Should wild subjects have privacy?
This is one of the reasons why I appreciate photographing insects. People care a lot less. There's like a million of them.When we have like 4 owls in that one patch of woods and there's 50 photographers going after it (exaggeration) I can see where the issues start. So much attention will disrupt their lifecycle. And when there's so few individuals...
>>4481665A dog will lick its cock and ass right in front of you. Privacy is exclusively a human need
>>4486605The dog is just making a statement
>>4481746oh deer
>>4486605I mean, I'll do it in public too, but then they put me back on the house and make me take meds...
Laughing gull editionLast thread >>4467818
Heron
The same heron.
>>4487746>What software do you use for postprocessingNothing at all, I haven't changed the settings on my d3400 and import the photos direct into my computer. I'll keep an eye out for bokeh since I also have an issue with pictures being blurry from hand shakes
>>4483500Seethe, faggot.
I need to find this location in map or this country
Looks like the east side of Moscow
>>4489176Some Eastern Bloc nation.
It's where I fucked your mom.
Barnes and Nobles editionPrev: >>4485000
Moar leaves
A sunset to close the thread
>>4489883No, nothing like that. Why, do you have a firmware for that?
>>4490095Very nice and soothingNew bread here >>4490096
Been shooting photos forever and think it's time to buy a modernism digital camera. Currently own an original Sony 7 that's starting to show it's age. Looking for a small-ish, used, interchangeable lens camera to 'upgrade' to. I'll be using it as a general EDC walk around but also to shoot professional architecture photos. Must haves:>BSI sensor as a main reason for me to shoot digital is for low light performance >tilty screen that can flip down (NOT out to the side)>SS dial>Cost <$1500calThings I don't care about>AF performance>Video>Menus
>>4489936Nice downgrade
>>4489937From what? My 14 year old Sony a7 lol?
>>4489876Very good post fellow nikonian. One nicoin has been deposited to your nikonwallet, my sir. -rajesh, nikon pro services call center 3
>>4489943hey i took a similarly bad photo!
>>4490054Ya but the trees in the background are neither here nor there and ruin your shot
was this image taken on film or digital? https://files.catbox.moe/9jjcnu.jpg
>>4488735How can you tell the difference between multicolored grain and multicolored noise?
>>4488728dynamic range feels low but i cant really tell thowhat the fuck is this captcha? oh i get it now
>>4488735>missed focusWhere?
>>4488728What's going on here? Some very shitty implementation of ICE?Anyway I think it's probably film, just very weirdly scanned/postprocessed. Or digital that someone spent too much of their time on trying to make it half-convincingly look like film for a gotcha effect.
>>4488728clearly no /mu/tants in this thread, its the cover for the album Wildflower by the Avalanches (not nearly as good as Since I Left You btw). wiki says the cover photo was taken by gen kay https://genkay.com/ and their website offers few clues other than that they pretty clearly work with both digital and film. I'd reckon on it being film based on the grain, as well as the aesthetic of the artist they were doing the work for.
Welcome to /m43/general!m43 sisters, we are known to be adventurers at heart. While Wormfags and Snoybois debate mtf charts and x-trans rights, we go out and explore the world around us. Capturing its beauty within m43's infinite depth of field. In this edition: I am back to m43. I've sold my huge bulky Nikon Zf after realizing that I'm way too feminine to lug around such a huge piece of Japanese technology and I got meself a brand new OM5 Mk. II.I also got a GX9 to live out my closeted homesexual street photography urges. Picrelated is my sane financial choices in one picture. Enjoy!A list of m43 youtubers you should totally watch if you hate yourself:Landscape (leaves and rocks):Guido v. (OM1) - https://www.youtube.com/@GuidoVanDeWaterHenry Turner (OM5) - https://www.youtube.com/@HenryTurnerphotoWaterfall Joe (OM1) - https://www.youtube.com/@WaterfallJoe/videosIan Worth (OM1) - https://www.youtube.com/@ian_worth/videosComment too long. Click here to view the full text.
I hope your wife doesn't find this thread, lol.
>>4490099She knows he posts here and has read it all. Hence the divorce.
>>4490062Because it's like the Crate GX15R of camera systems
NEXT THREAD:>>4458547>>4458547>>4458547
>s this the POWER ofhello where are you
>it now cost $20 to develop film only with no prints or scansAHHHHHHHHH
>>4411869its really not that hard to develop it yourself
Why the fuck is it more expensive to develop black and white film as opposed to color film? That's fucking insane.
>>4489845C41 is a standardized process that is uniform regardless of film speed (pushing/pulling aside), while b&w can be done different ways to achieve different outcomes and also requires different timing for different film speeds (unless your lab is doing rodinal stand dev I guess). More complexity = more expensive, while every lab has a machine that basically does c41 for them.
>>4489845B&W dev is done by hand, and C41 film is done by machine automation.I've seen a moderate rise of C41 B&W film being sold locally this past year or so. Local shop has sold a lot more XP2 Super than even HP5 according to the owner. The film is like an extra two bucks per roll but costs 2/3rd the dev cost at the same store so it's actually more economical.Besides, think of how much time it takes you to dev a single roll at home. Even if you've done it a hundred times and have all the chems ready to go, it still takes you a good 20-30 minutes to go through everything all the way to drying. I'm not surprised shops are charging $20 USD a roll to have an intern spend a solid half an hour on a single job.
