Aura.
our boy ken has branched out into youtube shorts (he needs the revenue for his growing family) and in a 30s short he gets his name in three times. that's the sort of brand dedication i expect from Ken "I paid for the sliders i'm going to use them" Rockwell
>>4521284>he needs the revenue for his growing familyWait, he still only has 2 kids and...ooohhhhhh
>>4521196The REAL unedited version
>>4522203Stunning bokay
>>4521280optical illusionthe gentleman on the left isn't under-exposed, he's just black
First post on 4chan. Not really a photograper, and is exactly underqualifed to be called a proper "photograper"Call me a faggot because this picture sucks or what ever, just tell me of its bad. Call it shit, ass, retarded I DON'T CARE. JUST SAY SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
>>4523008your photo sucks. hard. just accept it and move on. also unless you're the new henri cartier bresson which you are not there's no photo you can take that justifies a thread on its own. shoot series. and stop whining.
>>4512306>peopleThere are people in that shot?>inb4 phone for ants
>>4512280That looks like the Planet Express building from Futurama.
>>4512280Looks good>>4512288>random crop that contributes nothing /p/ is full of retards lol
>>4512288Checked.>>4523156Bumping your own thread won't make people look at it again.
How to fix your color science editionPreviously: >>4521485
>>4523654also could go 2cam and have different primes on both for faster switching
>>4523650some models fold better than others
>>4523675>almost 5 cmthat's thicker than a good chunk of cameras, and thicker than all the cameras I can think of which don't have a viewfinder which are the only cameras this would be useful in.
>>4523721that 1.8" dimension probably includes the projecting rail which slides into the tripod plate. Here's a pic mounted on Sigma BF which is 3.7cm thick including lens mount projection. The rubber in folded position would be slimmer than that body.Not an ideal solution for sure, I would prefer an EVF, but it opens up some possibilities for EVF-less cameras.
>>452365435mm dx does not breathe as focusing sensible pick for street
Hey guys, newfag here. Can you guys share some tips on how to take 85mm portrait photos like a professional? I don't have a camera though. Unless, you guys count smartphone as camera.
>>4522963>newfag thinks the focal length makes photos profesional lookingAnon I'm not even sure where to start with this bass ackwards thinking. Anything within in the 80-200mm range can give you bokeh-filled cummy yummy dreamy memey results with varying levels of perspective distortion.
>>4522963in real life majority of gains come from light, camera angle, wardrobe and backdrop. practice each of those one at a time to see how they change the effect.
>>4522979Hi, I fixed your shitty outdated image format into a modern one that is actually useful and can be scrubbed through. Kindly delete your animated gif immediately.
>>4522963First step is understanding what focal length does, and that's mostly giving you a certain framing at a certain subject distance, which will impact how the subject appears relative to the background. Picrel has some examples of framing with different focal lengths (and thus different subject distances). I like 85mm for 1/2 body to head and shoulders verticals, and head an shoulders horizontals. In your case with a phone, you should opt to stand farther away and zoom in. For most of the actual "look" that you're probably after, it's just lighting + processing. Your example reminds me a bit ofBenoit Paillehttps://www.behance.net/gallery/2345212/Stranger-Projectand Andre Josselinhttps://www.behance.net/gallery/53001729/With-Charleen-in-Barcelonahttps://www.behance.net/gallery/72390397/Caro-Lossberg-in-New-York-CityAlthough both of them mostly just use a 35mm lens. You could get Benoit's exact setup down below for under $800 probably, and maybe like $1k for a comparable Andre setup. Then just learn basic processing.Going back to your example, we can tell she's positioned in front of a very large light, like a window. We can see it in her eyes, and look at how soft the shadows are on the cheek. Then typical faux film processing like lifting the blacks, and applying a grain effect.
I've just realized that the upcoming solar flare will be actually (partially) visible near me. It will happen basically just as the sun sinks under the horizon but still visible. I don't have a solar filter, and they're ot in stock anywhere near me.Chatgpt says that I could fry my shit without one, what do you guys think?Gear: sony alpha 6400 and Tamron 18-300, obviously near the 300 range for this shot.Option b is there's an astrology store that sells filter inserts for telescope and I could somehow jerryr-ig it around the lens hood with some card board, painters tape and foam padding, but it's a bit of a bother to get it.
>>4522409>(partially) visibleThe interesting thing about eclipses is how they change the day to night, but that only happens in the path of totality. At the very edge of totality like 99% it's interesting too, but otherwise the moon taking a chunk out of the sun isn't terribly interesting or even noticeable if not paying attention.>Chatgpt says that I could fry my shit without one, what do you guys think?Yes - ever played with burning things with a magnifying glass?That's what you are doing with your lens/sensor when you point it at the sun.
