File: wim-van-den-heever-8102536-2.png (406 KB, 860x574)

406 KB PNG

>>4502821
Following up for >>4502625
This was taken on a D810 with a 17-35mm f2.8. 12 year old body with a lens that came out +25 years ago, and you can have both for under $1k. There are dozens of bodies and lenses that would perform just same or better for that kind of shot, so neither of those really matter that much. Any FF with a 17mm lens will give you the same perspective (or APSC with like 11mm). What would matter a bit more for this shot gear-wise is the lighting. The photog would've had the camera set up, with 2-3 off camera flashes, all connected by wireless trigger (like a PocketWizard). You can gel flashes to give different color, Benoit Paille is a good example of this and used to be the subject of many threads here, but I don't think that's what's actually going on.
https://gbuffer.myportfolio.com/off-season

I'm unsure for the lighting of the building, the area as of 2023 on street view had no lighting infrastructure, and its possible it was the moon, but could be another light source like car lights. The exposure was 10 seconds, so you're getting all that ambient on the building, while only exposing the foreground with the flash. Different lighting sources explain the difference in color and softness vs hardness of the light. Most of the color look probably just comes from long exposure at night + flash. If you wanted to recreate the color shifting aesthetic, something like
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYVvChotk1o
using radial and linear gradients in Photoshop is an easy way, and a technique used by our own 5hoe

The location is about 8 miles off the coast, so you're seeing dense costal fog. This helps with the "atmosphere" of the photo, and contributes to how the light glows (just like "foggy streetlights"). Picrel is the same scene, but with less fog.

So basically, got out on a foggy night, use long exposure for soft ambient glow, with flash for for a harsher different color lighting in the foreground.

File: Shin-Godzilla-ORTHO-2545339500.png (650 KB, 1024x576)

650 KB PNG

What do I need to get set up for developing orthochromatic film at home?

>>4503062
A darkroom and redlight if you want to do it by inspection. Otherwise the standard paterson daylight tank will do you fine. Ortho is developed with exact same process as pan films.

I'm an amatuer photographer, I have an 800D, an 18-55mm f/4-5.6 kit lens, a ~20 year old ultrasonic 55-200mm f/4.5-5.6 lens, and a super cheap 420-800mm vivita f/8.3-16 lens I use for the moon.

Should I replace my camera with a full frame, or get a better macro/zoom lens(replacing the 55-200mm)

Is it safe to go jogging/running with prosumer full frames and lenses? Anyone do it?

>>4503546
Your camera is good if you don't shoot video, anything that demands high burst rates or fast subject detection autofocus. The jump to full frame might help if you shoot portraits or in dark. If you crop your photos all the time then having more megapixels will have its benefits.

I made the jump from 200D to R8 and in hindsight I shouldn't have. The marginal benefits in fringe cases do not justify spending some 2000 eurobucks on RF-mount lenses and the camera.

Your lenses are slow and prioritize covering all focal lengths, I'd get something faster like 50mm f/1.4, 50 mm f/1.8, 40 mm f/2.8, 135mm f/2, 70-200mm f2.8 or 70-200mm f4

What are you supposed to photograph on overcast cloudy days when there's no interesting light? Does using black&white or a digishit help?

>>4503546
>800D
That thing is junk. Buying a proper camera like a nikon dslr or 90s would go almost as far as getting a proper ff.

t. Sufferer with a 5dii just to experience how bad low DR cameras are. Yeah, they’re shit. Might as well use a phone. I have no idea how canon got away with selling this trash. Corporate contracts?

Aw man, I made a cool banner for the next sqt and instead I decided to suck ass and go outside to take photos today.
The lesson is, stay inside.

>>4503546
Can you explain in your own words what makes you want to "upgrade"? Asking a bunch of gearfags on /p/ will result in wildly different responses. Macro is actually better served by APS-C than Full Frame. The EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM would be the best telephoto for your DSLR and can be had for like $150; would be a good upgrade over the 55-200mm by a fair margin.
As for macro I'd just rip the bandaid off and get the EF 100mm f/2.8 IS USM Macro as it is THE best macro lens for Canon except the 3x the price RF version, and can stay with you if you do change to Full Frame anyway.

If you actually want to go full frame then just get a 5DIV or 6DII. There's no big reason to jump to mirrorless unless money is no object.

>>4503644
It should be illegal to recommend the 6dII. That camera is ACTUAL shit. The RP is the same shitty 5dii-tier ewaste sensor and yet better just because the 6D2’s OVF autofocus is so dogshit even low end mirrorless is an upgrade. Its also nearly the same price as a used 5div from a non-delusional seller.

Fun fact: the 6d2 was named the worst camera of the year repeatedly

If you are considering any canon that isnt a 5div, 90d, or dirt cheap 5ds you somehow need, get a nikon DSLR instead. Canons sensors are just bad and they derived most of their sales from pre-internet consumer cluelessness, product placement, and having the only good tech support service for professionals. Not from the actual cameras being bangers.

>>4503660
first to market with widespread and useful lens stabilization too. first to market with quite a few lenses nikon got second.

it mattered then. it doesnt matter now.

File: 1straps.jpg (81 KB, 1649x856)

81 KB JPG

Which strap would be best for carrying a 4lb setup around for long periods? I've been using the straps that come with the camera and they're uncomfortable after a short period. I also like to wrap a portion of the strap around my wrist as insurance when the strap isn't on my neck, which may be harder with the thicker strap. The first strap seems like a different experience all together.

>>4503628
I was thinking of doing an upgrade to a full frame DSLR like a 5D mark III or mark IV. So the price id pay wouldn't be much when I sell the camera.

For lenses should I stick with namebrans canon lenses or are 3rd party lenses better bang for buck?

