I absolutely hate setting up and using a digital scan rig... it takes an obnoxious amount of setup time and space: >is the backlight on/charged>is the macro lens focused>is the tripod + riser putting the camera level + the right distance to the film>is the mirrorless camera charged + ready to goThinking of 3D printing a DupliHood or something but not sure how much better that really makes it. This is all feeling like a very autistic waste of time. Even most labs, if you pay for "high-quality scans" they're still super doctored / not close to raw. I'm not going to pay 1 million dollars to buy a ticking time bomb dinosaur like a Coolscan 9000. I would instantly preorder a Knokke if it did 120. Does anyone have any recommendations
>>4502801Just get a flatbed scanner. They kinda suck for 120/35mm, but you can get them to work well with a bit of calibration and all that.
>>4502801These are all such non-issues holy hell.>thinks flicking an on switch is difficult>doesn't have a charging station for their gizmos>focusing a completely stationary camera at a completely stationary object is hard somehow>obviously I need to HOMELAB a solution to these pressing concerns
>>4502801Isn't the setup usually just a one time thing and you can just scan all your frames?
>>4502861>focusing a completely stationary camera at a completely stationary object is hard somehowHow much do you do this? Every time you even slightly bump any part of the setup it mangles focus. Getting the camera on the same plane as the film is especially sensitive. >>4502865It's not really a one-time setup since you have to recalibrate it every time you use it which involves adjusting all or most of the fixtures.Leaving it up also takes up a lot of desk space
>>4502878I use my normal tripod and a free-floating backlight pane. I just have sufficent space on my table that I'm not tripping over everything.It takes me a whopping 90 seconds to fetch the gear out from their storage and set them in place. I've marked the points on my tripod I've found best to use with faint permanent marker so it's zero fuss going back to ideal distances/angles. If I were being really precise I'd get a 30cm ruler out since my lens gets 1:1 bang on from that distance, but I havent needed to do that since the first few setups.Idk what to tell you, I've never struggled like OP has. Maybe it's the lack of parkinsons or the fact I have a clear working space that isn't crammed in my Hong Kong-style bedroom. >every time you use it which involves adjusting all or most of the fixtures.Mark the adjustments like I have. It does save time.
I'm an amateur photographer, and last year i took some pics (november and december). Here are some of the ones i liked the most
>>4495798>>4495063> Most people don't mess around with the colours of film Although technically correct it's a misleading statement. If you shoot film routinely you will find out the colors are highly dependant on how the scan were made, and many film stocks will look like dogshit if you make them scan by a random shop that doesn't know what they are doing (harmann phoenix...). So yes most people don't edit because they don't give a fuck, yes when you open the jpgs from the shop in lightroom it's already over, but being involved in the color editing process is a big part of film photography in my opinion. And it's actually the same for contrasts, if you are satisfied by the midpoint the scanner from the shop automatically picked for your photos that's great, but if you want a bit of creative control over the image you cannot leave it to the machine.
>>4495009cool contrast >>4495010very blurry>>4495011cool but blurry>>4495012mehCool pictures but the sharpness is shit, are you shooting with an Ektar H35?
>>4495010blur adds to it i like it
>>4495009Oslo er en dass!
>>4495063RA4 printing a color negative is almost entirely a color editing process. You add or subtract individual levels of CMY filters to dial in the print color.
