Posting kino by photographer, Diane Arbus.
these photos feel weirdly predatorylike oooooh you look lower class I will capture you I guess she was doing it to make money but the "look at all the circus freaks" vibe just feels exploitative and grossI guess the stated goal here is "capturing candid reality" but it feels more like mocking those who are different.
>>4513350It’s degenerate AND they wanted big bucks, and thus took the shortest path which isnt exactly deeply thoughtful shit. Its like photography had a marvel/dc film moment. >wait, the works of art make less money than the simplistic childish novelty? and all we have to do is heap some postmodern nonsense on later? WELL THEN *unzips leica*
>>4513352It's like you know nothing.
>>4513338>Butthurt copeStart arguing anytime lil bro>>4513352The feeling you mention is derogatory called "misery porn", the consumption of someone else's dog days so you can feel something.
>>4513631I'm not arguing with you, I'm making fun of you
I don't want to buy a new flagship every two years. I just want to have a nice pocket camera and keep my midrange for a while. My old olympus pocket camera lasted for almost a decade. Preferably nothing more expensive than $700
>>4491769Of course, a GR-series camera would be excellent for OP, but it won’t cost him $700 or less. Maybe a GR1? If that’s the 16MP one, I just found a listing for one… $899… let alone the ones you’ve mentioned.
>>4505788>$899 for a gen 1even the gen 2 and 3 are getting around for that much or less
>>4489617any
Isn't there those new(ish) digital cameras that looks like candy bars?
>>4489665these break too easy
>The Ansel Adams Publishing Rights Trust has raised concerns over what it describes as the unauthorised use of Ansel Adams’s name and work in an “AI-generated colour version” of his iconic photograph shot in 1942 Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico, which was recently exhibited and offered for sale at a major international photography fair.>In a statement, the Trust said the work “exploited Ansel’s name, reputation, and his most iconic image, while failing to identify any human artist responsible for its creation. The Trust did not authorise, endorse, consent to, or acquiesce in the ‘AI-generated colour version’ of ‘Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico’ exhibited and offered for sale by Danziger Gallery at The Photography Show presented by AIPAD in April. The Trust was not consulted or notified before the work appeared. Once alerted, we reached out to James Danziger in real time, notifying him of the Trust’s rights, and asking for the work to be removed. Correspondence shared with the Trust shows that, despite our formal notice, Mr. Danziger subsequently leveraged Ansel’s name, ‘Moonrise,’ and the AIPAD presentation while pursuing a proposed commercial AI colourisation venture involving other artists’ estates.”>James Danziger made a response on the Danziger website to Ansel Adams Trust's condemnation by not only mentioning that the image is technically in the public domain, but also wrote: "As for the print itself, while A.I. served as the starting point, the final image involved extensive human intervention, editing, proofing, and refinement over many months."
>>4513117your shitposting sucks
>>4513113Worst photo I've seen on this board yet, is this why Ken is a meme? t. /p/ newfag
>>4512754Nice to see a bit of color in it, the original is so dark and depressing
>>4512754Some absolute tech nerd was the first person to pour all art into an AI model. IT fucking sucks that tech dorks absolutely desecrate art and music to enrich themselves. I'd like to choke each one of them death in a row
>>4512754Not only is the gallery owner using AI to copy Angel Adam's, he's profiting for himself and not paying any artists, fuck that guy. and then he's also lying about spending months on it, what a joke. Just Trump / Indian levels of shamelessness and venality
Where the fuck did everyone go?
>>4513069If you look in the archives there are people shitting on and intensely trolling the m43 thread all the way back in 2015.
>>4507583Everyone who disagrees with me killed /p/ and I will always angrily respond to any of their posts and derail threads because I don't like their opinions and their SNAPSHITS SUCK SO BAD!
>>4513072that's based though. the latest micro four turds those guys love doesnt even have a mechanical shutter.
Numbers spiked due to covid. They're just returning to their pre-covid levels.
>>4513074Theres a huge chance their snapshits do suck so bad and they’re such a fag they always take the bait. It takes a really stupid faggot to be trolled and trolls can’t live without a steady diet of faggots. Shitposters are 4chans immune system.
I saw online the 0.03 megapixel camera and was kinda curious so i snapped a few pics and modified them in gimp to reach a similar effect, including the resolution.I honestly having quite a bit of fun with these and i'm enjoying the results quite much
>>4512431ongoing thread about circuit bending:>>4506230
>>4512470Toy cameras have "character", up to you if a still from a budget crashcam is "good". Plenty in that range at ChinkExpress, including shipping. At least for EU, dunno about Tariffstan.Search Ali for G6 Thumb Camera or toy camera, and make sure whatever you find can take photos instead squirting water or whatever...
>>4501954>>4501868how do you dither like this?
