Is shelves or plug sockets the endgame of using a screwdriver

>>4396714
birding is the endgame in so far that it's the biggest money sink

>>4396714
They are the refuges of failed artists that still think they are artists and wear photographer as a label. They’re all depressed middle age men lol.

The endgame of a sane person with a camera is general travel/lifestyle shooting and portraits of friends

Is this engagement bait?

>>4396716
astrophotography is a far greater money sink

>>4396720
is this namefag spam

>>4396714
The ultimate endgame is having friends irl and capturing moments with meaning.

With the pics being tasteful AND iconic such that individual pics will be remembered AND not being the weirdo with the camera in the friend group. God mode.

any camera(s) you like using the most + a little printer for 4x6s + some frames and a photo album is the real endgame

The endgame depends on your motivation for photography.

Do you shoot to enjoy the process, or to create unique images?

>>4396736
Anonymized namefag spam

>>4396719
>The endgame of a sane person with a camera is general travel/lifestyle shooting and portraits of friends

Camera phones exist for this shit, what a stupid answer.

>>4396752
>camera phone is the endgame of photographic hardware
Best camera truly was the one you have with you all along

>>4396758
>zoom out
>pan up to starry sky
>credits start rolling

>>4396752
Phone photos look ken rockwells "photography" unless you take a knife to your social life and buy a shitdroid and even then you have no control over basic photography stuff like flash and shutter speed, and you cant pick from more lenses than apple gives you. Even a ricoh GR is a huge upgrade from a phone.

it is physically impossible, because light is physical, to stuff all the light and light manipulation hardware a camera can handle into something the size of an iphone. It can only get as close as a mediocre micro four thirds setup if you always shoot mft over ISO 400. In daylight.

>>4396714
All bird photos are the same photo, so no.

>>4396715
You should leave this website now, we already have more tripfags than we need. Thanks, and don't come back. Bye.

>>4396781
it's twitter users trying ti make a name for themselves

>>4396781
>we already have more tripfags than we need.

When did you arrive? Your hairs still wet from the fucking womb.

>>4396784
You can talk down all you like but your photos are fucking abysmal.

>>4396785
Its always the ones with no photos...

I've been a /p/ trip for over a decade. I've had death threats on this board. People doxxing me. I've done more to help people on this board to laugh and learn their gear than you. The old fucks on this board know me. And I'm not going anywhere whether you like my shit or not.

So post photos.

>>4396786
>I've had death threats on this board.
kek did this really happen?

>>4396786
>I've been dogshit for a really long time
Who cares cares man. All tripfags are the same; either low testosterone males or women that are mediocre/insecure in some way and attempt to make up for this shortcoming by ingraining themselves as "part of the community" which never works on sentient humans as this is anonymous website. Everyone's knee-jerk reaction to you is "wow this pussy just wants attention" even if they don't know why they feel that way.

>>4396789
Yes, sadly. I don't know if theres anyone left in here who remembers all that. /p/ used to get quite spicy occasionally. I think that might be pre Sugar, but he might remember it.

>>4396719
I don't think that's true, I think the birdbros are just like 50% nature / solitude / hunt enjoyers besides the photography aspect, unlike NYC streetshitters who make their entire life identity about taking pics of uber drivers and hags

>>4396791
You seem to be projecting a little there.
You must be new to 4chan to say any of that shit.
My Trip annoys you. Thats your problem. I cant help you to grow larger testicles.
I cant donate one to you, or I'll only have two left.

>>4396796
Maybe you need to read my message again. Maybe you're like forty and you have the reading comprehension of an eight year old. What I said is that everybody finds you, and people like you annoying. It's got nothing to do with me, it's your problem.

>>4396797
No, its because my trip annoys you. We can carry on if you like, but, you know, kinda pointless. I'm not going to stop tripping, or posting photos you don't like. So you can either learn to deal with that or leave. I've had year-long arguments before on here, I'm happy to start a new one if you like. It'll end the same though. And I won't feel bad for you when you do decide to stop being a dick.

birding is the endgame of gearfag circlejerking and it carries almost zero artistic merit

>>4396802
Once again since you're really having trouble, it's nothing to with me. It's not "photo I don't" like. There's no need for flowery inclusive language, you can call it what it is and that's bad photos.
>I've been wrong for a year
Not sure why you'd tell me this. If I were you I wouldn't repeat this, it makes you sound retarded.
>And I won't feel bad for you when you do decide to stop being a dick.
Who is being a dick to you? Reality? No one has said anyone to you that isn't a basic observation or an objective fact. Grow up and stop acting like a victim.