I mostly take pictures of landscapes, nature, and things of that sort.

>>4503644
Upgrading the lens because it's 20 years old and I wanted photos that were more crisp, however my current lens can't be sold for much,

My camera can be sold and would cover a lot (hopefully) of the cost of upgrading to a full frame. I was thinking 5D mark III or IV.
I wanted to upgrade to a full frame because of poor low light performance. But I felt it was a non issue I was making a big deal of so I thought I'd ask.

Money is an object so I was wondering which one I should do first because I do plan to do both.

>>4503643
Its just a camera, stop acting like a nigger and calm down

>>4503744
>Money is an object so I was wondering which one I should do first because I do plan to do both.
The lens makes the photo, and the camera turns it into a file. Mostly. Sensor size, quality, and pixel density are also factors that are important for end image quality.
All that is to say, going full frame is king if you can justify the price, size, weight, and lens prices (aps-c lenses typically cost less). The shittiest, smeariest FF lens on a FF camera is going to btfo everything except the best crop lenses on a crop camera, H O W E V E R, the ceiling for IQ on a crop camera isn't too bad for most users.

>I wanted to upgrade to a full frame because of poor low light performance. But I felt it was a non issue I was making a big deal of so I thought I'd ask.
Full frame absolutely is the ticket for this kind of shooting. Like I said, get the cheapest lens and a FF body and it'll be better (and perhaps cheaper) for this.
The other route is getting super bright aperture crop lenses which are A) niche and expensive, and B) still cap out around 15mm aperture diameter such as on a 24mm f/2(12mm). It's total aperture diameter that improves low-light gathering ability, not f/ratio, and if you slap a FF lens on crop you discard the outer 40% of light anyway (thus putting your "effective" f/stop 1+1/3rd slower). All this math is to say even a cheap 50mm f/2 prime gives you 25mm aperture diameter on FF, combined with the bigger pixels (because 24MP spread over a larger sensor means the pixels have to be larger compared to crop) means Full Frame all the way baybee.

>>4502821
What is the cheapest, but still reasonably functional video monitor I can get for my Nikon Z6?
I just want a preview window that is a bit larger and can be positioned on a simple rig. If it could take Nikki n batteries that would be great, but not at all necessary.

>>4503782
>Nikki n
Nikon
Fucking touchscreen

>>4503761
I'm convinced

But what camera?
Is the 5D mark IV my only option?

>>4503867
D600 (cheapest weather-sealed fullframe)
D610
D800 (cheapest "pro" fullframe)
D810
or D750, D780 or D850 if you like wasting money

>>4503867
Canon 5D lineup, with the Mk I being the "muh film experience" version, the Mk II for best price:value, Mk III you avoid, and Mk IV being the most modern.
6D Mk I is a valid 5D Mk III alternative. 6D Mk II I wouldn't spring the money for and the sensor ain't amazing.
You could also go uber-chad and get a 1DS Mk III but they're pretty fucking big and will cost extra. No practical point but it's based.

Also Nikon exists I guess.

>>4503920
Why avoid mark III?

Does stabilization actually allow you to capture more detail when taking photos, or is it "guessing" and filling in detail based on an algorithim?

>>4503927
ai mindbroke you. you just got paranoiamaxxed by a computer programmed to shitpost. you are so chopped. you dont just have negative rizz – you’re getting cortisol spiked by a piece of software that generates goon material for furries.

Anyways, yes, you are wrong. Stabilization moves the sensor to track the image. It does not just not involve AI – it is based on gyroscope data.

>>4503927
If we're talking about cameras, it's neither. Your hands are shaky and the camera sensor (or the lens elements) shake to compensate for your shaky hands. The resulted photo has less motion blur, just like when using a tripod.

If we're talking about phones, it's probably cropping your photos with digital stabilization, then combines a bunch of photos using only the good parts of each photo and then finally applies the guessing work.

>>4502821
>something light and small?
paper towels

>>4503927
What do you think stabilized binoculars or gimbals do? With IBIS and other physical stabilizing, it's just movement to compensate for movement.
There is digital stabilization, both in-camera or in post, but those rely on cropping in, and essentially losing information as a result.
At no point in either case is new or false information filling in.

I'm looking to buy my first camera. Other then IBIS, Crop vs Full frame, Megapixel/Max Resolution, ISO noise level, and the specs of the on body display screen, what should I be looking for in a camera?

Is the level of noise at a given ISO level something that's quantified? If so how

>>4504027
You can look it up on either DXO or photons to photos. If you're getting an interchangeable lens camera then you'll also want to look at what's available and the cost, for example Canon's RF mount you don't get the cheaper third party offerings that you do on the other mounts but at the same time they have some unique offerings (as do the others) that might appeal to you.

>>4504027
It says Canon, 5D, and Mark IV on the body

>>4504042
>dslr
yikes

>>4504027
The price, weight and form factor, the quality of EVF/OVF or just a display screen. Shutter count that's preferably less than 30 000 if you're buying used cameras...

I don't quite understand the other question, but there are camera models where ISO3200 is very much usable and others where ISO3200 is unusable because of noise. Having higher or lower base ISO (the lowest sensitivity = maximum detail) has more implications than just going to very high ISOs you're never going to use.

>>4504080
>yikes
yikes

>>4504080
>AI in the EVF
big yikes

>>4504102
>Having higher or lower base ISO (the lowest sensitivity = maximum detail) has more implications
Lmao, no
There is no meaningful difference between 50 and 200 ISO.

File: French_People_Tasting_Coc(...).jpg (79 KB, 733x768)

79 KB JPG

>>4502821
Bough a camera for cheap because it has a scratched OLPF (I assume it has one, it's a Fuji X-T2.)
It's 24MP, so can I just take it off and shoot with no worries? I assume it won't suffer much from moiré patterns because of the MP count.

