>>4462404

how close can you go if you set camera flash on AA mode

>>4462404
Will 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.

>>4462616
Only visible light ones because thats all the sensor can pass

>>4462404
should 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?

>>4462645
heavy? no
lookin good? not really, it looks like a fucking cheap plastic replica of an old slr film camera
feels good? no. feels like a TV remote controler

>>4462654
fuck 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 ?

>>4462645
sure go for it or if you want modern formfactor z 5 II is even better value for money

>>4462404
is 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

>>4462616
My new neewer flash has an af assist lamp that works with AF. Its like a criss cross pattern that fires off in the dark.

File: ghj657u.png (995 KB, 840x833)

995 KB PNG

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?

File: i-img1200x695-17350081339(...).jpg (86 KB, 1200x695)

86 KB JPG

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 short
i want to keep it, but use it cross-body

>>4462785
Which one is that? And does the feature have a name on the specs?

>>4462771
No 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.

>>4462974
Neewer 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.

>>4462974
You'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.

>>4462948

sure its possible but just study part numbers and get decent one

>>4462979
Dang. 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.

>>4463000
All 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.

>>4462948
What kinda sicko cuts the strap? How about passing another strap through the loop?

File: [SubsPlease] Sono Bisque (...).webm (3 MB, 640x362)

3 MB WEBM

How do I get this?

>>4463030
you will need a transwoman and the newest sony to get that combination of flawless autofocus and lifeless color science

>>4463008
is 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 less

cf cards don't die nearly as quickly as sds you're fine buying them used imo

>>4462890
why tho

>>4463051
Considering 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.

>>4463049
I'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?

>>4463075
If 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.

>>4463056
It'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.

>>4463078
Scanners haven't been great on color even with color correction so I'm fed up and looking for a camera at this point.

>>4463081
A camera will not do better. Wrong tool for the job.

>>4462404
What 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 :) )

>>4463075
Perhaps 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]

>>4463100
Because 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

>>4463103
What 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? :)

>>4462977
I 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.

File: imgonline-com-ua-twotoone(...).jpg (3.16 MB, 5465x3658)

3.16 MB JPG

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?

File: IMG_0096 Large.jpg (163 KB, 1280x960)

163 KB JPG

>>4462404
Should 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 me
anytime i share it, it’s always shit

>>4463144
The 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 me
this is the way
>anytime i share it, it’s always shit
calibrate 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

File: IMG_1597.jpg (1.54 MB, 2387x3337)

1.54 MB JPG

>>4463144
Are you poor or something?

>>4463353
Which one do you use the most

>>4463079
I 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.

>>4463358
CF 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.

>>4463362
Real homies buy business-grade laptops with CF and full SD card readers so you can make backups in the field.

>>4463362
I 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 leg
Lol, lmao even.

File: R0000056.png (1.39 MB, 640x427)

1.39 MB PNG

>>4463353
The 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

>>4463354
Derp meant to reply >>4463621 hurray for phoneposting

>>4463621
Thanks that’s what I thought, but something inside me feels like the 40mm is a challenge calling to me

>>4463030
good 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?

File: Untitled.jpg (410 KB, 2400x1800)

410 KB JPG

are there any resources online with production ranges for film boxes or canisters to guesstimate the production and expiration year?

>>4464851
just browse the jpegs, the raws' thumbnails are copies of the jpegs

>>4464854
No, 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.

>>4464855
You 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.

>>4464851
XnView is best free, PhotoMechanic is best paid
I'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.

File: xa52pmmmkzl51.jpg (454 KB, 3024x4032)

454 KB JPG

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?

>>4465055
Yes, some people use the Q2/Q3 in literal warzones

>>4465056
that doesn't answer my question
people photographing in "warzones" are not in active combat, it's still people slowly moving on foot with camera in their hand
I'm asking about the level of sustained abuse Q3 can handle

>>4465060
>I'm asking about the level of sustained abuse Q3 can handle
No, you're being a pedantic retard, leave the board please

>>4465062
no I won't
>pedantic
I don't think you know what this word means, I literally disproved your dumb point with facts and logic
I'm assuming you don't have any knowledge about photography, so I'll wait for someone else to maybe reply

>>4465064
you should buy the q3 and shove it up your asshole

>>4465065
that'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?

>>4465055
The 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-review
https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/414201-summilux-q-43mm-f2-design-by-panasonic/

>>4465064
You think
>used in literal warzone
means
>People slowly moving on foot with camera in hand
You 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

>>4465153
are 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

>>4465165
No, I just follow a few war photographers and several of them choose to use Leica

>>4465155
damn you're so gay it's crazy,

I know nothing about photography. Inherited a Nikon f70/n70 in the us.

Keep or get rid ?

File: file.png (1.16 MB, 765x795)

1.16 MB PNG

nx studio image looks different from lightroom without any effects done with the same camera standard profile
how 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

File: file.png (900 KB, 758x796)

900 KB PNG

nx studio, 100%, standard picture control, original value everything

>>4465279
There is no starting from scratch in practice
Every raw program, even at defaults (or zeroed) settings, will look a little different
If you have LR, zero reason to use NX

>>4465284
I’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.

>>4465487
IG 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?

>>4465492
Numerous 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.

>>4465507
return it and order a better camera like a ricoh gr iiix

retarded fuji doesn't have a good 28 mm equivalent lens

what do?
35mm is shit....

