"Merry Blobmas" Edition.Previously:
PREVIOUS THREAD:>>4485000>>4485000>>4485000
>>4487411
doggo
>>4487435nice tongue
>>4487417terrible, low-effort back-of-head shotdon’t post this garbage>>4487419ruined by back-of-head nonsensenor is this highly symmetrical contraption symmetrically framedit’s skewed>>4487420crushed shadows where there’s actual detail>>4487421back-of-head, cut off arm and a general menagerie of things that could be cropped out but you see what that tourist is doing that you don’t have the guts to do? taking a photo that could actually be interesting>>4487436terrible background>>4487435instead of filling the frame with a mid-length portrait of a fantastically scruffy dog, you made sure to include a quarter of the concrete footpath, a bundle of straw and a twig bravo, you made worthless garbagedo better
>>4487449>nophoto
my photos>>4487236>>4486640>>4486617>>4486520>>4486515
>>4487449I think you should be in the location instead of posting your worthless reply.Your critique means nothing since you have nothing to show for it. Nice job and Kys.
>>4487411I shot a time travel
>>4487413Thank you.
A few more Mex
>>4487508
>>4487509
>>4487510
>>4487511
>>4487512
>>4487513
>>4487447Thanks! That dog was very skittish. I was lucky enough to get him like that from the timing.
>>4487490Funky.
i can never seem to get a long exposure right>>4487532that's a cool shot
>>4487638kys
>>4487639s-should we hold hands first?
>>4487618Ontario?
>>4487672
>>4487673
>>4487674wish I turned my camera for this shot
>>4487509Cancun? Playa del Carmen?
>>44876925th Ave Playa
>>4487698Now how the fuck does that happen posting from my PC
>>4487698I knew that place looked familiar! Those tacos were bomb!
>>4487699the picture is in landscape but the rotation info is stored in the exif4chan strips your exifyour image is killno
>>4487733>>4487738>>4487739Thanks for taking a look, everybody
She ded
>>4487733Lovely. The silhouette of the walker orients just enough. Really nice.
>>4487771Thanks, that’s appreciated
>>4487419Fucking sick, love it.Fuck that nophoto>>4487522Ultra comfy>>4487733Top notch>>4487738>>4487739Love these, too Here's my shit
christmasbros....it's time to get comfy
>>4487739Whoa I really like this. I actually thought it was a bunch of paper bein thrown
>>4487779You should at least try to lower the window anon
>>4487810
m6 + ultramax
>>4487797It isPhotocopier went haywire
>>4487411fucking retarded to make a photo of a camera the image for /rpt/>>4487467this would be better without the cars in the bottom lefttheir lights are bigger and brighter but they're out of focus>>4487471buy an ad faggotthat blue sucks>>4487478overexposed and blurry>>4487490the blue tint of the shadows looks terribleterrible thread so far
>>4487851>>4487733very cool
>>4487852>>4487787merry crimbus
>>4487853>>4487419>>4487490sick pics
>>4487854
>>4487855
>>4487856
>>4487846>fucking retarded to make a photo of a camera the image for /rpt/Yes the actual thread is here >>4487403Posted before this one and with an actual /rpt/ photo but anons are retarded
>>4487867Your thread was posted at 12/08/25(Mon)19:33:37, when the previous thread was only at 148 photos. It didn't hit the bump limit until 19:38:26. You made your new thread too early. Stop complaining.
>>4487846>fucking retarded to make a photo of a camera the image for /rpt/But I took it recently, though.
>>4487867>MOM, THE ANONS ARE IGNORING MY THREAD>MOOOOM
>>4487846>talks shit>posts shitMost consistent /p/oster
>>4487888It's not my thread, I simply prefer when they're well made. I blame the retard who posted this thread without checking beforehand (and who didn't even bother linking the previous thread either)
>>4487907There's nothing wrong with the way the thread way made, just because "someone" is upset that their early thread didn't get traction.>who didn't even bother linking the previous thread eitherI guess you missed >>4487413. Any more invalid whining?
>>4487916You have the right to be retarded, wrong and proud of it unfortunately
>>4487919Most concessions are less pitiful than yours. How sad.
