>Take a shot>Let the model review it >The model gives a look at the tiny LCD with dead eyes without soul, trying to act like has been focused on the shoot all the time and gives the phph's mansplaining (actually an active excuse or justification of his incompetency complex) about how this photo composed, lights, what's the catch of it blah blah short compliments like >"mm hmm.", "It's beautiful.", "Wow.", "Okay." without the pupils moved 1nm.Photographers who force their models review their shots are pussies. They elicit positive responses from their models who's not responsible of the decisions during the process to dilute their responsibility as the leader of the project, the whole team of the photography.It's like the single moms who march with their kids on strollers front of them in a protest.
Was this an attempt at humor?
>should I value a woman's opinionProbably not anon.
I guess I can add this to the list of reasons I prefer shooting film. She's not seeing shit till I get it all developed.
let's see your photos anonif you have done any
>>4522234Funny how she looks like Ornella Fleury in the thumbnail
Only A Canon Is Good Enoughâ„¢Last: >>4523190
>>4525052Dpreview and pxlmag are not objective dataDpreview uses inconsistent tests with a worse program than darktable and bad lens selection, combined with tint corrections to hide bad color science, cheating with bad lighting, or both. Use photonstophotos and adjust for dxomark measured ISO. pxlmag dramatizes differences with bad photoshop skills and a lack of real world references. Use photos of average height (6ft2in) men holding cameras instead.
>>4525057plxmag is poorly coded, use camerasize.com/compact/ instead which is accurate. Pic related is a good example, 10% difference in height, listed by pxlmag themselves, yet the pictures look the same.Below, the accurate comparison by camerasize. Frens don't let frens use pxlmag.
>>4525017This. Bro simply cannot rotate an apple in his head.
>>4525009
>>4524988Posted it again award
Can someone tell me what lightning equipment I would need, to recreate either of those photos?
>>4448279One of the best /p/ insights.
>>4504097lmao
>>4491585Do you think, the people who made those statues, thought about how these statues should be lit, even in ancient times or did this kind of thinking only originate during the times of realism for painting?
>>4504089Fernandel by Philippe Halsman
>>4523698Such a shame, such well rounded compositions are basically non existent with modern photographs anymore.
REDRUM EditionPlease post film photos, talk about film photography, film gear like cameras, film stocks, news, and tips/tricks in this thread.Also talk about darkroom practices, enlargers, photo paper, techniques like dodging/burning, tools, and equipment related to enlarging, developing, and printing.Thread Question: RC or fiber?Previous thread: >>4516071
Very curious to see if these would print at all. The negatives look crazy.
comfy
>>4526499>where I sit waiting for the new /fgt/ to be bakedYou did it! Image limit hit!Nice little narrative image to wrap things up.
And with that said: >>4526501>>4526501>>4526501
>>4526301To be fair really old trucks are worth taking pictures of in general
Does anyone else here take pairs of images to synthesize depth in mages?This was taken from the Lummi Reservation looking east to Mt. Baker and the Sisters. Base was about 100 meters.
>>4523834>you end up with sub par resultsyep ... (You) do
>>4523845Go ahead, post something OC. Your opinion otherwise is meaningless trolling.
Sorry for the very late reply, but I've been pretty busy lately. In recent months, I had actually spent considerable time researching stereoscopes because I'm very interested in 3D photography and printing my work. I figure it would be a really cool gift for people if you could make a 3D image of something they're familiar with. Like, it's one thing to just see any 3D image -- It's cool, and it makes an image feel really tangible in a way that 2D can't replicate, but when it's personal and familiar, there's a whole new layer of wonder to it. Kind of akin to way you can't really appreciate extremely high-quality speakers unless you hear your own music in it, because your familiarity with the music is what enables you to perceive quality you've never experienced before. That's why it was such an interesting coincidence that this thread would randomly show up just a few weeks after my search! I'm absolutely amazed that stereoscopic viewers are so sparse. This is such a cool type of content, you'd think it would be way more common and accessible.>>4523803>Another format is "side by side" (SBS, or 'universal freeview L-R-L')Oh shit, that's really cool, actually. I wouldn't have thought of that.>>4523812Thanks for the link, I'll check it out. That might be useful when I finally get around to putting some real effort into making these. What I typically do for my own viewing is to just open multiple images and have Windows put them side by side. It's pretty ghetto, but extremely fast and easy for viewing 3D scenes you don't intend to put effort into. Picrel is another couple that I took on my vacation while on the road. Once again, it was in landscape, so the crop is pretty extreme and jarring.