>>4522409Don't point your gear at it. Wait until it's over and you'll be able to view a ton of photos taken by people with the proper equipment to do so.
>>4522436>The interesting thing about eclipses is how they change the day to night, but that only happens in the path of totality. At the very edge of totality like 99% it's interesting too, but otherwise the moon taking a chunk out of the sun isn't terribly interesting or even noticeable if not paying attention.Do you not think that this looks cool.I've even found location where it's setting into a nice looking mountain range>>Chatgpt says that I could fry my shit without one, what do you guys think?>Yes - ever played with burning things with a magnifying glass?>That's what you are doing with your lens/sensor when you point it at the sun.Yeah, but I was thinking that maybe with the setting sun it would bee much less powerful.>>4522438You could say that foe literally any photo subject apart from your family
>>4522466>Do you not think that this looks cool.>I've even found location where it's setting into a nice looking mountain rangeYeah, that's a cool photo, but the ones without landscape or clouds, just a sun with a bite taken out aren't worth it.
>>4522409Did it btw, no issues to the lense or the cameraI think people are just being retarded and pointing the camera at the midday sun for minutes
How to chose a soft focus lens for my nikon fm2? I'd like to keep it at max 400 euros second hand if it's possible. People get very different results depending on how they use it so it's hard to aim for a specific look. What I like from this thread:>>4519909>>4519431>>4519391Should I just get the EF 135 with a nikon adapter if I like this look? I've also seen some decent results from a lensbaby velvet 56, what's your opinion on it?
>>4522832Kenko MC soft looks kinda cool and very inexpensive. Lens design is a simple 3 element design similar to the cooke triplet/zeiss triotar. Softness is aperture controlled so no additional parts you have to worry about/lose.
>>4522843Great suggestion, thanks. I also found out the nikkor af dc 135 f2 has a defocus mechanism that is like the canon ef 135 but I have no idea if it's worth the price difference when i'm only interested in a heavy vintage soft focus look. It's out of my budget anyway.
>>4519457>Minolta VarisoftYet another lens to add to the list for my SR bayonet cameras
>>4519381I checked the work of Leonard Misonne and I was unaware it was possible to make such beautiful images with a camera. I'm aware large format and also his chemical process played a big role in getting those images, but is it possible to attempt a similar style using a 35mm film camera? What lens would fit best on F Mount?
No matter how many times I try or how long, no matter how many tutorials I watch on youtube, my photos invariably still look digital. What am I doing wrong?
>>4522469Anon setting aside all the shit-flinging in this thread, that's a beautiful exposure.
I miss those lil Kodak thumb scroller cameras.
>>4522624Well ty. I am also very happy with it.
>>4522634You can still buy them
>>4522624LMFAO
Nesecito información sobre la piedra de flamel alguien que me ayude a investigar sobre el tema o algo parecido no para boludeces es serio si
Hi, I did a short film, you guys might find it interesting. I hope you enjoy. it was shot on a GoPro hero 13https://www.yout ube.com/watch?v=RCrfiNsqFbk
interesting how /p/ changed. I'm just back after a good 9 years and I am astonished: back then this movie would have been destroyed beyond imagination. today I read a polite and rather constructive feedback. Maybe a good thing, that I and all the other nutheads from back then disappeared.Still I can't resist to give feedback (and I'll try to adept to the current manner, but that will have limits): I'll call that movie rather 'moving photography' than a movie. But ofc many arthouse cra.. ehm stuff is like that. Even under consideration of the limited pre-conditions it still violates the filmmaker's first rule: you shall not bore.The absence of any plot, the always same kind of framing, the perma-close-ups, the fish-eye-optic, the washed-out look, the under-exposed grading. all that is fun to look at ... for like 20 seconds.Fighting with limits in budget and possibilities should set the focus on the things, that cost no money but only talent. ... you know, when you got a million dollar of budget and you then produce a movie like that, it may be art. maybe. but if you work on no-bodget then for gods sake make your fucking job and entertain me.
>>4522541>the filmmaker's first rule: you shall not bore.who gives a fuck? have you never heard of slow cinema?
>>4519002I think this showcases impressive photography works. I really like how impactful your composition and contrasts are, in my opinion this is professional and neat. But as a film, it lacks some narrative to keep my attention.
>>4519215>>4522554>>4522631thanks
>>4522554To be boring is to stagnate and waste time, regardless of the work's pacing. If a face-paced work takes too long to pick up speed, it's boring. If a slow-paced work comes to a standstill for no discernable gain, it's boring. Whatever your intention, the point is to keep the viewer engaged.
