This is the post for stupid questions that don't deserve their own thread.
>>4462404how close can you go if you set camera flash on AA mode
>>4462404Will a creepy grin behind the viewfinder each time I'm about to shoot make my photography better?
Will we ever get flashes with AF assist lamps compatible with mirrorless cameras? It's been years.
>>4462616Only visible light ones because thats all the sensor can pass
>>4462404should i buy a nikon z f ? by my completely ignorant and low IQ estimation, it seems to shit over its direct competitors.the main complaint from people seems to be that it’s heavier? but are these critics weak? do they suffer from muscular dystrophy?
>>4462645heavy? no lookin good? not really, it looks like a fucking cheap plastic replica of an old slr film camerafeels good? no. feels like a TV remote controler
>>4462654fuck you on ? its strait up metal frame with bras dials, my only complain is that bottom plate is plastic and finish is a bit meh but camera fells like absolute tank do you fucking like in alternative dimension ? >>4462645sure go for it or if you want modern formfactor z 5 II is even better value for money
>>4462404is it normal to have random debris on your sensor every time you take your camera out? i bought an old dslr and i have to use a handheld dust blower everytime i take it out
>>4462616My new neewer flash has an af assist lamp that works with AF. Its like a criss cross pattern that fires off in the dark.
Zoom is very important to me, i live on one of the busiest avenues in my city the p1100 focus is so slow and the quality of the 1/2.3 inch sensor is just a bit too bad for me, i only take pics and video of people So an aps c is the best option for me right? i was thinking about canon with their 1.6x crop factor with a 200-800mm or 150-600mm?
any decent way to extend camera strap? i bought one from a junk shop and it looks like the previous owner cut the ends a bit shorti want to keep it, but use it cross-body
>>4462785Which one is that? And does the feature have a name on the specs?
>>4462771No that's not normal. Could possibly be the foam buffer material that the mirror hits on disintegrating but I haven't personally seen that happen on anything that was made since the 70's.
>>4462974Neewer Z2 Pro. I think Pro is a recent one and its not the normal Z2, but not sure if that makes a difference, its just the one i have.>How it Works >Low-light focusing:>When you are in a dark environment, the AF assist light emits a pattern onto your subject, giving the camera's autofocus system a reference point to lock onto.>Integrated into the flash:>The AF assist light is a separate, built-in feature of the flash unit, allowing it to function independently of the main flash output.Honestly i was surprised it even worked and on a cheap 3rd party flash.
>>4462974You'll need a flash compatible with your camera to use the AF assist. Usually cross branded flashes will work as a basic flash because they're a standard hotshoe but the AF assist requires communicating with the camera to know when you're half-pressing the shutter button.
>>4462948sure its possible but just study part numbers and get decent one
>>4462979Dang. Even that one is still just a white LED. I was expecting a green laser. It's a shame there's been no good solution to this for mirrorless. My flash's AF assist beam never triggers on my compatible D3300, so I don't even how well the old IR lasers worked on DSLRs. Guess I can't miss what I never experienced.
>>4462999>Dang. Even that one is still just a white LED. No, its a red criss cross pattern. That white LED is completely different and for fill light video stuff.Sorry i got that meme arrow description from google, it was probably ai slop. I never read through the marketing, i just bought it for fill light.
>>4463000All the youtube videos I checked out are glossing over it. I hate review-for-ad-revenue slop. I'll have to keep digging to find a real showcase of it.
>>4462948What kinda sicko cuts the strap? How about passing another strap through the loop?
How do I get this?
>>4463030you will need a transwoman and the newest sony to get that combination of flawless autofocus and lifeless color science
>>4463008is there anywhere i can get the correct size string besides chopping up other straps?
I've got an old Olympus C-8080, it only takes CF and xD cards. xD is obsolete and CF is expensive so I tried a CF to SD adapter but it no worky. Tried formatting both on the PC and in the camera. Is there any formatting trick or magic adapter/SD card that will work here, or am I just SOL?
The feedback loop for long exposures in low light is so damn slow.Anyone have tips or tricks for figuring out the right exposure when the exposure time and in-camera metering can't calculate it?Talking 15minute or bulb mode time frames, with tight apertures like f/16 for deep DOF behind circular polarizer in low light.I know adding light is probably recommended but I want to snap some pics of super dark areas with a tripod without adding artificial lighting.
>>4463047>CF is expensive anon you can get a 8gb transcend cf card for $20 on amazon or just go on ebay and they go even lesscf cards don't die nearly as quickly as sds you're fine buying them used imo
>>4462890why tho
>>4463051Considering for that price I can get a 128GB-256GB SD card, yes, CF is expensive. I'm not a devoted shutterbug so I've never had a problem with SD cards dying, and it's just a more convenient form factor for me to work with overall. My card reader doesn't have a CF slot either, granted the C-8080 can transfer pics over USB but I prefer using a card reader.If I just have to bite the bullet in the end then it is what it is, but it'd be neater if I could get an SD card working in the C-8080.
>>4463049I'm not an expert on the subject but I've done it before by first shooting wide open at high iso to get the right sort of exposure and then calculating how many stops of time I need to add to compensate for the actual aperture and iso I'll be using.
What's a good (enough), cheap camera I can pick up for photographing artwork?
>>4463075If you're talking about art (you) made, either get a scanner, or any printer with a document scanner.Otherwise, just lurk around local camera shops and hunt for a good used deal. That's the best way to get a camera on a budget. As a bonus most camera shop staff, at least in my experience, know their stuff and can say off-hand whether any given camera would be good to go or not for your purposes.
>>4463056It's a 8mp camera. 8mp RAWs and Jpegs are gonna be 200-500 pictures with 4gb or 8gb RAW+Very hard to imagine youre taking 200+ pictures in one outing with that camera. Just pick up a CF reader off Amazon for $8 and a CF card for $10-20. A 128gb+ sized SD card might not even be able to be read by a old camera btw. The hard limit for alot of the vintage cameras is usually either 16 or 32gb cards. Even the cameras that have SD card slots from that time period don't work sometimes with a 128gb SDXC and you need to go find a 32gb SDHC.
>>4463078Scanners haven't been great on color even with color correction so I'm fed up and looking for a camera at this point.
>>4463081A camera will not do better. Wrong tool for the job.
>>4462404What would you say that makes a post be worth it its own thread, please? :) (just asking because I am trying to learn (of curiosity, not some real or imagined "job") + I am half self-discouraged of googling what many terms here even mean :) )
>>4463075Perhaps it would be worth your while inquiring at local museums, galleries, archives and libraries whose business it is to digitise artworks of various kinds.
>>4463100>be worth your while inquiring at local museums, galleries, archives and libraries:/ I did. That is why I am asking here. [ups - hand over mouth emoji]
>>4463100Because those set ups are done with tons of lighting equipment and cameras with special lens that I could never afford. It's why I'm asking here
>>4463103What if of making cheap set ups of just taking pictures of pages of books and sending/giving them to friends (=nothing illegal), for them to be available of borrowed to friends (=nothing commercial of/or illegal) and getting help of making the pictures be... available items of free resources (to friends, of course)... even without much internet, even knowledge? :)
>>4462977I got a nikon d300 for a steal but it wasn't in the best of shape. I'm going to grab a apsc swab and clean in for real and hope the debris stays gone this time.
I'm selling some of my K Mount stuff to pair down. I'm in the USA btw. Pentax DA 18-135mm - $80 locally / $100 on eBay (I paid $60, next cheapest is $100 from a Japanese seller)KF w/18-55 kit lens and 7869 shot count - $340 locally / $400 on eBay (next cheapest is $450 body only) Pentax-F 100mm Macro - $40 locally / $60 on eBay (bad internal hazing but still takes decent pics, pic related)Left: 18-135mm - 1/100 f5.6 1600 60mm Focal Length (brighter image)Right: 100mm Macro - 1/125 f7.1 1600 (darker image)Both SOOC jpeg (top) and edited (bottom, macro was darker requiring a -0.7 exposure for 18-135mm to match)Am I asking too much?
>>4462404Should I get a griii or a griiix
what’s the goal when editing photos i just play around with stuff until i think it looks goods to meanytime i share it, it’s always shit
>>4463144The difference is 28mm vs 40mm. The GRiii is the former and I’m thinking that one but is 40mm better for standing further away from hapless, random subjects
>>4463304>i just play around with stuff until i think it looks goods to methis is the way>anytime i share it, it’s always shitcalibrate your monitor and only edit at ~20-60% of your monitors min/max brightness, whatever is equivalent to the amount of ambient brightness in your editing environment
>>4463144Are you poor or something?
>>4463353Which one do you use the most
>>4463079I think you're right, I think 8GB may be the limit for the C-8080. I did find one successful experiment with using a 16GB, in that the formatted, but according to the guy the camera was much slower in general with the card in.An 8GB SD card is still about half the price of an 8GB CF card, though of course the price difference is smaller in an absolute sense. But it's literally the only thing I have that uses CF cards, which annoys me.Maybe I'll get one of those NOS(?) Hitachi microdrives on ebay for the novelty, lol.
>>4463358CF cards are more reliable than SD cards. My bigger issue is most laptops and computers not having a CF reader and the pins being bent easily on the camera if you put it in the wrong way. The latter is the real reason CF cards suck. But on the flip side they don't die as quickly as the SDs.
>>4463362Real homies buy business-grade laptops with CF and full SD card readers so you can make backups in the field.
