Post photos you like.
I'm realizing looking at this thread that I barely like any photography at all.
this thread must not die!
>>4497057did shi be bussin fr fr
ok i'll add another>>4497061/p/ is the perfect place for you!
this was the absolute peak of digital photography and its all been downhill after here. seriously look at the shots on flickr with this tag and how good they look. mirrorless is super sterile and fake looking, and older than the mkii just were shit to use and had too much noise. seriously dont sleep on these, 5d mkii and some EF L glass has u covered and then u can spend the rest of the money on travel and taking kino shots.
I'm going to say the Pentax K-1 because that is the only camera I have. It was cheap, has good resolution, good enough AF and the few lenses I got were cheap as well, best of them is the FA 43/1.9 Limited. Correction: The D-FA 150-450 was not cheap at all but it is glorious in both in its size and its performance and I love it.
>>4478562Why aren't the egg and bread in focus?
>>4498338They are. If you find a better digitization of that picture online you'll see it's in focus. Fun fact is that he made prints using the photo gravure process. One of the craziest and coolest printing methods ever.
>>4498338>analog photography>in focuschoose one
>>4498448>admitting to that big of a skill issue/p/ is truly dead.
This thread is dedicated to close-range photographic captures utilising macro-optical imaging configurations to achieve greater reproduction ratios. Got it? Good now upload some shit. Last thread: >>4376661
>>4485226Use a tripod and pray for a still bug / no wind. Let the AF motor do it for you. The rocking method is unreliable because there's little chance you can go perfectly forwards and backwards without any lateral movement whatsoever.>>4492505Could just get a thread going with some old photos, no harm in that really.
>>4492539Is macro defined as 1:1 or greater, or is it just images "in the spirit of" taking pictures of small things?
>>4492540Technically Macro is 1:1. In practice, anything involving "small" subjects and/or higher than normal magnification is macro photography. Better to think of it as a general idea than a clearly defined rule, and if anyone gets all high and mighty over you using a 0.4x lens or something then that just means they're a massive faggot.Back in the day when basically every lens was between 0.2x and 0.1x magnification, the only way to get proper macro photos was with a dedicated macro lens (or bellows). These days more and more everyday lenses feature higher reproduction ratios with 0.5x being fairly common and normally the point that companies will slap the Macro moniker on it. Hell, my 100-400mm lens has a 0.42x ratio without trying, and it would be more than enough for decent enough macro.
>>4492553Yeah that's how I feel about it also. I do a lot of 8x10 snapshitting type stuff around 1:1 and it always makes me chuckle a bit when I consider posting a picture with my entire hand in it or something in the macro general because technically it is 1:1.It's more fun to remain within the spirit of macro and post photographs of small things instead. :D
image limit reached>>4498423>>4498423>>4498423
Thread theme: https://youtu.be/QR75ti4mN_A?si=N-UtB79FhGkJOuBO
Few different types I run around shooting.
>>4497300
>>4497300>>4497302
>>4497300>>4497303>>4497302
>go to World Superbike race, grab my camera with 55-300mm lens that I haven't used in a weeks>pull it out and get ready to use it>discover focusing isn't working on that lens
i found an app that takes unprocessed raw photos on iphone it actually makes me want to use my phone for pics. no im not a psyop for the app i just like it, its called moment pro camera 2 its paid but theres no microtransactionsive never seen this kind of clarity out of my phone pics before but at even a mild iso noise is dogshit which i shouldve expected. picrel is the same exposure settings and lighting, left is with apple processing right is unprocessed raw.dynamic range isnt great but its very usable. if ur shooting full manual the viewfinder is not very accurate the final image tends to be a lower exposure. surprisingly shooting longer exposures under 1/30 is doable cus iphones have sensor stabilization
>>4497437>t. Michael j fox
>>4497099I've been using one as well. I can actually get serviceable photos out of this piece of shit
>>4498287Well shit i’ll try anything twice, time to finger out if the iphone 14pm sensor is really better than the 13pm, or if theyre the same and apple just got better algorithms in the 14 and refused to include them in the 13 update to make us all buy a new fuck8n phone. I’ve just inherited both and i guess i can now decide which to keep based on Halide results! Pretty fucking cool manI see Leica has a similar app LUX, but fml $70/yr?