1/?This is the review of an OM-5 micro 4/3 camera. I am a full frame user, and I bought this camera to have a small, fun, attractive camera to take snapshits around town. I own or have owned a D850, Z5ii, Z6ii, basically every Nikon DXXX DSLR, D500, Z50, etc. This is my first M43 camera and I was not sure what to expect, so I am chronicling my impressions both for myself, and for other photographers who are looking for a small, fun camera. Ergonomics: This camera is outstanding IMO. For me the Nikon FF cameras are in this weird middle spot that is ergonomically uncomfortable for me. They are either too small or too big. The D850 and my D7500 fit my hand fantastically. I will always have a Nikon DSLR because they are so comfortable to hold and use. The OM-5 is smaller to hold than my Z5ii for example, and that gets it out of the uncomfortable middle ground. With the Z5, I’m always between holding it in front with all of my fingers, or just 3 – there isn’t really enough room for all 4, but with 3, it feels a little insecure. With the OM-5, three fingers fit perfectly. There is enough grip on the front and a great thumb rest on the back. The buttons are very well placed on the camera body for operation while shooting. Simply put, this is a very comfortable camera to hold and shoot. For reference, when I am walking around and shooting, I grip the camera the entire time in my right hand, and have a wrist lanyard for safety. This can be fatiguing with a larger DSLR (the D800 in particular had almost no thumb rest and it was agonizing to carry. The D850 is much better, but is just heavy and gets tiring on the wrist after several hours). The D7500 is extremely comfortable in this regard because of its blobmera shape and light weight. The Z series FF cameras are in the middle ground of just “ok”. The OM-5 was very good.TO BE CONTINUED
>>4502672Why did you choose an OM-3 of all cameras?
>>4502700A guy with a husky told me to get that one.
>>4502704>he did what his headmate saidjust because you dont take your meds doesn’t mean you have to choose to be a schizo, anon
>>4502679Gonna preface my response with the standard M43 hate: Shit cameras, shit lenses, blah blah, not really worth it outside of getting them dirt cheap and basically look like a phone.Anyway, with that formality taken care of, camera looks fine. The 40-150 is soft as fuck on the long end (and not really spectacular on the wide end) but is the cheapest tele you'll get for the system so it's not bad value per se. The pancake is a little fucky because mixing oly/pana bodies and lenses never quite works right, but it's fine. The pancake will be infinitely more useful just because it's not absurdly soft and slow like every M43 zoom.Oh wait,>$1000 USDFuck me sideways that's expensive. Don't do it anon. The body is like $400-500 at most, the tele is worth a whopping $80, and the pancake iirc is around $200. Classic boomer ebay mentality of "I know what I've got".
>>4502729Thank you anon, this is solid advice and I really appreciate it. On the price, this seller accepts offers, so I'm going to send one in for 800 (from summing up your itemized prices) and see what happens. I'm also going to contact them and ask if they will be interested in selling the body separately.
What's your favorite lighting, /p/? My favorite lighting is golden hour.
>>4497411>What's your favorite lighting, /p/?Cloudy days with diffused light.
>>4497411basic bitch taste>>4497559>>4497636>>4497862based
>>4497411in the shade on a sunny day, near the edge of where the shade meets sunlight also giant softbox
>>4497411What ever this is!btw >>4502365
>>4497936I bo-came
Sorry if this is the wrong place to post, but I might as well as here. I'm the type of person to never take pictures let alone pictures of myself. I want to make a dating profile and I need to take photos of myself. Any tips or advice on that as I feel like my photos look pretty bad but in the mirror I like how I look.
>>4502618Ask/pay one of your friends to use their nice camera to take good portraits of you and then also some of you having fun doing things or whatever
>>4502618>>4502623Bad advice. Pictures being too professional leads to one of two things>1) You get seen as a tryhard. Ick.>2) If you’re great looking, your profile will look fakeThe key is just to be good looking and then have someone else take normal (phone camera) photos of you to show that you’re not a loner taking selfies in the bathroom.
>>4502652>woman gets the ick>anon insecure about ickYou want a braindead npc whore and not a free thinking photographer gf. Sad!
>ctrl f: sqt>noneI'm going to start this one off with a stupider question than usual. Say you were asked to shoot a few wedding shots at the last minute and all you've shot before was rocks, leaves, birds and the odd landscape or building corner... what do? Asking for a friend of course but pls reply quick.
