New to 4 Chan my name is Olivia
just b urself olivia there's no rules except post photos, talk about photos, and don't talk about not photos.
>>4510489bro why is there spaghetti all over the place here
Hi Olivia,Welcome, you will probably come across some very bitter and mean people here and realise 4chan isn't the place for you.However, if you are determined to stay, stick to the /RPT/ (recent photo) threads, or other threads specifically about photos. Most of the most active threads on this board are unfortunately about buying camera gear or having arguements.Good luck
>>4510464>tldr: just shoot photosWhen you take a photo, try to have a clear subject in mind, or at the very least intresting elements. When you take a photo, what looks good to you in person will not always translate to an image as it has to flatten and compress it, and you lose a lot of the small details as a result. I'd reccomend going through the threads and looking through them, avoiding the arguments and gear talk and focusing on the pics themselves. Find ones you think look nice and interesting, and think about what you like about them. Lastly, the most important advice of them all, go out, take photos, and just have fun
Thanks for the advice
Well, to start, I take the photos with a Sony Cybershot from almost 15 years ago. The maximum size it supports is 10MP, and although I can adjust the ISO and shutter speed, I still can't properly handle the aperture (or I can't find it). So be honest with me, how terrible am I? Besides taking a lot of photos in the dark.
>>4510484On that pic the subject is too dark, if it was daytime the shot would be goodBasically the picture is set up to draw your attention to the statue but its all dark so you cant see shitWhat lens did you you use? You probably just needed a fast lens and a f 1.4-f 2.0 setting for that shot
Subject, lighting, composition -that's the triangle of photography. Your pictures fall short in all of the above. The subject is boring and there's no regard of the light or framing.
>>4510484>What is missing from my shots?Soul because chilangos don't have any
>>4510484Look at the overall shapes, and the subject should be most prominent or draw the eye, squint your eyes and see the shapes, what stands out.You totally fucked the first photo, is it a troll? You should have had the statue with a sky background but you've made it look like a dalek.
>>4510484>>4510486> What is missing from my photos?Photography (especially when not staged) is the art of curating what you want to appear in an image. You are doing this backwards. Ask yourself: what was the ideal image I wanted, and what is getting in the way?> I have a digishitMost people will probably tell you a good photographer can make great pictures on any camera and they are right. However, I don't think anyone can become a good photographer with any camera. First reason is, if you don't have full manual control over your camera, you won't learn the technique necessary to achieve your vision. Second is, to become a good photographer, you must enjoy the act of taking photos regardless of the result, which is very difficult on a digishit. Third reason is, nobody including yourself will take you seriously with your digishit, and that's important because any good art need someone with enough confidence to create their vision and put it out there. > Am I a talented photographer?The honest answer is, I don't know, but realistically no you're a clueless amateur. Not because your photos suck, but because you posted only 2. Exceptional masterpieces aside, photography works in series, like poem do. Each image work to strengthen a general vision you want to communicate. By posting those 2 photos, you show me that you have not put a tenth of the effort needed to communicate something interesting through your art. You must do better. Make a series of at least 10 photos that communicate a concept or vibe you can explain in 1 sentence. Then we can see if you're good at photography; for now you're not even fully committing to the medium yet, just making the least possible effort using it.
https://sipacontest.com/galleryhttps://www.youtube.com/live/MblSCCiWRI0>start 55:55Aside from the "art" (most are obviously photoshopped and have minimal use of AI) this has to be the most pathetic live money laundering event of rich trust fund baby millenials and gen-z I have ever seen.So you just have me believe these are average people interested in photography? Most of these contenders come from 3rd world nations and can purchase high level equipment and have the free time and leisure to do so. If anything these are the upper class of India, Russia, South Africa, Argentina etc.Either way you can see the host just wants to wrap things up from the very beginning. What ever those ladies (in black dresses handing out the awards) behind the scenes are doing is beyond me. When leaving the stage they always need to scratch their butts. Even they dont care for the award winners and dont even give these trust fund babies a glance when handing over the award, which is funny.In regards to skill set, there are truly nice and lovely photos being presented. Some of which would make me happy having them in my portfolio. Others... seems like random images I can find on some tourists smartphone.Question to /p/:Could you do better?Which categories would you excel at?What happened to /p/ weekly or monthly contest?Why dont we try to get an image from /p/ to the upcoming Siena Awards?
