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
>>4480114Tickles my brain just right
Herzog :-)
>>4480848>>4480847The reddit beast
Post books about photography that you have enjoyed. This could mean but is not limited to:>Photo books>Guide books>Repair manuals>Camera history booksI will post what I have, if you want a .pdf of any of these I'm happy to put them up on catbox. I would love to hear what you all have been reading.
>>4480542https://files.catbox.moe/w7jixt.pdfhttps://files.catbox.moe/zgreyk.pdf
>>4480546Thanks!
>>4479680Feininger's The Complete Photographer and just about any Kodak photobook. They're oriented toward film photography, but many of the principles apply.
>>4479691Do you guys have any other greg girard's work. Like the photobooks of snack sakura or JAL-76 or whatever. Cant find it on anna or anywhere on the clearnet. I might be lacking sources, never checked darkweb.If its not available, i will be pleasantly surprised such nice work has not be leaked.
>>4480709Unfortunately I don't, I've also been looking for them. Unfortunately they're incredibly expensive and hard to find.
Sprawl 'em EditionPreviously: >>4470709
>>4474364Please stop posting this
>>4474364I think this is a nice direction but it would definitely benefit from blurred edges, I think it would enhance the “illustrative” effect.
>>4474364I just saw the way you’ve blended the neck with the white background. If the entire image was blended into the background that way, I think it would be a great artistic effect. Also, since it’s supposed to look “illustrative,” I think, sharpness is working against you. Softness could improve the aesthetic quality of the image.
>>4473351Did you use any flash or reflector so they are not underexposed? By the angle of the sun that guy should look like a nigger
>>4473341you missed a major opportunity not having them kiss so that the sun is between the two of them, and metering off the sunset>>4473342do you have bad knees or something? why shoot from eye level for this?>>4473351this is the best of the series>>4473465>>4473482these are fucking dope>>4473679everyone knows the key to great photos is to leave parts of the body sort of out of frame, not center OR use the rule of thirds, and make sure the horizon's not level
Maybe nobody cares and maybe I'm dumb to be surprised but I just want to stress how unglamorous actual pro photographers - and creatives in general - are.A lot of them are kind of losers. The image I had of photographers being cerebral, well-rounded and cultured guys has not proven to be true at all.I work in healthcare but I run a small business doing sound engineering work. I do very specialized work recording live concerts and classical music, usually working alongside photographers/video crews. A lot of them are honestly just fucking weirdos, at some point I probably was too. It's a bit like pic-related (apologies for normie meme)I mention this because prior to this I did much more paid photography gigs, but I got sick of it because a) the profit margins are a joke and b) I didn't fit in with the people there and they knew it. I'm not saying I'm better than them, but it was not the focused, intellectual crowd I hope for.An anon here once saidA that he got into photo-journalism because it is a field that vagrants and ne'er-do-wells can get into and I 100% see it.Older guys are good though, they're always helpful and polite.
>>4480033>forever alone pretends job is womanSad!
>>4479485>. My personal feelings on that industry is that it takes advantage of people that have a passion for it and squeezes them for everything they have until there's nothing left.that is all creative industries sadly
>>4474356dont really have much time to groom yourself when you have to be at x or y place by a certain time or before a certain time of day in terms of people traffic.
>>4480378>wake up to text message>"Anon we need you at this location in 40 minutes">rinse and repeat pretty much every dayI pretty much couldn't make plans since I never knew if they wanted me somewhere.
>>4474383Hello, I also play the piano and I know what you're going through. This is induced by bad technique in piano playing. Learn the taubman method and use it all the fucking time, not just in piano. Your hands will thank you for it. I implore you anon to please learn it if you care about your hands. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47w_6IKHA1M
Mirrorless is dead editionPrevious: >>4477478
>>4480473I'm the guy actually takes photos and knows OP is complaining just to complain A Z5II has a 2.5 stop lowlight AF advantage over an R5II and a +4 stop advantage over an a7RVIf it were actually an issue with lowlight AF, we should be seeing an awful lot more complaining about bodies like thoseOP just wants something to complain about since they don't actually take pictures or understand lowlight AFWhy are you mentioning unrelated apertures and an unrelated camera and even framing things dishonestly?
>>4480492It doesnt matter because nikon wont get anything in focus anyways. Its just a worse sony a7iii in an uglier body complete with equally bad color science.
>>4480509yeah thats true. niggors are just even more autistic snoys. no one ever said their r6ii’s low light AF held them back, but a lot of people say their z8’s shitty autofocus (and its better! than the zf and z5ii) missed great action shots that even a mid tier snoy would have nailed.