>>4502703>2) My first decent camera will be a Sony A6600, I did YT research and liked the IBIS feature. Presumably 4chan hates this camera and I wasted my money?I bought A6700 and having never used a Sony before thought it was going to be an amazing camera. The build quality/handling was nice, but on the firmware level Sony is about a decade behind the competition. It seems like they just stack features on without actually testing them and compatibility with other features. If you've never used a camera from another brand you probably won't appreciate how bad Sony's firmware is. Also, if you are just shooting in automatic modes RAW (to be edited on your computer later because Sony can't do in-camera RAW development) you won't be too bothered.
>>4502639I get rolling shutter at high speeds, do you know how phone turns out?
>>4502690someone make a new bread i want to see the effort post..
What is the cheapest camera I can get that's not worse than a phone camera?
>>4502860literally any as long as they have a 1" sensor and not huge amounts of zoom (compromised optical quality)
IG 4 /p/
>>4502475Buy an ad lil bro xD
>>4502475If all you are interested in is validation from other photographers it's okay, you're not gonna reach anyone else though.
Lets talk about Lars Tunbjörk. I’d say he is the house god for us Swedish photographers and wannabe photographers (me).There are a gazillion images and photographers from the US, from the early 1900s and onwards. Just by capturing 1980s and 1990s Sweden his work stands out, add to that his sharp witty eye, flash and surrealism.
just received the new print of landet utom sig.its very good, had a few good laughs, cried, the usual...the MF ektachrome(?) colors slap hard. wonder what sort of flash unit he used, must have been quite powerful.
>>4500446Post photo
>>4500497of me crying? not sure whats that gonna achieve
>>4499839I enjoy his style. Went to the exhibition at Kulturhuset while it was active and got a copy of the book as well.
>>4499934I'm in.I like a lass that can help me move my couch.
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
>>4502506cool photo Adrian James
>>4502506>>4502507>>4502479
>>4502506>>4502507>>4502510>>4502479
even some of the best photographers in the world also belive this https://youtu.be/j_ySV7O91LA?t=69so if you realized all of this by yourself then you're an artist
>>4502479
If I ask some college students to help me model for my photography do I have to pay them or is giving them the pictures for the instagram enough? What is your guys experience in this?
>>4495615>about 15kg overweightNigga here likes to fuck skeletons
>>4495625She looks to be about 177cm and about 72kg. 57kg is a perfectly normal weight for that height
>>4485103I used to hire college girls on ModelMayhem to model for me for $75/hr in the 10's but MM is dead because of OnlyFans. I don't know where you hire cheap models anymore.
>>4495615Lets see that recent photo shoot then
>>4494890>I only pay for people who are either above my skill level, signed with an agency and have a ton of experience or are willing to do full nude and have the 10/10 body to back it up1000% this. Had some of my best shoots working with paid, experienced models. they gotta have the portfolio and the varied looks i'm after too.The ones "willing to do full nude" need experience to back it up, more so than a regular model IMO. had a few absolute duds in my time, they thought just being naked and hot was the only prerequisite to doing this type of shoot. (granted I didn't vet them enough before booking, so that's on me) Expect that after you start posting your work, every 'travelling model' that sees your portfolio or EOI to slide into your DMs looking for some of that sweet, sweet GWC cash. 90% of them simply aren't worth it.
pocket sized full frame edition!Previous: >>4499288
>>4502721SEL35F18 was my favorite. Got it some time after getting my a6000 in 2016 and it was basically glued to my camera since.I tried the kit zoom, PZ 18-105, 20mm pancake and Sigma 19F28, but didn't like any of them except the Sigma because they all seemed pretty soft. Kept the Sigma for a bit, but didn't use it much and sold it too.There may be newer, better glass nowadays, but the 35mm was great. A bit too tight for a lot of shots though.
