>>4393938
drain

File: 25-01-02 09-40-59 1972.jpg (2.38 MB, 4032x3024)

2.38 MB JPG

>>4393938
yes
i have the sony ax43 and it's pretty great. the lens is awesome

no, you're not gonna get big sensor depth of field, or 10 bit log, but if you have good lighting and get the shot right in-camera it's awesome

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Apple
Camera Model	iPhone 12 mini
Camera Software	18.1.1
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	50 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2025:01:02 09:40:59
Exposure Time	1/120 sec
F-Number	f/1.6
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	64
Lens Aperture	f/1.6
Brightness	4.4 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	4.20 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	4032
Image Height	3024
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Digital Zoom Ratio	2.0
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4393938
Not if you have $2k for an s5iix

>>4393938
I personally want a video camera with optical zoom. Seems like my most cost effective solution is an older camcorder.

Motorized zooms and ergonomics are the main reasons for using a camcorders the way I see it.

File: IMG_0149_v1Q.jpg (1.65 MB, 6826x1260)

1.65 MB JPG

>>4400781

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS R50
Camera Software	digiKam-8.4.0
Lens Size	55.00 - 250.00 mm
Firmware Version	Firmware Version 1.1.0
Lens Name	EF-S55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	6826
Image Height	1260
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2024:09:17 17:18:17
Exposure Time	1/500 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Not Defined
Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	55.00 mm
Image Width	6826
Image Height	1260
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Focus Type	Auto
Metering Mode	Evaluative
ISO Speed Rating	Auto
Sharpness	Unknown
Saturation	Normal
Contrast	Normal
Shooting Mode	Unknown
Image Size	Unknown
Focus Mode	One-Shot
Drive Mode	Unknown
Flash Mode	Off
Compression Setting	Fine
Macro Mode	Normal
Subject Distance	25.500 m
White Balance	Auto
Exposure Compensation	3
Sensor ISO Speed	180
Color Matrix	135

Alright I'll say something because the rest of the board is too busy gearfagging like usual. Unfortunate lighting on a few and I guess the weather being warm, those mountains, they look blue. Funny, that.
They're all pretty good though except maybe the one with all the cunts walking around, dunno what it is in particular, just looks touristy. The pano could be the header on some gay arse national parks website or some shit. Again, unfortunate lighting though.

>>4400797
>Lighting unfortunate
Didn't even plan the trip, just got on my motorbike and went as far as I could be bothered; I'm sure actually planning to go back could result in better
>those mountains, they look blue
You'll never guess what they call them
>cunts walking around
Yeah it was the Three Sisters, which (I had no idea) is basically Little Beijing considering the sheer volume of tourists
>The pano could be the header on some gay arse national parks website
I'll put that on my resume to NSW National Parks and Wildlife

>>4400822
>Didn't even plan the trip
Good
>You'll never guess what they call them
I know exactly where it is
>just got on my motorbike and went as far as I could be bothered
What do you ride?
>I'll put that on my resume to NSW National Parks and Wildlife
I wasn't shitting on your photo per se but it could be used as such and reminds me of that.

>>4400775
The first one is somewhat nice.
The rest is trash.
You have no composition. Most of them are just flat and bland.

>>4400832
Most film photographers even the ones outside of that take horribly boring and derivative, "safe" photos as they treasure each and every frame. Lots of perfectly framed building corners, cats, generic "pretty woman = good photo" slop, street signs, city scapes, and sakura tree branches. And still they fall victim to pretentious nonsense because who do they look up to? The postmodern art establishment. If you look at r/fujifilm it's the same stuff as film photographers because it's the same crowd really. That's really why fujis film sims pass. Not because of any tech or color science. On their own they dont look like film. But because film photography has been heavily associated with the "i actually went to school for photography" NPC look.

Digital photography is, in general, better looking and more creative, and does not select as severely for postmodernists AKA npcs.

>>4400851
let me guess, you shoot with an OM5

>>4400851
They hate him because he tells the truth

Film photography is played out and artistically irrelevant. History will remember todays film photographers worse than it remembers the jazz scene of the 90s.

>>4400851
We see different film photographers in that case. I agree that there are a lot of film photographers who take unbearably generic photos, but at least in my opinion I see a significant amount of interesting work, more than I see coming from most digital photographers.
There are some absolutely fantastic digital photographers though I will say.

>>4400851
Yes, film photography is typically lower quality. It’s a pretender’s medium. Originally it was just what everyone shot because a digital camera that wasn’t worse than film was $3000 and the computer that could process a raw half as well as an enlarger can process a negative was also $3000. When $3000 was worth 1.5x more than it is today.