>>4487916>”someone" is upset that their early thread didn't get traction.check the catalog before making /rpt/, /gear/, /fgt/ or any other endemic thread, newfag piece of shitit’s not a competition to see who has the best /rpt/, proud cunt
>>4487508I could only find fault with these if I tried really hard, very enjoyable series, anon.>>4487502The light leaks are a bad choice. >>4487504The subject's face is too grey.>>4487522The fountain is overexposed and there is a distracting bright strip in front of the bushes.>>4487532The black point is too high.>>4487534There's too much contrast.>>4487535The background is brighter than the subject and it's distracting.
>>4487951Hey anon thanks for the consctructive critque, I am 'the black point is too high'. Can you give me any advice on how to fix? The water had a very blue tint so I chose white balance correction by picking a pixel i though was white and I did some dynamic range compression because the sky was blown out. Any way I can fix? I use rawtherapee because i dont pay for software
>>4487963>I did some dynamic range compression because the sky was blown out.Did you use the dynamic range compression tool? I pulled picrel from the Rawpedia page for dynamic range compression and you can tell the blacks are washed out in every example except the original image.
>>4487970Yes I did. I have been shooting raw for 1 year ( I shoot every day the weather is good) and basically have just learned by fumbling with the available tools. I really have no idea how to properly use post processing software. Shooting underwater in caverns has a lot of challenges and I don't really know how to improve. Anyway I messed with the blacks and contrast here is a new edit.
>>4487972Tonality is better in this one but I guess you should try removing a bit of the green tint. I don't know how to do it with Rawtherapee though, but with photoshop simply lowering the highlights of the green channel is more or less enough. I would also expect Rawtherapee to have this tool
>>4487951Cheers criticanon. Gives me some motivation to edit more from the trip
>>4487978Can't decide between color or BW for bird lady
>>4487980
>>4487981
>>4487983
>>4487984
>>4487993Very nice. I would sit there for hours
ahh im so mad the duck isnt more in focus, the water looks so good here
>>4488066What made you take this photo? What did you see that made you think “ah this frame right here!”?
>>4488067It was just as far as I could lean out of the window without falling out.
>>4487980>>4487981Black and white, but bring down the contrast, up the visibility around the face and the darkness/crows by her neck.
>>4488078This is the only shot in your series that got my interest. The others were lacking something and I think this one encapsulates everything I would want from this style of photography. Good shot anon
>>4487993a picture worth showing on google when looking up "mountain photo"
>>4488121>>4488066>>4487672Some seriously cringe, questionably recent photos in this counterfeit "rpt".
>>4488122>still seething
>>4488122You can call my picture seriously cringe, idc. But questionably recent means you call me a liar. I took this pic two weeks ago.
>>4488250"Questionably recent" sounds like a projection to me, since he's obviously upset about the two threads. I wonder if he's padding threads to hit the bump limit.
>>4488235Seething that the "photos" are cringe? Definitely.>>4488250If yours is the one with the cat, that was an accident. I meant this one >>4487673>>4488251Neither the scene nor the colors in these look recent to me. Your mind went to padding and assuming I'm upset about two threads, so I'll assume these garbage ones are yours and padding is exactly what you're doing.
Holy shit, shut the fuck up you're both insufferable women-tier faggots
>>4488254post photos or stfu
>>4488255That’s all this site is
>>4488260It's very hard to tolerate NGL. I wish there was an alternative photocentric online place but IG is an shit so here we are
>>4488269Probably an unpopular opinion here, but I enjoy the photography discord https://discord.gg/photographyThey don’t hate themselves, enjoy photography and never use the term seethe
>>4488273intadasting
What u guys think of the depth effect i added ? :D
recetly dug out of catalogue ad wated to share
>>4488099Chill. Thanks dude
Good? Bad? Tryhardy?
>>4488345adorable little jay
>>4488292If you're referring to the black borders, I think it frames the picture nicely. although I think the edges are a bit too straight, if that makes sense.
Which rpt am I supposed to be posting to?
>>4488391This is a gear thread sir
>>4488399They all are
>>4488297Country?>>4488325Feels like home. Tasteful crop.>>4488345Blue jays are the best.>>4488399Pretty clean darks. Did you expose to the left for this shot?