>>4463362I guess I should count my lucky stars that Olympus included a CF slot and didn't give in to the invasive thoughts telling them to make it xD-only.>Max. size 2GB>Slow>Dead format, cards cost an arm and a legLol, lmao even.
>>4463353The iii. I love the idea of the iiix but in practice it feels a bit too tight at times. I mean maybe I’m just a shitter but wider feels better. It’s not bad enough that I want to get rid of the thing cause they’re still just great little cameras but yeah>requisite dog photo taken with camera
>>4463354Derp meant to reply >>4463621 hurray for phoneposting
>>4463621Thanks that’s what I thought, but something inside me feels like the 40mm is a challenge calling to me
>>4463030good lord is this what weebs watch all day. No wonder they are on the edge constantly
What's the best open source or freeware option for quickly browsing large number of RAWs to rate them before importing to target software to work on?
are there any resources online with production ranges for film boxes or canisters to guesstimate the production and expiration year?
>>4464851just browse the jpegs, the raws' thumbnails are copies of the jpegs
>>4464854No, I mean quick browsing AND rating, you know, these "stars" in file properties. In most software for editing photos you can filter files by rating and when I have, say, 2000 photos and only going to edit 200 of them, it would be quicker to view them all and slap rating on selected few and then import instead of importing all, load them inside software, rate them here and filter since any soft takes a while to load the image itself.
>>4464855You can do that in your camera can't you? That said, I'm pretty sure most cameras come with (not quite free but free with the camera purchase) software that does exactly that.
>>4464851XnView is best free, PhotoMechanic is best paidI've never been a fan of pre-culling before import, and even with LR, I would just wait for previews to build and cull easily after. Adding the extra step of funneling through separate software never felt worth it. Now with C1 and it's built-in culling features, faster than ever for me now.
how fragile are modern high end cameras?if I get Leica Q3, is it going to survive being in a backpack on my back while I'm on a run outside and jumping up and down?
>>4465055Yes, some people use the Q2/Q3 in literal warzones
>>4465056that doesn't answer my questionpeople photographing in "warzones" are not in active combat, it's still people slowly moving on foot with camera in their handI'm asking about the level of sustained abuse Q3 can handle
>>4465060>I'm asking about the level of sustained abuse Q3 can handleNo, you're being a pedantic retard, leave the board please
>>4465062no I won't>pedanticI don't think you know what this word means, I literally disproved your dumb point with facts and logicI'm assuming you don't have any knowledge about photography, so I'll wait for someone else to maybe reply
>>4465064you should buy the q3 and shove it up your asshole
>>4465065that's the kind of reply I expected from a /p/enthusiast, what are you currently shoving in your butthole? are you up to a telephoto lens yet?
>>4465055The Q3 has known issues with the LCD screen and you may have to baby it somewhat. Owners accept this as part of quick-onset Stockholm syndrome after dropping $6k on a Sony sensor with Panasonic-patent glass and dogshit AF.https://peterpoete.de/one-camera-one-lens-one-year-leica-q3/https://www.snapsbyfox.com/blog/leica-q3-43-long-term-reviewhttps://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/414201-summilux-q-43mm-f2-design-by-panasonic/
>>4465064You think>used in literal warzonemeans>People slowly moving on foot with camera in handYou are retarded, that's for sure
>>4465077>you may have to baby it somewhat.And then you go onto post a review that hypes up the build quality
>>4465153are you a woman? gushing about "warzones" like people that can afford leicas are going into bayonet battles you have no idea what you're talking about, girl
>>4465165No, I just follow a few war photographers and several of them choose to use Leica
>>4465155damn you're so gay it's crazy,
I know nothing about photography. Inherited a Nikon f70/n70 in the us.Keep or get rid ?
nx studio image looks different from lightroom without any effects done with the same camera standard profilehow do i tell nx studio not to fuck around with the image and start the raw development from scratch?picrel: lightroom, 100%, wb as shot, profile: camera standard
nx studio, 100%, standard picture control, original value everything
>>4465279There is no starting from scratch in practiceEvery raw program, even at defaults (or zeroed) settings, will look a little differentIf you have LR, zero reason to use NX
>>4465284I’m aware that different software interpret sensor data differently. I typically use Lightroom (arr matey) but am trying out NX Studio because apparently I need it for pixel shift processing images from my camera. I would like to use it for scanning media in large detail. I think my camera sensor has an AA filter, but at least I’d like it if the raw images don’t get Auto DNRed or other computer processing by default in NX Studio as it appears it has done on my sample image.
Nobody replied to this question in Instagram thread so I repost it here since it probably IS pretty stupid question - how people are expected to use Instagram? Various people tells me it is absolutely essential so I guess I will have to make account after all. But what to put in it? I upload galleries of my photos at private site so I guess I should put 5-10-15 "best of" photos from such galleries when I upload one and provide link? I'm sorry but I never used IG and have barely even experience with FB or other social media.
>>4465487IG is not essential and you should outright ignore it and oppose it. Both sides of the political spectrum will think you're based. Everyone hates social media.
Drunk purchased a x100vi. What do I do first?
>>4465492Numerous people at anime con, both cosplayers I photographed and actual photographers told me to make account as something absolutely essential for contact and leading people to my site, where I upload galleries.
>>4465507return it and order a better camera like a ricoh gr iiix
retarded fuji doesn't have a good 28 mm equivalent lenswhat do?35mm is shit....
If put my camera on a tripod and aim it at myself does it still count as a selfie
>>4465592Sure!
Best camera/lens to shoot homemade couple sex? Holding my smartphone is too close up.
>>4465668>fat peopletape over the lens of your phone and use that>otherwiseAny APS-C camera with an UWA lens. Canon 550D + EF-S 10-18mm etc.Bonus: UWA lenses are how pornos make the cock look so huge, because throwing a UWA lens real close to a subject will make it look much bigger than anything else in the scene.
Does lower f mean better?For example regarding ultrawide, is f/1.7 (Pixel 10 Pro) better than f/2.2 (Pixel 10 base)?I don't know much about photography but I know lower number = less light (bad), but makes background blurry which apparently the photography people like it for some reason.I prioritize low light capabilities, if that makes any difference.
How do you get this page to show info of photos, I’m on iPad and it doesnt
>>4465768Lower number means more light, which means you can raise the shutter speed a tad/lower the ISO.It's not necessarily "better"- a rule of thumb is shoot at f/8 so mostly everything is in focus. But since you're shooting in the dark you probably won't be able to go that high. Get a tripod.
>>4465565not sure whatyou mean. the xf 18/2 and 18/1.4 are both good. pic related is the f2. also, 35mm fl is king
>>4465775Damn, I got confused. Lower number (f/1.7) means more light, but less stuff in focus.So in low light situations, the f/1.7 (Pixel 10 Pro) is better. As its aperture is bigger and allows for more light in. On the downside, the background will not be in focus (= less depth of field).Is that right?
>>4465691I've heard of people using iPhone to create Hollywood movies. Can I just use my iPhone? How much of a difference would that be compared to a real camera?
>>4465776image quality looks goodbut heard the autofocus bad and loud, no weather seal, and the 1.4 is hugeso went with the XF 23/2and while it's great, the 28mm has more swag
Hello,I am a completely new photography enthusiast and would like recommendations for a good DSLR brand or model that is preferably affordable/second hand please.I have never owned a camera before so any recommendations would be really appreciated!
>>4465842Wrong place to ask this bro. Just get something for like 300 bucks and use it for a while. Eventually youll know what you actually want in a camera.
>>4462404How do you ask models to pose nude for you?
>>4465832never had an issue with the autofocus on mine and never noticed the noise. no weather seal is a bummer. i really wish fuji would release a version with sealing
>>4465487Instagram is absolutely essential for you as a photographer from last 10 years. Ignore that other crab. You should post best of your photos and tag the people in them. Insta these days also work as portfolio so keep that in mind too. Also follow other photographers that you like or the cosplayers that you want to work with. DM them and do photoshoots. Go hard mode on networking. Also you can do collaborative posts with other accounts.
>>4465867Show them references like this.
>>4465842Nikon D5200 or D5300, if you know what I mean
>>4465777>So in low light situations, the f/1.7 (Pixel 10 Pro) is better.Ehh kind of. We're missing a whole lot of the story. I'll try and keep it simple but I wouldn't want you to join the team of morons on /p/ who think physics acts differently becuase it would make their favourite camera appear better.Alright so, that f/stop number is exactly the focal length of a lens divide by the diameter of the aperture opening. So a 50mm lens with a 25mm aperture opening is f/2 (50 divide by 2 is 25). If the aperture was only 10mm wide it would be f/5. etc. Same concept with the phone lens, but it's ACTUAL focal length is probably something like 4mm. You might hear it get called "equivalent 24mm" which is the marketing way of saying: "This phone camera has a similar Field of View as a real camera with a full-frame sensor has, when IT uses a 24mm focal length lens." But that sounds like shit, so just call it a 24mm f/2 lens on the phone, horray.Anyway, let's say the phone has a 4mm lens. To achieve f/2 you need an aperture 2mm wide. Not hard to achieve in a phone. Congrats your phone lens is f/2, but this doesn't mean it has the same light gathering capability of a full-frame camera with an f/2 lens. Not at all. Because the REAL light gathering metric is the aperture diameter. A 2mm wide aperture is capturing fuck all light compared to 25mm in the real camera. This combines with the size of the sensor your camera uses, which surprise, on a phone is tiny compared to a real camera. So, the fact your phone has an f/1.7 aperture is good... compared to other phones that have f/2.5 or f/3 etc, but it's pathetic compared to cameras with larger sensors and bigger lens aperture diameters (also called 'pupil entrance size')There's a bunch of math you can do to figure out specifically how it performs against larger sensor cameras, but just don't delude yourself into somehow thinking a phone camera destroys a big modern DSLR/MILC.