>>4503853I have no proof this is AI. Just my opinion.P.S does anyone have the feeling one's own mind is getting lazier/dumb due to frequent AI use? e.g prompts like "correct this sentence" etc.? I feel like I cant even structure my own sentences anymore OR I doubt myself alot more than before when writting emails and posting.
>>4504267>P.S does anyone have the feeling one's own mind is getting lazier/dumb due to frequent AI use? e.g prompts like "correct this sentence" etc.? I feel like I cant even structure my own sentences anymore OR I doubt myself alot more than before when writting emails and posting.>using A.I.>not thinking for yourselfYou make Trixie sad.As for your mind getting dumber: use it or lose it. You should know, if you don't already: a mind is a terrible thing to waste.
>>4503622Sorry but I need to bump this thread so everyone can see the strawpoll which will end in about 1 month.https://strawpoll.com/7MZ0kRk7rgo
>>4503386better quality version of the photo posted by OP:https://img.artphototravel.com/large/TxDr3a58vGGFBYtLhwZuBGhgliak3QTj.jpgfrom here:https://sipacontest.com/gallery/photo/303908It looks like OP took a screenshot of the photo instead of downloading it from the website or even instagram: https://www.instagram.com/p/DULdSPTClop/Best quality I could find, from the photographers IG:https://www.instagram.com/healey_photo/p/DPN2YTtDFWW/This guy seems to be a storm chaser, he's got a lot of photos of storms and weather stuff.
>>4510789I like the blurry one that OP posted better.
Why are they so bad at taking photos?
>>>/pol/535690276cANON confirmed P*lish, he posted the same picture in the OP here before
>>4510978>only one person knows about RogozinFaith in the phony "landings" is at an all time low
only a true betamale shaves
>>4511033As the American empire collapses I am sure they will admit it on an official level as well, ensuring that any semblance of national pride is eradicated.
>>4511035a true gentleman, you mean
Predator and Prey Edition?>Previous Thread Image Limit Reached >>4494783
How do i into bird/reptile/aquatics ?Like what’s a good starter kit
>>4507097Sony, big expensive lens, and then start an insta account and take bokeh shots of the same animals in your immediate area over and over and make sure to get that good shot of you holding the big lens.
>>4501111>using the old fim camera inherited from grandpaeven though the picture is nothing special I'd still say it's based, good for you
>>4504546>>4504552the naturalistic colors were way better. why are you (y'all?) saturating your shots to high heaven?>>4504554>I just push the saturation and brillance sliders in Anseldo that less
>>4503692>I can't do that, it would be too fakewhat did he mean by this?
Photos taken by the Soldiers who were there.
>>4508294>best thread on 4chan atm seconded. that mortar at night photo is gonna become by lock screen me thinks.
>>4510847Maybe I should make a second ??
new thread here>>4510927>>4510927>>4510927
Picasa was a treasure trove of Korea and Vietnam war photos from random vets. I saved a lot of them and have them on a drive somewhere.
>>4511007serve them up please:)here >>4510931
I think it's neat. Finally not a re-release of something or gimped to make room for something new.
>>4510537The x100 does not have a FF lens, retard.
>>4510820Yet why would you get one over an even cheaper RX1RII besides slightly better battery life and quicker to use EVF? The lens was already underspecced for the 42MP sensor, so no reason to even bother with 61MP. At least the II had something neat with the variable optical low pass filter which was gone on the III, and it still had a tilt screen.
>>4510828Mark II Sony bodies were an unusable janky mess>>4510820I would gladly get a firesale RX1rIII for $2k
Fix the dust issue, put in a newer sensor, and boom: lx100iii.
>>4508975I like it except the motorized zoom. Slow and long-term the mechanisms are a lot less reliable.
Just dumping these sunset pictures i took on my HMD fusion phone the other day.
last one. hope you enjoy anons.