>>4524733Here's that with slight adjustment saved as LRL
This is from a flyby someone posted on another forum. Combined two screen captures.
It is time.
>>4520225
>>4520224>>4520225needs more saturationfilm photos look desaturated because the prints fade, not because film is low-saturation
Have a photato.Saw the fair ground was left unlocked at 3am so drove in, kek. Woke up some carnies so only had a few seconds to get some snapshits.
Old neon sign
I could make it work for landscape, interiors / cramped spaces or macro (if I had macro UWA), but I just can't make it work for anything else. Sometimes I feel like my 17mm is in an awkward spot where it's either too wide or not wide enough, but I'm probably just bad at it.TL;DR how do I git gud?
>>4524726Using UWA = Your background carries equal if not greater weight to your subject. Even with shallow DoF apertures like f/2.8 you're still getting most of everything in reasonable focus, so you no longer have the ability to blur out undesirable elements. Telephotos kind of always give you the option to have a single subject and fuck all else, which is simpler to manage.This makes things inherently challenging. You need more stars to align for the photo to look good, or more planning. Even Ren Kockwell's lead-addled mind put it together correctly when he surmised that UWA lenses aren't for getting everything all in. Sure you can do that, but there's far more potential at hand.Take your pic rel for example. What the fuck did it being ultrawide add to the photo? There's nothing interesting about the background other than it's open and empty, which could have been shown with a narrower focal length while also making the people and birds more prominent. If the point was to focus on the vast ocean then there's too much going on with the foreground to draw the viewers attention that way in the first place.
>>4524731>Telephotos kind of always give you the option to have a single subject and fuck all else, which is simpler to manage.That is true, although I rarely do that. There's something else.>What the fuck did it being ultrawide add to the photo?If I were to try and make a positive case, it adds context of the vast and empty ocean as well as of the shore to the photo. It depends a lot on the medium, you wouldn't do this for a 4x6, but it makes a lot more sense for big formats where the edges are in the viewers periphery. Though I don't know what Mr. Schwier's intentions were.I'd think UWA can help create a strong leading line in the sense that it connects with the viewer (you can imagine if the rope in the image was a bit bigger).Maybe the issue is also that it requires specific conditions to work, and then I'm lugging the lens for little benefit most of the time, as well as little in the way of experience.
>>4524739>it adds context of the vast and empty ocean as well as of the shore to the photoThe people in the shot distract from this too much. If it was one or two people not in motion then I could get behind that idea, but as it stands the photo is a bit all over the place in terms of where the viewer is meant to focus.>I'd think UWA can help create a strong leading line in the sense that it connects with the viewerThis is true if you can leverage how UWAs make close subjects appear larger. Otherwise there's nothing it being ultra wide has added.The final thing I can say in terms of usefulness, is that they tend to show the viewer the perspective of the shooter. That can be a double-edged sword.
https://www.voigtlaender.de/lenses/vm/15-mm-14-5-super-wide-heliar-asphaerisch-iii/?lang=en
>>4524743>The people in the shot distract from this too muchI think you misunderstand. What I mean is that when the medium gives you the space (like a big print in a hallway), you should be able to use wider context as your border where it is not meant to be the subject. I mean this more generally though; in case it wasn't clear from the watermark, that's just a random photo off the internet, since I needed some for OP.
Any Nokia or 2G cellphone camera photo lover here?
>>4521299>btw im conventionally attractive and have constant companionshipDoes he? It seems his bitch cheats on him and everyone starts to hate him.
No.I hated that blurry BLOTCHY MESS back then and I still hate it with a passion now. There was a time when shitty or simply old digital camera sensors put out grainy as fuck images. That was fine, it was just their direct output. Shit went so fucking disgusting when they introduced noise reduction that never fucking worked (it still doesn't but they fake it with AI now to make it more believable).At least get yourself cameras that let you save the raw output. Noise is fine, the blurry color blobs are not.
Took this one with my PSP using the PSP-450 camera attachment, a really long time ago.
>>4517579
>>4517217Damn Not having exif file shown anymore sucked
Rank the Trump Portraits
>>4521762Sony
>>44321173 looks like they randomly flashed a light on him.