>>4498324>I see Leica has a similar app LUX, but fml $70/yr?Never tried it but Leica has always been a rip off anyway, so I expect no less from their app. Halide is about $60 for lifetime as I recall but you get a one month trial run to see if you really want it.Halide has some former Apple people on it and they know how the APIs work at a good level, so it beats a lot of similar apps. It also won a few awards from Apple themselves. I still use my actual camera but Halide is my fallback if I only have my phone with me, it has nice natural grain and there's no sharpening at all in that Process Zero mode.
>>4497099>AI app triggering the pretentious photographer incelswtf i love AI now
2025 Halloween in Itaewon and Hongdae, Korea10/31~11/1Out of focus edition1/100And if you have some from the halloween you would like to share, please do.
>>4487585hah thanks
>>4480507Stop being mean.
>>4480135why is her hairline so far back?
Cool
Show me your glass /p/.
>>4494927Glass on fire
Oh I get it, the topic is asking for GLASS photos! The OP posts a photo of a GLASS object, but photographers refer to GLASS as their lenses! Now I get it!! Haha so funny, so queer! What a hekin gud thread OP!!! HAHAHAA SOO FANNNY! HAH HAHA
>>4496949Love going to the Tacoma Museum of Glass of my wife. Went there on our holiday Moon and before that I won a second that they've made by answering a skill testing question about Arnold Schwarzenegger's first big film
>>4494815
>>4496948>>4496949Wow Seedance 2.0 is truly impressive
What's a man got to do to optimise prime lenses here? I want to take reasonably good photos without breaking the bank but I feel like I'm getting bogged down by the maths. Will I always be held back by this unexceptional camera or is it perfectly capable if you're not a retard?
>>4497058>>4497065The 24mm f/2.8 is great for extension tube macro, but other than that I hate it. The 40mm f/2.8 has the same form factor but is way sharper and FF compatible. EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS is probably a good wide-angle for your street needs...
>>4497058EF-S 35mm f/2.8 Macro is a good all-purpose prime.EF-S 15-85mm is a great zoom with more than average zoom range.EF-S 24mm f/2.8 is an excellent pancake.EF-S 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS STM is the best telephoto you'll get for crop.Sigma and tamaron lenses are normally a worse choice except for their late-stage primes and hyper-autist zooms like the 50-100mm f/1.8.
>>4497058Unfortunately, apsc on canon and nikon is just zoomslop. Get the 24mm for general shooting and buy the 50mm 1.8 for portraits. If spend any more on that dead system you're hust throwin away money
>>4497039But I have a modest r6mk3 and a 24-105 f4 kit lens
>>4497069There's no getting back from an actual macro lens.(This one is Tamron Di Sp AF 90mm 2.8 Macro. Older but not bad at all. Main con: operating auto/manual focus switch is almost impossible without changing focus.)
Why do some old photos have a certain "look" to them that modern photos don't?
>>4497745The lens has more of an effect than you realize, but also like >>4497749 pointed out theres a vibe to the way people dress and pose that dates an image.Buy a really cheap vintage lens, something Japanese. If you take pictures of subjects that are less likely to date the photo to now, you'll be really surprised about how old the image looks. Birds and animals are good subjects.
>>4497771show a digital photo that's edited to look like film? what good will that do, it simply follows my statement that the reality it was shot in digital will skew your perception that it's never like old film. But if you're looking for a blind test, there's plenty out there you can search for. Some tests compare exact same composition, with exact same lens for instance.
>>4497811Just post the photos bro. No excuses.
>>4497768Faggot-chan, thanks for clarifying that we can imitate the look of film by:- using digital camera presets- editing digital photos- using a camera with a ccd sensor- generating the picture with AI- painting digitally or on a canvas - wearing yellow-tinted glasses indoors Who asked?Yes, you can spend hours editing digital images to make them look like film... You can also carefully take a shot with film so it look like digital... Why would anyone do that? >>4497811I took the bait and searched. I could not find any that would put two high definition color images side by side. I don't think it's a coincidence.Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>4497745shoot on a film camera with an old lens
I was taking photographs of some demonic ritual while vacationing in Varanasi, India, when suddenly the shutter of my Sony A7 IV camera snapped. The kilometrage on that camera was around 23k photos at the time, but I wouldn't rule out demonic interference as the actual cause.Anyway I couldn't take anymore photos that night and almost had a panic attack (tfw you get stuck in India and can't even take photographs) so I went back to my hotel to try and fix it, but nothing seemed to work so I ripped it out (picrel) and changed the settings to electronic shutter.What's the difference between a mechanical and an electronic shutter when it comes to quality? Is there a difference only when what you're shooting is moving very fast? Also how much does it cost to replace the shutter plus the work? I'm considering just buying the A7R IV and keeping the current one as reserve.
