>>4512824>LET ME THE FUCK GOOOOOOOOO CUNT
börd
The last of the great DSL-ACK!Last time shrewd snapshitting scrooges and nikon nancies wasted their lives: >>4511297Not the /gg/ you were looking for? For inquiries into the location of graphlex general, please go to /fgt/ and pay a one (1.0) egg photo entry fee. For the location of guitar general, please go to your nearest guitar center and play stairway on a Gibson Les Paul Standard 50s (Heritage Cherry Sunburst). For the location of gourami general, proof of log is required. For more options, dial .
>>4513715What kind of UI and customization options do you find necessary to your shooting experience?
>>4513817Depends how much disposable income you have. If it's your first camera then you're not going to know what you want, and not only is the body more expensive but so are the lenses (and also more bulk and weight to take out with you to experiment with). An APS-C body will still be very capable and for that money you could get one and a couple lenses.
>>4513817No, it's not "tryhard." This is a hobby, what you start with depends on your budget and what you want to do with it. There's nothing wrong with starting with higher end equipment if you can afford to, this isn't like riding motorcycles where only a retard with money starts out on a 1000cc sport bike. That being said, you'd be far better off buying a 2+ generation old FF camera that's <$500 and putting what was saved there into glass than buying a FF that is over $1k. t. just bought my third FF and it's 3 generations old and just under $1k.
>>4513822Two things: a level bubble gauge that mounts in the flash mount. Use primarily for close-ups.And a heads-up dot finder for pointing at the night sky. Also mounts into the flash shoe.
>>4513817It's simply not worth owning anything other than full frame unless you are a dedicated bird or paparazzi/stalker type photographer. You can use APS-C lenses on full frame, but not the other way around. At least not if you want the intended FOV.Being a tryhard retard would be buying a "medium format" digital back like a gfx 100 or some hassleblad shit but full frame is strictly the consumer format people have determined was consumer grade for over a century. Choosing anything smaller is embracing enshittification, going larger is entering the "trying hard" category.Your grandparents shot on 35mm film.Digital came, now you use a 35mm sensor. Shooting smaller is copium.People spend multiple thousands on APS-C bodies. Spending $1K on a full frame one is a no brainer. Just do it. If you want something smaller or lightweight, you have a phone. Keep your real camera a real camera and ignore smaller formats smaller than 35mm.
Just out of curiosity
>>4511320>>4512955I recall many years ago that particular statue was subject of an outrage when it was plopped on a prominent place. It eventually was replaced with a safely nonfigurativier clump and moved to less visible position. I happened to find it again when walking with the Brownie 2.
>>4513025what's it called and who's the "artist?"
>>4501602Can somebody explain what’s the appeal? I get how they were useful back then because you could get a camera off a gas station in a clutch. But why would anyone deliberately want to shoot it now.There are equally small and infinitely better proper film cameras.
>>4513095have you heard of this unique driving force of consumerism called... "nostalgia?" it makes people buy things they weren't even alive to experience, out of their lust for the past.
>>4513095>There are equally small and infinitely better proper film cameras.They're cheaper, easier to use and people don't pose or get defensive like they do when you pull out a real camera. Not everyone wants to be a real photographer. They are a good gateway drug into real film photography doe.
i genuinely think portraits without bokeh look nicer. they just feel more soulful. is there a point to buying a camera instead of using your smartphone if you're gonna shoot at f8 anyway?
>>4506421bokeh is censorship. you use it to blur out ugly backgrounds. if you have a nice setting for your model, you don't need it. it's fairly important if you're shooting in public and there's a bunch of randoms in the background of your photo, you dont really want those to be in focus.
>>4512721>bokeh is censorship.never heard that one before
>>4512795moreso shallow DOF i should say. why would you blur something that you wanted to see?
>>4512721>>4512454>applying poorfaggot cope to the artsGet a job homie
>>4506516Help a brotha out with the sauce on this
It is hands down my favourite kind of photography even though it has many limitations.Actually i think that being that limited kinda forces me to try and be creative even though many shots gets blown out. Or maybe i simply enjoy shooting and having the pic with me istantly.... the best way to collect memories with friends.