>>4488400I NEED TO CONSOOOOOOMMM!AAAAHHHH, I'M CONSOOOOMING!!!
>>4488330London?
>>4488254>If yours is the one with the cat, that was an accident.No, I'm the intersection.
>>4488450I get the joy of acquiring new gear, especially for first timers. It’s the talk of what mogs what that prevents people from simply enjoying and producing the art
>>4488456I did the sane thing and made my first, only, and last camera a ff dslr so i can mog everyone all the time while gearfags seethe about 5% of noise and 1/4lb while dancing around the fact they’re just insecure about being seen with a camera that’s nicer than their photography
I liked how cohesive the colors were here, like a thought out painting, lemme know if you see it too
this one partly feels like a gimmicky insignificant photo but also a little bit iconic im not sure why
>>4488457Fair enough It’s interesting how nice gear can limit creativity somehow.
How's this? Can it be edited to be a better photo?
>>4488456As much as I cringe at all the money spent, it was still fun to try out different cameras and formats over the years and the hands-on experience is invaluable. Between APC-C, M43, and FF, I had fun learning and adapting to the different workflows for each (although M43 tended to feel more like wrestling back usable data than any real editing). I'm pretty firmly settled on my FF collection now, but that's just personal preference. I wouldn't mind trying one of the larger formats one day just to see that side of the fence, though.
>>4488464Nice gear doesn’t limit creativity. If anything it adds opportunities. Shit gear is a long walk with lots of photos not taken because the light wasn’t there, not even for the darkroom to bring out. Who has time to play weather games? That’s not what photography is anymore. I rented some shit kit and found out. Yeah, its just a lot of passing up photos or accepting phonelike quality. If it doesnt fit in a normal mans pants pocket like a grIII its a useless gimmick for people afraid of being seen holding a camera and old prunes with actual issues carrying 1lb
>>4488465Just play around in any photo editor software with colors until you think it looks nice
>>4488472Yeah, I'll do my take on it, but I wanted to see some other exemples of editing since I'm just getting started and don't know too much. The problem is that sometimes I can only find a photo a little appealing if I over edit it somewhat like this
Or this
>>4488553>>4488472WE NEED A RAW THREAD. RAW EDIT THREADS ARE KINO. PLEASE PROCEED TO POST RAW LINKS AND COMPETE FOR THE PRIZE OF TOP KEKEDOM.
>>4488457But these are the exact people who wouldn’t give two shits about the quality of the their work.Their pricy camera is simply a status symbol.>>4488467The quality of work can diminish, as now they focus on sharpness, or other non soulful qualities.It’s the struggle of using less advanced tech that inspires creativity. Images don’t even need to be in focus at to make a powerful piece of art. I’m reminded of the game boy camera pics that were posted some time back. If your art is weather dependent, perhaps this is a skill or creativity issue
>>4488592>soulful>let me tell you what le art should look like - the latest instagram trend among teenage roastiesPeople like you are why photography is seen as masturbatory, pretentious non-artTrevor Wisecup is not creative and using shitty gear has never made him more creative. Creative people make things. Gearfags buy their heccin ~look~ for an instagram trend.
>>4488613I’m not doing anything of the sort - I’m describing why spending more money doesn’t necessarily equate to better photography.Who?
>>4488635You said a nicer camera makes photography worse because the photos aren’t blurry and tripods arent required when its dim out. Do you realize how stupid you sound?
>>4488648I’m sorry if that’s how you interpreted it, but my point is that one shouldn’t expect more artful pictures just because they’ve spend more on a camera body. Sometimes people tend to focus on sharpness and other technical elements instead of the bigger pictureI don’t see tripods even being mentioned.
>>4488655>sharpness is never artfulnessExpressionism is better off dead. Max data gathering enables max creativity and minimum camera operation. Ansel adams knew it. Modern camera guys pride themselves more on shopping and turning rings than actual creation.
>>4488655>tripodswhy would I need that when my latest camera has 27 axis IBIS stabilizers and advanced AI interpolation, so that every image I shoot wide open with my f/1.2 55mm equivalent lens is sharp and perfect
>>4488670Ansel Adams chastised gearfags
Sup
>>4488671Is that Ken Livingstone?