>>4465936>muh equivalence is le everythingPut your trip back on so I don't have to endure your bullshit, cANON.
>>4465936I won't even bother explaining why sensor tech and computational photography makes your argument collapse under its own weight just put your trip back on
>>4465937>>4465938Make a trip so I can filter your moronic asses off this board lmao
Why are there so many namefags on /p/.Is it just because "artists" are attention whores, or maybe because /p/ is (seemingly) very focused on posting OC?
>>4465940Sometimes they're fun to see what comes out
>>4465936>waaaaaaahhhhhh gfx sucks because no native f/1.2 lenses (actually because I can't afford it) I hate Fuji waaaaahhhh I'm poor wahhhhhhh USA didn't beat us to the moon waaaaaaaaahhhhhh Jews waaaaaahhhhhhReconsider your life
>>4465943>posts about phone sensors>somehow this means it was all about GFX all alongmeds
>>4465936Equivalence doesnt include ISO either. Larger sensors perform better in low light IRL than equivalence wankers predict.
>>4465778>Can I just use my iPhone?If you're okay with its quality.>How much of a difference would that be compared to a real camera?Much.
>>4465946>wahhh your sensor size doesn't matter what matters is aperture diameter wahhh gfx bad waaaaaahhhhhh I'm poor waaaaahhhh
>>4465951>Equivalence doesnt include ISO either.Correct. Exactly why I didnt say it did.>>4465959>wahhh your sensor size doesn't matter Didn't say that. I hit the word limit so I didn't go into detail on that subject.>gfx bad Are you projecting or something?I'm starting to have serious concerns about the level of reading comprehension some of you have.
>>4465969/p/ is traumatized by micro four thirds shills aggressive retardationThey were so bad jannies banned their thread
>>4464852You can message the company itself, most of the records like this are kept secret then spat out on boomer forums in the early aughts
>>4465937>>4465938Rent free, also phones suck compared to almost any dedicated camera and YES, equivalence is why.>>4465943>>4465959The single merit of the GFX is being cheap, I don't get why you insist on the poorfag angle. Equivalence is, indeed, everything.>>4465951Except it does. Otherwise your precious 44x33 scamera would be a low light beast and it's not. The entire point of the larger sensor is muh megapickles, because it's the smallest pixels they can currently litograph on that sensor size (or FF) while guaranteeing enough yield to be profitable at an affordable price. The smaller the pixels and the bigger the sensor the lower the yield at the fab.
>>4466044It doesn't. I have no idea why you're still disputing this when huskyfag hasphoto'd your ass into oblivion with actual evidence that equivalence does not include ISO (in case it werent obvious on dpreview)
What material can I use to line a hard lens case? I'm thinking adhesive backed neoprene sheets, is anything better/more appropriate?
>>4466080Because his tests aren't scientific enough
Is topaz AI a sensible purchase? I'm against subscriptions so it's like 199 which feels kinda expensive but not really
>>4466183Do you care about authenticity? Do you print murals?
>>4466184Not really and no. My use case is high ISO low light shots since I don't dabble with manual settings and tripods too much.
>>4466084Closed cell PE foam? It's relatively cheap and not prone to turn into sticky mush.Get a sheet of of foam to glue inside of cover and a block of foam which fills rest of the case. Arrange everything you want to store on block and trace and cut out shapes deep enough items will be flush with foam block.
>>4466084I'd go with some felt or flocking personally. I've done something similar with a hard-drive case in the past and it's doable just make sure if you get the self-adhesive stuff that it's heavy duty or "jewelry grade" or whatever the fuck. Flocking alone would not provide much in the way of cushioning but you could fill it out with a lining for foam first.
>>4466183I use Topaz Photo + Video, good for enlarging and NR, the face reconstruction can be nice tooI don't use it as much as I thought I would, but it has been nice to haveI can run some examples through it if you have any to postVideo I pretty much just use for upscaling old videos, don't really use it for any actual video work I do.
>constructive interference in out-of-focus areaneat but also a little annoying
So do you ever get your passion back after starting to do this for money after it being a simple hobby? Shifting direction and style from only caring about my own personal satisfaction to needing to satisfy my client's wants and needs is starting to make this feel stale, like actual work rather than it being a creative outlet. I feel like I'm pumping out uninspiring boring garbage that the client ends up being happy and satisfied with, who in turn brings in more people who want the same basic portraits.
Hello, I’m unironically one of those assholes who wants to take ultra warm ‘70s “filmic” pictures with a digital camera. I have no proof, but I liked this before it was trendy. Problem - now everyone thinks it’s trendy and Fuji prices are through the roof. Was gonna go Fuji a couple years ago, but now a used X-pro3 costs $5-700 more than an x-t3 with the same sensor, and almost as much as a Nikon zf that’s objectively higher performing full-frame with the downside of needing a bit more work in post.I fucking hate dicking around in LR, but I really enjoy the other aspects of photography. I actually learned on film as a little kid, and I’d go back to that if it wasn’t for the headache of needing to deal with rolls, mail them to development, etc. My buddy who shoots on Fuji has his little dialed in Kodak-lite simulation, and he can send his pics straight to a phone and then onto his and the models social media. It’s just wildly more convenient. Also claims that the rangefinder style body is friendlier and easier to work with amateur/social-media models. For documentary/travel shit I feel like the smallness of the Fuji bodies+lenses would be nicer. But the ZF is tempting for the raw numbers and performance. Either way, I’ve found the retro look really helps avoid negative attention as a tourist, big black blob camera makes people think you’re Doing Things. Anyway - I don’t have Leica money lmao, and autofocus is nice sometimes, and the instant feedback on digital would really help with what I’m trying to do over real 35mm. Also kinda worried about buying high selling low with Fuji, whenever this retro thing peaks and fades
>>4467232I watched a video today where the dude took film photos and Fuji fake film photos back to back. Fuji fake film came out as exagerrated le retro le film, while film photos looked just normal.
I want to learn to make nsfw edits using GIMP.Nothing major, just the standard clean up portrait, enhance breast size, add make up, "beautify filter" but manually, etc.Where is the best place to learn that?
>>4462890creep
>>4462404In Rawtherapee my RAWs look pretty much exactly like they do in-camera (D800), but in Lightroom I always have to fiddle with them A LOT, because they look so washed out and pale.Do any of you know why? Can I get the same default rendering in Lightroom?
>>4467517Play around with what profile you are using
>>4467519I tried fiddling with the adobe profiles, but they all look like ass. I wonder why only Rawtherapee gets it right
>>4467520post what a photo looks like in each
Is there a good work flow for adjusting the image and color settings in a Canon camera? I have a color checker and liked the colors and contrast of my old camera better. Do I just compare the color values side by side and try eyeballing the settings if I want to fix the issue in camera?
>>4467580Did you buy a R?
>>4467475if you want to see some real creeps head over to the carnival thread
what are the differences between these automatic color balance options?i can see that they're different, i just want to know the logical reasoning/equation behind them
>>4467580Make a custom picture style using their PC software and load it into your camera. Useful for adjusting a lot of stuff you otherwise don't have control over for JPEGs.For RAW? Go fuck yourself, unless you're using DPP for initial/full conversions.
I have an itch to try a 100 megapickels medium format camera. What is the current best bang per buck option?
I zoomed in on my CCD sensor photos and found hot pixel but they are not prominent if I don't zoom. How fucked I am? What is the meaning of this?
>>4467580
>>4467756every sensor has them, no big deal, fix in post.
>>4467756Are you sure it's not dust?
How do I calculate my settings properly when using multiple ND filters?If I put my ND4 on top of my ND2 is that the same as using an ND6?Want to try some long exposure on 35mm film where I don't have the luxury of just trying out a few settings and seeing what workd
>>4467517>>4467521Sorry for late reply, but just look at this.Lightroom is so pale and the colours are really muted.
>>4468291Lightroom profiles are notoriously bad and lightroom is the source of cope myths like "raws are MEANT to look bad and flat because you're supposed to edit extensively!", false ideas like "ETTR changes colors" (its just a lightroom bug) and brand war memes like "snoy colors" and "fuji worms" (these are actually lightroom not fully supporting the file format). It's why so many grifters can actually profit off selling low effort presets.Lightroom is a small step above FOSS software since you're going to calibrate your camera yourself anyways
>>4468293That's insane, but I believe you.How the do I "calibrate" my camera for Lightroom?
When I open a jpeg with faststone image viewer it looks like pic2. If I open the raw with the windows Fotoeditor it looks like pic1. And if I open the raw again with faststone, it looks like pic2 again.What is going wrong? I don't get it. And I would like to have a reproduceable editing strategy
>>4468294Google your own post homo
>>4468297All the presets suck.Changing a preset is not "calibrating".