>>4396714
There is an ancient saying: Old photographers don’t die, they just eventually take pictures of their cats & dogs or become birders.

>>4396786
>I've had death threats on this board. People doxxing me.
So you've been universally hated for 10+ years on this board good to know lmfao
>I "INVENTED" the /rpt/ thread!

>>4396802
>trip around forever
>annoy everyone
You never learn, do you?

>>4396791
>everyone
>>4396797
>everybody
>>4396862
>everyone

its just u u retarded zoomer shit
once u get out of highschool u might get out of this faggot mentality

>>4396719
> travel, lifestyle and friends portraits
instagram tier

>>4397146
>Take nice, somewhat artistic photos of family, friends, and daily life.
>Print some, use some as desktop backgrounds
>Never post online
Instagram tier

The best photographers leave /p/, they don't make a trip and dig in for life. This board is for children who take snapshits and make trash threads like this one, especially now that it's 90% casuals from other boards.

It's ok to come back and have a look around every now and then but staying here like it's some sort of community is retarded, especially with a trip. /p/ is an embarrassment and if you aren't embarrassed being associated with it, it says a lot about you and your photography. Grow up, move on, be better.

>>4396761
>unless you take a knife to your social life and buy a shitdroid
Is this a big city thing? I'm grateful that people around where I live don't care about this shit.

>>4397195
Its a women and people under 40 thing.
>stop sending me this shit until you fix tje green bubbles k, i literally can not see whats in the video
>UHM ACKSHUALLY IF YOU INSTALL GNU/TELEGRAM…
>no
>Whatsapp?
>iphones respect my privacy and suckerberg doesnt (<- thot who definitely sends nudes)

Underwater photography is the biggest money pit

Average Ikelite housing for anything modern is thousands of dollars by itself, without the ports or the camera itself.

Then you have the scuba dive equipment required to get anywhere below 30 feet. Then you have dive training and that in itself is a money pit.

>>4397230
Large format is pretty bad too. Everything involved is expensive. Every step of the process is laborious.

>>4397290
All for a 24mp image that could have been shot on a canon 5div and a ts-e lens
>but i promise, if you use this 9000x loupe or scan with a phase one and the worlds sharpest lens, its 400mp, you’ll see one day when i pull my totally undamaged and undegraded realRaw out after cameras get better. 30 years from now.

>>4397294
Cope

>>4397230
This isn't highschool you don't get points for double spacing Sucralose

>>4397294
what? i usually tend to scan on my gfx100 (first gen) and gf 120mm macro. 4x5 holds insane detail even when i take 2 scans and stitch (4 scans for slide film and low iso stuff).
ightroom tends to shit itself if you throw that much resolution at it and it STILL doesnt capture all the detail

>>4397303
makes it easier to read though

>>4397475
>$6000 later: finally, i can get half the detail of my 400mp sheets
>*prints 8mp 8x10*
this is the very spirit of the folly of the gearfag

>>4397496
>obsessed over resolution
>tells jealous lies about superior formats
>calls others gearfag
LMAO.

Not that it actually matters, but photographic paper is capable of well over 100lp/mm of resolution, so cope harder.

>>4397497
>im not a gearfag youre a gearfag btw the fournier function of the sigmoid gamma on this baby is 103.6
I only know what a megapixel is and that 8 of them is an 8x10 or a macbook screen

>>4397499
>Every post mentions resolution
>obsessed with resolution

You've fallen victim to the most basic bitch of all gearfag traps, gearfag.

>>4397493
Not for anyone that actually reads. If it were actually easier to read for anyone but brainlet retards maybe all books would be double spaced (they aren't).

