After much positive feedback to the /m43/ general I re-thought the whole thing. Why limit to one mount if the defining defining feature is the aspect ratio?Let's have a /4:3/ general for all the based chads who shoot in 4:3 ratio!Welcome: Everyone whose system shoots natively in 4:3!Also welcome: Those who accept the superiority of 4:3 and crop their 3:2 (cringe) images to the 4:3 (based) ratio.Not welcome: Everyone else.Topic of the first /4:3/ general ever: Are 5:4 and 6:7 based, too? Or are they just tryhard?Discuss!
>>4497947>>4497967All the greens are scorched and yellow, and the clouds have the appearance of an MS Paint spraypaint toolWhat on Earth.
>>4497972Haha I just zoomed into the clouds.
Bad insomnia lately. Been walking around with a camera for couple hours before bed hoping it wears me out.
>>4490365First time posting.
>>4499049
Give me your most abstract images related to cameras.
>>4495053that dog has too many cameras
>>4495057Impossible.
I found a holy grail video. If only it wasn't so short. These are so hard to find.
bump for dogs licking cameras
Can someone tell me what lightning equipment I would need, to recreate either of those photos?
make love not warring
>>4485827cute.
>>4432774>what does them being naked add to what the photo is trying to say other than incel gooner satisfaction?
>>4491585hot
>>4484970Nudity isn't pornography!
Has anyone tried taking photos of stars from above the mesosphere?
>>4496790yeahit didn't end well
>>4496790https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21nPJY4le10
>>4496714Also Sofia, M.O.S.T. A friend of mine made the telescope for the second one. Pretty damn good for 6-inch aperture and only weighing 1.2 lb. A lot of Machining though beryllium components to keep the weight to an absolute minimum. Peter actually made two though, the first one was a proof of concept to be sure it could be done. He has it on his mantle in a display case
>>4496706I keep sending cameras up and the Feds keep shooting them down.Sent from my celly's iPhone
James Web space telescope is doing just that.Check out Astrobin. Plenty of amateur astro photographers are taking photos from Earth.
UglyNot sharpNear black and whiteRed eye effect uncorrectedPhoto of the decade
>>4498250>AHHHHH EVERY PHOTO HAS TO BE A WORK OF ART lol what a faggot
>>4498793sure.. But how press enforces jpeg and how their photos look like total shit is more of a reflection of our ugly world with no post-processing than photographers being shit. Or to your point, both I suppose.
>>4498796>Someone posted an official portrait of some congresswoman or something a while ago and the ISO was set to something insane like 64,000 despite being indoors and using studio lighting. The amount of noise was a sight to behold.>"Okay so all you have to do is follow the policy document and set things up per these instructions">"Just turn the camera on and press *this* button ma'am">"No, all the settings should be the same as every other shot we've ever taken with all of our cameras. Don't change anything"
>>4498802Its a reflection of how jpeg is almost always terrible. Slide film took huge teams of americas best chemists and engineers to make something that looked good SOOC only for certain kinds of scenes and only with perfect exposure. Japan just can’t replicate that feat and exceed it, not even digitally, especially not while targeting max FPS and battery life when cameras run off literally two AAs in a plastic box and use worse processors than phones. All digital cameras are negative film cameras. They can’t produce good photos. Just data. The making of the photo remains the duty of the person developing the digital negatives. Photography was never truthful anyways. Jpeg certainly isnt. >the camera decided the sky is unusually red today!
>>4498796Who gives a fuck about the quality? It's the fact that a photo was captured at all which is the real story>“It was a proper old school news day,” said Noble. He added: “It’s a man shot at night through the back of a windscreen. Is that the best photo I’ve ever taken? No. Is it up there as one of the most important? 100%. When you work in news, it’s not an exact science. The best photos aren’t always the most newsworthy.”
Sony cybershot 10MPreally than bad?
>>4497025Never the camera, always the photographer.
Classic digishit look.