Theme: CloudsAll photos must be taken during the current challenge month. No old or archived shots.Get creative and enjoy the process. Unique perspectives are encouraged!
Fuck the thread is still up I might as well shareI tried making a pinhole lens which is why this looks so shitty
I saw this while droving home from the grocery store yesterday. I'm still not satisfied with the photos I got because none of them can quite express how the clouds looked in real life - they had such volume and dimension to them, it was like seeing a bubbling angry tide coming in upside down and breaking upon the hills.
>>4520619Pretty cool it worked at all, let alone enough that we can tell sky, clouds, and a horizon of sorts.
Clouds around the eclipse
Ima filmmaker, I got into film photography about a year ago. I've always been drawn to telling stories, so instead of chasing perfect shots, I try to create images that feel like they're part of a larger narrative. I'm not sure what you'll feel looking at this set, but I'm curious to know what it makes you think.
>>4521521Feels soulless, like it's just a regular snapshit that was converted in post to black and white.
>>4521521>woman>chain>cheap umbrellaBit pretentious really
>>4521521Amateur opinion (as in, I casually browse /p/ every now and then and I'm in no way a professional photographer):- I would unironically crop it, I feel like there's too much empty space around the model that's kinda wasted with nothing interesting for my eyes to follow- I get the "she's chained, but wants to be free" vibe from it, which I find pretentious, although that's not necessarily what you had in mind- I think it would be nice to have some interesting shadow-play in the photo, so that the model (or parts of her, or anything else really) "pop" more, dunno if that makes sense?- I don't like her tattoo, but it's more of a nitpick really, the dress seems classy (would benefit from a bra though), but the tattoo kinda gives off a trashy vibe, YMMV - also fuck them shoes, would look better in sandals or with bare feet- ...and speaking of nitpicks, I'd probably edit out the carrying strap on top of the umbrella in post, the pitch black bit - all this empty space with a soft gray cloth and then wham, super dark line - eyes drift to it because it pops, but there's nothing (of excitement) thereI probably couldn't take as nice of a picture myself with my current, non-existent skill level, but I genuinely don't like it all that much.I'll still give you props for posting (kudos), because it's easier to criticise than to post something you've made yourself, so take all my shit with a massive grain of salt end of the day.
>>4521521i feel angry you're having me look at this bullshit. it feels fake and aimless. what did you think the story was with this image?
>>4521521I wonder if OP is still lurking? Prime example of no etiquette. Posts one (1) picture, gets valuable feedback, writes or posts nothing. By the way, no one even mentioned the key around the neck, that's just how bad the composition is. Muh symbolism, muh larger narrative.>Ima filmmakerlol
First time taking photosDon’t have a camera yet so used 3ds I think this one looks quite nice
>>4522349Performative, but cool.
>>4522380people here are a bit on edge about gear. if you don't want to be told you're performative, 1. use the recent photo thread if you are not posting a series and 2. don't be a tripfag.
>>4522381Ok ty im new here
>>4522349>>4522350both are cool but i really like the second one. the sun glare feels very 2000s. u have more?
I've only ever shot on film, looking to buy a dslr. What's all this other stuff, the CDs and other cables. Is it important I buy one that includes them? Or am I fine with the camera body, CF card and battery alone?
>>4522528NoYou need a camera body, a medium telephoto lens, a memory card, a battery, a charger you can get a card reader that plugs into your computer for 15$ at any Best Buy in the country
Shot this at Monza Circuit. What do you think about the composition/framing? Camera: Canon EOS R50Lens: RF-S 18-150mm F3.5-6.3 IS STMISO: 200Shutter Speed: 1/100sAperture: f/6.3
>>4515045This was the first attempt at a panning shot.I know it's bad, but there something i like about it
>>4515047you know what would be god tier? is if you could have the blur going behind the car.not sure how to achieve that, you'd need to pan first and then stop I guess?
>>4519406i don't think you would have the car very sharpI went back to Monza again for the Eurocup 3 weekend last week. 800+ shots, very few good. This is by far my favourite
>>4519406You could combine a panning shot with a zoom pull and get something close to what you're going for. Otherwise what you want is a night-time second-curtain flash shot with enough organic exposure time to get a drag of the car behind it.Both are things I will try on my next track day.
Moar?
ooh so pretty.. thread for me, I love flowers. are plebs allowed to post? I only have phone fotos.thinking of buying a D3200 aps-c and an 18-55mm though. can you guys give me tips on how to take good close up flower pictures with a real camera?
Nice thread