>>4397502
>im not a gearfag youre a gearfag btw i know more about resolution than you and use a $6000 camera to take pictures of pictures
You could always just use your $6000 12 MacbookScreen camera to take the picture in the first place instead of jerking off to some obscure scientific figures

>>4397504
Huh? Unlike you I have first hand experience with 8x10 film, contact printing as well as digital cameras. Sweet projection tho, gearfag.

>>4397505
And I’m sure you know all the numbers but what do they actually do when you’re not looking at pictures with a microscope?

>>4397499
>35mm is 6mp
>8x10 is 8mp
Seems about right, if anything I think I was giving 35mm too many mp.

>>4397506
Are you dense? Formats, lenses, films all provide a means to an end. The print. Different combinations have different looks. If contact printing provides the desired outcome for me then so be it.

This is all incredibly obvious to anyone that is not completely lost in the pits of gearfaggotry.

>>4397510
Yeah I’m sure your magic lpmm have a look. In real life i cant tell what camera someone used and film and digital look the same but i’ll defer to the expert as to why
https://kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm
"Megapixels" are only for cropping, down to 6 of them, which looks good

If these big films have more megapixels the zoomed in pictures have to look good, and after that german shepherd guy posted a bunch of zoomed in pictures and blurry crows using his big olde timey camera i doubt the big film cameras have that many megapixels. The medium ones have more than the normal sized ones but these bigger ones look no better than the small ones. It must just be worse technology.

>>4397512
Oh, so you are dense and inexperienced, lol. That settles that.

The German shepherd guy posted an unsharpened crop of a scan from his shitty scanner that would be the equivalent of a near 60 foot print when viewed as an 8x10 image on the computer and it wasn't that blurry.

Go zoom in 60 times on your mft camera and see what you get. Post it here.

>>4397512
Also from your own link.

>Replace Film?

>What size film?

>Film, like digital files, comes in many resolutions. 35mm is an amateur format, medium format (120 or 6x7) is for head shots, and large format (4x5" and up) is for landscapes.

>Arizona Highways prefers 4x5" film. As of 2008, they now accept digital images, but with a catch: they have to be at least 300 DPI at 12x18," or 20 MP. They say an 8MP camera is OK, but you'll notice that you have to supply 12x18" at 300 DPI, which is 3,600 x 5,400 pixels, or 20 MP.

>If you do fret the pixel counts, I find that it takes about 25 megapixels to simulate 35mm film, which is still far more than any practical digital camera. At the 6 megapixel level digital gives about the same sharpness as a duplicate slide, which is plenty for most things. Honestly, I have actually had digital files written back out onto film to see this. See also my film vs. digital page here.

>Of course I use much bigger film than 35mm for all the pretty pictures you see at my website, so digital would need about 100 megapixels to simulate medium format film, or 500 megapixels to simulate 4x5" film. This is all invisible at Internet resolutions, but obvious in gallery-size prints.

>>4396714
No, it is sticking a film camera with a flash in the face of randoms on the street.

>>4396714
Yes. Welcome all who join me at the peak of photography.

>>4397526
>4x5 film confirmed for 20mp
Om-5 > 4x5

>>4397535
>500 megapixels to simulate 4x5" film

Bro cannot read to save his dang life, lmao.

>>4397537
The professional photo exhibition magazine said 20mp was enough to sub for 4x5. 500mp is just the buyers remorse on rockwell’s part. His logic about megapixels being excessive for display makes sense and then he suddenly contradicts his own source… lol! Gearfags are a curious bunch.

I have never seen a 500mp scan of 4x5 that didnt just look like someone blew up an olympus jpeg in photoshop. Whatever the technical diffracting circle of confusion transfer function is the reason, 4x5 is somehow only as good as 35mm but less grainy so it looks like digital photography after you brush off the pubes and dog hairs. You really dont need more than an om-5 and gradients in photoshop. Numbers only matter if they do something in real life, and buddy your giant numbers don’t. 4x5 = 20mp digital camera at the lowest iso setting. I’ll give you 25mp (just over 3 macbookscreens) to be nice.

>>4397475
>i usually tend to scan on my gfx100 (first gen) and gf 120mm macro
can you post some example scans

>>4397546
Yeah, for their magazine. Just insane cope on your part. Let's see your 1/60th crop from your om5 jpeg.