>>4480492>unrelated aperturesThere are no unrelated apertures when discusing Maximum Aperture Live View. If you want an f/8 exposure to have a chance at being in focus in low light you're going to get it faster and more accurately by focusing at f/1.8 on a z50>unrelated cameraBecause like some people here, I don't read a spec sheet and pretend I know things about a camera I haven't used. This is the camera I experienced this issue with first hand. I have had people here try to convince me that it was simply user error that focusing at 1.8 produced better results than at 5.6+ and the camera is fine in low light (because they read an EV chart saying it should be)>framing things dishonestlyThere's no dishonesty here. The Z8 didn't get this feature for no reason. Nikon felt it important enough to include in the firmware update, despite me seeing very few people online talk about it. It's a good feature. What's the harm in adding it? And ultimately, what is dishonest about wanting a feature on a camera that costs almost 2k, that you know through experience would aid you in your personal shooting environment?A knee-jerk "you're a retard" response to a genuine concern over interest in a feature is worth far less than an on-topic complaint.
>>4480482A few years back I bought some seats from an old Mercedes and they had the original first aid kit still attached underneath, and I sold that for a few hundred dollars online. You can get insanely lucky with used shit sometimes.
I'm killing another gear thread to get some advice on editing. I think I'm getting better at framing (?lol) but I'm colour retarded. Here are some samples of the last snapshits during my holidays so fags can re-edit them and snuggly post a better version of them while I try to understand why I'm retarded
Frankly, why bother? Might as well enjoy the flaws that come with those cheap films.
>>4480121>>4480123These ones have a magenta cast.The rest seem mostly fine.>>4480132>shot on film then just leave them honestlyand they all look coherent imo which is a benefit in a photoseries I can’t give you any advice on color correcting film, not my wheelhouseI don’t know if there’s a way to do it chemically or what and it seems redundant to shoot on film but digitally color correct. again, why bother?
>>4480121WEll, it's not bad OP, not at all. You're probably picking up a bit too much blue in your scans, or maybe its in the film, doesnt really matter, & yeah there's some magenta tinting on a couple as noted, but nothing is so out of whack its a big problem here. If you want to dip a toe in, pop a curves adjustment layer on em, and chose each channel individually instead of all RGB together. Take the blue line, click a point off to the side of the upper end of it and drag that point around a bit, and look at what its doing to the amount of blue in the bright areas of the image. Then click another point near the bottom end of the line and move that around, & you'll see the amount of blue in the dark areas change. You can tweak and tweak until you get some pretty natural looking effect, then notice the shape of the line you made and how it relates to the shilouette of the greyed out blue distribution map underlying the line. Do it with every color and after a while you'll notice a pattern that you can emulate right away as a starting point, so you don't have to spend so much time starting from 0. If you're using lightroom, there's one more odd easy tip I'd give ya regarding blue as a structural color under the calibration tab. It's doing some very different things than a simple color control. Tweak it and watch your outdoor images come alive.
>>4480133>>4480255That wasn't supposed to be a jerk off thread so I'm kinda flattered thanks anons>>4480261>>4480329True I could leave them untouched, but most pics are taken on overcast days which create a white haze, here's the original of the train for instance. When you put them side by side I feel like I've completely overdone the colour correction and my edit looks like a cheap HDR render idk>>4480348Thanks for the details
On the other hand sometimes the film looks completely fake, here's the "original one" (original = colours chosen by the lab) for the boat. The red looks unreal but I swear it was very red IRL
God this photo by Pedro Martinelli makes me feel things you wouldn't believe. Ah, the open twisted road, cool breeze, bike, sun intensely shinning after a strong rain and thus giving the whole atmosphere a mysterious aura. You can see nothing but the road, you want to drive away from all of the shit, there is only road, all else is black. >"I licked my finger and stuck it in the air. The wind was coming from the south. From the same direction my life was heading."-anon on /lit/, post No.24705860God I love photography so damn much. There is a whole damn novel in this photo.
>>4471657i think it would be better in color with more light
>>4473388What composition was used for this photo?
>>4479826I'm gonna search up Pedro.
>>4471677>"They could be here"
>>4479936Thank you for supporting 4chan
Long Portrait is Long EditionPreviously: >>4474514
>>4479863thank you ...
>>4479863WHY DO YOU LIKE THE NAME ZACH SO MUCH
>>4479863>>4480046I can't tell which autist is which anymore
>>4480134Zach doesn't speak like this >>4480046Real Zach has always been a generally calm autist
>>4480244Zach has also never been a tripfag, so I don't think thats the real one.
What's the appeal of this photo do you think that made the editor to choose it for promoting an exhibition?
>>4479832the good composition is pure chance caused by taking dozens of similar dogshit photos so that one may turn out alright. by no means an artistic choice. it's an O.K. photo but that's it. It could've been taken by an 17 year old who just went out to give street photo a shot for the first time
>>4479851The alleged Palmstranden shots that you all base this stupid theory on were actually done in Yalta.
