical cameras. The T2s were modified to have a different film gate or a specific internal mask to photograph text, oscilloscopes, or dental records.
>>4499229Just to add to this, if you're look for a price estimate, maybe look for Taxographs made by other manufacturers. Iloca would rebrand a lot. They made cameras for Argus, Graflex, and Sears.
>>4499232Googling shows 2 "Texograph" cameras one of which has been sold and is registered on worthpoint, but I don't have an account there anymore. So one Praktica and one camera where the only thing I can gather is that it has an exacta mount. I guess this type of stuff is something that is better off sold by a specialized auction company that deals with camera gear.Even finding information about this whole "Texograph" thing is hard. The Practica was made from 58-60 and the Iloca from 59-60 which also hints at the use-case was somewhat limited in a short time frame.
Also the information about the praktica shows an price of 2300 euro sometime around the start of the millennia if i interpret it correctly.
>Color Science editionPreviously: >>4495130
https://www.amazon.com/PGYTECH-Backpack-Arca-Swiss-Compatible-SnapLock/dp/B0F23GCRRW/https://www.amazon.com/SMALLRIG-Release-Fujifilm-Backpack-Arca-Swiss/dp/B0F4QSRTPX/Has anyone tried either? I want something for traveling. I don't want to carry a camera bag either because they either end up too big or too small when I'm just carrying a compact APSC DSLR + a short telelens. Would rather carry a backpack and have this on my shoulder for when I want to take a shot
>>4499059OG K-1 here, never had such a problem. Is the exposure look good? Have you set the auto ISO to medium or slow? Did you disable D-Range settings?
>>4499231Either go with a Tamron 70-200 or get a nice super tele that goes out to 400 or longer like the 100-400 or the F-mount 200-500 (or 80-400 II)
>>4499231It might be my fault due to inexperience, but I've found that my Tamron zoom (pic related) is very soft and I struggle to get sharp, well focused photos with it at any focal length. I recently purchased my first prime and the difference in sharpness was night and day
>>4497744I believe this is not correct. Sensors count photons - this is true - but the light reaching each photosite is filtered through a CFA (color filter array), and those filters have different spectral characteristics. This filtering influences how wavelengths are sampled, which in turn affects color separation, rendition, and potential accuracy.Additionally, the recorded values are later transformed through color matrices during image processing. These matrices map the sensor’s native color responses to a standard color space, compensating for the spectral behavior of the CFA and the sensor itself. The design and calibration of these matrices can further influence the final color rendering.Also CCD != CMOS even if someone said that you should believe it.
I am going to buy one as soon as they hit the market in early Novemeber. I hope I get the 1987 edition. It's fire. Which one are you hoping to score?You are going to be getting one right /p/?You aren't gonna be a contrarian try hard no Charmera /p/haggot are you /p/? ISHYDDT
>>4495924Took a while but I got around snapping 1,2 and 3k snaps to compare. Have to admit I do not see significant difference between 1k, 2k and 3k. Are you sure the base res is 2k and not 1k?
>>4498122Native resolution should be 2MP in the menu, 1920x1080 is 2.07MP. Unless the specs are a lie and it is actually a 720p sensor.
I saw another Charmera imitation online today, this one was just called "keychain camera". Unlike the G6 thumb cam, the proportions are way off on this one.
>>4498208Sorry about being imprecise, brain stuck to screen resolutions.(Video) Resolution menu 720P / 1080P(Photo) Image Quality 1M 2M 3M 5M 8M 10M 12M, have only tried the first three.(Kind of ice flood resulting from a month of -25C ish in 2M. I had also couple better digishits with me but batteries of those could not take the cold...)
>>4495885same
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
>>4480847why did you name him after a zionist
>>4476585Great photo
>>4480117Beautiful cat
>>4495597werner herzog would never
>>4491503very nice!
I have never created a piece of art that I like. I never came back to anything I did months later and thought to myself "hey, this is neat".I can't use my hands to create shit. I can draw geometric shapes. I have nice handwriting. I can play open chords and bar chords on guitar. But that's where my physical skill set ends.I picked up a camera because my hands are no good. Only to realize that it's probably not my hands, it's my brain. I have little to no visual imagination. I can memorize rules that make photos look more pleasing, but I can not get beyond that in terms of intent with my photos.Over the last ten years, I resigned to the realization that I can't create anything because I have nothing to say. I have no personality. I have no opinions. I have no stories. Just things I point my camera at.
>>4499029It's because you have taste. I take a lot of meaningless snaps like the ice thing for graphic source material. The forest one is a composed landscape, not a record of a texture.(My phone login background.)
>>4499036this photo of ice is better than the previous one you posted.
>>4499036great photo. it's hard to make something actually cool out of textures.
>>4495973I know that feeling bro, I just kept running with it because I couldn't figure out anything else either. Comes to 13 years of producing the most banal boomercore rock and leaf shit possible. Lately I haven't even bothered processing shit anymore.
>>4498730>>4498735I'm this guy >>4497545This is unironically pretty much the right attitude to have. I refuse to post photos anymore because it's just a shit-slinging fest here, especially when they're used as part of an argumentation. Why do you need to share photos? No one cares. There's always SOMETHING some bitter loser will use to undermine whatever point it is you're trying to make because 4chan is comprised of shitty contrarians.Do you like the photos you take? Good. You're a better photographer than anyone who posts here, and you don't need their input.Do you dislike the photos you take? Okay, post your photos and you will fit in with everyone else who can't take a good photo.If you like your photos and post them, you'll get the opinions of people who can't take a good photo but don't like yours, either. Completely useless.It's like that old allegory of the father and son travelling with their donkey. Someone will always have problem with the way you're doing it, so just ignore what everyone says and go about it in the way that suits you best because YOU'RE the one doing it, not them.So yeah, I'm probably a better photographer than 95% of people on the board, but I'm not going to post photos to prove that. It's completely non-requisite.