I've read some OLPFs have IR-cuts and such integrated and without the OLPF it can damage the sensor. Is that true? Will I have to put some protector filter on my lens to compensate or what?

What's a reasonable quote for the following gig? It's not hypothetical, I just did it. It was my first job. I had no frame of reference but having completed it, I feel like I severely under-quoted. I got paid $3000.

>Corporate gig at a luxury resort
>3 days (10 hour day, 13 hour day, 5 hour day)
>Described as a typical "corporate event" and became every type of photography imaginable (candid, posed, individual, groups, conference halls, literally on a boat, live events, an "award show," a "fashion show") - I did not do an adequate job getting specific job requirements
>Paid my own hotel and travel (driving 300 miles total)
>Mainly photo with some video
>Was promised food but worked through my meal multiple times ("I know you just got your food (which we ordered for you last because you were taking photos of everyone else being seated and eating) but the awards are starting, you'll have to eat after" -> my food sits for 2 hours -> my food was thrown away -> I'm a pussy who didn't stand up for myself)

So ignore where I have no spine, let's say I am fully prepared to take on the hours and the workload. What would the quote be? Honestly I'm glad I had a difficult experience to learn from.

>>4504302
>28 hours of labor
>Hotel + travel time / expenses
>Got Treated Like Shit Tax

I would work out to be something like
>$40/h x 28 for labor (gear costs, skillset, variation of job)
>+$400-750 for hotel expenses
>+$0.5/m = $150 for driving
>+$20 x 2 (meals) x 3 (days) = $120 for meal allownace (they didn't let you eat, but I imagine you had dinner or breakfast outside the venue)
>+10% because they were dickheads (just list this as a job fee because you missed other work)

I'd put it to just under $2k with my math, but I don't know how expensive your hotel was, your meals were, what you paid for gas, or how important your time is.
Personally, I'd still be pissed at them for being such wankers and not explaining expectations better, and for expecting me to work through breaks and slap them with some dumb +25% surcharge.

Now the golden question is... Why the fuck didn't you work this out upfront and have a contract of services? Even a basic one written in Word would have been a good idea. Set some basic rates and expectations for this kind of contract work.

>>4504302
$3-5k + lodging + travel fee is reasonable on the low end
It's good to have food included in your contract (depending on what you're doing), but the cost of a missed meal isn't really something you should be considering in compensation, thats cringe
$100-150/hr is more in line for quick ballpark of low end stuff.

>>4504318
Oh, obviously super depends on deliverables and ownership / licensing too
But that's assuming just standard xxx amount of pictures from 3 days of shooting, for use for a certain period of time, retaining ownership and raws, etc

>>4504318
$1000 a day for a first-time photographer? Pulling standard-ish hours?
USD not pesos right?
Idk mang seems a bit much. Established with a portfolio and semi-regular work patterns? Yeah, of course.

Why does a tripod collar have to cost $125?

>>4504325
For a full day shooting, with travel, $1k a day is very reasonable
Entry level wedding togs start at like $1.5k now, and you can charge $3-5k with minimal experience

When I started paid stuff, I started at like $150ish for 90min senior sessions, or $250 for 2-3hr concert, and that was 15 years ago with a D60/D90, now my 1hr sessions usually start at $400

Why does every mirrorless, dslr and film fanboy have their panties in such a big bunch about the other two types being inferior?

File: alarm.gif (478 KB, 180x135)

478 KB GIF

>>4504370
Because these people don't take photos.
Or if they do take photos (of a cat or something at most), they have to feel like they made the right choice and [saved money | improved their gear]
Ignore the faggots. You don't see people sucking themselves off over what hammer they used to build a bench.

File: PICT0002.jpg (4.6 MB, 3016x2008)

4.6 MB JPG

I recently bought a Konica/Minolta 7D sold as "will only take black pictures".
I knew about the camera for a long time and was aware of the common FFB (firsat frame black) fault in which the curtain wouldn't open on shutter release.
Turns out it works just fine mechanically, which is both good and bad.
Upon closer inspection, I noticed a faint blue stripe in one of the images and amplified it, resulting in pic related.

Anyone here knowledgeable in CCD sensors who could tell me what causes such images?

File: 3342.jpg (347 KB, 2048x1600)

347 KB JPG

Hey /p/ I'm doing a personal project where I'm going to self develop black and white 35mm film to make microdots, an old stenographic technique that allows for shrinking down pieces of text to microscopic size.

The problems I'm encountering is I'm generally unsure of what kind of film camera to buy for this kind of shooting, as most resources online are aimed at photographic shooting, rather than archival and experimentation.

My budget is around 500AUD, if you have any recommendations or general advice, I would appreciate it.

File: 4444444444.jpg (1.01 MB, 1280x3529)

1.01 MB JPG

Which one looks better?

>>4504424
Whatever modern camera has the features you need, something like F90 or other stuff from that era. They're cheaper than the fully mechanical ones and have all the fancy stuff like AF, metering or PASM. Some may have some limitations with older MF lenses, so if you want e.g. the 55mm AI macro with it, make sure your specific combination will work for you.

>>4504473
Everything between -3 and +2 is acceptable. It kinda depends on the mood of the scene and the use case. -3 is dead wife flashback in movie tier and +2 is pharmaceutical ad kinda stuff.

File: reesecover.jpg (139 KB, 600x847)

139 KB JPG

>>4504531
Should I keep it at -2 for street and portaits?

I aim at 90's film and 00's fashion look

>>4504473
+1 for sure

https://www.tjlvn.com/blog/automotive/all-analog-classic-cars-and-film

How do I make this kind of pictures with just a digital cemara? Can it be done in camera settomgs or post-processing only?