>>4468316>le AIFine i did it for youhttps://www.pictureline.com/blogs/products/how-to-get-perfect-color-with-x-ritePls learn to use google
Which option is better: new sony zv-e10 for 630e/$740 or used sony a7c for 850e/$1000 (looks great, but has 16k shots and without original box)
>>4468332the a7cbut ask them to take a photo with green trees and a bright sky, and show it displaying on the rear screen and then another photo through the evfif the screen has yellower greens and a kind of purpler sky do not buy that specific a7c, it has a defect and should have been sent back under warranty
>>4468319Thanks, ChatGPTYou are my best friend
>>4468192>If I put my ND4 on top of my ND2 is that the same as using an ND6?yes
>>4468374... no. It's measuring stops. That's like saying f/2 and f/2.8 make f/4.8.ND2 is one stop, ND4 is two stops. Put them together and it's an ND8 which is 3 stops. ND16 is four, ND32 is five, etc.
>>4468381depends on the manufacturer, I just assumed anon was talking stopsfwiw the ND filters I have are labelled 0.6 (2 stops) and 0.9 (3 stops)
Where on this website can I get advice on photo editing like GIMP?
>>4468381>>4468384well, according to the uncited table on wikipedia (with a note that contradicts the existence of something sitting in front of me) there's only two systems, neither of which are stopswell then
>>4468384Ah, so that's two different measurements. It's optical density vs light blocking factor. Exact same thing measured a different way. With the decimal system you divide by 0.3 to find your stops. With the NDx(x) system you have to work with powers of two. An ND4 is the same as an ND 0.6.So fair enough on your part, but if anon said ND4, a two-stop ND is far more common than a 13.33 stop ND. >>4468392>Uncited WikipediaExactly as reliable as it sounds.
>>4468398>if anon said ND4, a two-stop ND is far more common than a 13.33 stop ND.no I though it was literally the reduction in stopsso ND4 = -4 stops
>>4468401I'm inclined to just say that sounds retarded and move on, but there's a simple way to test it yourself.Take all filters off your camera and set it to M. Keep the camera stationary, on a tripod or just sat on a desk looking at something that isn't changing.Set the exposure to -+0 (i.e. middle of the light meter; correctly exposed) then screw on your ND4. Check where the light meter goes after you put the filter on. If it's an ND4 that blocks two stops, your shot should read as two stops underexposed now.I say this so you can test it yourself instead of relying on random internet guy (me), but my final rebuttal is what do you think an ND1000000 is? Do you reckon it prevents a million stops of light coming through?
>>4468418are you retarded?I already said I was wrong
>>4468437>ctrl+f>wrongno you didnt anon
>>4468439
Is photography the right place to ask about learning about GIMP?
>>4468657Sort of. Depends. GIMP is basically a photoshop clone, but there's plenty of tools in there that are relevant to photography. As long as it pertains to editing photographs go ahead.
What the fuck causes this kind of obvious banding? SOOC Pano using a CPL. I was thinking maybe the CPL was changing the polarisation of the sky as it panned, but I thought the result would be a gradient not obvious lines.
>>4468658How to make a fat tummy into a slim tummy?I know the cage transform and warp tools. Those can easily make the sides of the body slim, but the tummy still looks fat (and now compressed after warp tools).
>>4468660CPL bruh. by pano swiveling you change the angle of the light which changes the CPL effect slightly. you should just get a Hasselblad X2DII and take proper X-Pan panos with it.
>>4468660you have those lines because that's how pano in-cam algorithm works. it stitches a shit ton of images together (way more than you do when you do it manually). and because with every different angle your sky gradient looks a little different you get those lines (like you would shift the starting point of the gradient every time by a little).
>>4468319Any way to calibrate without buying le super pro color brick?
>>4468746>how do i calibrate colors without buying a reference to calibrate to?install capture one so you start with competent colors and color management to begin withlightroom is so bad at handling color that ETTR changes colorsthe caveat is capture one rendering is very much like scanned medium format film and lightroom rendering is much sharper and grittier, and most people prefer super sharp imageshttps://chromasoft.blogspot.com/2009/09/why-expose-to-right-is-just-plain-wrong.htmlctrl+f "color and tone curve shifts" to get to the only relevant and honest part of the article (the rest is dunning kruger ranting about how doing ETTR wrong, ie: not at base ISO, doesn't do anything)scroll up slightly to see capture one handling ETTR correctlyof course the author is an adobe baby duck so he concludes ETTR is the problem, not his choice to use defective software from the same company that brought you the least stable and least secure program ever made - adobe flash
>>4468319Uhm, don't you also need lamps with two pre-calibrated temperatures?
>>4468751>capture one rendering is like scanned film, most people like sharper imagesFor real? I’ve never looked at side by side comparisons, but if that’s true, it’ll save me a ton of time trying to dick my pictures around until they have that nice vintage summery feel instead of some Ken Rockwell crispy stuff
My dad got me an olympus 8080 for $5 at a garage sale but a modern 2 gb SanDisk card wont format and the local camera place doesn't have test cardWhat's the best place to buy a CF or XD card that would work I don't know fuck all about cameras
>>4468818Get a 8gb CF card, a lot of these older cameras shit themselves when you go over 32gb.
Calibrating is fucking retarded. You either accept that your chosen medium has inherent characteristics and enjoy your day or you spiral into insanity trying to get "the right colors".It's the same mental illness like looking at charts and shooting screws to "test" lenses.
More like venting off but - does it make sense to maintain your own site to host photos anymore? I mean, years ago, when I would make (compared to my current ones - rather clearly lacking) cosplay/event/con photos, I would get 200-400 views, nowadays after spending week or two on working out similar photos, I get max 10-30 views instead. Sure, photographing is fun in itself but I really want to show my work to others. Everyone I met expects Instagram account and focusing there but I find it quite restrictive - not only it cuts photo in odd square proportions in preview (can show in original proportions after clicking but it still looks bad) but also easily marks account for spamming if you upload too much. I'm just sad.
>>4468192Just test it on a digital camera until you get roughly what you're after and then look up the exposure compensation on the film manufacturers reciprocity table. Simple dimple.
>>4468874>cosplaykill yourself pedo
>>4468887Cosplayers that makes or modify their costumes are almost always in their 20s or older. Have you even been at con?
>>4468889>Have you even been at con?no, as i'm not a pedo
>>4468894Figures. Now that you are corrected, don't say such dumb things again.
>>4468874Your own website is good for booking clients as a professional, it's not really a good way to just share photos with others, that's what social media is for
>>4468874Sorry mang, the current ecosystem relies on a constant churn of social-media turd-tier content being funneled in and out of a feed at the same speed. Your engagement with traditional mediums like self-hosted shit is going to be fuck and all. Maintain a webpage to keep a portfolio you can direct people to when/if the occasion arises, but for showing random people you're plain fucked.Submit to the socio-algorithim or do what I did and get a portable printer. I've been handing out 3x2s to people all around me and it has been the best way to show my photography to both people I know and don't know.>>4468887>>4468894weak bait, here's your (You)
>>4468751>Just install [other software]I already posted about Rawtherapee giving me correct colors. I just want LR to give me the same defaults, do I don't have to tard wrangle it for every shot before I can actually start editing it.Rawtherapee seemed extremely lacking when it came to actual editing.
>>4468941buy colorchecker, make individual profiles for daylight, shade, tungsten, fluorescents, and LEDs to be extra autistic
>>4468934>>4468911But social media won't let me host and show 50-100 photo galleries. At the other hand, I start to believe that people no longer want to see 50-100 photos and only max 5 before moving to other topic while browsing on phone. But to condense 2 hours long concert/performance into 5 photos sounds like condensing 300 pages book into 5 sentences.
>>4468942>buy overpriced colorchungus when pantone samplers are freeRedditors everyone
How difficult is it to develop firmware updates for different cameras on the same processor? I want to know if it's a financial decision to not bring the Z8 update to the Z5ii or if it's not possible/too much work. I don't want to get a new body if it can't do Maximum Aperture Live View like any camera should be able to.
>>4468996entirely financial reasonscompanies are aware they cant compete with the used market and aggressively fuck people over. you can not prove they can add it in court because their expert witnesses can defy common sense.
>>4468996>I don't want to get a new body if it can't do Maximum Aperture Live View like any camera should be able to.Silliest of cope>>4468969Oh, it you mean actual client galleries, then your own website / gallery serviceYou should absolutely be able to condense a 2hr concert to a top 10, and then you can deliver the larger gallery to the client as neededWhat do you see other concert photogs doing? Most I see post 5-10 of the best on socials for a given concert, and then the rest to the client. I don't see many of the concert photogs I know just posting full galleries, that's something usually left done to the organization / venue / whoever hired you.
>>4469026>Silliest of cope>It's not in my usecase, therefore it's silly!Stop defending bad design choices that they themselves can easily add.
>>4469028>more copeOr you can just get a Z5II regardless since it's a good camera and it's a non-issue in practice
>>4469050It is an issue in practice with my Z50. And just because the Z5ii is superior in low light, doesn't mean it wouldn't benefit from a firmware update they've already prepared on another camera. The majority of my photograph is low light and having to shoot in f/1.8 to be able to focus sucks.
>>4469051Would it surprise you to know that on DSLRS, going from an f1.4 to f4 (or even f5.6) lens made 0 difference for lowlight focusing with Nikon
>>4469055Yes, because that's not my personal experience trying to focus at 5.6 vs 1.8 in the same scene.
Where to learn portrait editing with GIMP?Don't tell me no one here edits their photos after taking them.