>>4502721Essential?Depends on what you want to photographBut as a beginner with no clear idea what i want to shootI got sigma 16mm 1.4 for milky way and low light with no flashTamron 18-300 3.5-6.3. Shit in low light but has good reach during daytime for animals birds and moon shots. Has 0.5mag for semi macro at 18mm but only 5mm working distance.Tamron 90mm 1:1 for macro. Is af lens so focus staking for static stuf is easy peasy. If you want more mag there are better lenses from laowa that are 2x mag native, cheaper but manual focus only, or you can use magnifing adaptors lenses like reynox or nisi or other apo attachments to your tele lenses to get cheap alternative for macro.I find myself using the tamron 80% of the time because of the huge focal range.Af and iq are ok for me. I switch to sigma or the 90mm only at night or when going for macro shots.Sigma 56mm 1.4 is regarded as the best portrait lens for aspcViltrox has an 56mm 1.2 lens which has some very good reviewsVitrox has a couple of excelent lenses. Just make sure you do your researchComment too long. Click here to view the full text.
a6400 or x-m5?
>>4501071when are they gonna make one of these with an EVF
>>4503610Why would you want it? It's e-shutter only.
Kodak Moment EditionPlease post film photos, talk about film photography, film gear like cameras, film stocks, news, and tips/tricks in this thread.Also talk about darkroom practices, enlargers, photo paper, techniques like dodging/burning, tools, and equipment related to enlarging, developing, and printing.Thread Question: What is the oldest camera or lens that you shot with? Would you use it on a daily basis?Previous thread: >>4497863
>>4504178
>>4504179
>>4504180There's a couple more I'd like to post but this will do.
You did it, you crazy sons of bitches! You did it! >>4504208>>4504208>>4504208
>>4503372If you’ve already posted here then it seems like I do speak for you.
I have way better gear but this little fucker has become a great companion for vlogging, even with all the drawbacksDo you have a favorite flawed piece of gear?
kino thread bump
>>4493840>>4494113Holy shit that's dope. Too bad the RX0 II is like $1000. If I could throw this exact setup together for like $300-500 I'd go do it right now.
It just feels so good to use
>>4473524What camera and how is it? I've been wanting a camera I can just put in my shirt pocket and use for walking videos.
>>4473524picrel, or maybe my Exacta Varex which is overengineered and cumbersome but goes with some great lenses.>>4493499God, I WISH.
Shot on a Bessa R2M with the 35mm f/2 Ultron and a mix of Fuji 100, Provia 100, and Portra 400.Developed at various labs in Tokyo and Osaka, scanned by myself.
>>4498008Thanks anon.Never really thought about that, or realized that I don't shoot at not-eye-level. I guess I just can't be fucked bending down and trying to compose and focus on a rangefinder. Although I do remember crouching down for this shot, but it's a pretty boring shot so it wasn't worth it I guess.
>>4490843I’m planning a Japan trip and am considering taking only a 35mm prime, in order to mitigate against decision paralysis and lens changing, and to maintain a consistent aesthetic. Did you ever find yourself wishing that you had brought additional lenses, or that you missed out on a significant amount of shot due to only having a 35mm?
>>4490843Ahhhh! Thats the leader of the Illuminati, runnnn! Fr though, these are impressive, and you somehow captured the reminiscence of 80’s Japan.
>>4502191In the beginning of the trip, after getting the scans back from the first couple rolls I shot, I found myself wishing I had a 40mm-50mm because the frame lines in the viewfinder weren't exactly what was being captured (probably because I wear glasses). So a lot of shots ended up having a wider angle than I had wanted it to. But after learning from those first rolls, I started to get closer to my subject and fixed the issue. After that point I never once thought to myself "I wish I had a little more zoom/compression on this shot". The 35mm was perfect for what I needed.
>>4502242Thanks, that’s very helpful. I’m usually more of a 50mm guy, but I reckon the tight spaces in Japan are more conducive to something a little wider, hence the 35mm. Besides, I can always crop a bit if needs be. Your photos are a very good argument for one lens being all that you really need for travel.
does anyone know the name of those editions?they follow the scheme:lower right corner:© "name photographer x"lower left corner:"name of the photo y"name of the photo must not necissarily follow the name the photo is known under at other publishers.i have another for Werner Bischof, "child in tears": which seems to be adressed as "crying child in orphanage", usually.ty.
photo has photographer and name might be editorial photo