>OH N-
>>4497493>Did you use the shutter closed when off function?No, but like I said I'm pretty sure it got fucked up because of demonic possession. Not any other reason. Picrel is where they burn bodies all day and all night, so that's probably where it happened. There was a very strong presence in the air. When you think about it a camera is a pretty reasonable target. It has circuits running through it, electrical components, a power source, etc, so maybe it's not "alive" in a true biological sense but it's not completely dead either.I'm going to get the A7R IV or V next month even though I can barely afford to eat. If I can't take high quality photos I might as well just die. Also 61mp sounds fucking insane.
>>4497328>kilometragewtf lol
>>4497518>No, but like I said I'm pretty sure it got fucked up because of demonic possession. Not any other reason.weak b8. if not, take your meds
>>4497649>if notThis is not a demon?
How do I become a Magnum Photographer?
I wanna get into Nat Geo so bad, I'm tired of driving a truck I just wanna get on some frigate and go to Antarctica and shoot penguins or seals or some shit. I am flat out tired of being a number on a spreadsheet.I would blow 50 black dudes in an alleyway and give myself AIDS to shoot with Nat Geo I'd fucking do it for room and board I need to break this cycle.
>>4497528>get on some frigate and go to AntarcticaYou need an ice rated hull. Maybe some cruise ships do it out of Patagonia? I know there are people who have flown to the Chilean arctic claim but bet it costs a fuck ton. Could always try get up to Svalbard.You can always live vicariously through blogs by boomers:https://youtu.be/WkLSaZ7FJnw?si=b9LKS-Td7xRWNnyUhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtG6niRiRXkhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_w0ueHjsYkSadly the world is now so interconnected that there isn't really anywhere to explore, nothing is novel or exciting. Every dipshit with a phone has spammed a million photos of everything there is to see.
>>4497528It really does suck that there's just nothing left to explore and document. It's like the magic is gone and the only thing left is squeezing the life out of everything through optimization.
>>4497550>Midwit trap
>>4497497
Frog And TurtlePhotography
Spicy Burt EditionPrevious thread: >>4490096
>>4492885wrong. any more than 4 pics from a set deserves their own thread. you are both spamming rpt and hiding your pics in a general when they should be readily findable in the catalog>>4492878no one else uses that coarse, contrasty style>>4492669very nice>>4492593good light and textures. arrangement may be weak
NEW THREAD:>>4493179>>4493179>>4493179
>>4491869first time using film in almost 20 years, got a Reto Pano 35mmpretty happy with this onestealing the last post slot until a new general opens
The first month of the year is about to finish. Have you done something notable during this time, anon?Previously: >>4493179
>>4497308Freaky. What do they do with these
some random shots, all on iPhone 15pm
bricked edition>>4492332
>>4497192Ehhh it wasn't a lot, it was all stuff I was looking for from Yahoo Auctions Japan purchased through buyee. A lot of it was listed as junk though. Pic related is the K70 and photos from it. Only real 2 duds from this is the Minolta 50mm 1.4 (oily aperture blades) and one of the K10Ds (took the pic of the K70 with it and the FA 50mm f1.4). Other 2 pics were test shots with the K70 + 50mm 1.4. Its actually kind of insane how much cheaper it is to buy this stuff even with the tariffs and shipping. Americans really get gouged with pricing but it could also be the low yen working in my favor + more availability for Pentax/Minolta. K70 is gonna be my edc/beater camera when I don't want to lug a CCD vintage sovl pos (or need the low light performance without a 4lb FF brick). I really love how these cameras just eat at high ISOs.
>>4495823nice tongue
>>4497261I've got 58 thread on what I use, so that might work. hmmm.I actually thought you were talking about those teleconverters that go in between the lens and the camera.>>4497280>I bet really old brass lenses with simple designs you could adapt would have significant CA. There are small ones with shorter focal lengths that are not very expensive you could get. They should work fine projection-wise on FF or smaller.Any specific model names that come to mind?
new thread:>>4497651
Camera bag this big that doesn't cost hundreds?I need to just steal my dads literally this one. I want to fit all my shit. Too stubborn for a backpack idk this was a solved problem in the 1990s.