>>4469061Well, the more you know! Nikon's DSLR AF sensors were mostly hard-limited at f5.6. You might get better OVF visibility, but the actual AF system doesn't receive anymore light with a wide-open f1.4 lens than it does with a wide-open f4 lens (Unless you're using the live-view of course).Mirrorless is different, and focusing wide-open can help with the AF system, but the Z5II is already top tier even prior to whenever it receives the update.
>>4469073That is interesting. Back when DSLRs were relevant I was only really interested in Canon and pretty much all of the bodies had cross type AF points for f/5.6 and faster and at least the centre point (sometimes more) was more sensitive with lenses f/2.8 and faster.
>>4469055might be dslr camera model dependend some models use focusing screens optimized to 2.8 and stories tell that apertures 0.75-2.8 do not brighten viewfinder image or give better focus
I'm on a business trip in the middle of nowhere with fuck all to do and decided to check out other boards. I've spent more than an hour scrolling this board and it's nothing but bad snapshits on top of -very- bad snapshits on top of snapshits that make me want to gouge my eyes out. I understand newbs & the learning curve, but the curve here just stops abruptly in the beginning with 3/4ths of it missing. Did all the anons who can actually take decent photos leave or were they never here in the first place, or don't they just post their decent photos/videos because of muh doxxin? Judging by the posts, a select few anons have way above average technical- and inside knowledge (current or former pros in the photo/movie industry) yet I see no works of even average quality. I repeat - there's a few photos/videos of even average quality. A lot of you can talk tech (inane drivel mostly) but the artistic side is mindnumbingly bad here. It's like a bunch of faggots getting together talking endlessly about guitars and dj mixers and PA systems, nitpicking over useless technical shite, while all of them can barely strum a single C chord cleanly or beatmatch tracks or work the EQ, with no hope of actually playing or creating a song. But the gearfaggotry talk is L O U D.
>>4469121It is model dependent, but a brighter or more precise focusing screen has nothing to do with the AF system>>4469132Which photos have you posted here?There are good shots here and there still, but most of the old school people left long ago
>>4469073>Nikon's DSLR AF sensors were mostly hard-limited at f5.6What was the reason? Was it a tech limitation or were there pros to having it that way? And why did similar limitations carry over to their mirrorless line?
>>4469132>none of the photos posted to the photo board are artisticA few helpful tidbits to aid your understanding:1) /p/ is a gear board first and foremost; discussion regarding photographic merit is verboten, and ancillary to picking your favourite sports team (camera manufacturer)2) Most people here and most people with cameras in general are just taking photos of things they think are neat, or things they want to remember. Photography for art in of itself is a rare attempt3) The vast, vast majority (more than 99.99%) of photography isn't art. Nobody on this board is responsible for anything remotely close to a photo belonging to this insignficantly small number of photos. Even photos I would consider nice, pleasing, or even impressive in one way or another do not and can not and will never ever be art.So the moment you stop treating this board as a repository for artistic style and more a rolling release of people's snapshits and interesting moments, it makes more sense.
>>4469132"Art" photography requires a setup. You NEED a model to direct for photography to be art. You NEED to MAKE AND LIGHT A UNIQUE SET for photography to be art. Otherwise, you are just taking a photo of something that was already there, and only the most reductionist, degenerated definition of art would cover it (and would also cover literally any and every motion of the human body as long as someone somewhere had a reaction to it. did you just blink? art! "art students" would unironically just play a looping video of them blinking and call it art. and get away with it, depending on who nose who)Why would someone go through all that effort and post it on the same website that hosts /mlp/, /d/, /b/, /pol/ and /trash/? Especially considering no one here is a rich studio nepobaby so their model is 100% likely to be their gf, and their set is 100% likely to be their bedroom with a few meme props
>>4469154Hot take:Huskyfag, Corgifag, Shepherdfag, and Sugar are the only Art Photographers on /p/.>Direct models>Select characteristic sets>Tell stories90% of people into art just want to see boobs or muscular men so they're unrecognized (sugar's gf doesn't have boobs, and when he was still a dude he didn't have muscles)
>>4469144This goes over everything in detailhttps://www.photonstophotos.net/MarianneOelund/AutoFocus_System_Design/AutoFocus_System_Design.htmConceptually, it might be easiest to consider the AF module as having a "virtual" aperture of f5.6, that all light gets funneled through. It was hard for me to grasp that faster aperture, which normally = more light, doesn't matter in this case, it's like you're only using the light from the f5.6 portion of the lens. I'm pretty sure later Nikon bodies, and for sure many Canon bodies, had f2.8 AF points.Mirrorless (or live view on DSLR) is totally different though. In this case you do get less light hitting the AF sensor when not focusing wide open. The practical benefit is better DoF and exposure preview, and Nikon opted for that while putting their focus on making the AF better despite less light.Depending on the lens' maximum aperture, the aperture used when shooting, and the bodies you're comparing, even despite this "flaw", in many circumstances, the Nikon would still be better off. Nice that we're getting more options with the Z8, but it's only going to take something like a Z5II, which is already basically class-leading, even better. Like it has a ~3.5EV advantage over an R6II for example, so if you're shooting an f1.4 lens at f5.6 or higher, the R6II has a 0.5EV stop advantage, but if you're shooting that f1.4 at anything under f4.5 or lower, the Z5II has the advantage. If you were using an f2, or f2.8 or f4 lens, a Z5II would always have the advantage.
>>4469156Z6II and Z7II users, who did not think that spending $1599-2000 (depending on where the Z5II is sold) on a fucking camera just to fix a programming flaw, on the other hand?Why are they fucked?
>>4469157buyu new camera gaijinif nikon programmer mistake fixu, no reason to buy z5ii or z8. as gaijin say, it is a shrimp pole.
>>4469150>So the moment you stop treating this board as a repository for artistic style and more a rolling release of people's snapshits and interesting moments, it makes more sense.You got me all wrong - there's nothing wrong with snapshits and I enjoy them, it's just that the ones posted here are way worse than average snapshits. This is a photo board, the snapshits here shouldn't be on par with my aunt or my kids or an artistically stunted mechanic's personal snapshit gallery on facebook. That was the whole point of my post. I go to /fit/ and I see anons in better shape than average, I come here... well... >>4469154I can even contort my fingers in a way needed to reply to this. The whole "photography as art" discussion in >>4469150 & >>4469154 is retarded and I'm not going to get b8'd into it. I'll stick to the point I made and only to the point I made: for all the talk the quality of most of the snapshits on /p/ is horrible by all metrics and that got me stumped. I see all that money spent on gear, film, etc, and no results.
Total noob question:What sort of cameras can take photographs of dust/smoke in the air? My phone camera can't really do it well, even though it's visible to my eyes.
>>4469157It's a niche use case of extreme lowlight + using fast lens stopped down where it's ever relevant.If you compare those with the R6, R5 which all released around 2020Shooting at f2,>Z6II -6EV>Z7II -4EV>R6 -5EV>R5 -4.5EVSome more around the same time>A7RIV -3EV (2019)>R3 -6EV (2021)>A1 -4EV (2021)>Z9 -9EV (2021), though I think this is a typo and should be more like -7.5EVSo again, depending on what lens you're using and aperture you're shooting at, Nikon could be best or worst.Were Canon and Sony users similarly fucked because they have such a disadvantage if shooting at faster apertures with a fast lens, or shooting slower apertures with a slower lens?Pros and cons to both.
>>4469161>Shooting at f2,I mean shooting with an f2 lens
>>4469161All sony and canon bodies are capable of popping the aperture open when the AF sensors aren't getting enough lightAnd most good photos are taken stopped downNikon is really fucking people>>4469159>le stunted mechanicWhat's next, "STEMbug"?Is this moop, isi, or is there actually a trans chasing libturd culture thing where they hate on anyone paid more than them by claiming they aren't capable of art that I'm not aware of and there are in fact more than two people that are this retarded?Because it sounds like moop or isiBoth of whom were GOD AWFUL photographers>takes a photo of a truck window in a parking lot in front of a berm>through the window of their mom's cars>"uhm its art... its not a former landfill its the peak of my peoples culture, the ultimate feat of native american engineering... and he has a maga sticker see???? because trump is bad for our people bro. ART" -actual isi moment
>>4469160Clean the lens every time you take your phone out for photography. Every. Time. Or you'll fuck up the contrast, colors, and sharpness, and it'll flare like a motherfucker. Even a tiny fingerprint will ruin your phone photos. Be sure to make your hand into a lens hood and block the light sources to the side (sun, bright lights) that cause flaring and make your phone photo look washed out. You can try underexposing. Try to position yourself that the dust or smoke is illuminated, and that it has a darker background to really make it stand out. You'd also need some depth of field but good luck with that on a phone.
>>4469166what sort of standalone digital cameras can take photos of it?
>>4469165>All sony and canon bodies are capable of popping the aperture open when the AF sensors aren't getting enough lightNo shit, too bad it's still not enough to make a difference in many cases.>Nikon is really fucking peopleBy offering best in-class lowlight AF sensitivity? By offering better lowlight AF capabilities when shooting with a wider aperture? By offering better lowlight AF with slower lenses?Even the R5II released last year is still 3.5EV behind Nikon's latest offerings. Sony's a1II is also still only -4EV with an f2 lens. If lowlight AF is what you're after, seems like the Z5II is an absolute bargain, with a potential 4-5EV advantage over those two. Even in the most extreme case of an f1.2 lens at f5.6, that only brings them into the ballpark of the Z5II.