Sorta Tried it myself, tried to find a pic that still has details that are still prominent in a lower res
>>4513225"Dither" tool in GIMP, its in the Color section. It being on analog maybe helps as it already came with its own grain.
Sydney on Six Rolls of FilmPresented Chronologically &Shot during Vivid Sydney,By ANONYMOUS &Feat. ANONYMOUSPreviously: >>4511327 >Room 109
>>4513752YEAH I had the UV filter on and I meant to take it off before every shot and put it back on after but I obviously forgot 99% of the time. Is that why the blacks look weird? I was probably too concerned with protecting the front element of the lens. I need a lens cap instead.
pretty based thread you have here anon, thanks>>4513753weird blacks are likely caused by scanningor underexposure and scanningdid you shoot handheld at night?
>>4513764>did you shoot handheld at night?nah, tripod. I did underexpose one stop from what the meter said, hoping to preserve more highlight detail because they bloom so much. still, I thought it could be the scans and the lab tech said she adjusted the "density" on some because they looked overexposed. she didn't imply I'd done anything wrong in camera but I can't rule that out, either. there's a lot of decisions in development and scanning I'm not privy to because I'm paying someone else to do it... kinda sucks. she said next time I could ask for flat scans and adjust the black point myself.
>>4513753I don't think the UV filter should do anything, you can usually just leave it on.I was asking about filtration just because I noticed the color temperature of the lamps was fairly warm and I figured Sydney would have already gone full globohomo and put up white LEDs everywhere. I also noticed the lights in the windows in the buildings in the background also have a very warm tone to them, but normally lighting in buildings like that is fluorescent (shows up kind of greenish on film) or these days maybe lots of (white) LEDs.I think it looks nice. Does it look that warm in real life? I hate white lighting and it would be nice to visit somewhere that has warm lighting everywhere.>I need a lens cap instead.yeah, they're like $3 for a generic one, just get one.
>>4513916that’s a good question actually I don’t have any reference photos from another cameraand it was a bit hard to tell by looking at photos of circular quay at night onlineI did find this document online which seems to say heritage areas are to be lit with warm 3000k lightingI didn’t find anything official but Wikipedia describes circular quay as a heritage area, so those lights around it probably really are as warm as they seem
PCW - Precision Camera Works is looking to take on apprecntice(s). One of the few places that does service on Xpan, Noblex and Mamiya.The guy is retired, but still takes on repairs. He's pretty swamped and works slow. Sent my camera there last year, just now it was shipped back.Anyone in Austin, Texas interested in taking this on? Imagine the wealth of parts and knowledge he has,
it’s so peak the best mode for street
>>4513326Btw I'm on my second digital camera body. Bought my first one back in 2008 and second in 2016. I think I may buy one this year too! Consoooom or what ever :D
>>4513328Wow your mom let you buy a camera when you were 8?
>>4513317>why even get mad and reply?Why do you all the time?
>>4513344oh look a nikek that thinks everyone who says nikon sucks is one guy>shill nikon on /p/ for months>now /p/ says nikon sucks>HOW?(Its cuz nikon sucks)
>>4513254It's called Programmed Auto which makes sense. You can also do something like locking the ISO, so in that circumstance adjusting the wheel will change the shutter and aperture to get correct exposure.
Theme: RainAll submissions must feature rain/rainy weather or an effect caused by rain.All photos must be taken during the current challenge month. No old or archived shots.And as always be creative and enjoy the process. Unique perspectives are encouraged!Previous thread: >>4504732
>>4508732What do we win?
>>4512400nothing
How would awinner be determined in one of these challenges? Is there way to vote cause I don't see a way to do it unless OP decides for himself
Ah I forgot to post, hope I still made it
Why does it happen anyway? I feel like this is something which adobe could work on giving us a tool for in Photoshop. Something which cancels out edge glow but also can be adjusted by depth etc.(I know edge glow can be removed with a new layer and clone stamped with Darken mode on)
>>4513290But that post was about embracing image softness, not ensuring your images are sharp by buying the right gear.
>>4513276That is because anon managed to find good light and exposed correctly. There is contrast between the leaves > things look sharp
>>4513296If he's choosing lighting conditions that make his images look sharp then he's not letting his images be soft like he claims.
>>4513297I mean he's also got a deep DoF and a high enough shutter speed to avoid any sort of motion blur. Those two alone normally have a lot to contribute to an imagine being considered "sharp", which is facilitated by having lots of light.
>>4513296It's 1800px wide... When you downsize something to 50% (assuming that isn't a crop) it looks sharper. When he looked at the original size it was probably a little soft.
Leica are the only cameras that inspire as much genuine art as the beautiful machines are able to create. You won't get real artists so invested in a Canon or (lol) a Sony (shudder). Why is anyone on this board who actually cares about photographer using anything BUT a Leica?