>>4497053the few strips of bunting really cheers things up
>>4497139if OP had spent a few minutes in lightroom and pretended it was a film scan you'd be all excited
>wonky angle for no reason>pole extending through what is the most interesting feature in the image, the dome>brick wall and water tank building is ugly and detracting from what you're trying to take a photo of>back of facade is showing you probably the worst side of this buildingYou probably needed to take a picture of this building from a different location. I think where you were didn't give you a whole lot to work with. Maybe you could have focused on just the dome or the smaller tower and made something out of that. For me I probably would not have taken a photo at this point.
There has been a lot of discussion about camera brand color science lately so I thought it would be interesting to take the same shot and change the ICC profile in capture one to each of the 4 major ILC brands and post them unedited to see if /p/ can spot the differences between default color science. In a day or two i'll post the results and we can all see how close we got.
>>4498797>>4498806Holy cope
>>4498805If its auto WB the green and blue one would actually be the correct white balance for night scenes lit by fluorescents/LEDs.Its all one camera with different WB settings btw
>>4498786In the last 3 years or so Sony changed from green to magenta bias, probably in response to being dunked on for their skin tone rendition.
>Sony is ba-Copium
>>4498924>proceeds to post his photoshop painting ohnono
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.
>>4498897It does. Interestingly as well, that's also why Bruce Lee died. He thought sweating made him look weak and he had his sweat glands surgically removed.
>>4498898>he had his sweat glands surgically removedwhat in the fuck
Do you save your balls /p/? Whats the best way to individually print BALLS?
Why?
>>4498910Typical Jannie shenagins, I'm using a proxy as to not preform captcha humiliation rites. Must got a banned IP.
If I ask some college students to help me model for my photography do I have to pay them or is giving them the pictures for the instagram enough? What is your guys experience in this?
>>4495612It’s also important to note that Sugar was swinging his dick like “don’t just be a guy with camera! Be a CHAD like me!” And then he posts a non-white with a body like an amoeba? We could let it pass if he were not being arrogant, but as is, he needed to be called out>>4495616Why do my looks affect whether or not that model is overweight? Can you see how these two details are completely independent of each other? Maybe I look good, maybe I don’t. Either way, that girl you pictures is obese and shapeless.
>>4495615>about 15kg overweightNigga here likes to fuck skeletons
>>4495625She looks to be about 177cm and about 72kg. 57kg is a perfectly normal weight for that height
>>4485103I used to hire college girls on ModelMayhem to model for me for $75/hr in the 10's but MM is dead because of OnlyFans. I don't know where you hire cheap models anymore.
>>4495615Lets see that recent photo shoot then
I've been taking photos with a 60D since 2012 and feel like I haven't improved much in that time. In particular I struggle with the actual process, often failing to get satisfactorily in focus or sharp images which leaves me unsatisfied even if I think an image's composition is good - I know the best camera is the one you have with you, but that aside I think I could do better. I've selected a bunch of photos I've taken over the past ~4 years since I started shooting raw that I am proud of and would like to dump them here for /p/ to tear apart. I've tried to keep editing unobtrusive, but I'm making this thread on a whim so some edits may be older or incomplete.
>>4498187>Hard to say without having been there.I don't remember it too well myself, I believe it was an old printing press from the early 1900s and there wasn't much light in the room. Here's another pic of the same machine unedited, just increased exposure>Needs a subject in the far doorframeWould've liked to, but I was alone there. Do you think it's OK to cut off the ground in the immediate foreground by stepping forward?>right side of the mountainI think I see what you mean, that the scene is carrying the photo but there's nothing special about the photo itself. Looking at my files, I have dozens of photos of this scene but none focusing on that valley... Fortunately I live in the same country so it's reasonably accessible.
