Redwood EditionPreviously: >>4510615
a couple from a recent outing1/4
almost at 10 years with this little guy
>>4517549and you still havent figured out how to get your whole subject in focus. sheesh.
>>4517561Thank you bb!
>>4517563You’re welcome sir. I recommend changing the number with an f before it to 11. Your camera then should say f/11 by your shutter speed. You can do this with one of the dials, a ring on the lens, or your touch screen. This always works for me. I will be seeing you now friend. Good morning. And thank you for contacting Fujifilm camera tech support.
Looking for feedback on this one
>>4517570oof, accidentally did the wrong export
>>4517572Lift up the exposure and shadows on the building SLIGHTLY so the viewer isn't looking at a huge chunk of black dead space.
>>4517576How's this?
>>4517577made a second version with the roof a little bit brighter and a slightly more vignetting
>>4517572use the delete button next time newfag
See you later, cowboy
I'm new, any tips?
>>4517614>I'm new>already btfos 80% of the boardLeave now while you still stand a chance.
>>4517615>>4517614Samefag
How do you guys compress photos for posting without tanking quality?
>>4517619I'm not sure of everyone else's standard, but I've just relied on Photoshop's JPEG compression all this time. It handles reds very well, which seem like the first colors that get fucked when compressed.
>>4517619downscale, sharpen, save as a jpeg with photoshops 10 quality (thats like 95 compression level? whatever those numbers mean. I cant see the difference, and it definitely doesnt matter here lol)>inb4 the snoot isnt in focus
>>4517614Unironically this is one of the only photos I've ever seen that would be improved by bracketing and combining exposures
I think it's neat
Awaiting the canonization of Saint Seethe.
Yet another lake view
>>4517753I say this with love in my heart: mirror, learn to crop. I’ll grant, this is subjective, but it always seems you cut too close, like here on the flowery shrub bottom right or the humpy mid-left. Is this intentional? Do I just not see your vision? Genuinely curious. Is that how you like it?
>>4517754I dont think that the crop is the biggest issue here, maybe learning to focus should be the main focus. this snap should have been deleted.
>>4517672Neat>>4517679Lmao>>4517693SVG
>>4517790>>4517792>>4517793How long did it take for you to get in?
>>4517843I went July 3rd when it was super late, so I got in instantly!
>>4517852How did you not die of heat exhaustion?The 3rd was the absolute worst.
Cape Cod whale watching over the 4th
>>4517790america’s bread and circuses are starting to stink
One of the new fawns, striking a pose.
>>4517901Cute! I haven't photographed my local deer for a few seasons now.
>>4517918shot would have been better with a different focal point
tripfags always post the worst shit imagineable>>4517753man, this doesn't even make it into the 'to edit' list if you have functionning eyes, you fucked up the focus too much for it to be salvageable except as an illustration of what you see when you remove your big ass glasses
>>4517928I have some narrowers shots. I wasn't too pleased, but I could edit another anyway just to see.
>>4517931Where can we see some of your RPT bangers?
>>4517944not like thats gonna fix mirrors focus lol
>>4517948Good deflection nophoto
i like the textures and colours of the rocks around tide pools. i want to work on shooting them to look like satellite photos of deserts or drone photos of mountains
>>4518115Job well done, before reading your comment and looking closer at the details, I assumed it was a landscape drone shot
>>4517758like this a lot>>4517790this is a cool shot but id be pissed because everything is misaligned
Saw this man and wanted to take a picture of his silhouette, and he saw me and decided to take a photo of me from up thereWonder if I’ll ever come across it
>>4518137gfx? I honestly do not like the dof on this one, would be a much better shot if the sheep was also in focus.
>>4518002I like this. Little devotional statues make excellent portrait subjects: ever they are in quiet contemplation of the holy things above.
Bumble bee through a 700mmTough manual focus
>>4518179Thanks. Was in a storefront window. Tried to capture it with interesting light.
anyone get good pictures of the wildfire smoke?
>>4518187Light is quite soft and natural. No way this was shot without a speedlite though right? Are you just carrying around an umbrella diffuser?
>>4518187Finding the bee with 700mm lens must be quite difficult. Interesting. Here's one of my bees. Noflexar 105mm f4 on small bellows.
Was at the park with a speedlite and saw this cicada shell
>>4518160ya it was more of a test really i think the gfx dof just gives a really realistic feel of distance and the tree root was more interesting than the sheep
>>4518263Good. Reminds me of various pictorialism images.
>>4518342Damn close. I think you should've focus-stacked this one.
>>4518352regarding the dof - it does, but then you should have waited for the sheep to fuck off outta the frame, i think it is just distracting this waythis shot is much better, what lens are you shooting? something adapted?
>>4517646Dawg
>>4518384yeahsame dog lol
>>4518335Just got lucky with the light, plus a bit of dabbling in Photoshop>>4518339Lovely sharp shot, Sony?
>>4518395really nice photobut the architecture does the heavy lifting in that regard
>>4518352this is great
>>4518117deer anon, you are approaching a new frontier
Liking 85mm very much
>>4518391>Lovely sharp shot, Sony?Yeah, I bought an a7r3 to replace my fuji xt1 last month. Nice upgrade for a reasonable price.