>>4469160Any, you just need to understand lighting and control the exposure
>>4469172>No shit, too bad it's still not enough to make a difference in many cases.That's funny because basically everyone uses sony and canon for action photography so clearly it does.>BUT NIKONS NEW CAMERASAre almost $2k post tax at the fucking least. Do you not understand that paying nearly $2000 for a camera is stupid? Just so it can say nikon, have some stupid video codecs you dont need unless your client is paying for the camera anyways, and most importantly, say nikon z5ii instead of sony a7iii in the exif so /p/ doesn't bully you?
>>4469175>Do you not understand that paying nearly $2000 for a camera is stupid?no, no one here does"a sony a7iii beats a nikon z6ii for the same sub-$1k price""but nikons $4000 camera is better than shnoooooys! my brand winth! SHNOY isnt even a camera company they're ugly soulless computers and nikon has heritage and is a REAL photographic tool with COLOR SCIENCE"to compare guitars because /p/ is basically just big /gg/ with cameras"idk man, i got this prs se off reverb for $500 and it plays, sounds, and feels as good as the $2600 gibson lp standards i tried out in guitar center. i love making music with it.""but gibthonth CUTHTOM THOPTH have SOUL and prs doethnt. i can tell if thomewons music ithnt worth lishhhhening to if they dont play an american made guitar with TONEWOOD."
>>4469170Any, including your phone, you have manual exposure settings available to you. On the matter of DoF - If the dust is 500ft away ten even the DoF on a full frame camera with a fast prime lens isn't going to help you that much, 10ft is a different story. So DoF may not even matter to you. No need for new gear, just try learn the basics of exposure and lighting, and keep your lens clean and avoid washing out the image with sun directly to your left or situations like that. Do a little test. Stand in a dark hallway, make a lightsource illuminate only a slice of it (open a door and turn on the light, use a lamp, flashlight). Stand in the shadows, make sure the background is in a shadow. Now blow some smoke or dust where the light beam is. It is very visible and easily captured with any camera. Picrelated. You wouldn't see that smoke on a white background. Understand the principle?
>>4469175>That's funny because basically everyone uses sony and canonTrue, but a total non-sequitur. There are many different reasons why people use different cameras, and there are plenty action shooters that do use Nikon.> NIKONS NEW CAMERASI listed how the older ones compared to similar Canony cameras of their time. Back then, they could be better or worse depending on circumstances. Now they are simply the best for lowlight, and withe Z8 update, will be the bestest best.How come I can pay $4k for a Canony, and get worse lowlight AF performance? Those scammers!>sony a7iii>-3EV with f2>5.5EV worse than Z5IIYikes
>>4469181>plenty action shooters that do use Nikon.Because they are rich boomer faggots who think $3k is a fine price to pay for a camera.>but with the update to the $4000 camera>uhhhh but the $800 used a7iii is worse than the nearly $2000 z5ii!Do you not understand that spending almost $2000, let alone $3000, on a camera is stupid?Most professionals don't even spend that much on camerasA sony a7iii focuses in low light well enough, and unlike the similarly priced nikon z6ii, can pop the aperture open when its too dark to focus, and then close it when taking the picture. It does not take an engineering degree to notice this. It takes using the cameras. Leave your numbers at the door and listen to people who have actually used the fucking things in artistic situations like "off camera flash" where nikons leave the apertures closed and refuse to focus and on a sony you can just press a button and even viewfind wide open! to make the EVF more visible and less laggy.Why does nikon not fix thisBecause nikon thinks no one should keep using an $800 camera, and should spend twice as much or more as if the fucking lens for it isn't another $1000You must understand, hobbyist gearfag. You waste a TON of money. And yes it is a lot of money. Even for you.
>>4469159>You got me all wrong - there's nothing wrong with snapshits and I enjoy them, it's just that the ones posted here are way worse than average snapshits.Ah. Fair. I think I did indeed miss the main thrust of your statement.You are correct. Seems the main problem is many other boards have higher engagement in general, and lack the gearfags (at least the photography gearfags), so your average thread is going to contain nicer shots. I'm noticing /p/ appears to lack a point beyond gear-related topics. I am also thinking of leaving /p/ and just going to specific boards to post photos (/o/ and /out/ mostly), which unironically most people here would be better off doing.
>>4469184>nikonnikon has always been a cunt with segmenting their cameras and gimping basic bitch functions just to push you over to the next more expensive tier even back in the 2000s. I mean canon did the same thing, but at least you could flash their cameras with a custom firmware and ... god thinking about Canon and Nikon makes my fucking blood boil. >nOooOOOoOOOOoooOOo you can't have an in camera timelapse function straight off the shelfmeanwhile igor in molvania makes a decent firmware for free with all the functions of a high end cameras and then a boatload more
>>4469184>Most professionals don't even spend that much on cameraslol, you are delusional>A sony a7iii focuses in low light well enoughThen so does a Z6II and Z7II lol>can pop the aperture open when its too dark to focus,The other way to say this, is the Z6II is so much better, it doesn't need to, where as an a7III is so bad, it has to> It takes using the camerasVery true
>>4469193>lol, you are delusionalno u. only proffessionals who spend so much on gear are youtube gearfags running gearfagging channels. pro photographers are poor so they can't afford buying the newest flagshit every 2 years. they rock that D850 they bought 12 years ago until it falls apart then they get a used D850 because they can't afford to buy new Z glass.only youtube gearfags and consoomers actually buy all the new shit
>>4469193not him but you have never ever used a z6ii in the dark or with off camera flash in a studioyou know, things professionals do (wedding venues can be pretty dark, and when is a studio not dim?)i *work in a studio* and rented a z6ii for a week to see if the hype was realif the lens is stopped down it does not focus, period!the z6ii is so much better? no, you lying retard. it literally does not focus. it can only go -5ev. f1.8...f2.8...f4....f5.6... oops now it's a -1ev focuserand any canon or sony just snap sthe aperture open to stay a -3.5ev focuserso to focus a z6ii you>change the aperture setting from f5.6 or f11 to f1.8>focus>then change the aperture back>then throw the camera out the window>then go on ebay and order an a7iii for like $900oh wait sorry i forgot you are a gearfagyou revamp your studio lighting and buy strobes with modeling lights because you love spending moneyso like 99% of professionals i keep using the sony a7iii because it was the same cost as replacing a canon 5div and generally better>>4469195i know a few professionals who use nikon mirrorlessthey only have the 24-120 f4 or 24-70 f2.8, thats it, they only shoot portraits, they use strobes with modeling lights. that's all nikon can do unless you spend four fucking thousand dollars on the kit all inclusive. no one really buys all the new Z glass except for gear FAGGOTS they buy the Z camera because the $1000 zooms are as sharp a their $1000 pile of f mount primes.
>>4469195You don't know many pros IRL it seemsWhat you say might be true if third world, no true anywhere modern>>4469200I'm one of the few wedding pros that posts here lol, I did weddings with much older and worse cameras than a Z6II.It's -6EV with f2, or -3EV when shooting f5.6 or slower, which is the same as an a7III focusing with an f2 lens. If you were to use an f2.8 lens or shoot at f4, it would fair better.You know Nikon doesn't stop down beyond f5.6 too right? So if you're capturing at f8 or f11, it's still using f5.6 for focusing. Are you sure you have used them?
>>4469200>5DIV>-3EV with f2. 8 or fasteryikes
>>4469212kys incel shutin
>>4469178Do you want more or less exposure for that?What about taking photos of smoke off a bonfire or something (during daytime), where you don't have dark background for contrast.
>>4469224Avoid overexposure. If you manage to overexpose the sky chances are that the smoke ends up as a white featureless blotch against objects, or disappears completely against the sky. Shoot RAW and you have freedom to control your highlights and shadows in post. Phones shoot HDR anyway so shadows and highlights shouldn't be a problem as long as you don't overexpose the highlights. Now that I look at picrelated... are you yanking my chain here? Is this a shitpost? Or have I forgot what it means to have no clue about photography?
>>4469228the amount of smoke coming off a fire depends on the stuff you burn. its not always that prominent.
>>4469193>the Z6II is so much better, it doesn't need to, where as an a7III is so bad, it has to>my truck doesn't need circular tires, the engine's strong enough to get by with octagon tires! Your engine just sucks
>>4469244nikons poor market share speaks for itself. they only pulled ahead and only for the japanese market with the z5ii release. who here shoots nikon? huskyfag sugar corgifag ambush… lol. all the worst ones.
seethe
>>4469244It's almost like you should look at an issue from different perspectives>>4469245>more non-sequitor
Now you make me feel bad for using D750 and D5300 before...
>>4469256The problem with that is that it shouldn't be an issue. That's the whole point. It's not only something other brands do, it's something they've adjusted on their more expensive camera via an update. There's no way to look at the company positively on this.
>>4469224>Do you want more or less exposure for that?Assuming that you're not trolling, I would recommend reading a book on photography for beginners. I'm not trying to dunk on you, I'm saying that if you're asking this then you do not understand how a camera works and so any answer you get would probably be meaningless to you.
>>4469259It also shouldn't be an issue when other brands end up worse, but you don't see anyone calling them out on it, do you? Hope you whine just as much about them>>4469257D750's a great camera and was the go-to Nikon choice for stuff like weddings basically until the D850
The EXIF from photos still showing in this board?Or did it got removed since the hack?I'm a tourist and noted that I don't see it in any thread here.