>>4398020
lmao

>>4398153
This is a Christian thread.

File: 8da8b987-9cd1-4ad1-9d7e-b(...).jpg (1.17 MB, 1445x1920)

1.17 MB JPG

>>4395170
just Sieff derivative, not much too look at apart from the idea of the central square of light on the bed.
The image I posted is the OG shit. The true master.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>4398301
But I'm Ashkenazim.

>>>4393988
>bad flat lighting
>uninteresting pose
>generic colours
There is nothing unique nor interesting about this photo and that's largely the problem.
I think you'll be fine if you put some effort in OP.
>>4400359
This is so much better as the photographer here is playing with how light interacts with the look of a body, and also gives some sense of style with the colours, or lack of them.

>>4400435
Well, I tried again but it seems the lens is soft. So I guess this is the look I'll get.

File: IMG_9983 (1).jpg (2.94 MB, 2048x1366)

2.94 MB JPG

>>4400453

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 5D Mark II
Camera Software	Adobe Lightroom 10.1.0 (Android)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2025:01:20 06:19:03
Exposure Time	0.6 sec
F-Number	f/11.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/11.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Flash	Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	100.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4400435
What lens are you using? Do you remember your aperture setting?

>>4400453
Is the film expired? It looks severely underexposed, maybe you simply adjusted the settings in the wrong direction?

This has nothing to do with the lens or softness, the exposure is fucked, here's a review article for that Rokkkor with sample images: https://thenoisyshutter.com/2023/08/07/legacy-lens-review-minolta-mc-rokkor-pf-55mm-f1-7/

I honestly think you'd save yourself a lot of trouble getting a half decent dedicated film scanner.
These scans look really bad OP.

No you are not, and your shit attitude will keep you right where you belong.

>>4400364
gilf hunter

File: Image 3232x2160.jpg (705 KB, 2666x1928)

705 KB JPG

>muh pole, muh composition, muh yada yada
OP has potential. my style is to shoot in a way I won't have to crop and ai erase shit, but you do you, with a thicc sensor you could make it work

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB

File: P1060532.jpg (1.13 MB, 3232x2160)

1.13 MB JPG

>>4400620
>>4400657
OP here, and if anything I am the one with the good attitude, even if my pictures have flaws, and thee are those with the craven and negative "misery loves company" finger-pointing attitude. Stop taking yourselves so seriously.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Panasonic
Camera Model	DMC-G80
Camera Software	Ver.1.3
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/5.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	66 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	180 dpi
Vertical Resolution	180 dpi
Image Created	2022:05:14 18:07:08
Exposure Time	1/2500 sec
F-Number	f/5.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	800
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Fine Weather
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	32.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3232
Image Height	2160
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>4400364
No not really.
These are all generic as fuck, and the subjects are entirely uninteresting.
Good photos could have been made with better subjects, or better/any composition but you chose to include neither.
You are actually taking photos though, so you're better than 80% of the board, and will actually become a better photographer.

File: Cinestill800T2 (16).jpg (4.17 MB, 5184x3588)

4.17 MB JPG

>>4399095
You'll be fine with handheld 1/60s at f1.4 I'd say.
However if you're going handheld I'd recommend embracing a bit of underexposure as it can lead to nicely moody images in my opinion. This was from 50mm f1.9 lens at something like 1/60s.
In your case you'd have almost a full stop more light than I did here.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Plustek
Camera Model	OpticFilm 8200i
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 13.4 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2024:11:16 23:27:55
Color Space Information	sRGB

File: _DSC4506.jpg (3.06 MB, 3817x5718)

3.06 MB JPG

>>4399095
My two cents:
B&W: I use HP5 and push it to 1600, use a good 50mm f/1.4 lens and close it down to f/2, and shoot everything at 1/60s or 1/30s if you're confident. That way you will have decently sharp nighttime photos, I think it's better than getting 1 stop more on f/1.4 and having a very soft photo, since you have to shoot in strong artificial light anyway.
Color: Use Kodak Vision3, if you can get it cheaply. This film has great exposure latiutude, you can shoot 500T at 1000 without pushing as I've wrote before on f/2, 1/60s and it will be fine.
Picrel was 250D shot at 400, and basically underexposed according to my camear lightmeter, ye it looks fine, it was after sunset getting very dark actually

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D610
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 10.0 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.8
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	844
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	60 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2024:11:10 23:45:33
Exposure Time	1/160 sec
F-Number	f/9.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/9.0
Exposure Bias	0.7 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	60.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Hard
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>4399955
That looks really nice, such an example is precisely what I needed to get an idea of what to expect. Considering I'll be shooting a brightly lit up city I'll try both f1.4 and f2.