>>4432114
>>4518159no it is rather nice if you look dpreview z50 samples many get nice pics of puppy boys and mochalatte
>>44321141 - Don't smile. Seem serious.2 - They've realized I'm an idiot.3 - I'm gonna destroy America bitches.4 - Hurry up. It's sleepy time.
Color doesn't matter. Today when you can adjust colors just by pressing a button there's nothing more fake than a color. You should only shot B&W. Black and White photography is real and pure. Shape, shadow and light - this is what makes your photography look special, not some bright oversaturation. If your picture looks good without colors then your picture is worthy
How big a difference is there between C41 developed and B&W developed black & white?
>>4524131You've never shot black and white
>>4524478Virtually none, it's just more convenient for minilab and faster for tank dev.
i like shooting cover art for black metal albums
>>4521955yeah sole reason why i don't get a monochrome sensor cam.
Where the hell do you get models these days? It used to be that you would just go on Model Mayhem or find some chick on instagram and shoot TFP but those days are over. I wouldn't even mind paying for a chick's time, but even that seems difficult these days. Not a lot of chicks into "modeling" these days, no websites dedicated to it, etc. I guess they're all doing onlyfans or something. Any way, anyone got some tips?
>>4523524It's pretty tame, but I assume the answer is, yes. Cool.
>>4523253how do you emulate the look of a bigger thing when the thing is small
>>4523781like, in general?depth of field, lighting, environment (like forced perspective)
>>4520062>sugarEveryone ignore this guy, he gives the worst advice when it comes to women. He is an incel and wants you to be one too. If you are good looking you can hook up with your models, nothing wrong with it if they're attracted to you. It all comes to looks
>>4521060>>4520511millennial women back in 2016 would do it for free and not care they were nude on the internet. OF and other monetization sites existed back then too
This picture was not taken in Russia, btw. Good luck.
Hahaha lil mouse why don't you pet that lil fucker
Cileles, Jatinangor, Sumedang Regency, West Java 45363, Indonesia
>>4524525Put your trip back on cinefaggot dogfucking nazi glownigger
>>4524561Hello psyop victim
>>4524206Yr mom's basement, yr mom's house, I'm upstairs banging your mom.
Newfag here, I really like shooting buildings but don't really know what to do beyond hurr durr point and shoot so any criticism or advice is appreciated.(1/15)
probably my favorite of the set, I think there's almost a beachy feel to it with the sky and the orange sun cover thing
regular zoomslop shot
and a wideslop
alright guys this is the final one for today, sorry for posting this much but these were a couple weeks of shotstill next time
Can you take amazing shots and get good at photography with just a point and shoot? I'm getting sick of carrying around my bulky setup everywhere, even though it's M43
>>4518685They are not.>I'm sorry anon I was being a dishonest birch, what I meant to say was "why are most movies shot on digital?"Because it is much more convenient in many different ways and much cheaper. Because consumer don't care, don't see the difference, and also because shooting a good movie is often not about getting the cleanest highest resolution image possible. Actually, you can watch a movie in low resolution and you will forget about it if there is good sound, but a movie in high resolution is unwatchable if the sounds is not clear. Anyway, it's very different from what you would want on a still image.
>>4518687>birch
>>4516386no
>>4518686It's a stupid analogy. >>4516386You absolutely can but you'll often be frustrated at the lack of manual controls if you're like me. You end up wrestling the automations to get pictures of "difficult" subjects like the Moon.
Yes you can I use Nikon Coolpix S4300 it takes amazing pictures and many shots that I took are only because I have this little camera (I ride bike and need something small and light). You can do alot with those little cameras don't listen to the camera collectors they just keep buying stupid lenses with 1.2 light but never took good picture in their life. I used all types of cameras btw old film cameras with everything manual and big digital ones but I like the small ones now, the technology progressed enough that the quality is very good despite small size.
This zesty guy makes a call like he drank too much, "uhzahhh!"
>>4524403Even at 1/4000 the background will have motion blur when shooting a fast bird in flight.
>>4519533I got a manual 200mm and went to try more.
>>4524578
>>4524580
>>4524581(there is a bird here if you look hard enough)was going for 1/500-800 cause didn't want to crank the iso. on my camera even at 800iso there's color spec noise... though I'm also probably not exposing properly. manual focus is not as hard as I though but is a bit tricky sometimes. ordered myself a viewfinder magnifier though.
