How long can you let it sit after exposing but before developing? Online I see everything from "you should develop within a few days of exposure" to "you can leave it up till its expiry date no problem". I asked a local camera shop and they said 6-10 months before you start to see degradation depending on the film. Who's telling the truth? I don't remember ever worrying about this back when I was using disposable cameras for everything.
>>4525859overall those seems like good conditions. I would say it's likely the photos will be salvageable with some editing.
I just developed this portra 400 roll after almost 8 years. I'm still trying to figure out if the green tint is because the film is expired or if that's how it's supposed to be. I have 4 more rolls from that time, not sure if I should spend money using them and developing and scanning.
It boggles my mind that photogees go out of their way to buy two decades expired film for more than three bucks per roll.
>>4534773I got three rolls of Agfa Vista 200 just this weekend, they were expired in... 2003. I got the film rolls and a Nikon F-401 with a kit lens as a bonus when I sold off my old DSLR.>>4520441I'm curious how these came out. In my experience the colour films suck past their expiry date but I suppose I'll still try to shoot one roll with high contrast subjects and good lighting...
>>4534777Might be alright, assuming you're from a temperate climate. Have fun with the camera and keep expectations low.
Lens Compression EditionFormer thread: >>4529005
>>4534622Why would I lie? Long lenses and IR were literally the things that lured me into photography. In fact I started out with a DIY approach, I made some filters out of film. Some of the skills I developed thanks to that later proved useful in my line of work.
>>4534624And, and, I, have a dad who works for nintendo and im being gangstalked by husky owning feds and i own a cool motorcycle and a wocketship and a weally nice spurtscaw but it all goes to another school
>>4534624>Some of the skills I developed thanks to that later proved useful in my line of work.In what what way did the skills developped shooting IR photos proved useful becoming a universally hated shitposter?
>>4534644The guy with the nice sports car is the guy with the mamiya 67 not meHe had a Porsche if I recall
todd hido enjoyers, share your picsP.S. Please close your blinds at night. I already feel weird enough photographing your home in the middle of the night.
>>4534437For these 3 i used portra 800 with a very odd filter stack>didymium filter>tiffen cc40M>FLD>scientific quadbandpass filter i had to custom fitThis stack turns all artifical white lighting green while also keeping daylight and warm lighting unchanged by the effect.
>>4534438Example with daylight.
>>4534439
>>4534435I love this.
>>4534435Very dank
Is there a place for this time of cameras outside Electronic News Gathering?i thinks they're pretty neat, but even in the same Canon line, the biggest upgrade was adding USB C
>>4528835Welcome to /p, please use the gear thread
>>4533424i’m flattered
>>4533418Excuse me sir, do you have a loicence for that cammy?
They are very practical for casual videography, not to mention fun. Stabilization is also way better on even an over a decade old mid-range than what you get on a mirrorless photo camera.
>>4533690
Trichromatic edition (strong filters are better for color according to PhaseONE, Kasson is WRONG)https://youtube.com/watch?v=HHM-vp9lWkkPrevious national tragedy thread: >>4532911
>>4534218The actual reason is that the Kolari filter isn't for cameras with IBIS but nice try
>>4534193>self-hating canon user has a melty over getting called a canon fanboylove to see it k3kplease do some more self-flagellation
>>4533739>Sony colors are the bestWhen was the last time you saw a serious portraiture pro use a Sony? Oh right, they don't. Journalists use Sony for good autofocus, burst shooting, and the fact that they're quintessential beater cameras. Journalists don't give a shit about color accuracy or artistic interpretation because the images go straight to JPG and to the editorial office within minutes.>>4533751This is probably the most important reason. Sony reportedly has good bulk enterprise offers.
>>4534409>When was the last time you saw a serious portraiture pro use a Sony?Portraits are so edited to fuck that any of the brands will suffice. Shit they're more than good enough for almost any type of photography outside of scientific stuff. It doesn't matter who is the best or who is the worst because 1, they're very close, and 2 most professional work is going to be edited and you can get near enough the exact same look with any of them. All you can argue over is jpegs, some brands do have greater and easier controls for modifying how they will look in camera but none of them are terrible.
>>4534249It's a sensitive subject
Can someone tell me what lightning equipment I would need, to recreate either of those photos?
>>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.
>>4504097ha!
It is time.
>>4533096>>4533097>>4533101>>4533104Should have said, these were some holiday pics I took on my Xiaomi Redmi note ten pro.