Although I've heard Portra 800 is less sensitive than Cinestill, would you (or anyone else) know about this?

>>4400161
Couldn't get Vision3, not on short notice anyway and I'm leaving soon. Wouldn't even know if my photo lab could handle it tbqhwymf. I hear movie film works a bit different than still film as far as lab is concerned. BW is not my thing, can't handle it and don't like it for what I do, either.

File: Cinestill800T2 (14).jpg (4.29 MB, 5184x3588)

4.29 MB JPG

>>4400796
Glad you like the shot.
I don't think Portra 800 is any less sensitive, the only difference would be the look you're going for I'd say. Portra is daylight balanced so be aware that your photos at night may have more orange and green tones. Cinestill tends to lend itself really well to the the dystopian lonely kind of feeling.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Plustek
Camera Model	OpticFilm 8200i
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 13.4 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2024:11:16 23:27:53
Color Space Information	sRGB

File: chemist lab.jpg (930 KB, 2232x1464)

930 KB JPG

>>4400818
plus cinestill gives you the HALOS

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Applied Graphics Technologies
Camera Model	Digital Link
Image-Specific Properties:

>>4400773
Yes. Good return on investment considering they're $110 and my macro lens cost me $1300 new. More useful on longer focal lengths (i.e. at least 100mm), but even a cheap 50mm prime would be good enough I reckon. Pair it with a semi-decent speedlite to get enough light on your subject and you're doing decent macro for less than $200

>>4400773
Yeah it's great but works best on telephotos that can already focus close. Check out your lens' macro magnification for an idea of how well this will work. If your lens doesn't get very close to begin with this won't magically make it a macro lens. I actually use mine on my macro lens a lot, it works great for ultra macro.
Unfortunately non-mft macro lenses tend to be huge and expensive. Extension tubes are cheaper but annoying to use.
>gunpla and miniatures
idk about miniatures but gunpla are pretty huge and I wouldn't need to use this with my gear. What camera/lens are you planning on putting this on?

>>4400491
Are you saying my budget specifically, or in general budget is a big constraint for anyone? I've identified the R6 II or A7 IV as being roughly in budget.

>>4400511
>a7c
>go for the most recent you can afford
There are a couple of A7 IV bodies available on NZ's equivalent to eBay, or about $3600 brand new.
https://www.trademe.co.nz/a/marketplace/electronics-photography/digital-cameras/digital-slr/sony/listing/5119378456
https://www.trademe.co.nz/a/marketplace/electronics-photography/digital-cameras/digital-slr/sony/listing/5123631637
How would that compare to the A7C?

I should mention that I don't have an intuitive understanding of specs and how they apply to taking photos. I know what most things mean of course, just have difficulty visualizing how

>>4400513
The a7c is actually as up to date on colors/AF/build quality as the a7iv, it's just a cheaper and less "professional" model, basically a slightly nerfed a7iv with the a7iii's sensor
>-fewer custom buttons, no AF point joystick, no front dial (meant to be used with aperture ring lenses), one less card slot, 9 less megapixels, worse viewfinder, no 10 bit video or slow motion 4k, worse internal video stabilization, slightly worse weather sealing than the a7iv
>+typically $700-ish cheaper, a bit smaller, slightly better battery life, 24mp is a hair better at retaining color fidelity at high ISO settings
Most of this doesn't really affect just taking a picture. The a7iv is a more premium camera intended for professionals and serious hobbyists. The a7c is enough for normal people. The a7cii is a slightly lower end a7iv in an a7c-style body released in preparation for replacing the a7iv with the a7v.

The canon version of an a7c is an R8. It's basically an R6II with a shittier battery, no stabilization at all, a worse viewfinder, and no ability to output raw video to an external device. Canon did not cripple 4k bit depth or framerates as badly so it's not as incompetent at professional videography as the a7c, but that is only of interest to serious videographers.

The nikon version of an a7c is the ZF. It's basically the Z6IIIs featureset with lower max framerates, the Z6II sensor, fewer custom buttons, and no grip or AF joystick.

>>4400517
I have the a7c. Its raw output is great but jpeg rendering is terrible when pixel peeping, the viewfinder is just usable, and the back screens colors are inaccurate. Very flawed budget camera but it delivers.

>>4400513
>I've identified the R6 II or A7 IV as being roughly in budget.
The budget you mentioned
But these cameras are ok.