>>4469256Anon the z6ii is worse than the a7iii give it a rest
>>4469279>It also shouldn't be an issue when other brands end up worse, but you don't see anyone calling them out on it, do you? Hope you whine just as much about themIf this were any other company, I'd be saying the same thing. I don't say anything about them, because I shoot Nikon. That's all I have.
>>4469290>I just like to whine for the same of whiningAt least your honest
>>4469283If you shoot with an f1.4 lens stopped down to f5.6 in very dim light, yesOtherwise, no
>>4462404>come back to lurk /p/ after being away for a while>realize /p/ has become one of the worst boards on the 4chanHoly shit this board went to crap. What the hell happened? Where did all the quality posters go? Why the did jannies turn off exif data?
>>4469228What about smoke in a hallway, like from burnt food in oven or stove?
>>4469278That makes sense. I am a beginner so might be a good idea.Any resources you would recommend a beginner to check out in regards to this and choosing cameras?
>>4469292No, I want features in my camera that they have the capability of adding, but don't so you have to spend more for that feature.
>>4469297Things have actually cleared up a little after the EXIF data was removed. You used to get more instant retorts based on your gear before. You still get them if you mention any companies, but apparently the retards cannot read file names yet.But yeah, 4chan got hacked and embeds were being misused so they just picked the easy route out of those problems.
>>4469300>Any resources you would recommend a beginner to check out in regards to thisLike I said: a book on photography that's beginner-friendly. There are dozens if not hundreds of them out there but I'd recommend buying a hard copy of the Photographer's Handbook by John Hedgecoe. You can get it for like $4 on Amazon. It's somewhat antiquated at this point but it does a very good job of illustrating (literally) the basic principles of photography, which haven't changed much over the last century and if you ever decide to start shooting film it will be incredibly useful. Approaching things from the artistic side of things, just go look at photos. Museum exhibits, old magazines, coffee table books, whatever.>and choosing cameras?Buy a gently used Nikon DSLR + kit lens + accessories from Ebay - the D3300 for <$250 if you're pinching pennies and the D3500 for <$450 if you're not. Stay the FUCK away from anyone reviewing and/or trying to sell you a camera or a lens and stay away from youtube on general principle - almost all of them are paid shills and discussing details that absolutely do not matter whatsoever to someone just getting their feet wet.Use that good, cheap Nikon to take photos of whatever you feel like with that kit lens and git gud until you feel like something about your equipment is holding you back. Then, and only then, do you start looking at adding more gear.
>>4469318>almost all of them are paid shillsWHAT DONT YOU UNDERSTAND?! THIS NEW UGREEN NAS JUST REVOLUTIONIZED PHOTO STORAGEfucking youtube is just paid marketing campaigns. some chink brand discovers it and suddenly all the real and down to earth photog youtubers try to sell you some shitty chinkmade NAS I wouldn't even use to store my trap porn collection let alone my RAWsnew lens release? all the youtubers are all over it! like the new huge 50-200 OM system lens ... it's like OM sends them a fucking script and they read off of it. they all say it's SO COMPACT and REVOLUTIONARY while it is the same size and weight as the Nikon Z 100-400mm ... like wtfyoutube was a mistake. i hope it goes belly up once google is raped to death by AI and cant pump money into it. those fucking youtuber faggots all need a real job
>>4469132Check out the instagram thread.No one even half serious wants to post their work in this shithole.
>>4469301Nope, you just want a red herring to whine about>>4469297What contributions have you made to the board since you've been back? Or are you just whining too?
>>4469357>What contributions have you made to the board since you've been back? Or are you just whining too?I have a thread up with a bunch of photos posted, also been effortposting and helping people. What have you done lately? Nothing? That's what I thought, faggot.
>>4469359NTA but /p/ got significantly slower and less populated. I remember that something around 5 years ago when I made a thread about anime con photos I made and asked for advise on how to improve them, I got a lot of replies (including little fight between two users about gear). Recently when I made such thread, I got only few anons replying. It is little depressing.
>>4469297people like corgicuck the gear simp, doghair the film sperg, and huskyfucker the nikon and capture one shill (all m43 haters) in addition to cANON and cinefag killed /p/. Also there was a chosis tier m43 shill spamming and throwing a fit. Its like having 4 sugars and too ambushes for a userbase
>>4469366And clive the deranged gearfag that spams about how much he hates sony 24/7And the zach sagaAnd that german retard that bought 5 different cameras in a month and threw his z6 across the room
>>4469359Near, which thread?>>4469366You mean corgifag the very oldfag that posts all kinds of photos and relevant informationThe one that suggests people can do more to improve their work than just blaming their shortcomings always on gear?
>>4469369No I mean corgifag the irrit cunt who thinks he’s gods gift to man and never shuts up about simping for shitty digital cameras. Go spend 4 hours vigorously cope defending an entry level canon from 2012 ya dingo rapist.
>>4469369People know you for being a hypocritical gearfag who gets salty if anything remotely similar to what he uses his criticized not for your photos mr. 14k snaps per wedding
Whats the point of 24-70 f/2.8 when theres 24-105 f/4?
>>4469460>f/4eww
>>4469491Is one stop of aperture really worth not having IS and being significantly bigger? If f/4 isn't enough you need a prime and something more impressive like f/1.4
>>4469493>Is one stop of aperture really worth not having ISYes. All the light I can get.
>>4469493>>4469496Im chadnon RF user. Both have IS, but the 24-105 is ~40% cheaper
>>4469493I was photographing at two events lately, right at the stage, once in front, sitting on floor and once right below elevated stage part. 24-70 was ideal here, allowing me to do both close-ups and wider shots while prime would be problematic due to very limited space and movement. You can't just always "zoom with feet". And in poor light and having dance performance on stage, extra stop really have a meaning.
>>4469542The real thing to consider is that 24-70 or 28-70 lenses typically have better IQ overall. Broad range gp zooms like a 24-120 have god awful distortion correction. Imo a single stop of aperture is only going to come into play in indoor events, wildlife, and muh portrait bokeh. If you're doing it for work it makes sense though.I think a 24-70 f/4 is the golden GP zoom lens to have, but out of the two you picked Id still probably want the 24-105 as a snapshit lens, and a prime for lowlight/portraits. Again, this logic fails for work purposes or constantly changing subject/environments.
What I would love is a 18(20)-105/1.8 lens. Something f1.8 but with a wide angle that would also reach around 100mm or more. 70mm isn't cutting it and neither is 24mm or f2.8. I would never take it off and wouldn't care about size or distortion at all (auto-corrected in post or in-camera). Maybe take it off only to attach a 100-300/4 once in a while. There is 35-150/f2-2.8 but 35mm as the widest ... nah.... nah, I need at least 20mm on an everyday lens.(double) IS is great and all, but can't replace light when the subject has even a tiniest bit of motion. But this is all turning this into a gearfaggotry thread.
>>4469559What I hear is you'd love to carry a 3 kg piece of glass. Canon RF 28-70mm f/2 L already weighs 1430 g.
>2025>still no one on earth able to emulate analog film, be it video or photographyWhy is that? We can split atoms but we are not able to recreate filmhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T2ygGhK660And don't send me some shitty influencer lightroom presets that "emulate" film. No they don't. Also no lut is getting even close.
>>4469560Yea, I'm not a wimp. I'd carry it around rather than deal with switching lenses, missing moments, and dust. I used to wear an almost 1500g helmet all day, every day, for months on end and didn't even notice it. That's not even comfortably resting on your shoulder or around your neck with a strap, but is up high on your head where there's leverage on your neck. I think it wouldn't be anywhere near 3kg, maybe the whole rig in total at best. Sigma 28-45/1.8 is 950g. 100-300/2.8 is 2590g. 300/2.8 is 1470g (snoy) or 2400g (old canon). Then again sigma 200-500/2.8 is 15700g and I know fuck all about how optics scale in weight, so maybe, but I don't think so. The longer the focal length the heavier the glass it seems, and the weight can get ridiculous even on an only 2,5x zoom lenms when the lens reaches up to 500mm. 20-105 at 1.8? Seems doable.
>>4469562>Yea, I'm not a wimpReconsider this statement after photographing 2 concerts, one after another, for 4 hours straight. Your arms will cry, I say so from my own experience.
>>4469566I used to carry an over 4680g (loaded) weapon in my hands and and a 14200g (empty) weapon on my back simultaneously, and not that I enjoyed it but I know where the limits are. Regarding comfort over extended time - I don't do concerts or weddings so it's probably not as big of an issue. Comfort is good but I'm willing to make compromises. So alright, I concede a little, I'm not a princess - I'd be happy with 20-105/2.8, just give me that range. 24 is too narrow and 70 is too short and F4 is too slow. Ideally 20-135 so the only other lenses I would ever need is 100-300/4 and a tilt shift lens in 10-15mm range. Sigma 28-105/2.8 is almost there..So is Samyang/Tamron 35-150/2-2.8And the popular 24-105/4 is also nearly there. Alas, the wait for my fantasy lens continues. Maybe in the next 10 years we get something if the market doesn't completely implode and go back to basics.
