>ctrl f: sqt>noneI'm going to start this one off with a stupider question than usual. Say you were asked to shoot a few wedding shots at the last minute and all you've shot before was rocks, leaves, birds and the odd landscape or building corner... what do? Asking for a friend of course but pls reply quick.
>>4493120Just do it for free so there are no expectations.
does anyone know if I can put a link to one of my instagram highlights on my home screen on android? I'd love a super quick shortcut so I can show strangers on the street my projects
>>4493120Do it the price of a good lunch and maybe $50 to cover "insurance" or fuel and stuff. If they're asking you last minute you likely know them in some capacity.Or do it completely free as a favour depending on the kind of relationship you have with them.Don't charge them a real amount of money because the odds of you doing poorly is non-zero and if they pay you decently for a shit job they'll be pissy.
>>4493120use a flash >>4493125why do you need to show strangers on the street your projects, are you some sort of freak?!
I'm used to shoot on 15, 25 and 30mm. I wanted to try something new.Should I go balls deep and try an 85mm next, or 50/55? I'm curious about why people dislike 85mm for things like street photography.
>>4493140For street an 85 is basically just a portrait lens. You're normally too close to things for actual "street ""photography"" with anything more than a 50. Could still net you some nice photos, it'd just be fundementally different than your normal wide angle scene.I personally dont know why you'd get primes of every signficant focal length from 24 to 120 because the individual steps aren't majorly different to the last; get a 120 or 135 and do something truly different.
>>4493120Why in almost 99% portraits the ears are out of focus?I think ear is also important part of portrait?
>>4493146It's just too shallow depth of field
Is there an unwritten rule or something that tells you must blur the ears when you shoot portrait?
New year's resolution is to take at least one picture every day. Does anyone have any ideas the best app/free service to categorise this?I was unironically thinking about tumblr or Instagram
>>4493146>>4493148Most portrait shooters are bokeh fags because they're not in studio conditions, but want as much seperation between the subject and the background as possible (which is fair).So at the apertures needed to get a blurry AF background you only get a few milimeters of DoF, and the eyes are where you focus. Ears are 4-5cm behind your eyes and are too far away from the focus point.You can absolutely shoot at narrower apertures and get the whole head in focus but then your background will be more recognisable and perhaps distracting.In studio conditions it's just a choice. You have a controlled background and strong lighting which should allow a deep DoF with low ISO. If the ears or nose are out of focus at that point it's just a deliberate decision.>>4493153Just create a standard filesystem on your PC and sort by date. Unless you mean on your phone which in that case go fuck yourself obviously. pic rel.
>>4493146No one wants to pixel peep ears.
>>4493146>>4493148>>4493154Not an expert in any sense, but I guess one reason one might choose to do this (if it is a deliberate choice) would be to give the head more shape/depth? Eyes in focus + ears out of focus gives a clear visual cue as to the ears being further back.You're probably right though, that in most cases this is not a deliberate choice, but just what happens when an amateur portraitfag minimizes aperture and focuses on eyes, becaues that's what he remembered from a youtube video.
Is Canon EOS R100 a good camera for beginners?
>>4493298No its super fucking shit. Canon fucks their low end models out of basic features and controls. Get a canon r10 at least if you want a tiny sensor but try and score an canon RP instead
>>4493302whats a good thing to get around that price range (from any manufacturer)?
basically i wanna go for stuff below 1000 bucks.
>>4493302what basic features is it missing?
>>4493303Used canon r10 off ebay. $400-500 just like a new r100. Wait for a deal. Or maybe any sony a6*** model newer than an a6000. More lenses, better autofocus and interface. >>4493306no rear dial, nada for buttons and customization, fixed screen, face detect af only, basically the $500 mirrorless version of a $150 canon rebel dslrThe interface is bad beyond descriptionThe jpegs are very low qualityEverything on it is slow and feels like 2012I’d rather use a DSLR or a phone
>>4493314would sony alpha a6100 be good?
>>4493314For those clueless, what makes the interface better?>More lensesDo you mean sony has a wider selection of compatible lenses? or just more that come with the camera
>canon interface is bad>recommends snoy is this a fucking joke?
>>4493345what would you recommend instead?