I guess ill get a couple in bfore the image limit
Samsung S23 btw
Last superzoom compact camera models came out before COVID. Is there really no market anymore for these? Smartphones still cannot match that 720mm eq. tele end
>>4532718>Primes are primarilly a method of weight & bulk savings nowadays, and that's only if you avoid the beeg f1.4/1.2 primes.That's absolutely the reason I gravitate toward them, I carry three tiny standard primes between f/2 and f/2.8
>>4529624There is nothing meaningful you can do to improve the RX100 without breaking the design philosophy.a9 tier AF, Stacked BSI sensor, EVF, 4k video, IBIS, tilt screen, zoom lens.Upgrading the sensor, glass or processor wouldn't justify a new camera.Upgrading the size of the sensor or glass would increase the size of the camera. That said. If Sony made a RX500 the size of a Fujifilm X-e5 with APSC sensor and 28-200mm f.2.8-5.6 or 28-75 f.1.8-3.2 while keeping all the other features, that would be insane.
Is it worth it to cut the zoom range in half to get 360mm eq. but on a larger 1-inch sensor?
>>4529624Welcome to /p. Please use the gear thread.
>>4533832You're not my mum. Welcome to /p/Now git out.
This thread is dedicated to close-range photographic captures utilising macro-optical imaging configurations to achieve greater reproduction ratios. Got it? Good now upload some shit.Last thread: >>4433352
I finally bothered to use the macro lens and flash I bought at the beginning of the year and it's been enormous fun.
Macro is arguably one of the most honest forms of photography
>>4533700literally why, phones apply boatloads of aislop upscaling on macro or close ups but not that much on distant subjects
>>4533710>Phones>Photography >Macro photography lol, lmao
>filtered editionIn the last episode of guitar general: >>4531957
New thread, don't get your panties in a bunch >>4533681
>>4533683cANON once again came to ruin the day. Next time wait until the current gear thread hits the page 2 at the very least.
>>4533684I can bump this thread down to page 2 if you want
>>4533664You spent $2000 on a shitty oversized camera to produce blurry jpegs of dog buttholes lmfaono one is taking your crop cope unless you put your money back where your mouth is, because right now it's in fuji's revenue stream. you can't use a "good enough" camera. you need crutches and expensive glass to prop up your bad photography.>>4533643>just spend $1500 on a lens to cope with your micro fool turds bro it says to on DPREVIEW (literally amazon)lmfaotiny sensor tiny brain>i-its good enoughfor what, 1mp jpegs? lmfao. nice to know you have no intrinsic motivation or personal standards NPC.
>>4533796With a good light exposure, how much would you say you can crop a full frame photo before quality becomes unacceptable?
Fastest and easiest NON-WEBSITE way for a retard to convert shitloads of JPEGs to lossless JXL? Even better if I can convert other formats with the same program. I know GIMP can export JXLs but doing it that way for every single image I want to convert one at a time would take forever and a half.
>>4527681 (Me)I found a different tool called XL Converter which can do lossless JPEG transcoding explicitly and unambiguously, which is good since now I have a definite example to work with and compare against. My test image was 3.13 MB, lossless transcoding to JXL reduced it to 2.59 MB, however exporting as lossless JXL from GIMP increased it to 6.73 MB, so I guess "lossless" in the context of "transcoding" isn't the same as the file format itself being lossless like I originally thought. I surely knew this at some point in the past but forgot. Exporting as lossless PNG resulted in an 8.91 MB file so it's still an improvement at least. Interestingly, loading the transcoded JXL into GIMP and then exporting it as a lossless JXL actually results in a BIGGER file size than exporting the original JPEG as a lossless JXL (7.73 MB vs 6.73 MB). Bizarre.
>>4527681>losslessly convert any JPEG to JPEG XL and get a smaller fileJPG is already lossy. You are just preserving (and adding) loss in another format. If you wanted a smaller file, you could export your RAW (lossless) yo JXL, but no one uses JXL, so it's not a great idea. For saving space, webp is the go-to option.
>>4527575bash script on linux
>>4527575mogrify -format jxl *.jpg
>>4533649based>>4527575Delete your JPGs and only keep your RAWs. You can always make new JPGs from RAWs if needed.