What $300-$500 body would you pick up if you wanted to get back into photography and don't have any lenses?
>>4488698Buy a $50 digishit and spend the rest of the money on travel
>>4488698>>4488699If you can't take good pics from your nearby surroundings, you will never going to make itCanon 5DmkII, Nikon D700, Nikon D3
>>4488698Literally check your local pawn shop anon
>>4488703I'm sure that fullframe will take really excellent pictures of your dog
>>4488696Hiyo
>>4488344Different edit of the next shot
Sorry, I thought I was in the gear thread>>4488699I'm a dad so traveling with (or finding time to ditch) the kids is a no go.>>4488703I took photography for 2 years in high school and know what you mean. I've passed up too many photogenic opportunities with my pets and kids and while on walks. I was thinking of a D700 (or any D6xx or D7xx, or D8xx). I'll keep an eye out for a Canon too. Thanks>>4488706I never thought of that - I usually venture to the gun and tool section. I appreciate it
>>4488723>I've passed up too many photogenic opportunities with my pets and kids and while on walksI suggest you get something light and small because you won't take your D700 or D810 with you. It's huge and heavy and when you have to manage kids (and all the shit that comes with that) you will loathe the thought of bringing your full frame DSLR + lens with you.I never took my Nikon Zf when I went grocery shopping with my son. Well I did once but that taught me a lesson. But I do take my small camera with me everywhere I go - even grocery shopping.So if you want something to keep memories and not get in your way: Think practical in terms of weight, size. If you want to masturbate over charts and pixel peep: Get a full frame camera with the full size lenses.
>>4488752People have been taking D850s up mountains for a decade. Consider the grocery store is not an appropriate place for a camera and the ugh you feel is insecurity and shame. The ZF isn’t even heavy. Protip: good cameras are for interesting lives not grocery shopping
>>4488759yes, thanks for your autistic input
>>4488760Before calling other people autistic consider, you took a $1500 camera grocery shopping, felt ashamed, and bought a marginally smaller $1500 camera to feel less ashamed.
>>4488762>projectionI didn't feel ashamed. Lol. I'm not an autistic teenager who gives a shit about what others think.The Zf was just too big and heavy and got annoying/in the way when I was grocery shopping.(Non mentally ill people go shopping without a handler/their mom - so they can't just lean back with their huge DSLR and take shitty photos all the time while someone else does the shopping)
>>4488768>The Zf was just too big and heavy and got annoying/in the way when I was grocery shopping.The Zf... was too bulky for you? Use a phone wristlet.
>>4488768yeah you sound autistic. its a small camera. if you are not a 5’4" manlet your issues are obviously psychological.
Friendly reminder DSLRs and FF MILCs are actually a lot smaller than /p/ makes them out to be. Many are close in dimensions to soda cans and the weight is unnoticeable unless using fancy lenses like zooms and fast teles/UWAs. With FF mirrorless a lot of it is unnoticeable period
>>4488752Anon who takes photos>>4488759Anon who pretends to take photos>>4488723>I'm a dadStill save your money and buy a cheap camera, buy cameras for your kids. A compact bridge camera will fit in your (coat) pocket and is more than capable at taking good photos. 2MP is already larger than most websites will even display. If you just want something to snap while on walks, a professional camera is way overkill.>>4488776DSLRs are not small, picrel
>>4488776>>4488777>Using two image slots for gear posts.>>4488723>Sorry, I thought I was in the gear threadLMAOThis is the worst /rpt/ I've ever seen.>>4488706My local pawn shops all had some of the worst gear available: Canon and Nikon DSLR blobs, mid compacts marked up 500% and Sony mirrorless priced 20% off new. Long gone are the days where I could buy a digishit for $5. That was after COOFID, too. Buying and selling cameras is fucked now.