If put my camera on a tripod and aim it at myself does it still count as a selfie

>>4465592
Sure!

Best camera/lens to shoot homemade couple sex? Holding my smartphone is too close up.

>>4465668
>fat people
tape over the lens of your phone and use that
>otherwise
Any 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

>>4465768
Lower 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.

File: DSCF8025.jpg (1.33 MB, 3000x2000)

1.33 MB JPG

>>4465565
not sure whatyou mean. the xf 18/2 and 18/1.4 are both good. pic related is the f2. also, 35mm fl is king

File: lens.png (112 KB, 617x250)

112 KB PNG

>>4465775
Damn, 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?

>>4465691
I'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?

>>4465776
image quality looks good
but heard the autofocus bad and loud, no weather seal, and the 1.4 is huge
so went with the XF 23/2
and while it's great, the 28mm has more swag

File: 1756787988090798.jpg (91 KB, 638x613)

91 KB JPG

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!

>>4465842
Wrong 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.

File: IMG_6274.jpg (98 KB, 750x1125)

98 KB JPG

>>4462404
How do you ask models to pose nude for you?

>>4465832
never 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

>>4465487
Instagram 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.

>>4465867
Show them references like this.

>>4465842
Nikon D5200 or D5300, if you know what I mean

File: 1754778195208513.gif (4.99 MB, 960x720)

4.99 MB GIF

>>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 everything
Put your trip back on so I don't have to endure your bullshit, cANON.

>>4465936
I 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
>>4465938
Make a trip so I can filter your moronic asses off this board lmao

File: tripfag.png (151 KB, 1125x681)

151 KB PNG

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?

>>4465940
Sometimes 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 waaaaaahhhhhh
Reconsider your life

>>4465943
>posts about phone sensors
>somehow this means it was all about GFX all along
meds

>>4465936
Equivalence 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

File: soyouwant.jpg (35 KB, 568x566)

35 KB JPG

>>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 retardation

They were so bad jannies banned their thread

>>4464852
You 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
>>4465938
Rent free, also phones suck compared to almost any dedicated camera and YES, equivalence is why.
>>4465943
>>4465959
The single merit of the GFX is being cheap, I don't get why you insist on the poorfag angle. Equivalence is, indeed, everything.
>>4465951
Except 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.

>>4466044
It 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?

>>4466080
Because 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

>>4466183
Do you care about authenticity? Do you print murals?

>>4466184
Not really and no. My use case is high ISO low light shots since I don't dabble with manual settings and tripods too much.

>>4466084
Closed 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.

>>4466084
I'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.

>>4466183
I use Topaz Photo + Video, good for enlarging and NR, the face reconstruction can be nice too
I don't use it as much as I thought I would, but it has been nice to have
I can run some examples through it if you have any to post
Video I pretty much just use for upscaling old videos, don't really use it for any actual video work I do.

File: Screenshot 2025-09-07 at (...).png (1.55 MB, 1024x934)

1.55 MB PNG

>constructive interference in out-of-focus area
neat 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

>>4467232
I 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?

>>4462890
creep

>>4462404
In 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?

>>4467517
Play around with what profile you are using

>>4467519
I tried fiddling with the adobe profiles, but they all look like ass.
I wonder why only Rawtherapee gets it right

>>4467520
post what a photo looks like in each

File: IMG_1635.jpg (1.66 MB, 3599x5399)

1.66 MB JPG

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?

File: 5478944232467.jpg (58 KB, 600x400)

58 KB JPG

>>4467580
Did you buy a R?

>>4467475
if you want to see some real creeps head over to the carnival thread

File: file.png (11 KB, 332x139)

11 KB PNG

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

>>4467580
Make 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?

File: 1733494777948-4153354124.jpg (143 KB, 1280x720)

143 KB JPG

>>4467580

>>4467756
every sensor has them, no big deal, fix in post.

>>4467756
Are 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

File: file.png (1.02 MB, 1339x502)

1.02 MB PNG

>>4467517
>>4467521
Sorry for late reply, but just look at this.
Lightroom is so pale and the colours are really muted.

>>4468291
Lightroom 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

>>4468293
That's insane, but I believe you.
How the do I "calibrate" my camera for Lightroom?

File: 1+2.jpg (1.02 MB, 2248x1550)

1.02 MB JPG

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

>>4468294
Google your own post homo

File: file.png (64 KB, 886x283)

64 KB PNG

>>4468297
All the presets suck.
Changing a preset is not "calibrating".

File: IMG_2662.jpg (43 KB, 376x815)

43 KB JPG

>>4468316
>le AI
Fine i did it for you
https://www.pictureline.com/blogs/products/how-to-get-perfect-color-with-x-rite
Pls 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)

>>4468332
the a7c

but 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 evf
if 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

>>4468319
Thanks, ChatGPT
You 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.

>>4468381
depends on the manufacturer, I just assumed anon was talking stops
fwiw 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
>>4468384
well, 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 stops
well then

>>4468384
Ah, 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 Wikipedia
Exactly 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 stops
so ND4 = -4 stops

>>4468401
I'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?

>>4468418
are you retarded?
I already said I was wrong

File: youfuckinwot.png (25 KB, 115x130)

25 KB PNG

>>4468437
>ctrl+f
>wrong
no you didnt anon

>>4468439