>>4390006
yes, its the thinking man hobby. Just like cuckoldry

>>4390006
I just put my camera on aperture priority

I don't fully understand the exposure triangle and I've been shooting two years

>>4390010
I unironically like cuckolding desu

It's fun as long as everyone uses condoms

>>4390006
Compared to any other hobby it requires far less thought and practice to achieve acceptable results.
I mean the #1 thing you can do in photography is simply to "be there."

Jerking off require more effort and brain power than starting off with photography.

>>4390006
no, most of it is just being familiar with how a camera works.
You dont need to be a genius to figure it out.
There are plenty if simulators to teach you the basics and you can always play around on manual woth a cheap old digital camera to learn exposure. A lot of people on this board play it up as some exquisite hobby when the reality is they spent like $10k plus on really expensive gear and shoot in a mode that does some of the work for them

https://dofsimulator.net/en/

>>4390017
>to learn exposure
and iso

>>4390006
Judging by who populates this board it definitely isn't

>>4390044

Dubs of truth.

>>4390006
photography appeals to men with autistic, OCD, and schizoid tendencies and they tend to have higher IQ
The sophistication of the equipment and its significant impact on the result further narrows serious photography down to more intelligent than average men and autistic lesbo women

This does not apply to normoid parents taking kid pics or dumb trendsters who mutter something about pixel peeping wedding cameras when you point out they missed focus while pretending to be a hip street photographer for instagram

I haven't met many people irl that are into photography but the few I have haven't been all that knowledgeable on the technical aspects of photography. Nor have their photos been that good technically, they just put in the effort to go to the good places and get good subjects and then process their photos in a popular style (I won't say good because that's very subjective). Compositionally some of them suck too, they don't put much thought into the photo and just snap away and rely on the processing.

>>4390006
taking stills is the most basic and straightforward thing you can expect from a camera. The most complex way to capture stills is by using an analog camera with a manual focus lens (helped by a light meter, of course). you don't need to memorize exposure numbers. only a retard will do that.
videography is the real deal. I mean real videography. using rigs that cost millions. and not those cheap steel plates with holes that youtubers slap onto their snoy alpha or FX3 cameras.
It takes skill and muscles just to get a good shot. years of practice can turn you into a gigachad with the brain of James Cameron.

>>4390006
Kids can do it. Even back at early stone age with manual film camera without light meter.
That said, artistic eye and people skills are more significant for photography than some other "nerdy" hobbies.

>>4390006
Exposure triangle and knowing the settings of your camera are the absolute bare minimum that anyone doing photography should have a solid grasp on. It's like basic addition or multiplication.
If it takes you more than a week with digital to learn exposure settings, you are doing something wrong or have some kind of learning disability.
It will take longer to see how those settings apply to various real world situations. If you understand what's going on though, you won't have issues because you have the understanding to work through what to change.

>>4390602
>spending more on video equipment makes me a real movie man
A kid with a gh5 could (and has) shot better shit than the average movie with mark wahlberg or nic cage in it

>>4390047
Case in point

>>4390006
LOL NO

>>4390006

I guarantee if you did an iq study of people who own cameras vs those who don’t you would see no difference in iq.


I also guarantee if you did an iq study of people who own handheld light meters vs those who don’t, the people who own handheld light meters would have significantly higher iq.

It’s the type of device you need above average intelligence to realise its use and midwits will think they can get the same results without it.

>>4393105
>to be fair it takes a very high iq to divide or multiply by two several times while counting
lol

>>4393105
>needing to use a meter
high iq don't even need to meter, they know what settings to use

>>4393114
You'd be surprised.

>>4393118
Low IQ statement.

>>4393118

Kek, perfect low iq take.

>>4390006
High IQ as a hobby.
Low IQ as a job.

>>4393126
>>4393120
you need a meter to tell you what numbers to use
or you can just pay attention to what numbers you use when shooting, and then can just use those when shooting in a similar environment again
you two just just haven't learned yet, anyone shooting enough will know what to use without a meter

>>4393136

Thanks for confirming the low iq hypothesis.