>>4498274You could AI the white tiled wall to continue behind his head
>>4498055Cutie
>>4498027Hi I'm one of those oldfags here who started out in the film era vintage lenses. There's not many that I really recommend anymore. They have weird looking geometry when you take a photo and oddball bokeh. Not very many I can hardly recommend.The Sonnars from Zeiss, (yeah I know, there's the Russian versions the East German version, they're all copies of this design.) Are nice. The balance speed with good management of the characteristics of the system. My 250 mm on my Hasselblad is a great lens. Just has a focus problems which you can easily remedy with a close-up lens.One that IS great are the Distagons, esp the 35 f/1.4, 28mm f/2.0 and the 21mm f/2.8. That last one is the only one I bought specifically for my Canon 6D Mark II. The 35mm f/2.8 is nice but a bit slow. The 35mm f/2.8 PC is nice for correcting perspective, but not very useful in this Photoshop age.
>>4498712That being said, the stuff you find from Pentax especially in and around the normal focal range from about 20 mm up to 135 are excellent lenses. Just be sure to test the lens out for proper mechanics and cleanliness on the inside from fungus and excessive dust. A little dust is normal on those lenses by the time they are this old.Adapting other lenses is hit or miss though. You first have to find the lens and then a way to adapt it to your system and that can be a lot of work for not very much if any difference.The photos you show are mostly good, you just need to pay attention to the framing of the subject. I find the era of just using a short Zoom on my camera instead of a prime has made me lazy and I just zoom to get the look I want rather than move around.
I went out on the streets late and took some photos tonight with this phone, here they are..
>>4489947>>4489954You're in Auckland aren't you OP?>>4489956OhI hate taking photos here because I don't want to get mugged at night and I live in the suburbs.
>>4497914Yeah I wouldn't worry about getting mugged, lots of people sleeping in the streets with their stuff like this guy I've seen a few times. Saturday nights have all the partiers obviously. I'm moving out of the city but will stay at hotels if I want to come in for a trip.
all this nostalgia fagging only to get epstein file grade photos stick with "light leak" effect
>>4489947This is gorgeous
>>4489947This is the bestSaved The other ones are mostly shit, >>4489953except this one which might pass for liminal space to an iPad baby
Post photos you like.
I'm realizing looking at this thread that I barely like any photography at all.
this thread must not die!
>>4497057did shi be bussin fr fr
ok i'll add another>>4497061/p/ is the perfect place for you!
Ideally aggressive flash photography.
>>4498518Bruce Gilden thread?
>>4498523Gilden inspired thread.
it turned out i enjoy snapping shitfaced drunk people, they really dgaf about being blasted with flash. i bought a wireless transmitter recently so i hope to get even more bold with it next time
>>4498526Nice, if i were you i would try to get a lot closer. Ive been using a hand tripped vivitar 285 and stopping down to f22 on tmax 400 on bulb mode
Rank the Trump Portraits
>>4495461I saw an Instagram thread last for almost 10 months. /p/ moves really damn slow compared to other boards.
>>44321142>4>1>3
>>4432588That's his look when he walks into the stein torture dungeon
>>44321143124
>This thread has been alive for almost 9 months I didn’t realize /p/ was so slow
this was the absolute peak of digital photography and its all been downhill after here. seriously look at the shots on flickr with this tag and how good they look. mirrorless is super sterile and fake looking, and older than the mkii just were shit to use and had too much noise. seriously dont sleep on these, 5d mkii and some EF L glass has u covered and then u can spend the rest of the money on travel and taking kino shots.
I'm going to say the Pentax K-1 because that is the only camera I have. It was cheap, has good resolution, good enough AF and the few lenses I got were cheap as well, best of them is the FA 43/1.9 Limited. Correction: The D-FA 150-450 was not cheap at all but it is glorious in both in its size and its performance and I love it.
>>4478562Why aren't the egg and bread in focus?
>>4498338They are. If you find a better digitization of that picture online you'll see it's in focus. Fun fact is that he made prints using the photo gravure process. One of the craziest and coolest printing methods ever.
>>4498338>analog photography>in focuschoose one
>>4498448>admitting to that big of a skill issue/p/ is truly dead.