>>4488698nikon fa
>>4488792looks like phone but with too much AI
>>4488797No it doesn't.(but it is a phone pic)
>>4488752Are you like 5'2?How small do you have to be that a Zf is too big for EDC lol
>>4488805>>4488797A6700 w/70-350
>>4488813>A6700 w/70-350Oh man, that's like more bulk and 240g more weight than the Zf and a simple 40 f2How did you possibly walk around with such a monster of a setup?
https://www.exibartstreet.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/nikon-z-f-camera-exibart-street-photography-10-969x1024.jpegHow does she do it? Maybe I should ask /fit/ if she's just not natty
>>4488777Yes, they are. Especially without zooms. Stop being autistic.
>>4488777>websites can onwy dispway 2mpYour brain is more outdated than ken rockwells and his anti-raw rants. Bridge cameras are short lived ewaste btw.
>>4488813baby sensorjust use a phone
>>4488817>her>shethat's a man
>>4488826Nah still way better than an om5. Just oversharpened. Skill issue.
>>4488827Must be a giant too
>>4488789we love a good zoom burst don't we folks
I wish the focus was a bit better Ah well.
>>4488854Thanks. Here’s another albeit less successful one
>>4488462colros look good>>4488078this rocks. could see it not on an album cover, but definitely back or liner notes>>4488330>Tryhardy>no evidence that shooter tried at all>>4488561reminds me of ps2 era magazine ads
>>4488821There are reasons to want more megapixies, but web display most definitely is not one of them.
>>4488918>> reminds me of ps2 era magazine adsSpot on
>>4488918What happens here
The rut is over, and the bucks are out and looking for food. They lose 20-30% of their body weight during mating season.
>>4488957
>>4488958
>>4488957nice shots.Lens and settings?How far away?
>>4488960Thanks- Tamron 100-400 @ 100mm. f/5.6, 1/160, ISO 1600. He was probably about 30 feet away.
>>4488957Bambi!
>>4488959nice set, always cool to see theses guys.
>>4488959>>4488978>>4489015
Really like em too
The cycle of life folks
Cheers
Been practicing some night photography lately (shit's hard) and also pushing the boundaries of how obnoxious I can get with the editing.>>4487478I like the idea, but feels like it lacks a subject for the viewer to focus on. Probably could have looked for a pine cone or at least have a whole branch in focus. I think if the one running from the center to the top left was completely in view/focus it would have been a pretty neat pic>>4487502Thought for a second that was a double exposure, that would have been sick as fuck>>4487733Very nice.I hate it when I find a nice looking spot like this, but without a person to draw your attention a lot of them just don't work and usually you have to just get lucky with someone walking by>>4487787Cozy>>4487852Like the vibe. Is that actually on film or just replicating the look?>>4488078>>4488326Good shit.Are you using some kind of filter to get those cross shapes in the highlights in the second shot?I've been thinking of buying some creative filters myself, just not sure which ones are worth it>>4488462I like the colors and the dark landscape painting feeling it gives off. Probably should have bumped up the exposure just a bit though.>>4488555This is cool, just rotate it a bit so the tower isn't crooked.Just don't be afraid to fuck around and overedit. You're bound to make edits that look like shit or look great and a year down the line you realize look like shit. But it's all part of the process. Just have fun with it and don't let people judging you get under your skin.>>4488804I'm a sucker for rimlights. Wish more of the cat was in focus
>>4489603>Like the vibe. Is that actually on film or just replicating the look?ty. on film, 800T. are you also a film shooter? I love the composition of your shot, its a great balance between the sign and the arch (and hey, some blue/orange contrast to boot!)
>>4489619>800Tthought so, the color of the lights is a dead giveaway>I love the composition of your shotthanks, it was a super lucky shot, but I'm still proud of it. I walked past this side alley and noticed the cool red sign and just then a guy walked out of there and I just barely managed to get a shot out before his silhouette left the arch.This is digital and I faked an 800T inspired look in post. It also helps to hide some of the sloppy focus on many of my night shots as a bonus.I do also shoot film, but almost exclusively on Kodak Gold, don't feel confident enough yet to spend more money on expensive film-stocks
>>4488937christmas parade
>>4489625Nice CORNER OF BUILDING.I mean at this point jfc.
>>4489669thanks
>>4489467Neat! When did you take this?
Max image limit. New thread
>>4493110You're nearly a month late...
>>4493118twss