These look pretty good. It tempts me to get an instant camera but iirc the actually photos are basically 1"x1" or some shit.
>>4512544That's okay too, isn't it?
>>4512544honestly i'd suggest either instax square or wide. Square is the best format for me and the lomo istant square glass really get you the freedom you might want. The wide is nice but there are basically 2 cameras and that's it. Mini is way too small and you can shoot it with the lomo istant square glass anyway cause it gets sold with the double back piece. Polaroid is easily the best format, square and big but the film is very expensive and rather unstable at different temperatures. Also the only manual camera there is is over 400€.it's really a different way to take photos but i usually have quite a lot of fun even if sometimes you end up wasting film...
>>4512658its a photo size for ants
Do you have a favourite camera? If so, what is it? Why is it your favourite? I want to hear!I'll start, I think for me it's a Nikon FM. I like it because it's always worked for me, I know how to fix it when something goes wrong, it's well made and it has a CdS meter. Lenses are easy to find, as are batteries. I got it for very cheap and it was already quite banged up so I never feel I have to be overly careful with it, which makes it an easy choice to bring with me.>pic semi-related, my third favourite camera
>>4508801D850 baby, I don't even feel the slightest need to upgrade. It's not exactly compact though.
>>4511863>>4511899Both excellent choices. Very nice fellas.
>>4508801The one I have with me
>>4512808That's funny man. I've not heard that quip before. You ever considered doing stand-up?
I have a mju ii that I carry everywhere and use to document life. Rn they are way too expensive on the second hand market, I was lucky and found my one in a dusty old drawer at my grandparents. Found out my parents used this Mju ii when traveling around the world when they were in their 20s. Its not perfect , sometimes its autofocus fails but I love it to death Pic is from the mju ii
The "I'll Do It" EditionPreviously: >>4505100Thread Question:>Why are you a photographer?
>>4509285
fire
>>4508886Sup NZ fag. What part of NZ is this? It looks like a different country
>>4508886that's the hutt valley
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
>>4510651almost every picture in this thread is center framed lol
>>4476475>>4509802catfaggots must lowest common denominate e v e r y t h i n gmust be a side effect of the toxo
>>4476536Parents had a cat named Rupert when I was born. Image is my cat. Hope all is well with you two :)
>>4512781Magnificent… this photo shows top class artistry. You should be in magnum.
Let's do this right and be creative with it.Theme: TransportationAll submissions must feature transportation, whether it's traditional like a car or more abstract like an elevator, interpret the meaning of transportation however you wish.Competition photos must've been taken from the start of this month and submitted by the end of next month (we're currently mid month so a longer timeframe is needed). You are welcome to post old photos but just mention in your post that they are old.Get as creative as you want and have fun.
Is it over?
>>4504961>interpret the meaning of transportation however you wishOK
>>4506736Don't forget the AI slop you smeared all over it.
So who winned?
Here’s a thread to post any concepts or photos you’ve been working on.
>>4512151This was the original concept and I think it’s more what I wanted it to be like. The others just got messier.
>>4512152Another main point was to have an anonymous self-portrait and showing parts of my face only made it feel weaker. We put too much trust in facial features, particularly the eyes, when all the conniving and fake people you’ve met looked you straight in the eyes.
I’m planning a serie called “Vestígios” (Vestiges). It’s the first time I try to do something like this.I’m focusing on that sensation when you are on a space that you fell that there were people just moments ago (or soon will be people) but now it’s empty… causing a strange sensation of comfort, sometimes anxiety, etc.This photo is the first and only so far
>>4512152I like this one, it's moody but also feels a little vulnerable and awkward. I think the offset composition is more interesting than the more formal direction you took with the others. It feels more natural, even lively somehow, to me. For example, this one >>4512148 seems stiff. It depends what you want to convey, though, how you want people to feel when they see these photos. Cool concept. I don't think colour would enhance these at all yet it might be interesting to see how they're different as colour photos.>>4512154Censoring facial features or the entire face with a black box or black bars would fit your aesthetic, I think, if you want to explore more ways of anonymizing your self-portrait. Also, look at what you could do with masks as props? Halloween masks, disguises, etc., masquerade masks like from Eyes Wide Shut.
