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.
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.
Left-right-left
>>4531042Red/cyan anaglyph
i enjoy taking pictures. dislike rising early however.11oclock is still morning tho so no biggie!>>4525703>>4526255nice colors!
>>4525459Yes.
>>4525666A Ken Rockwell
Theme: Night LightsLet`s keep it limited to artificial lights for this month.All photos must be taken during the current challenge month. No old or archived shots.Get creative and enjoy the process. Unique perspectives are encouraged!Previous thread:>>4515121>Go highlight your choice of best pics!
>>4528526>>4528639stronger texture but I'm not sure on the composition desu. its a good subject to return to when you can, I feel like it has a lot of potential
>>4530647and of course I forgot my photo...
>>4528526You could try again and underexpose it to not blow out the details in the cracked glass
Unsuccessful Tries EditionPreviously: >>4525845
>>4531392You're disingenous, that's my post-hack tripcode. Secure tripcodes changed after the site was hacked.
>>4531389I have another shot with this house further away from the edge and it's still crooked. It's an old castle on a hill. Not a single straight line in this scene. I can't even tell if this photo is properly level or not.
>>4531390You are just plain useless...
>>4531396>Secure tripcodesSorry but I have schadenfreude
Why can't Olympus make a camera this compact? Why can't Panasonic? Are they stupid? This is literally the only M43 camera with any raison d'être at all right now.
>>4529364yes dear everyone is wrong except you and youwithyourtripoff all the cameras everyone else (especially people who take more photos than you, ie: more than 1 a decade) prefers are actually a straight downgrade from a 20mp canon DSLR that blurs every photo no exceptions
>>4529366The blurrier one here is the one without OLPF.
>>4529373it would be awesome if you could actually shoot real cameras with real subjects instead of relying on dpreview's shoddy tests processed in one of the worst editors known to mantoo bad you dont even know how to use a camera
>>4528489>it totally sucked the joy out of the entire formatJust buy the small lenses instead lol. Oly released revised versions of the small 14-42 and a couple 1.8 primes (still waiting on the 12, 30, 45, and 75 tho), and they're all sealed now too, it's sweet.
>>4528524Just get a Nikon 1 series, you'll have the same image quality
leaf editionFormer thread: >>4523061
>>4526327You cut off the subjects ass you retard
>>4529689You're right but why so rude?
>>4527282Set white balance to K and dial in your color temperature manually so it looks as close to real life as possible. I don''t think playing with hues will be productive here. Auto WB makes warm lights cold and cold lights warm to even everything out to middle gray and that's often not desirable.Set your exposure manually so it looks as close to the real life as possible. At night this could mean underexposing by 1 to 2 stops. At night cameras will boost exposure and by extension ISO as high as possible to make dark areas not dark but gray. This should cut down the noise significantly.Play with DR settings in your camera (DR200 and DR400). They can help protect the highlights at the cost of extra noise in the shadows. Decide if you like the results yourself. Those settings can be a hit or miss.
>>4530009And use a fucking tripod.
>>4526169Well your pic is real dog shit
Aura.
>>4531177Somehow, he's a good B&W photographer; he just doesn't understand what makes a good color image, which he shoots 99% of the time. Someone needs to force him to shoot a Pentax K3III Monochrome for the rest of his life. At gunpoint.
>>4529871Slide film doesn't have that much latitude. Ken chose to let the clouds blow out.
>>4531227>200% clarity halos>good
>>4531269It's part of the aesthetic :^)
>>4531269Noticed that after I posted it lol, but it would be a good image without the artifacts. His fault for shooting JPEG
>>4530731I think i'm gonna go for the kenko 45 for the simple reason I like this focale. I was aware of the 28mm but I actually dislike the super wide effect. I guess it's half a question of preference and half a question of subject, because I can imagine 85mm or more being manageable for nature scenes where surroundings are big and there's ample space to move around, but taking photos from the road biking like I do it happens a lot that I cannot move much from where I see a composition, so a standard focale is more convenient.>>4531063Thanks! me too actually. Gonna take some time though I think, because I rely a lot on the weather for good light and 90% of the day are just cloudy here.
>>4531087Let me quote some tips I got from a Pictorialist in an email:1 - For city scenes and landscapes Pictorialists rarely, if ever, used soft focus lenses. They used rectilinear lenses/fully corrected optics (which could mean soft focus lenses stopped down to f/20 or lower, but often didn't). 2 - Pictorialist sense of light, luminosity, tone range comes _not_ from the scene, but from working the image between negative processing and printing. They did all kinds of things to an image before it ever went to final print. [Oil/bromoil selective brushing, etc.]3 - Soft focus lenses used by Pictorialists were [mostly] deployed for portraiture. Often. But not always.