>>4504569
Doable with many camera and lens options, with at least a little bit of editing.
For the physical aspect of the look
>use a fast normal lens with good bokeh on ff or apsc, like between 35mm and 65mm and f1.4ish
>use a tele lens and brenizer method
>use ai generative fill
>use 1/8 mist filter to ease the highlights
For the colors and tones
>find a preset you like that looks close
>learn how to edit colors yourself
>make your own preset with current match look or ai tools
>use one of the many online tutorials for how to make a portra 400 preset

Good luck, I believe in you

Can you do macro without a macro lens?

File: 5b9fc3631dd92.jpg (144 KB, 1200x841)

144 KB JPG

>>4504594
yes, with extension tubes

What is the best looking preset here?
https://nikonpc.com/

I think I like the Rose Curve and Fuji Velvia.

And where can I find more presets for NIKON?

How do I find free RAW and NEF files online?
When I'm trying to find woman portraits in raw format Google gives me porn and in JPEG

>>4504594
>>4504610
You can also handhold your lens backwards to get macro with some lenses

>>4504618
make your own with their program
or switch to a raw program and use the hundreds of tutorials online to make presents that will work for any camera you get, not just nikon
>>4504640
more snapshot portraits, but DPReview sample galleries for bodies or lenses (not studio tool), usually have a few pics of people with link for the raw

File: Screenshot_20260412_16001(...).jpg (567 KB, 1080x810)

567 KB JPG

I have an old Canon EOS 1000D from back in the day that I really never use. Mainly because it's so bulky I can't be arsed to carry it around.

My question is, could you get decent photos from cheap cameras such as this? This currently sits at 20€ in a local auction. I'm looking for something dirt cheap that can fit it my pocket. I haven't taken a photo for many years unless you count phone pics.

>>4504660
If you want a separate camera and by decent you mean okay, sure
The retail market for these old compacts died for a reason

>>4504661
Cool, thanks. I'll see if I can win any auctions then. For once, I'd much rather start with something cheap and see if I enjoy it before opening up my wallet.

>The retail market for these old compacts died for a reason
Did they never progress beyond "meh" or is there another reason?

>>4504662
>Did they never progress beyond "meh" or is there another reason?
The reason is in your pocket. Sure there's Ricoh GR and Sony RX100 that shoot RAW probably outperform most phones.

>>4504594
>>4504610
Extension tubes are fine unless you need a flat focus plane (i.e. digitizing film). In that case, better buy an actual macro.

>>4504662
Phones
Those existed when there weren't other options for a digital compact camera
There is no like cheap new compact market now, you have options for extreme weather sealing / kid proof, or expensive but better than phone

>>4504658
>DPReview sample galleries
Thanks! Got any more websites like this every photographer should know?

If your camera weighs 700g and your lens 1,180g, how do you attach your strap? One on the camera and one on the tripod foot? How do you attach the strap to the lens if the collar has no anchor spots? Both ends attached to an anchor plate attached to the bottom of the foot seems like it would be incredibly awkward to balance.

Are the cheapest UV filters going to affect image quality if I just want to protect my front element from salty/wet beach air? Is there going to be a real difference between the $10 and the $32 filters?

Is it ok to remove objects in Photoshop to achieve better composition? Let's say I don't like 1/10 of my photo.

I'm not associated with Magnum Photos

>>4504860
Regularly do this with just a basic neck strap on both camera lugs. Just sling it underarm style instead of off your neck, so your shoulder carries the weight and your arm protects the gear from being whacked.
>>4504949
Yes. Avoid the cheapest shit or you'll end up with a smeary layer over the top of your photo. I pay about $20 for the most basic filters I'm happy with

>>4504860
I use the Peak plate. I anchor one end of the strap to the left side of the camera body. I anchor the other end to the left side of the plate. I wear the strap cross body over my left shoulder with the camera resting on my right hip. The trick is, you need to wear the camera "upside down", in that the left side of the camera body is touching your body, with the lens side facing the ground. Then it's simple to grab the camera grip and raise it to your face. I was doing this with a 2kg total 70-200 setup for days with no problem.

How can I tell if my pictures are shit?

I have a Sony a6000 and want a lens that can do "everything" so that I don't have to change my lens all the time when out traveling. I want to go for simplicity as I'm not that much into photography. It's more of a hobby for me. Which lens should I get?

I have looked at Sony E PZ 18-105mm F4 G OSS as an option. The constant F/4 and Power Zoom is nice when doing video, but is there any other lens you could recommend in the same price range?

>>4502821
Im a n00b that likes to buy and sell stuff off of craigslist marketplace and I've been very casually shooting landscapes. I been trying to shoot in direct sunlight on a d300 but I just can't get enough dynamic range out of it so all the shaded spots come out barely legible. I can't even do bracketed shots because for some reason I can't shoot continuous (option is greyed out and dial doesnt move). The other dslr I have is an olympus evolt 330 but Im not really satisfied with the pictures that takes either. All I really want to do is set ISO/Aperture and point and shoot so I was wondering if a full frame sensor would help me out in that regard or there is some skill issue at work here.

Also what is the cheapest decent full frame camera? I think between the 2 of my dslrs I could get around $260 and then I was between buying a nice canon 5d mk2 or a beat up a7 mk1 because they are roughly the same price on marketplace right now (would want to spend ~300).

god fucking damn these captchas are hard as shit

>>4505444
If dynamic range is your issue then the A7 beats the 5D II, plus you'll be able to adapt any F mount lenses you have (they can be adapted to EF mount too but I don't think with AF). You've also got slightly more resolution, better AF, a higher res tilting screen, and slightly faster burst shooting if that's something that matters to you. You've also got a whole bunch of decent but cheap E mount lenses to choose from, mirrorless ones really have improved a lot since the DSLR days.