>>4400489
get a used 1dx mkii and spend the rest on primes imo

File: 54150284955_6d18cb4e93_o.jpg (3.52 MB, 6239x2939)

3.52 MB JPG

>>4396587
Sure no problem, not sure if there is anything I can tell you that you couldn't find on the internet

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	27 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Exposure Time	1/17 sec
F-Number	f/3.6
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/3.6
Brightness	-1.4 EV
Exposure Bias	-1 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	18.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: 95c4f9bd774ce7baed3039682(...).jpg (276 KB, 1906x1280)

276 KB JPG

>>4397343
southwest UK Cornwall

>>4397367
Based Hong Kong enjoyer

>>4397368
beauty

bump

File: R0000232.jpg (3.77 MB, 6000x3000)

3.77 MB JPG

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.
Camera Model	RICOH GR III
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	28 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	200
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash
White Balance	Manual

>>4400462
Something Bri'ish about this photo.

File: D41_8683.jpg (203 KB, 666x1000)

203 KB JPG

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D4
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 14.0.1 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	844
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	24 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2025:01:20 14:07:12
Exposure Time	1/500 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	24.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Landscape
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: buildings and trees lab.jpg (846 KB, 2232x1464)

846 KB JPG

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Applied Graphics Technologies
Camera Model	Digital Link
Image-Specific Properties:

File: moving on up lab.jpg (1.05 MB, 2232x1464)

1.05 MB JPG

>>4400663

>>4400514
IMO, it was never alive. It never reached critical mass. There were some photographers on there, sure, but all of them were already on Instagram, and some never made the switch. Maybe it was technically better in ways, but if there's no content and no audience, you're not going to draw users from other platforms.

>>4400482
By stepping into one of those ancient photo booths at the mall

Get a strong light, completely blowout the highlights and then reduce them in post.

>>4396729
>Do raw adjustments in lightroom. Save as tiff. Do color and detail adjustments in photoshop.

Why not just do RAW adjustments in Photoshop? Isn't Lightroom just a cut down version of photoshop?

>>4396749
If Adobe improved file management in Photoshop there would be no need for Lightroom at all.

>>4391473
Looks moderately smeary, but given how noisy the original image is I guess it's still fairly impressive and might be a legit good option in less noisy images to begin with where it wouldn't need to be as intensive

>>4391187
Just the plain old photoshop one or bust. Sorry but it's just true

>>4391250
I also really like profiled denoise. Removes most of the noise without giving the AIslop look.

>>4400463
>Why do you think fuji cameras sell out almost instantly?
Because they are popular lifestyle products, not because of qualities related to photographic workflows.
I have two fujis and have taken hundreds of good pictures with them. But the shitty lenses, the useless autofocus, the purple fringing, and the poor low-light performance killed any hope I had in Fuji. Some of the best shots are lost forever, mainly due to ridiculous autofocus misses.

Those problems vanished the second I picked up a z8 and S glass. Where I used to be struggling to get one good image, I am now getting more good shots than I can use. Not a shill - just a disappointed fuji shooter.

I have two Nikons and have taken hundreds of good pictures with them. But the sterile lenses, the useless autofocus, the PDAF banding, nonexistent video codecs, APS-C dynamic range, and the unfixably rockwellian color science killed any hope I had in Nikon. Some of the best shots are lost forever, mainly due to ridiculous autofocus misses.

Those problems vanished the second I picked up a Panasonic Lumix S5II and Sigma ART glass. Where I used to be struggling to get one good image, I am now getting more good shots than I can use. Panasonic's new PDAF is a game changer. Not a shill - just a disappointed Nikon shooter

>>4400476
baitiest bait lmao

>>4400476
Kek. Wonderful cope

File: Bluey-Review-800x450.png (165 KB, 800x450)

165 KB PNG

I have two Fujis and have taken hundreds of good pictures with them. But the shitty, sterile lenses, the useless autofocus, the PDAF banding, nonexistent video codecs, purple fringing, bad dynamic range, poor low-light performance and the unfixably stale or high contrast color science of modern mirrorless killed any hope I had in these brands. Some of the best shots are lost forever, mainly due to ridiculous autofocus misses and the cameras and lenses being far too big for my hands.

Those problems vanished the second I picked up a eKids Bluey camera and Bluey glass. Where I used to be struggling to get one good image, I am now getting more good shots than I can use. eKid's new Bluey Film Simulations is a game changer and completely btfo's Fuji with Bluey's rich history in shooting cartoons. Not a shill - just a disappointed Fuji shooter.