>>4475178i like leica ms and joel meyerowitz but i cannot figure out why someone would feature this photo. there's nothing to look at
>>4475178>leicaLooks like it was taken with a cheap android phone.
>>4479851Double-cringe.
It will rain all week. How do you approach shooting outside in the rain? Do you trust the weather sealing?
>>4479955No a new one we have never seen before.
>>4479959>>4479917
>>4479961Okay, so you are not the real zach. I doubt he would have purchased a 4chan pass either. Huge fail.
>>4478109I take the D4. It will be fine.
>>4479962Well it'll have to be a later image.
Three Color Gum Printing 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 enlarger do you own and do you do more color or b&w prints?
X-ray damaged Pheonix II basically just turns everything blue and yellow.The colours of this place in person were white and red lol
NEW >>4482671>>4482671>>4482671
>>4482672>130 images, not even page 10Why?
Can anyone suggest a printing service? Looking for 18x24 for now - but may branch out to other sizes soon.
How do we store our photos? I use the unlimited photo storage that comes with Amazon Prime, but I'm thinking of switching to a RAID hard drive instead.
>>4477273I had free file sync forever and never used it. Then I used it once and now I use the shit out of it several times a day to keep aaaaall my crap sync’d properly across machines, internal drives, externals, backups, network drives, everything. I’ll use it to check old file transfers & make sure they were completed & nothing fell thru the cracks, or catch old versions on old backup drives it’s tits
>>4475794Flash NAS for storage then I backup to external HDDs occasionally. I do video so I need the extra storage but having flash for mainline storage is so much more responsive. And if you are doing only photos, just a regular big SSD is plenty. 4TB can hold almost 60,000 61MP RAW files.>>4477272>what do you do other than format the backup drive and copy everything to it?This is exactly what I do once a year to two backup drives. I like the idea of syncing but I'm too disorganized so I just dump everything on them and promise myself "I'll sort it out later"
i just put mine in google drive
>>4477272I sync my PC files to NAS with synology drive
>>4479817True, but I keep them in a separate hard drive as well. Don't be doing weird shit with my name alright.
Brace for my third world tough environment cope thread >there's IP-rated gaming mice>there's $200 chineseium smartphones with IP69K ratingsIt seems like it's a fully reasonable thing to want to know just how well the stuff you want to buy holds up against the elements.. especially professional cameras >Go to purchase $6000 "pro body camera">Canon"Dude, please trust us! The Canon EOS R1 is weather sealed! Because our marketing division said so! We don't have any proof of this, or any testing, but please trust us bro look at our brochure look at our website bro it's weather sealed bro please bro">Nikon"broooo it's the Nikon Z9 bro we sealed it just like our D6 bro remember DSLRs??? Remember how tough those were???? Yeah buddy you know you can trust us come one just spend $7000 on this camera we are the wildlife brand!">SonyThey don't even try. DPReview turned a hose on the alpha 7 III and it died because there were literally no rubber seals in the battery compartment.Why do people do this? Do people actually spend tens of thousands of dollars on cameras/lenses that can't prove resistance beyond marketing teams telling you so? Why isn't the industry being forced to back up their claims?Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>4479049>You dont take good photos.crazy because i do, you however dont
>>4479057>uhm the heckin olympus kit lens has sharper pixels than every nikon lens ever madeYou just don’t take photos at all
i think leica is too expensivewhy would you buy a leica when they dont have autofocus or video?
>>4479864That's exactly why they buy it.It's just a manual focus lens in front of a big sensor.
>>4479072You only say that because I do, and you don't >>4479864Zach, we are talking about SL series Leicas, which do have (pretty good) autofocus and video, and IP54>>4479877Cute tarot card
is there a specific name for the type of photography that pau buscato and vineet vohra do?
>>4475276I believe around here we call them snapshits.
>>4475369Yeah, this
>>4475276This is a snapshit and nothing more. In fact most snapshits have more going on for them than this.Snapshits can have good colours, good lighting, good subject matter, high IQ and any combination of the above, but they normally only have one.This photo has none.
>>4475276this photo is funnyhahalike the ladder is not connected to the guyhahahahalol
>>4479845If even zach is out here clowning on you, it says something
>Same as M11>Only difference is EV1 has an EVF(same with Q3, SL3) instead of Optical Range Finder>9000 USDThoughts?
>>4477321how does this work when you edit your photo? does the photo editor add its own signature or does it add a second signature and preserve the first or what happens exactly
>>4477424They were already usable via live view or Leica's hot shoe EVFs
>>4477236Leica chads won
this seems pretty cool rangefinder was outdatedbut they should add autofocus next time
>>4477236I guess it's not bad but still a terrible value for money