>>4493298Avoid the R100. It is a dressed up rebel DSLR just as some other anon mentioned with tech from 2015. The R50 is like a whopping extra $100 and at least uses current gen AF, JPEG engine, controls etc. Even then I wouldn't get the R50 unless you really wanted to keep things as small as possible. I'd get the R10.Even then I wouldn't get the R10 unless you really wanted to stay using APS-C. I'd get a used RP for $400-500 as >>4493302 said.Even then... I wouldn't get the RP unless you were dead set on mirrorless. Which you might be. Mirrorless is nice. My R6 is like 60% of the weight and bulk of my older 5D MkIII, and focus peaking is TOP MINT.I'd get a full frame DSLR instead since the RP has the same sensor as a 6DII but you could just buy a 6D MkII if money is tight (or a 6D MkI or 5D MkII/MkII) and now look: you've saved a couple hundred dollars and can now buy a better lens because used EF lenses are cheap and cheerful. RF Lenses are ungodly expensive. Mirrorless cameras are nice for a slueth of reasons but if you're pinching pennies on the body I would recommend against it.OR, get a used APS-C DSLR for $50-150 if you're on the fence and if you think photography isnt for you, you sell it for 80% of what you bought it and for what is basically a rental fee you get to know what you're in for. I don't necessarily recommend this if you can afford better but it's a decent route.>t. Tried R100. Owned R50. Owns R6II
>>4493347Buy a CANON FIVE DEE MARK THREE or SIX DEE MARK TWO and a CANON EF FIFTY MILLY METRE F1.8 STMIf you are having fun already them buy a CANON EF TWENNY FOH DASH ONE O FIVE F-4 EYE ESS ELL YOU ESSEMWhen you are good at using that you can grow the fuck up and start shooting film with a 6x6 TLR and eventually a 4x5 view camera. There is no good reason to own a so called nice digital camera unless you are a soulless pro snapshitter.
>>4493347Nikon D200 for vibes or d300 for ease of useNikon 35mm f1.8 DXNikon DX 16-80 f2.8-4Dont waste your time with a cannot pos 5dicks. Nikon is better and cheaper. A nikon apsc and canon full frame have the same quality.
>>4493347I really like my rp actually its not gonna shoot at 200 fps for a minute 100 times a day or make a 60 fps film but who actually needs that and I think you would appreciate specifically the small size and minimal weight (with the 50mm prime on a strap it feels like it's barely there)Also I think it's extremely easy to use with the touch screen even though it has less buttons than your older dslr types>It's le gimpedWell obviously the lower end model won't be as good as the stuff that retails for double or triple the cost
>>4493389>Nikon is better and cheaperNo trolling outside of /b/ please anon
>>4493139thanks for the help, retard.
>>4493417The lack of animal eye AF is dogshit. Cant take a cat photo without it trying to find human faces.
>>4493445what would you say instead?
>>4493457Nikon and Canon have been pretty much on par with each other for decades. Different individual qualities overtaking each other at different points or different product values giving rise to individual models' popularity. Pretty much any Nikon or Canon DSLR for a given price-point is roughly similar, except Canon's AF is magic, and Nikon's ergos and functionality win out over lower-tier Canons. At mid-level price bracket they're all about the same, and at the high end I'd give Canon the edge for value but that's likely my bias speaking. SLRs and MILCs are different.In the SLR category I'd go Canon every. single. time. just thanks to the fact that EF lenses are interchangable between SLRs and DSLRs with 100% functionality. Nikon still has attractive SLRs but I believe the value of one lens working between a DSLR and an SLR (and a MILC because canon EF lenses adapt flawlessly to RF) is an unbeatable proposition. If I was buying a pre-electronic SLR I'd go Nikon.MILCs are a bit all over the fucking place and I'd unironically say Nikon might be better because they don't cripplehammer their low-mid stuff as much. Early mirrorless sucks all over the board for different reasons between the brands, but we're now at a point where MILCs have matured enough to be pretty even once more like the DSLR days.Keep in mind I'm a massive Canon shill, so despite trying to keep things fair I'd rather a Nikon shill anon to appear and counter-argument me so you get a more balanced comparison.
>>4493457“He’s right, but canon had dem colors doe”>>4493459>using any canon older than the 5div and 90d be like>recovers more than 1.5 stops of shadows>dies
>>4493463>"recovers" shadows.That's called not having enough light nigga. Coping like that is a fucking dreadful way to treat photography. ETTR
>>4493451You can turn the eye tracking off if your being serious
>>4493464>bro just flash everything and use gnds and tripods bro its tradishunFuck off unc. This cope is a sad excuse for not just… not using ancient cannot ewaste. Nikon doesnt have this problem.
>>4493146
>>4493467>no I won't use the correct tools for the jobGood self report bro