>>4531167Appreciate the advice! But I think I'm just not a pictorialist then. What I took from the pictorialists, is that what I thought a photo looked like was just an utilitarian convention, and that I can create images that fit my vision without using a computer. Because I'm just printing in my bathroom, it's a bit tedious to have most of the process happening there like the pictorialist did, so instead I make do in camera with lenses for now.>Pictorialist sense of light, luminosity, tone range comes _not_ from the scene I'm reading En Passant which is a retrospective of Leonard Misonne's work, they quote him many times stating light is the single most important factor in taking a photograph, and that is also my opinion and what I want to use on my images. Of course his photos were also heavily modified during printing, but I do believe his best images would have not been possible without exceptional lighting conditions. I've posted this photo in the fgt thread where there was both bright sun and heavy rain using a tiffen black pro mist 3, I think he used similar lighting conditions with sun filtered through fog, although obviously this is nowhere as good as what he did. I'm also working on some color landscapes using the tiffen on my medium format camera. Those maybe should look closer to the traditional light blur effect I've been referred to in this thread. But I have neither the capacity to develop or print those at home right now.
>>4531235Hey, whatever works to make a beautiful image. That's Pictorialist. My favorite Platinum printers, Frederick H Evans and PH Emerson, were both "straight" printers who didn't manipulate their negatives at all - but they're still Pictorialists. Some of the best ones, too. Retouching like in oil/bromoil just allows you full control over how the print will look. You're technically working from a smaller "set of tools", but we're just doing this for fun. It doesn't matter. My ultimate goal is learning oil printing, but I'll be taking a Pt/Pd workshop next month because I love the tonal range.
>>4531238Oh wow, that's a haunting image. I'll look up this guy.I'm also aiming to learn some more advanced printing technique, but it takes a long time because I'm completely alone as an amateur photographer here in Norway so there's no workshops or community really, and there's a 60% tax to import chemicals. So for now i'm just toning cyanotypes and shooting soft focus, but as you say, the most important is to have fun and become famous and rich from my art. Just kidding. Enjoy your workshop.
would it be technically possible to control ISO and shutter speed (if electronic) on a per pixel basis?
>>4523765With more and more linear ISO invariance sensors it pretty much is, you might get a second base ISO at 400 or 600 where thenoise reduction hardware kicks in but pretty much any high ISO shot is just this base ISO digitally clipped and exposure increased, very similar to increasing the exposure slider. The noise will be the same, all exposure properties will be the same. It has been for 10 years.
don't know where else to ask this but you lot seem savvy enough What is the easiest way to have a GPS app running on my phone while shooting photos, and then I dump the photos and the geolocation data to my computer and have the nearest/interpolated location attached to the EXIF of each photo?
>>4523318>>>4523318>control ISO and shutter speed (if electronic) on a per pixel basisWhy not do in post process on the raw pixels? Cannot see a different outcome.
>>4523778Dual conversion gain sensors are not noise reduction hardware you dunning kruger ass schizo retard snoyimIts basically turning off a high dynamic range circuit that stores more charge to switch to a more sensitive and less noisy one that cant store as much charge but detects finer increments. Noise reduction is what pentax does. No extra light is stored. No extra shadows are detected. Its just a noise reduction slider on a chip for when the camera processor is too weak to run a good NR algorithm. Modern sensors read both of these circuits simultaneously (sony a7v, lumix s1rii, om om1ii) or sequentially (lumix g9ii).
>>4523318Apparently that's what's described in this Nikon patent>US-20260281583-A1But I can't read legalese so correct me if I'm wrong. Could just be describing a faster sensor for all I know.>An image capturing element includes a first substrate having a plurality of pixel blocks including at least one pixel, the plurality of pixel blocks being arranged to be aligned in a row direction and a column direction, and a second substrate having a plurality of control blocks including a conversion unit which converts a signal output from the pixel into a digital signal and a through electrode unit configured to output the signal converted into the digital signal by the conversion unit, the plurality of control blocks being arranged to be aligned in the row direction and the column direction.