Upsides of the 5D are significantly better battery life and the ergonomics and controls. However seeing as you're not wanting to play around with settings much and just want to stick in in aperture priority and shoot (don't worry about ISO, just set it to auto) the A7 wouldn't be too bad. And batteries are cheap and small so you can carry a spare or two if needed.

>>4505444
5D2 has similar DR at lower ISO's to your D300
an A7 might add a stop or two, but bracketing can add as many stops as you want
If you can't figure out bracketing on your D300, you should give up using cameras now
Are you shooting RAW and following ETTR? I'd not, you aren't getting the most out of your camera to bring with
If you fix how you're shooting, might not need to upgrade at all

>>4505444
Both of those cameras are pretty bad. The a7mk1 has poor durability, very poor battery life, worse autofocus than a dslr, and is prone to developing light leaks at the mount. The 5dII is basically micro four thirds quality in a large full frame body and the af and firmware are really bad. You have already dealt with a vintage lomography toy. Do not spend money on more of the same. The d300 is no better or worse than most older cameras. Its just a different flavor of sorta shit. The a7 would have a much better sensor but worse everything else.

Either buy the canon 5div, a decent nikon like the d750/800/810/850, or leapfrog to later mirrorless. The nikon z6 and z7 have sorta shit AF (it is not actually that much better on the version two models) but better everything than an old snoy. The z5ii and zf are modern but sorta compromised (you dont get the best AF, you get sensor level compatibility with vintage film lenses instead like a budget leica m11). Sony bodies from the a7c onwards are all good. Canon models r7/r8 and better are all good. If you cant afford good mirrorless you cant afford mirrorless unless you are happy to sidegrade to a micro four thirds like the OM-D E-M1 II (IQ not far off from, and often better than a d300 with body features close to a modern full frame).

I recommend saving your money for a few months instead of blowing $300 on relatively no change.

>>4505493
>dont upgrade, bracket!
The wind blows. Things move. Things are alive. This cope is retarded. Even with a VR lens handheld bracketing doesn’t do much good. A totally static scene, base ISO, and a tripod are required to add a noticeable amount of DR, and then a competent raw processor to merge to a good HDR DNG. It’s not even a cope.

>>4505505
Simply find inner peace and any camera is le sufficient. Shut your eyes, press the button (award), and slather vaseline on your eyes. The true path upsets the gearfag.

>>4505555
this
best pics I ever take were on accident

>>4505555
not very gearfaggy if camera IQ starts nearing a plateau with used FF DSLRs in the $350-750 range innit

>>4505560
Now just imagine if you got one of those and applied good shooting techniques and processing

>>4505564
you dont really have to

bracketing tripodfaggotry to add more DR than current cameras have looks uncanny and only works on rocks and leaves anyways

>>4505570
>to add more DR than current cameras
Who said more
> looks uncanny
If you do it poorly, yes
Do you think shooting RAW and ETTR is also just cope?

>>4505575
>comparing lame HDR merges to not underexposing
You definitely photograph dogs

>>4505444
Bring up the exposure for the shadows, without clipping the highlights. Bring the highlights down in editing. The end.

do you ever delete photos? i found an old sd card with 3000+ photos on it and some of the photos are so fucking cringe and i'm so ashamed of them they could probably be used to blackmail me but i still can't bring myself to delete them

File: ideon.jpg (8 KB, 259x194)

8 KB JPG

Super specific question
I have an old nikon coolpix L10 that has issues with the battery cover. I replaced them but when I turned it on I suspect that the batteries left their place so the lens came out but it didnt turn on. Now it wont turn on and the lens is outisde
help me /p/ros

>>4505493
I physically cannot move the dial to continuous to shoot a bracketed shot. I bought the d300 for really cheap so Im not surprised that one of the dials is completely broken. My main point is mostly that I don't want to take out and set up a tripod whenever a shot has a slight amount of dynamic range. Its annoying and its just another bag to carry around in the blistering heat. Also I shoot raw and it does retain a little bit more of the lowlight details but I don't want to have to go in and manually adjust every photo I take. Im willing to pay slightly more for the convenience.
>>4505504
Ive never really had any issue with autofocus on any of my cameras so I dont think software being the same level of ass would affect me. That being said, if the a7 physical durability is just that bad, then I wouldn't mind spending more on a slightly nicer a7 or a7ii not owned by a retard. I will keep a lookout for a good deal on a nikon z5 though.

File: seeingmonkey.jpg (285 KB, 981x688)

285 KB JPG

>>4505649
and its making sounds

>>4505652
If you can up your budget to a II or newer then that wouldn't be a bad idea, that gets you better ergonomics as well as IBIS. The latter means that for photos with stuff that doesn't move much you can use a slower shutter speed and thus a lower ISO, which gives you more dynamic range. Also the III or newer has much better battery life.

>>4505649
>issues with the battery cover
Electricity can only have so many things wrong in such a small place. Explain the battery cover issue you had for me. Was the cover just locking in place, or did you just guess that was the issue at first?

>the batteries left their place
As in, they're moving around and not staying in contact? There's an easy test you can do which is ball up a bit of tinfoil and use that between the camera contacts and the battery terminals to take up any potential slack. I wouldn't do that as a permanent fix, but some have for years and never had issues.

>Now it wont turn on and the lens is outisde
It might not be turning on because of said lack of proper contact between the battery and housing. It also might be cooked. That'd be odd unless you had serious electical demons fucking with you. OR you were retarded and put the batteries in wrong way around; that can absolutely fry an electronic without decent protective circuits. Considering it's a budget camera from 20 years ago, it might not have great protections and could possible be proper fucked if you did in fact do that.
IF you weren't braindead, you could likely push the lens back in firmly yet slowly. Don't try and force it, as some lens mechanisims won't want to and you could just break something, but a lot of cameras and lenses I've used over the years don't have any issues doing so. Just be slow about it.