>>4512150Best>>4512148Good. I think the contrasts are too harsh and most of the mask is just pitch black with no texture at all so I prefer low contrast in this case.>>4512143>>4512149>>4512151messier versions. I feel like the message is diluted.>>4512152Extremely gay. Joking aside there is a strong sexual innuendo in this one that I don't see in the other ones, so I'm not sure it is intended.
>it now cost $20 to develop film only with no prints or scansAHHHHHHHHH
>>4411869Flirt with the woman in snappy snaps and get free photos for life lilenindid. Even got the panoramic prints on their expensive paper. Wish I was a photographer and not just fuckjng about with a camera cause im dating a woman who works in a photo shop.
>>4431490>post is 365 days oldLmfao dead boars
>>4512273lucky. i only ever see old boomers work in photo shops.
>>4512336Well, snappy snaps was a new company back then
>>4512336The one I go to always has a rotating cast of young women and enbies that are presumably also doing a film or photography program at the community college across the street.
Hello /p/I saved a RX100 M7 from the bin after customer returned it without it's box and accessories.I know it’s not a pro camera with fancy lenses and such, but is it good? Photography interests me but I never mustered the motivation to buy a nice setup. Do you have any recommendations on what to do / not do?
>>4510720iPhone 17
>>4510613>Canon has a green tint nowdpreview really is retarded
>>4505220It has more glass and bigger sensor than a smartphone. Smartphones uses algo and ai to molest the picture to look half decent.
>>4505220Not even close, it's a lot better than a smartphone and even a shitty compact camera from a decade ago manages that. Most phones max out at 12mp and still have a lot of processing junk, so even those ones that claim to be more than 12mp are just using pixel binning to achieve a higher mp amount. OP could buy a Canon Powershot from the early 2010s and still be better off than using his phone.
>>4505391>iso 1600hmm I wonder why you didn't chose base iso for both cameras as a point of comparison
>>4503361Samsung galaxy s23 why?
>>4503425Umm, why is the suns light not anywhere? Also, 58 day old post? Lmao dead board
>>4512272The sun is occluded by earth.
>>4512194adobe damage control hard at work
>>4512194kek
The camera fairy appears! She is willing to conjure a camera plus lenses of your choice... BUT all your future photos are limited to a single aspect ratio. If you try to change the ratio in any way, she WILL strangle you in your sleep.What is your choice and what do you wish for?
How about round, snap like it's 1888 without caring of tilted horizon or fuzzy corners.
>>4508570I shoot/export exclusively in 16:9.Every other ratio belongs in the trash.
>>4512048>Every other ratio belongs in the trash.16:9 is literally a cope ratio for retards and engineers who rushed it before reaching the stated goal for 16:10, the Golden Ratio
>>4512050>16:10, the Golden RatioThe golden ratio isn't 16:10 though so that's just another cope ratio.
>>4512157>The golden ratio isn't 16:10 thoughIt's close enough to 1618:1000, it would be silly to enforce the latter in display hardware terms
The "Cityscape" EditionPreviously: >>4507850Thread Question:>Who taught you the most about photography and what's the most memorable thing they said?
plank of wood
portrait of a cow
>>4512134
>>4512136>>4512137>>4512138>>4511996>>4511990You should make a thread for these cool pics. They are kind of wasted here on /rpt/.
>>4511917Agreed on the composition. I mmm'd and ahh'd about cropping it but thought I'd throw it out there as it is, see how it goes.>>4511918>that dumb bint's faceOf the several shots from that burst, that was unfortunately the best one. She looked even dumber in the other shots. Didn't have time to linger and try getting another shot as I was busy picking up dinner for the family.Thanks for the feedback mate.