A Humble Noob's Film RollsPresented Chronologically
>>4510029Diffusion filter examples I've seen look really good, so it's worth a try, but you have to make sure you pick a really high quality one instead of a cheap one. I'm an Aus anon too and I'd love to stick with film, but the prices of film itself and the development costs are insane for just a regular 24exp roll, so it's more of a special occasion thing for me now.
old non-gear /p/ being held up by one Newcastle / Maitland anon with a pentax pas i assume?
>>4510689my sister in law's nikon fm :--) she lent it to me while she's overseasI have more film to develop, very exciting probably not going to get a film pas since I like ILCs. thinking of getting a 20mm lens... can't get wide enough with 24 and 28 is painful.are you on the east coast? I think I saw someone post pics from coffs harbour a few weeks ago
>>4510125i've been contemplating selling my digital gear to get more film stuffI really like the aesthetics of film. I usually use film LUTs on my digital photos but that doesn't get the whole picture... film really glows. a medium format film camera and lens is a lot cheaper than a digital one, too :-)
>>4510729those are fun to shoot with. you're on the verge of something, keep shooting and posting. thanks for the pics
>>4510692cool pic :)
After much positive feedback to the /m43/ general I re-thought the whole thing. Why limit to one mount if the defining defining feature is the aspect ratio?Let's have a /4:3/ general for all the based chads who shoot in 4:3 ratio!Welcome: Everyone whose system shoots natively in 4:3!Also welcome: Those who accept the superiority of 4:3 and crop their 3:2 (cringe) images to the 4:3 (based) ratio.Not welcome: Everyone else.Topic of the first /4:3/ general ever: Are 5:4 and 6:7 based, too? Or are they just tryhard?Discuss!
>>4505346tripod or long shutter speed, the OM image stabilization works really well Here's a video of Robin Wong taking very nice looking night time photos, using the same camera model as you, with a 12-40mm F2.8 though. That's on 200 iso though so you can put the ISO a bit higherhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcf8AZod1Zg
>>4508342>tripod or long shutter speedshould've clarified, looooooooong shutter speed on tripod or just a longish shutter speed handheld
>>4508342>>4508343I actually just bothered to go out down the street and give it a quick try myself because I haven't actually tried using my OM at night and the results are definitely not bad at all, 200 iso and 1/13 shutter
I saw a gh7 but it was too expensive, gh6 is also still out my budget
>>4510632Consider ghb
Guys, I think I have a problem>be me, chatting in discord with the boys>get @-tagged with cyberpunk exoskeleton camera rig bullshit on youtubebro imagine pulling this out at your kid’s soccer game>mentally catalog my current loadout>A7CII on neck lanyard, daily driver>A6700 on hip, first camera, still good>A7RV on other hip, srs bzns cam>A7IV in tactical dick-carry>extra lenses packed in pouches around back, artsy vintage bokeh grenades>GoPro mounted to forehead for BTS>Instax Evo concealed-carry>already optimized all my gear for hip carry>glass is heavy>lots of glass is heavier>actually exoskeleton sounds financially and medically responsibleComment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>4509796>What on earth do you mean, friend?Rather than swap lenses on 1 body, they want a 2nd body so they can use a 2nd lens without having to swapSensible, I do the same often
>>4509676/thread
>>4509695Robocuck
>>4509798Convenience, speed, ergonomics come at a price
>>450978 #Since when was the last time you went out for a photo walk with exactly one camera, I’ll bet you had at least 3 on you.
And god damn is it rich. There is such high contrast and strong vivid colors compared to the pentax i used before. Picrel was shot with kodak ultramax 400, and i absolutely adored the results. Never have my pics with ultramax been this vivid. I'll post another picture itt to show the difference. Anyhow, the camera gets this funny glare on the bottom. I dont quite know how to feel about it. And I dont know if its fixable. I got this camera second hand, so this was the first roll I shot with it.
>>4510508You would never in a million tries be statistically better than random chance at picking out film photos scanned at a lab by different lens coatings, dont lie to people like this, pretending there is somehow a difference in the end result
>>4510514there is measurably a better result since coatings allow for more transmission by reducing internal reflections. coated lenses are significantly higher contrast than uncoated. coated lenses also suppress flares and ghost images to a significant degree.