That being said, I would ignore the lens issue until you tried the battery tests/fixes because in all likelyhood the lens will just cycle back into the camera when it gets correct power.

I'd also buy some proper lithium AA batteries because cheap chinese carbon-lead bullshit might just not cut the mustard for the device.

>>4505741
It uses aa batteries, the cover is like a spring locked cover but its not closing all the way now so I've been using ducktape for that.
I assume that when I turned it on, I moved it too much and the battery stopped making contact. The first thing the camera does is take the lens out, before it turns on the display. I tried moving the lens but its locked in place.
The batteries work, then I put them on correctly the camera detects them but its like bricked. It makes sounds when I put on the batteries too.
I guess it's fucked

>>4505741
>>4505785
Nevermind, it was the shitty batteries

File: Screenshot 2026-04-21 212938.png (1.25 MB, 1165x695)

1.25 MB PNG

How do I learn editing? I thought I'm doing great with this one but then I realized it might be too much

When I apply a camera matching profile to my RAWs, they look so much more yellow than the sooc Nikon JPGs or the Adobe equivalent RAW profiles. Why is that?

>>4506049
Camera profiles aren't the same across software.
Sometimes manufactuers share things like distortion data but in terms of color processing most software vendors make their own shit up.
I could put my RAW in DPP4, LR, and C1 and get three different looking photos right off the bat.

File: PICT0003_1.jpg (1.91 MB, 3016x2008)

1.91 MB JPG

>>4504401
Tried to fix it, fried it even more.
A week ago another offer on ebay popped up, so I got myself a working unit now and will use the defective one for spares if need be.
Only had it for a day now but I fucking love it.

File: DSC02056.jpg (2.26 MB, 4912x3264)

2.26 MB JPG

>>4502821
What's the most ya young adult f number and style

>>4506226
>has a bike
>posted a coffee cup


the absolute state of Snoy-boys

This might be an extremely noob question but where do you guys find photo books to download/read/ look at the pictures? Is there a specific kind of place like Anna's archive where you find these? I want to look at some artist work but it's just too expensive to buy it all for me.

>>4506229
Appreciate the feedback! Not unexpected for me to get a nophoto negging religiously. The guy across, not pictured and hard to see, had some kind of phone camera. Do you use one of those too?

>>4506247
try some of these

https://www.loc.gov/pictures/
https://cameralabs.org/aeon/list/fotografy
https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries

File: 1776913600639704.jpg (1.02 MB, 3590x3158)

1.02 MB JPG

>>4506249
Anon, you're stupid, why would you put a lense cover in there instead of the bike keys

Why do people assert that 35mm is the aps-c functional equivalent to 50mm on full frame? It clearly is not. The field of view may be similar, but everything else is just like 35mm on full frame. From distortion to magnification, 50mm is just as 'normal' on crop sensor. It's literally just cropped in. As such, I have come to the conclusion that crop looks best from 55mm on up. It's at a distinct disadvantage on the wide end

>>4506341
Is this bait?

>>4506342
Has to be, no one can be that misinformed but so confident in their understanding

>>4506256
It just ended up there, maybe last lens cap picture!

>>4503718

Have both. For heavy loads, I prefer the left option. Little more awkward but way less strain on neck.

>>4506341
Congrats on figuring out the difference between FoV and distance perspective distortion.
Given infinite resolution (aka CSI zoom+enhance), you could crop a photo taken with smartphone-tier 24mm to a "telephoto" FoV and there's still going to be a big difference in perspective. Same is true for the more likely reverse where you pano stitch a bunch of tele shots for better resolution; the FoV grows but the perspective does not change.

>>4506505
Perspective distortion is entirely separate from the focal length/FoV, it's determined by the camera to subject difference. Using a 50mm lens and a 100mm lens cropped to the same FoV will result in the same perspective.

>>4506525
>wrong
Now say 3d pop

>>4506505
>you could crop a photo taken with smartphone-tier 24mm to a "telephoto" FoV and there's still going to be a big difference in perspective
Different framing / field of view sure, but it would be the same perspective / compression
Perspective is independent of the lens or even any camera
>the FoV grows but the perspective does not change.
Yup, because the perspective depends on your position relative to the subject, not your lens or field of view or how much you crop or stitch together

>>4506530
>>4506525
Sorry yeah, brain fart. Lay off the drugs, kids.

wtf 4800 x 1200 dpi mean ? can you print well 24-28mp with that on A4 paper ? i dont mind looking very close or using a loupe, id rather not buy an A3 or larger printer

>>4506633
300dpi is as close as digital gets to real photos (darkroom prints)
all bayer cameras real resolution is 3/4 the stated mp
for fuji its 2/3
300 pixels = one square inch
do the math from there

>>4506633
>wtf 4800 x 1200 dpi mean ?
In a vacuum, not much, what is the context for those specific dimensions?
For consumer printing, 300DPI is the common standard. You need less depending on how far away you are viewing it.
For A4, you'd want at least 2500x3600 to ensure that, and 24mp bodies are already 4000x6000, so that is very safe to print, enough to cover A3 at 300dpi too

File: qo7cv6zb58rg1.jpg (135 KB, 871x1280)

135 KB JPG

How fucked are my photos?
I was taking photos earlier on a hike and the film in the camera twisted free of the sprocket wheel. I took note of which frame I was on, rewound the film until I felt the lead slip off the take up spool, reloaded the film and placed a lens cap on my lens. I then fired the shutter and kept winding until I hit the frame I was on then advanced one further. I'm quite certain that a single frame was triple exposed at the very least but I'm afraid everything before that is trash now.
Any thoughts?