>>4511959No because audiophiles are weirdos but do end up buying the best and/or constant testing, Leicafags pretend their 10k lenses are better than 2k Cosinas or 3k Nikkors when testing has shown otherwise.
>>4511484>In any era the best artists are not the ones you are told to like, but the ones that make you think about things your self defined master doesn’t want you to think about.This really doesn't account for every era where the premier objects of art have been paintings on the tombs of kings, jewellery worn by the nobles, or masks and totems made by priests and witchdoctors. The idea of the eccentric artist is a uniquely modern and European one.
>>4512244>uniquely modern and EuropeanNips were known for having eccentric artists since medieval times, although their patrons were affluent bar and brothel enjoyers, so kind of a merchant nobility.
>>4511556At this point, judging photos by the camera that took the photos is pointless. The photographer matters. not the camera .
>>4513270But exif peeping is the only form of critique people on /p have mastered.
>>4512824>LET ME THE FUCK GOOOOOOOOO CUNT
börd
The last of the great DSL-ACK!Last time shrewd snapshitting scrooges and nikon nancies wasted their lives: >>4511297Not the /gg/ you were looking for? For inquiries into the location of graphlex general, please go to /fgt/ and pay a one (1.0) egg photo entry fee. For the location of guitar general, please go to your nearest guitar center and play stairway on a Gibson Les Paul Standard 50s (Heritage Cherry Sunburst). For the location of gourami general, proof of log is required. For more options, dial .
>>4513817Depends how much disposable income you have. If it's your first camera then you're not going to know what you want, and not only is the body more expensive but so are the lenses (and also more bulk and weight to take out with you to experiment with). An APS-C body will still be very capable and for that money you could get one and a couple lenses.
>>4513817No, it's not "tryhard." This is a hobby, what you start with depends on your budget and what you want to do with it. There's nothing wrong with starting with higher end equipment if you can afford to, this isn't like riding motorcycles where only a retard with money starts out on a 1000cc sport bike. That being said, you'd be far better off buying a 2+ generation old FF camera that's <$500 and putting what was saved there into glass than buying a FF that is over $1k. t. just bought my third FF and it's 3 generations old and just under $1k.
>>4513822Two things: a level bubble gauge that mounts in the flash mount. Use primarily for close-ups.And a heads-up dot finder for pointing at the night sky. Also mounts into the flash shoe.
>>4513817It's simply not worth owning anything other than full frame unless you are a dedicated bird or paparazzi/stalker type photographer. You can use APS-C lenses on full frame, but not the other way around. At least not if you want the intended FOV.Being a tryhard retard would be buying a "medium format" digital back like a gfx 100 or some hassleblad shit but full frame is strictly the consumer format people have determined was consumer grade for over a century. Choosing anything smaller is embracing enshittification, going larger is entering the "trying hard" category.Your grandparents shot on 35mm film.Digital came, now you use a 35mm sensor. Shooting smaller is copium.People spend multiple thousands on APS-C bodies. Spending $1K on a full frame one is a no brainer. Just do it. If you want something smaller or lightweight, you have a phone. Keep your real camera a real camera and ignore smaller formats smaller than 35mm.
Don't ever forget that Argentina used to be 85% white.Ignore the bitter brown people who want us to be brown like them so they can feel better about themselves.
Just out of curiosity
>>4513025what's it called and who's the "artist?"
>>4501602Can somebody explain what’s the appeal? I get how they were useful back then because you could get a camera off a gas station in a clutch. But why would anyone deliberately want to shoot it now.There are equally small and infinitely better proper film cameras.
>>4513095have you heard of this unique driving force of consumerism called... "nostalgia?" it makes people buy things they weren't even alive to experience, out of their lust for the past.
>>4513095>There are equally small and infinitely better proper film cameras.They're cheaper, easier to use and people don't pose or get defensive like they do when you pull out a real camera. Not everyone wants to be a real photographer. They are a good gateway drug into real film photography doe.
>>4501602I took a "For Parts" Lumix G7 and thrift store lens on a 2500 mile motorcycle trip. I'm satisfied with the shitty quality since the photos look fine on 4x6 prints
i genuinely think portraits without bokeh look nicer. they just feel more soulful. is there a point to buying a camera instead of using your smartphone if you're gonna shoot at f8 anyway?
>>4506421bokeh is censorship. you use it to blur out ugly backgrounds. if you have a nice setting for your model, you don't need it. it's fairly important if you're shooting in public and there's a bunch of randoms in the background of your photo, you dont really want those to be in focus.
>>4512721>bokeh is censorship.never heard that one before
>>4512795moreso shallow DOF i should say. why would you blur something that you wanted to see?
>>4512721>>4512454>applying poorfaggot cope to the artsGet a job homie
>>4506516Help a brotha out with the sauce on this