>>4489852also that's the reason you never give your BW film to a lab because they don't know what look you want and they just use $something. if you shoot BW film you have to develop yourself to keep full control of the process. otherwise you could just get a digicam and shoot the monochrome JPG profile. same amount of control - just less cost.
How do you do it?I've been getting more active with my photography for a few years now and it's starting to get messy.On my hard drive I have my pictures in different folder by year and month, so it's quick and easy to just clear out my SD card.Then in Lightroom I pick the images I like and want to use and put them in a collection. However usually I make one collection per "set" and very rarely group any of the collections. Only have a group for shooting at protests, one for portraits and a few for some multi-week trips I took that resulted in multiple photo-sets.In my context a set is just a collection of images with a similar theme or from the same day that I post on social media or send to friends or whatever.Having an ever growing list of collections seems like a problem waiting to happen, especially if I want to go pro one day, so I was wondering how you guys manage it? The only thing I've seen online that might be a good idea is maybe grouping my collections by location to make them a little easier to sort through when I end up visiting the same place multiple times.
>>4489705Year > Session / EventMonthly doesn't really make sense to me (and is just bad if you ever can't recall which month an image was from)I do usually have two Snapshot folders for everyday type stuff, one for fist half of the year and second for last halfI'll usually have a Misc folder too for files I'm tinkering around with (think studio comparison tool)All exported files end up within the same Session folder so I don't really have to bother with viewing through LR/C1 if just browsing finished images.Switching to individual session folders instead of importing to one massive LR catalogue has been the best change I've made for both organization and workflow.Trying to link / group up "similar" images from different sessions always seemed like a waste of time to me.
I export to a google docs folder called export. Photos are named YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM:SS.I print maybe 2 dozen photos a month and put them in a photo album in order with labels, that's my real organization method.
>>4489728For reference, I shoot ~150k frames a year
>>4489728>>4489731I shoot at a considerably less volume than you, but I use year > session/event as well. I find it easier to recall and fetch photos past photos this way.
binder full of negatives (as well as a box with a bunch of older ones I haven't scanned yet), and then digitally all the scans are just in one big folder on an external and the ones I bother to edit/convert to jpg live in folders by yearits probably not the best system
2025 Halloween in Itaewon and Hongdae, Korea10/31~11/1Out of focus edition1/100And if you have some from the halloween you would like to share, please do.
>>4482910Nice one
>>4487585hah thanks
>>4480507Stop being mean.
Been years since I posted here, photo dump.
>>4489438>1 photo of a gimmick shot.Nice dump, loser.
>One photo>DumpIt makes sense, this being /p/ and all
this is his wowzer shot btw, like the strongest of the bunch, the first blow eh. a cocksucking snapshit.
>>4489591but it’s black and white with grain so it’s art
>>4489438Cool pic. Nice thread.
Give it straight to me, /p/. Are Leica M cameras a meme? Or are they worth it?Mainly for portraits, and rock and leaves.
>>4481817The niche:>3rd generation holocaust survivor who lives in a western metropol and hates it
>>4489483>artificial countertopsLol. Lmao even
>>4489594More like omegalul, eh Tim?>he doesn't even send catalogs to himself, what a poorfag
The glass is decent and crisp, but the price for that is extortionate.
>>4489598Moophurt lmao
>shot using smartphoneC&C plox
>>4489486>>4489487>>4489489>>4489491>>4489492crazy vibes need a crazy angleall these shots are straight on horizontalget on the floor.get on your assyou want a filthy shot? then roll in the mud to get the shot.its all too sanitary.
>>4489554dumb
>>4489555cope and seethe.you will never take a good photo.
>>4489559u know u can just hold a camera low right instead of getting on the ground. how dumb are u bruh
>>4489554your highlights look awful, i'll ignore the green tint because its nostalgic to me being y2k af.your subjects and angles are boring and I dont know what youre trying to say other than "I AM OBSESSED WITH AESTHETICS" and vibes. Its half hearted and you dont commit enough at all to anything at all.you have to get lower or get high. get close or dont bother.
Continuous LED lights are terrible for photography.This is an approximate $2400 600watt continuous LED light.At a distance of 2 meters, it can manage 1/60 iso400 f8 at full power.That converts to f4.8 iso400 1/200 if you wanted to get up to a barely usable photography shutter speed.And if you want to go down to iso 100, you are now around f2.8So $2500 gets you something barely usable on your lowest settings at approx 2 meters, any further distance and it wont work.And if you want to use any modifier at all its all over and you wont even be able to have enough light for a photo.In before just shoot at iso 1600, no thanks, im not spending $2400 just to have to use iso1600.
>>4488580Yes, they're made for video. Of course there's going to be better options for photography
Bought it because it was more or less it30 but without the need to buy a riserThought the off camera shooting was going to be a gimmick - a fun one, but a gimmick nonethelessIt's not.It's THAT good even with a rather small range of 18m.Just by holding it in your second hand you can get so much creative control.A cheap selfie stick with a tripod and maybe an offbrand diffuser will genuinely let you have studio quality light for incredibly cheap and rather small package.
>>4488982Why the hell would think off camera flash would be a gimmick?
>>4488983nta but>/p/
>>4488983NTA but I havent bought a transmitter despite theoretically knowing the power of off-camera flash. I envision my first outing with a transmitter, speedlite and softbox to be groundbreaking and literally make me cum from the results.Anon probably had the same revelation.
show me what kind of weird shit you can make with photoshop
bluring my photos using jpeg artifacts