>>4506633
Just to add on to what other anons already pointed out, DPI can be a bit misleading because a billboard will be something like 20DPI but it looks fine at billboard-appropriate viewing distances.
What I'm saying is that DPI can be stretched lower if the intended viewing distance is further away. For anything handheld, or prints on a wall that people could realistically walk up to a few feet away to look at it, 300DPI is in fact the goal. That being said, if you're printing large enough (say A2 and above) you're not really meant to be a foot away while looking at it and thus could get away with lower DPI. Of course higher is better but don't think you can't take photos for large prints just because you're forced to print at 200DPI.

What will advance my photography more as a beginner? Taking two or three weekend photography trips or upgrading my 15 year old aps-c camera with a kit lens? Im on a budget

I only started taking pictures last year.
I'm hankering to getting out and taking pictures because it's supposed to be rainy all week and today might be the only day that has a break in the weather while it's still day out.
But it's not going to be sunny and I don't have experience with shooting in cloudy weather.
Any tips for cloudy outdoor shooting?

File: 1760407951858796.png (131 KB, 268x293)

131 KB PNG

Figured I'd ask here.
Don't currently own a camera but my last trip to Japan sort of made me wish I had a dedicated camera to actively take pictures instead of relying on just my phone but I honestly don't know where to start. I'll be honest I'm not looking to get some high-end gear or get so deep into the hole that I'll just keep sinking more money but I wouldn't mind something decent, compact and still have the option to add a lens since I just like that aspect alone. I love how stuff like Leica looks but I already know thats for enthusiasts going off the price.

Any recommendations for something that could be nice to take care of and just have on hand for a long time? Appreciate any info or advice.

>>4506997
learning compostition

>>4507107
Nikon Zfc

>>4507107
sony 'evergreen' a6000 - mirrorless, small, good for beginner. I think its around $200 right now, its more than a decade years old, but add viltrox 35mm 1.7 lens on top of that and it'll be around $300 max,
this one >>4507109 is better than a6000 but slightly more expensive

File: martha-is-dead-review-header.jpg (109 KB, 1600x900)

109 KB JPG

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPnlKUCzXhU

thoughts on photography in videogames?

>>4507107
The fuji xe5 and sony a7c/a7cii are the only small rf style cameras that wont ever be worse than your phone, especially if you can use a laptop and capture one. fuji jpegs are a bit blurry and sony jpegs only really do a dreary “modern cinema” look

Hi /p/

Is the DJI pocket 4 the new AudioTechnica M50s for NPC video equipment?

I have an iPhone SE3 and am going to Japan for a month. I won't upgrade my phone until the 18 comes out in the fall (phone contracts etc) but my current phone only has 64gigs (60% of it is un-deletable OS files) I was thinking of buying this thing.

I'm not a "content creator" but I do get pissed when I'm at a concert and the person in front of me has a remarkably better looking video of the show than I do. I would like NICE VIDEO and NICE PHOTOS regardless of my "creator" status. My budget is $1000. Low light emphasis (spending time in bars with friends) a nice zoom would be cool too for birds/far away things. I don't know what luts are etc so I dont need that stuff.

tl;dr looking for a retard proof vacation camera that isn't a phone (I will upgrade when iPhone 18 comes out).

File: Untitled.jpg (203 KB, 1200x2400)

203 KB JPG

is this level of scratches something to worry about

How do you organize your photos? I used to make nesting folders of Year -> Month -> Date + Event Name but it's gotten tiresome to maintain over the years. Do you just leave everything in Lightroom/whatever RAW editor's folder structure?

>>4507906
I just go Year > Event / Moment / Occasion / Session / Etc.
Within a given Year, I also have folders for: Snapshots (generic everyday type shooting), and a Test session for mostly playing around with downloaded files.
I don't see why Month/Date is ever necessary anymore, it's not how my mind organizes photos, and if I need to look up a specific date, I can just use filtering in the RAW program.
Switching from one large LR catalog to individual sessions has been huge improvement.

Why is electronic shutter incompatible with flash? You can't set shutter speed to 2 sec, wait 1 sec for the whole sensor to turn on, and then fire a flash? Chatgpt is very insistent it won't work. Do I misunderstand something?

>>4507980
That should work. I tried with 1" and manually firing the flash and it seemed fine. For faster exposures, the difference in sensor readout speed and flash duration means you won't get proper flash exposure across the frame, which is probably why flash is disabled.
Say you are shooting 1/250th with a Godox V1 at medium power on an R. Your individual pixels are exposing at 1/250th, but the time between the starting of the first and last pixels exposing is closer to 1/40th, and the flash itself is only showing for 1/10,000, so you're only going to hit some of the pixels.

There are electronic shutter cameras that do directly work with flash like the A9III which has a global shutter, and others like or X2D which relies on leaf shutter lenses. EFCS can help too, but mechanical shutter is just better in most cases.

>>4507833
yes, definitely

>>4508162
dang, thanks

where can I download photobooks for free in pdf format?

>>4507980
It’s not. The sync speed is just low af, like 1/30s or worse.