Previous - >>4529615>wet plate chud edition
>>4530984Kek, based
>>4530985It's common knowledge that panasonic's AF-C is incredibly bad in stills, often boasting a 30% hit rate on a person walking towards the camera. They tuned it entirely for video because realistically, no one would use a camera as dogshit as a panasonic or a mount as full of oversized, overpriced mediocre glass as L mount for any reason except taking advantage of panasonic being basically sony with every codec enabled in firmware. It's also common knowledge that canon has absolutely zero accuracy issues in AF-S. Literally completely unknown outside of one chart made by poles.Shill disregarded. I'd care if tony northrup, roger cicala, jim kasson, or someone else competent found an issue.
>>4531000>They tuned it entirely for videoWrong, in fact DfD hunts in video. It's a known problem.
>>4531000>>4531006https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GG8-ecvu3ko
>>4530957>$636 for a fucking adapterYou gotta be shitting me
Moar?
>>4529666>It's not a fucking art gallery print. Get real.You seem upset.
I'm a broke college grad trying to make a quick buck, I've never done photography before. What camera would I need to buy and how would I start getting clients?
>>4528062>What camera would I need to buyNGMI. You're gonna have a great gear thread though.
>>4528062dress up in a skin tight spandex suit and take pictures of yourself at strange angles and then sell it to an old guy who distributes it to the public at large.
>>4528062>I've never done photography beforeThen you don't belong here.Send your resume to KFC or McDonald's.Half-assed people like won't be able yo make money out of photography anyway.
>>4528062Real talk, the best way to make money with a camera in 2026 is to start a youtube channel. You can get monetized almost immediately if your content is interesting. Taking photos is not lucrative anymore now that everyone has a camera.
>>4528647surely the wedding industry is still overcharging newlyweds for everything including photos
>Be vintage gearfag>Own literally 10 of the same goddamn camera for no reason>Wonder why prices are going up while you keep hoarding>Maybe finally sell one or two many years later after much humming and hawing for 10x what you paid for it, minimum, no lowballers I know what I got!What causes this behaviour? How can we stop these autistic, selfish faggots from driving prices through the roof in literally every vintage market they touch? Why do they not want to share what they love with others? Do they realise that greed is a sin? Do they care? Do they even use their cameras to take photos?
>>4529142>Australia?100%
>>4529934you'd have to buy a truly absurd number of cameras to have an affect on the market
i have no interest in moreone good girl is worth a thousand bitches
>>4530120You're not the only hoarder on the planet.
>>4528479I don't even bother with high end stuff, I just buy old dinged up box cameras from thrift stores. I clean them up, polish the lenses, and do some fun snapshitting.It's honestly the most fun I've had with photography and my most expensive camera was only 10 euros. Cheaper than a roll of certain film.
Previous - >>4528802>Lord of Rings editionMelty prone dogphiles need not apply
>>4530306What do you mean? An m3 is like 1.5k on fleabay
>>4530349I mean new, not used.
>>4530269kys>>4530377It's a fashion accessory for rich people. What else do you need to know?
>>4530412"I can spend $7,000 on a camera" isn't really "I'M RICH"-tier these days, it's clueless normies buying these things not actual richfags. Just overpriced for no (practical) reason. I guess they get away with it because nobody else is actually making non-toy 35mm cameras in current year.
>>4530306Precision mechanics and high precision optics with high precision mechanics cost lots of money. Also high quality brand names also cost a lot of money plus prestigious luxury brands cost a lot of money.
The depth of field is related to two factors: 1) the size of the circle of confusion and 2) the pixel pitch on the sensor. the bigger the CoC the smaller the DoF. the smaller the PP the smaller the DoF.So, is it safe to say, that a FF sensor with 16um PP has the same DoF as a MFT sensor with 4um PP?
>>4530010Anon, this whole thread is a bait designed to turn into a gear thread. You are not following the narrative that leads to a gear discussion so OP is just bumping is thread with irrelevant chatter until someone does. Just report and move on.
>>4530010>t. nophoto Opinion ignored.
>>4529995>Get a technical camera. Used properly it can help you get everything in focus at lower f stop.This is true, now if OP wants it digital that's a hurdle he'll have to overcome.A good teaching tool would be a vintage lens with focus scale. In pic related, you have aperture lines showing where for each aperture focus starts. So if infinity focus is placed to the left of the right side line for your chosen aperture, the left side line of that aperture indicates where the stuff acceptably in focus starts. This is not exact and depends on how the lens was designed, but it's a good ballpark to start with.In this example, if shooting f/16 the stuff acceptably in focus is about 5m away, all the way to infinity and beyond (left side f/16 line falls between 4 and 6m). If infinity is placed at the right f/16 line, more stuff will be in focus but critical focus won't be at infinity anymore.
>>4529954shift-tilt lens?
>>4530008Yes, that is what life is like on the streets brother