>>4510508I havent checked the condition of the camera, I'll do that! Kindof scared its going to be too expensive however.
>>4510518Thats not what I said and not related to the thread question. But nice chatgpt reply
>>4510514I would have to agree. Lenses do have different color (top picrel), but it's usually pretty marginal. Bottom picrel (which is definitely not mine), is the same lab and operator, just on different high end scanners, which shows just as much difference.>>4510436Film stock gets you like 90% of the look in terms of color and contrast, but some lenses are definitely a bit contrastier and sharper. The lens looks mighty soft on the Pentax, what is it and what aperture are you using it at?Assuming this is the same lab, machine, operator, I would be curious about differences in metering / exposure between the cameras. There's some amount of "correction" a lab will do, so while the scans might look similar in terms of exposure, shooting under or over could lead to the difference in contrast.For reference:>Underexposed = Thin negative, saturated colors, strong contrast. Colors can become rather inaccurate if severely underexposed (more than a stop or two).>Exposed at Box Speed = Natural to somewhat strong colors depending on film stock. Good for general purpose landscape shooting when moderate contrast and color is desired, though a little extra exposure typically won’t hurt. >Overexposed = Dense negative, soft colors, subtle contrast. This is often used for portraits to keep soft skin tones. Nearly endless details can be pulled out of the highlights, though tonal separation in details becomes narrower. https://www.alexburkephoto.com/blog/2019/12/17/pushing-the-dynamic-range-of-color-negative-filmIf you got your negs back, you could take a look and see if there is a noticeable difference in density.Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
new to analog stuff, just wanted to ask if anyone has a method for digitising hi-8 thru the trv67. i know there's a method by using the rca converter but i can't seem to find the cable shown in the image (video + mono audio), only stereo rca cables.even just the name of what this cable is officially called would really help
>>4510468Isn't it just a mono RCA cable with male ends on both sides? Also, you can get a converter for stereo RCA to mono I'm quite sure.
>>4510471not sure if i'm retarded but i can't find anything that fits that on amazon.i've been looking for a while but it's all just rca or at best, something like a splitter that's male to female.
>>4510471nevermind, finally found what i was looking for. ended up purchasing an s video cable and a seperate male to male stereo to mono rca and the adaptor.thanks for ur help
Do you scan your own film? If so, what’s your setup? Basically everything <$400 looks like crap from what I’ve seen.
>>4502991Supposedly the Nikon Coolscans were really good but I don’t think they’re manufactured anymore. Plustek make a few but I only seem to hear mixed things about those, and the professional Noritsu scanners cost literally thousands of dollars. Is it even worth having a scanner set up at home or is it best to get a pro lab with a really high quality scanner to process your negatives?>t. film newb
>>4510347Ideally when negs are scanned, you scan them flat and export to a TIFF or Raw file to give more flexibility in post. If your exposure was slightly off, slight crop, things like that. The problem I ran into when I got started was labs charge out the ass for Tiff files and high res scans. Basic JPG scans are dog shit typically and leave little room for you to fix. I grabbed a cheap second hand epson scanner and its definitely not perfect, nor incredibly sharp. It's enough for my IG or Flickr posts but when I print my book later this year I'll go back and rescan with my digital camera. Attached is a scan of gold 200 on 35mm that looks just fine on a phone screen.
>>4503074here's my setup btw. i haven't looked in over a year, but i think the 360 is one of the better film holders if you want to do both 35 and 120
>>4510347There's also primefilm which I basically never see discussed here. I have an XA+ and now that I've used it for about a year and a half I'm pretty satisfied with it. Excellent slide scans, very good negative scans as long as the exposure is reasonable. Night shots and meh exposures don't always work with the inbuilt neg inversion profile so I end up scanning those as positives and then doing inverting/editing in darktable. The only complaint I have is that the automatic full roll scan feature has never worked for me, but they could be because I'm using busted 70s SLRs and not a digital brained plastic Nikon with an electronic frame advance mechanism that would make frame lines computer consistent.
>>4510473>Describe scanner>Forget to attach imageYeah anyway picrel is 800T that I scanned so you can judge for yourself