File: DSC_1038.jpg (4.39 MB, 4000x5000)

4.39 MB JPG

I am currently using a D3500 with the 18-55m kit lens. The photos I'm getting are decent, but indoor shots and night shots are rough, pic related. I've read that the best way to increase low light performance is with a prime lens.

here's a 35mm (50mm equivalent) DX lens I can grab for about $200, but I am a bit confused as to how this will help. It can be shot "wide open" at its full f/1.8, but virtually everything I'm reading is telling me to never shoot photos wide open and to stop to f/5.6 or f/.8. In that case, at the same aperture, what difference does it make if I'm using the zoom lens or the prime? Baffled and wondering what I'm missing.

bros i've never done astro stuff but im goin on a camping trip and i want to try taking some photos of the stars (i live in the city so lol lmao at doin that). I'm not really sure what lens I should use however. My options are:
>24-70 f2.8
widest lens i have
>50 f1.2
fastest lens I have
>35 f1.4
kind of the middleground I guess?
I don't have room to bring more than one lens so I'm unsure of what to use here. these are all nikkor z lenses if that matters

>>4508410
> virtually everything I'm reading is telling me to never shoot photos wide open and to stop to f/5.6 or f/.8.
I highly doubt that, or you're misunderstanding what they're saying. Most lenses do improve when stopping down a bit from wide open, how much so depends on the particular lens with some not being much and so you don't really need to consider it. However almost no lens is so bad that it's not worth shooting wide open if you need to. I don't know that particular lens but a 35mm f/1.8 Nikon prime is likely to be fairly decent wide open, almost certainly better than the kit lens.

>>4508410
>basic
For lowlight, you want more exposure
Decreasing shutter speed helps, but you'll eventually hit a lower limit based on how steady you or the subject. In a static scene like that, a tripod would give you more gains than anything else.
Aperture affects exposure too, but you trade off DoF for it. There are plenty of times where you can be shooting wider aperture and still have enough depth of field.
It can be a good exercise to shoot everything at f5.6 helps you think about composition since you can't just bokeh everything out, but there's a reason why other apertures exist, and people definitely should use them. A lot of beginners do wide open as a crutch, but plenty of valid reasons to shoot wide open too.
>practical
In your picrel, going to f2.8 wouldn't have that much difference in terms of what's in focus, but it would give you 4x more light, so instead of ISO 3200 or whatever, you'd be at 800
>nuanced
Even if you are using an f1.8 at f5.6, it may still offer other worthwhile benefits
>>4508448
Interesting you have to ask for advice, seems very obvious
50 f1.2 if you are using an equatorial mount, 24-70 otherwise
35 f1.4 might be ideal on paper, but the Z f1.4 has tons of coma
https://www.lenstip.com/679.7-Lens_review-Nikon_Nikkor_Z_35_mm_f_1.4__Coma__astigmatism_and_bokeh.html
Consider that with wide focal lengths, you can let shutter speed go longer before your stars turn form points to trails, so 24mm let's you expose the longest

>>4508464
thank you, I genuinely have 0 clue about astro so this was helpful, i'll take the zoom then.

>>4508492
The old rule of thumb used to be 500 / focal length = seconds you can expose before star trails
>500 / 50mm = 10 seconds
but if you have a higher resolution sensor, you'll want to use like 250 to 400 instead
so at 24mm, plan to be 10-20 seconds, depending on resolution, if you want pinpoint stars
lens has great coma control at 2.8, so probably can just stick with that
Check out the app PhotoPills, you can preview where the moon / milky way will be at a given time, also has a tool for star spots / trails

File: DSC_1131.jpg (4.63 MB, 5333x4000)

4.63 MB JPG

>>4508449
>>4508464
Thanks for the advice anons. Still figuring out the basics here.

Is there a term for the point at which the brightness outdoors matches the brightness of the lighting indoors?

File: 463.jpg (84 KB, 700x560)

84 KB JPG

my photography teacher told us that photo is abstract and really advanced using aperture. I still don't get it.

File: DSC_1283_03.jpg (2.96 MB, 6048x4032)

2.96 MB JPG

How do I approach cropping this?
I feel like the silhouetted couple centre left should be the focus, and ideally the backlit people on centre right should be cropped out, but I've played around with a bunch of different crops and none of them feel right

File: anon's_photo-crop.jpg (4.39 MB, 5426x3052)

4.39 MB JPG

>>4508624
this was my instinct. crop the left side so the row of lights is evenly framed either side and I went for 16:9 to cut off some of the top and bottom. you've missed the forest because of the tree's, anon. the colors are the big overall focus.

>>4507906
Camera directory > subdirectories named "[year_month_day] topic"

I somehow got some dust inside my tamron tele lens.
Looks like is normal to get dust inside tele lenses that extend/retract externally
Lens is <1y old. I still have 4 years warranty. But dust particles are visible in all photos at all focal lengths at >for 9
Watched a couple of yt videos. And raking the front lens out and just blow the dust off look relatively easy.
My main concern is the signs that it was opened and lose warranty in case the lens fails
Anybody has exp with this? Does it worth taking the risk? How offten do lens motors fail? Should i sent it repair store just to get overcharged 15-30 min job to blow the dust off?
Weather sealed my ass.

>>4508689
Some dust is investable for any lens, even the robustly weather sealed ones, not really a warranty issue lol
If you're seeing it on your photos though, it's probably on the sensor not lens

>>4508692
Already checked is on the back side of the front element. I ve checked the sensor. Tried with different lens.
Is only visible at >f9 against light areas, sky white walls etc.

>>4508692
I mean if i will open the lens to clean it, if during the next 4 years the lens motor or something fails they might cry that i opened the lens so they can refuse to repair it under waranty. That is the only reason i didn't open it already. Seems like the front cover has some glue spots that will need to get removed after so will me easily visible it was opened

>>4508693
>Is only visible at >f9 against light areas, sky white walls etc.
Well good thing it won't ever be visible in practical shooting then

>>4508704
Except landscapes or when you more dof or max sharpness which for this lens is f8-11 at max focal

>>4508771
You don't need to go past f8 on FF
Care about dust and "max" sharpness of f11 on your Tamron tele, but diffraction ain't real?

>>4508785
Did not notice any drastic iq reduction <f13. But i did not pixel peep