>>4469561Realest question in the thread.Especially since everyone agrees film looks nicer, you’d think the companies would be giving it everything they have to fully duplicate the look, and they still aren’t getting there
>>4469559>I would love is a 18(20)-105/1.8 lensDo you have the slightest idea how optically complex that would have to be, not to mention the weight, size, and cost? UWA zooms alone are already large and expensive and most cap out at 35mm
>>4469578>Do you have the slightest idea how optically complex that would have to be, not to mention the weight, size, and cost?Do you?
>>4469373Souds like an anti-gearfag from.your description>>4469378What am I hypocritical about?I only get salty when people are being dishonest, which unfortunately happens often here
>>4469583Yes. Ballpark figures because nothing like this exists. We can use existic optics as reference:>RF 24-105 f/4 has 18 elements, is closest to your FL wish, and is two entire stops slower>RF 28-70 f/2 has 19 elements, and is closest to your requests for aperture but lacks the long and short end of your FL goal>RF 15-35 f/2.8 has 16 elements, but more importantly has a objective element diameter of about 88mmSo, if either the extended focal range OR the bigger aperture requires just shy of 20 elements, we could safely say it would take at least 20. That's not absurd, but not a good start considering where we're going. The objective would also need to be roughly 88mm in diameter.The objective element of the 15-35 would need to be made significantly larger, probably about a 15-20%+ increase of diameter to up the aperture to f/2, but to incorporate the UWA focal range you want (let's assume 18mm) you would change the groupings slightly so the FR doesn't go so wide.Stick that objective element on the 28-70 f/2 lens barrel and extrapolate the trend of a bigger element down the line.The trail-on effect means your mid-groupings are also much larger. But now we need to space them out and move them further apart to account for the 105mm tele and 18mm wide. We'll also probably need to add a few elements or groupings to account for the new projective distance and distortion on extreme tele and wide because our baseline lens didnt go so far either way. All the extra glass and focal range means your zoom is pushing more material further back and foward. Oh and your MFD is also garbage, and focusing is slow as shit.I'm skipping so much, but just this alone is already looking like a lens that is 1.5-2x the length of the 28-70 f/2, another 30-60% of weight, and likely will cost twice as much. At this point you've got a GP zoom the size and price of the Sigma 300-600 f/4 but you're doing UWA work with it? Christ.
>Plug in SD>Open Lightroom classic>Hit import>Automatically finds card>Automatically targets where my library of photographs is>Automatically deselects duplicates>Automatically creates */year/month/YY-MM-DD directories and sorts photographs into themI recently ditched CC because fuck Adobe and this is the single feature I miss. Darktable can't do it. Someone even requested it and one of the Devs went full freetard and typed out an essay about how cataloguing software and file management software should always be kept separate (despite basically every proprietary equivalent doing it by default).What should I use for importing that avoids me getting fucked in the SaaS?
>>4469608Best sorting software I've found so far and I've looked around some
>>4469611That looks perfect, thank you.
>>4469608Write 350-400 lines of code and do it yourself
>>4469608>Devs went full freetardstory as old as time. same reason rawtherapee didn't have an image browser built into it for the longest time lol. these guys are so autistic its painful.
>>4469607Alright I get it now. Thanks for the effortpost, anon.
>>4469627The 24-105 f/2.8 contains 23 elements in 18 groups. It weights 1.4kg, and its 88.5x199mm for 3.5k eur
>>4469578>>4469607Sony could do it. They already made a 28-70 f2 smaller than canons and the worlds only 50-150 f2 that's the size of everyone elses 70-200 f2.8 (actually, i think its smaller than nikons).Canon just can't design a lens for shit (some of their $1500 lenses dont even cover the sensor, they just use distortion correction to crop out the black corners)
guys, what are some of your favorite photographs of all time?
>>4469493>Is one stop of aperture really worthyes>If f/4 isn't enough you need a primeimagine for a moment that there are people who take different kinds of photos than you do
Does anyone know a good video course on making and using my own presets in Lightroom or a Lightroom equivalent?At the moment I pretty much just edit every photo from scratch based on gut feeling and I would like to slowly build up a library of presets I can use for different looks and to make my photos look more consistent.I'm mostly interested in some best practices since I assume a preset is supposed to give me the basic look I want but still require some manual adjustment, since the lighting conditions and camera settings in each image are slightly different etc.Or are presets just a meme that everyone shills so that gullible beginners buy their favorite photographers pack in hopes to make their own images look like theirs?
>>4469630>Canon just can't design a lens for shit Entirely possible.
>>4469736Sure, ping me up when either kusony or nikrap develop a 24-70 f/2.8 with IS
>>4469747But Nikon already did in 2015...
Are there any good tools out there to scramble EXIF data? Not erase it, but replace it with junk.
>>4469245>notphotog lists all the trips he's jealous of
>>4469965ExifTool (exiftool.org)
>>4462404For a starter camera, could I do better than a Nikon D300 for $150
>>4470102Yes, a lot better.Even a D3400 is way better.Just get a D600.
>>4470116>>4470102What about a Canon EOS 5DS?I asked over in the gear thread and they suggested a full frame.
>>4469965You can do this in Lightroom, can you not? you can modify the exif data
>>4470102d3000 kit bigger number lighter weight
>>4470118The D600 is full frame, weather sealed, fully specced with "pro" controllers, etc.It's the most bang for buck full frame in existence, because the camera originally was recalled due to complaints about oil splatter on the sensor.IF there is any oil splatter on the sensor, this can easily be removed with a swab kit, and it stops accumulating after 3000 shots anyway. Mine had two spots, and they were only visible at f22 (so never), but I removed them anyway, and it was incredibly simple.
Been really wanting to get into photography/film but dont do much besides writing scripts no one reads. Any tips?
Does a camera sensor being 8 bit affect photography as much as it does videography?
>>4470646>i just shoot jpg all the time
Guys why the fuck should I not just go for an olympus E-M1 mark II instead of something like a Canon RP or a 6D mark II or a Nikon D800 or a sony A7II which is basically the stuff I can realistically get at a similar price point?Is m43 really, really, really all that bad? People paint it like it's a fucking scam. Every recommendation I've been getting is out of my budget when I take lenses into consideration.
>>4470867everything has its purposes and everyone values different thingwhat's your upper limit for the entire system and what do you want out of it?
>>4470916My upper limit is ~700€I just want landscapes sometimes, sunsets, street photography mostly, buildings and monuments, some pictures in the rain and some nighttime onesI'm not into bird shooting or sportsI'm not into astrophotography eitherI'm not into taking pictures of people, or insects or particular flowers or condom wrappers, I could not give a fuck about skin color (I'm racist but that's not the point)Decent video would be nice but I'm not going to break the bank for it and my priority is photo qualityI never use a tripodI prefer to have something compact and light, I mean who doesn't90% of the time I shoot at 24mm (APS-C)And I'd very much prefer it if lenses weren't prohibitively expensive for it in case I need an upgrade
how do I get a filter thats stuck on my lens off?
any effective DIY cleaning solution recipes?
>>4462404I learned the exposure triangle on a DSLR using manual mode, not a film camera. Am I retard?
so I was recently gifted a Vivitar 120-600mm ƒ/5.6-8 that I've been adapting to my R10 with a K&F FD-EOS R adapter. When I went to take so moon photos I discovered that it doesn't focus all the way to infinity. I tested with some of my other FD lenses and the issue doesn't seem to be the adapter. Is it worth the time and energy to try adjusting this lens myself? Does anyone have any experience fixing this sort of thing? Paying for a CLA on a lens of this quality seems imprudent.
>>4470942sounds like you have a lens already, why were you looking into an m43?>>4472041no, why would you be?
if I start the journey of developing at home, how do I nail down things like mixture ratios and development time? Is it really just trial by error, keep experimenting until you "figure it out"?
>>4472756I guess I was a photography purist and wanted to take photos only on film. It’s so hard to meter without a display though.
if a dslr lets you change shutter speeds by less than a stop, should i try to remember to keep ratios properly in my head? I was making the newbie mistake to think that each adjustment in shutter speed was literally one stop each rather than calculating the ratio in my head. my photos were too exposed or underexposed, as a result
>>4472986basically yeahhelps to have dials with nice solid clicks (so not nikon)my camera lets me choose either 1/2 or 1/3 stops but I've been finding myself wanting a 1-stop option to keep it on 90% of the time, not like I'm lacking for dynamic range
I got really frustrated over not having inspiration and I lost sleep over dust motes on my camera's sensor. Is this common among photographers? I'm just a newb.
>>4462404How do I get started with editing photos? I don't want to pay for Lightroom and I'm too stupid to pirate so I'm stuck with Darkroom and Nikon NXNX is fine but just doesn't seem to have the features I see in tutorialsDarkroom looks better, but doesn't keep any of the settings from my camera and resets the Raw to 0 edits so I have to start from a colourless image
Been trying to practice with composition recently, figured for fun I would go and use public images from the NASA image archive.I have also been trying to abandon my chronic over-use of the rule of thirds and the golden spiral recently.Here is an example I pulled from the online archivehttps://images.nasa.gov/In this instance I just looked up "STS 5," there are a million other photos captured on rich film and expertly scanned from apollo to the early shuttle era to experiment with though!I am not entirely pleased with the overall composition. I feel like it needs to breathe more? Overlay and "double exposure" type edits are so fascinating to me. I find them hard to compose. And I tip my hat to those who are capable of capturing them natively with a camera instead of just cheating like me and using post processing. How the hell do you compose and plan these types of shots? How do you make sure everything is equally balanced?