First you had film: a chemical process that already distorted reality. The world went into the camera, got chemically bullied, and came out looking like reality according to film. Then they made a “film sim”. Except the simulation looks nothing like film. It is two-faced and half-hearted. But it’s perfect, because now, say, “Provia” no longer has to signify the actual film but the SIGN of Provia. You aren't getting Provia, just the marketing team’s idea of what the cultural memory of Provia is supposed to feel like. The signified has begun to evaporate.But fujislugs still weren't satisfied, so now the DIGITAL camera displays a little box end on the rear screen. If you’re a zoomer, that’s the cardboard tab you'd put in the holder on the back of the camera reminding you of the film you loaded. But there is no film, no box, no physical thing inside the camera that needs identifying. Literally a simulation of the thing that used to tell you which film was inside the camera. It’s displaying a simulation of the signifier of a nonexistent signified. You successfully reached the point where the camera says: “Here is the little square that would have told you which film you loaded into the camera.” Except you loaded a menu option instead of film, and now the camera is proudly showing you the nostalgic little fake box for the imaginary film you didn't load. There is no film, no Provia, no box. There never was. There never will be. There is only a crude mockery on the back of the camera telling you that there is. Fitting that it's X-TRANS.Reality > film > film look > film simulation > simulation of the film label > ???In the end the camera is no longer pretending to reproduce reality. It's pretending to reproduce the evidence that reality was once being reproduced. It's transfilm, and it doesn't pass. It's Baudrillard's hyperreality except instead of Disneyland it's an X-Pro3 displaying a fake Provia box while you photograph your animal companion.
>>4533583>Drop the name, drop the tripEgo is a powerful thing to fall to.
>>4531183Yes... and?
>>4533583You won't intimidate me. >>4533625>on TV>arguing in bad faithIt was a thread posted here around the same time as the bestiality claims.>>4533642>implying it's about ego
>>4533668I am not trying to intimidate you. I'm trying to help you.
Canon Powershot SD100
>>4532936not many other photos I can send without compromising anonymity. Will take more soon and return.
>>4532938It's very few images but it seems you are good at playing with digishit strengths. do continue.
>>4532929>>4532937Bruh thats so liminal its like im in the backrooms
>>4532926>>4532927>>4532929>>4532937Everything is visually cooler without losing the feeling of warmth, it must be the blown out highlights… it ends up working really well. These are nothing like real life, such a cool look.
>>4532956Your fuckin head is liminal mate
Hi /p/.This month I was attending two anime cons, as "officially approved" photog and I wanted to upload some of the photos I did for opinions and advices. I made similar threads in previous years and they were always very productive so I would like to hear your opinions about these as well. This was also some sort of "test run" for new camera (Nikon Z5 II, replacing D750), most of these shots were made with Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 G2 lens (via FTZ II adapter), only few with telephoto (Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VRII). Also newest version of Darktable, since old ones would not handle the new camera. There is always room for improvement and I genuinely want to get better so any kind of advice, critique or opinion is welcome.If you like, I can also try uploading RAW files for selected photos, on temporary catbox link or similar.
So did you get paid anything or atleast free admission
>>4533210Free entry and being able to enter various events without queue, along with being able to move around with much bigger freedom than normal participants (so, instead of having to sit in single spot, I could go around as long as I would avoid disturbing performance itself or anyone). I know that at least at one con some photogs were hired instead, however.
>>4520872>every shot is either youre to the left of them, or right of themboring af and you became a glorified tripod.granted i get it's a con and probably no vantage points with the room; but at least you could move around the venue also stop trying to get everyone in focus from the side, it's kind of jarring from a natural perspective standpoint. if you needed everyone in focus i would be head on position wiseand with that said morebokeh im not joking; i think of concert photography as portrait but it just timing you cant control. which comes from experience attending more concerts
>>4533306>boring af and you became a glorified tripod.Can we see some of your more interesting shots to compare against?
>>4533306>morebokehI was already shooting at 2.8, I don't think I can improve in that aspect. Unless you have something else than DoF in mind and I got it wrong, in such case I'm sorry.As for sides, some shoots like >>4528634 or >>4528607 are from the front, like I said, I was restricted a bit in regard of shooting angle and position. But I guess I understand what you have in mind.
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
>>4532899Toners, can be sepia itself but also selenium, gold and ohters.
>>4527357You disproved it because it is way less impactful without color
>>4522398Counterpoint, he even emulated orthochromatic film using filters
>>4532899Split toning. OG method was with the paper you used, but nowadays you're more likely to use a Photoshop filter (which imo isn't half bad).
>>4532899Paper + developer combo is your first option, and probably what he did, but if that doesn't work you can use toning solution.You can get a suprisingly wide range of highlight+shadow color combinations with just your paper + developer combo and how long you develop your print for.