>>4393139
>I can't remember what settings to use

>>4393105
>>4393114
>>4393118
>>4393136
>>4393139
f8 and be there, you turbo niggers

>>4393136
... But the camera meters for you

>>4393169
not all cameras have meters and metering isn't 100% reliable
what is reliable, is simply knowing what settings to use, quicker too

no, anyone with a camera phone does it with ease.

>>4393136
Damn. Do you have a way to confirm your eye's aperture is always set the same in each situation? Oh, wait... You just shoot digital. Probably an mft camera? Yeah I think so.

If you pretended to know what you were doing with film and graded paper you would run into a very quick reality check. The inability to predict real life outcomes is a sure sign of extremely low IQ. Almost as low IQ as spending real money on a mft camera when you already have a phone that takes better pics in your pocket...

LOL

>>4393181
>you need a high iq to be autistic about film exposure
Literally dividing/multiplying by two while counting, knots for brains
Oooooh one stop two stop muh zones

>>4393181
nothing to do with eyes
if I shoot at a bar at night I use x settings, and guess what? when I go back another night, I can use the same settings
portraits in shade and I can use y settings, on a cloudy day z settings, in golden hour w settings, etc
when I do landscapes on a sunny afternoon, guess what? same settings as any other sunny afternoon

again, if you can't recall what settings to use an environment with certain lighting, you aren't shooting enough
it's fine to use a meter when you're learning, but you aren't actually learning exposure if you have to always rely on one
at some point you can give up the calculator and learn 2+2 without one

>ansel adams wannabes dicking the dog messing with meters
>chad street photographers guessing and letting stand development do the rest

>>4393185
People forgot this because digital blows highlights like noones business, breaking exposure guessing forever. Did a little extra light fall on a white shirt? Its a searing blob that can be recovered to… neon purple.

The worst film has is grainy shadows

>>4393176
>not all cameras have meters and metering isn't 100% reliable
... but the camera brackets for you and there's exposure compensation

>>4393186
street's even easier, you only have to remember 4 settings
>sun
>shade
>cloudy
>flash
covers 100% of all street

>>4393185
>>4393183
Low IQ snapshitter cope. Good luck printing on graded paper.

>>4393192
don't need luck, because i know what settings to use

>>4393194
Post a negative.

>>4393197
why? do you not know what a properly exposed negative looks like?

>>4393199
Another low IQ post...

>>4393200
so high IQ is never address what someone actually says and just call them low IQ
got it Mr smarty pants

>>4393201
Your self awareness is outstanding. Remarkable attribute for someone with such a low IQ.

>>4393188
>underexpose everything by ~1-4 stops
>recover in post
>walla grainy shadows and preserved highlight detail just like film

>>4393202
in my replies, I address what people say, and don't call them low IQ
we are not the same, sorry you can't think up a better rebuttal than just repeating low IQ

Since we're in the digital age, photography should be a high Image Quality hobby. Filmfags GTFO!!!!

>>4390006
Only a retard would ask such a question. Restrain from taking pictures immediately.

>>4393168
i need this as a t-shirt (without the turbo nigger part ofc, that would deter from the mesage)

>>4393204
You're a cherry picker, which is incredibly low IQ behavior. Sorry, but you ARE different than me in the worst way possible.

>>4393258
example of cherry picking?
>more low IQ

>>4393279
why? do you not know what a properly executed cherry pick looks like?

>>4393289
i don't, i was hoping you could give me an example, which is why i asked

>>4393293
I tend not to waste my time giving free handouts and tutelage to the low IQ. You're on your own for that one, buck-o.

>>4393203
But digital gets blotchy chroma noise and film does not

>>4393294
sorry, with all the replies here, i thought you'd have the time
my mistake again

>>4393298
I may reply, but I will not provide free handouts or tutelage. Something easy to understand with pre-school level reading comprehension.

Strike #32579 proving your low IQ nature.

>>4393302
>This furfag has spent hours of his life mumbling "low iq" because he thinks spot metering visibly bright and dark stuff to fit everything he wants within 10 stops (divide/multiply by two while counting - and some meters do it for you) makes him smart
lol garry winogrand didnt even expose for the light, but what he wanted, and used a green safelight to watch the film develop to make sure the negative could be printed so its not even necessary
an intelligent person would know it wasn’t anyways

>>4393305
A major strawman amongst a host of other flaws in logic, belief, and your system of thinking. Sad, but expected from the lowly smooth brain.

>>4393307
Silence, furry.

>>4393308
Ahhh, yet another reply without sense or direction. Delirium, hysteria, and confusion can be added to the long list of malaises you suffer with.

>>4393295
You aren't getting chroma noise w/ digital at film iso speeds these days. Maybe on sensorlet cameras at "high" isos...

>>4393309
at least i know what settings to use

>>4393190
If you think street photography is easy, you are clearly doing something wrong.

>>4393335
Street IS easy. Its as mindless as countrymouse going out & shooting flowers.

>>4393335
street isn't easy
exposing street properly without constantly relying on a meter is easy

>>4390006
No. Photography is the use of a tool. Any fucking baboon who can read an owners manual or follow along a youtube video can operate a camera. That takes 0 brainpower. It's what you make using photography that counts.

Photography is a favorite among aspie nerds with no capacity for abstract thought, not your dejected artistes, but you dejected engineering students. They can read a fucking spreadsheet full of specifications, compare specs objectively without any pesky imagination required, purchase the tools they think are objectively superior, and as easy as following the steps, immediately start producing "accurate" output with it, just as they prefer to see the world. No troubling indeterminate areas, no interpretation, no abstract thought or arcane reasoning required. This is why photography appeals to people who think it's all about the gear, bc when you take that approach its fucking simple and easy.

As the internet is full of programming & engineering school dropouts, it's no doubt that you'll find an endless amount of artistically incapable/hostile aspie dorks endlessly jabbering about camera specs, who can't produce a single fucking series of images that anyone wants to actually look at, much less put in a gallery, much less publish.

Just like music, the tools got so good, but left the artistic vision up to you, you can almost get away with letting the tools do all the work and sell yourself as an artist. Almost, bc other artists can see you're full of shit in .2 seconds.

>>4393342
>aspie nerds can't unnerstand abstract thought
>think its all about the tech of what you're shooting
>instead of why you're shooting what you're shooting
>ITT: aspie nerds arguing that the hard part of photography is calculating exposure.

jfc

>>4393343
No one said it's difficult thing to do, dipwad.

>>4393342
The majority of good artists were and still are your much hated “aspie nerds”

Normal people don’t make good art. They hire aspie nerds to write and compose songs so they can be the sex symbol marketing piece. They follow the directions of aspie nerds. They read the scripts of aspie nerds.

At the end of the day the only personal metric that correlates with creativity is intelligence. Normal people have neither. They have empathy and an intuitive understanding of sex AKA low inhibitions. All of the art you think was made by many normal people was made by one single severely autistic jew with a negative jawline.

>>4393346
facts

autists rule the world. and more so the art world than any other part, since a moderately intelligent normie can still be a technician. it just looks like jews because 100% of ashkenazi men are on the spectrum.

>>4393342
i bet this is a failed normie who thinks paying voigtlander $1000 and fujifilm $1699 to add blur to every image makes him more artistic

real artists are huge nerds who jumble images with light, math and optics. they are the DPs using custom made glass filters and aperture plates and rehousing hyper specific optics for hollywood. they are the ones picking individual frequencies to express the fibonacci sequence in a motion picture about reincarnation. you are the blues lawyer of photography who buys canned tones and talks about soul and feel while engaging in the photographic equivalent of love songs and pentatonic noodling (aping prior street photographers) while the real artists are doing the photographic equivalent of playing shoegaze fugues in 9/7 polyrhythms to express the depression they feel when their mcchicken came different from the last one. aka real art.