>>4518456Forgot to add a photo
>>4517863>>4518115rad>>4518352sometimes i struggle with dof being too shallow on gfx, even stopped down past f8. nice sheep
>>4517536Great photo. Peak atmosphere
>>4517762>ohhh neiijjj
Been working on b&w film lately, I shoot near exclusively color and I kinda wanna get better at it. Tmax 400
>>4518483
>>4518370this is with that "kit" lens gf 35-70 its insanely good value for its sharpness, I also have one of those chinese 65mm 1.4 manual primes but its not really living up to its reviews... i always cheap out on lenses....>>4518407thanks>>4518458I expected autofocus to be garbage and the 50s having no ibis to be a problem - but i think its one of the easiest cameras ive shot with especially if i put it around f4 and prioritise shutter speed
first time poster.
>>4517931>tripfags always post the worst shit imagineableShout out to everyone who remembers when we had a competition to see who posted the better photos between Anonymous and the tripfags, and the trips won by a mile...
>>4518456How the hell did you guess that was a snoy?
Giving the dollfag a run for his money
>>4518506DSC = default filename for Sony
>>4518512Also Nikon
>>4518507Nice
>>4518502Keep it up!
This will probably be my shot of the day.
>>4518561the thumbnail looks like a shot of an abandoned Concorde
>>4518547nice
>>4518561>>4518502Might want to look into getting a ND filter. Will allow slower shutter speeds to get a nice "flow" to the water.
>>4518586Thanks for the advice>>4518538captcha is kinda trash ngl, also what’s that photo supposed to be? your subject is to fat to be photographed
>>4518595Just testing out my first macro lens on the bow tie.
baby's first airshow.
>>4518688That's a lot of shit on your sensor but otherwise a nice shot to frame.
>>4518688is this ragebait
>>4518688clean your camera you ape
>>4518751love it, tell me about this photo. Where, when, lens, processing
>>4518753Went for a walk on beach in Kerry, Ireland in late March, just after a big storm in the late afternoonShot it on a D750 with a Sigma 100-400 contemporary. Played around with it in lightroom until I liked how it looked, this is a decent crop down on the original
>>4518755could you post the original or at least the SOOC frame? This is a photo that I think is best viewed at poster size, like a 20x30
>>4518757Here's the unprocessed raw, saved as a jpg
>>4518760thanks, good eye for the final output. I'm a sucker for a lot of variation in lighting
>>4518776What a crazy coincidence: there's a "Horseshoe Bend" where I live, too. Anyway, this camera's resolution is awful. I hope you're only having fun with it. A shame t'were to cut off the trees.
>>4518760dramatic.
>>4518538buy a diffuser.
>>4518545brilliant, but clone out the foliage in the top left corner.
>>4518547i think the tree takes away from a good view.>>4518522that's a beautiful mosque.
>>4518779Okay? How about this.
>>4518787are you joking lol
If I have a 10 photo set, should I post it here? I tried to make a thread, but mods deleted it. Probably because I was drawing it out with roleplay.
>>4518782Someday!
>>4518824then dont fucking draw it out with roleplay faggot?
>>4518827Maybe I'll post it here.
>>4518831
>>4518832
>>4518836
>>4518831>>4518832>>4518836>>4518837cool it with the lightroom grain fujiboy
If it flies, floats or ducks..
>>4519024clean your sensor dude
>>4519018Sorry mang but you've knocked this during the exposure or something because everything that isnt the water is harsh to look at because of the blur.
completely new to /p/hotographyhow am i doing?
>>4519289
>>4519290
Trying to take the sharpest possible photo with a cheap body and lens but ofc it's not as sharp as I'd likef/5.6 1/30sec 20mm ISO 3200, denoised somewhat
>>4519293Looks good for what it is but if you want the sharpest possible photo, stick it on a tripod or at least some object, use f/8, lowest ISO and self-timer. Mirror lockup if you got it. You can skip the tripod, self-timer, and mirror lockup if you use a flash though.
>>4519293also shoot in RAW. What camera/lens?
>>4519297Yeah the camera and that object were sitting on a washing machine. Self-timer was used, shot in RAW.Lumix G7 body, Lumix G Vario 12-60mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH Power O.I.S lens
>>4519300Well in that case, use lowest ISO. F/5.6 at 20mm is probably the sharpest setting but if there is any lens decentering, F/8 or even F/11 might be better and would help with the corners. What RAW processor were you using? If you use DXO, they have lens profiles that correct flaws like CA and distortion etc. pretty well. IS is supposed to be off on a tripod as well but it doesn't matter for some IS systems. Mainly though it's going to be the ISO 3200 that is hurting sharpness.
It has been a long time since I posted here.
>>4519302Okay I'll try lower ISO and better lighting next time. But inherently what is mostly different between this and some expensive camera+lens? Like that sharpness you see on model photographs especially. Idk how close I'd get with current gear.>DXONah I use darktable I did notice some lens correction option and probably used on that photo
>>4519315there isn't really that much of a difference especially if you are doing product photography where you can control the lighting. Do you have an example of sharpness that you are going for?
>>4519320I can post four, photographer is @alisyildirim
>>4519320This and the next one are especially detailed
>>4519320
>>4519293To get razor sharp images you'll want to get primes. Oly 42,5 or perhaps Pana 30 macro, both are great. Native ISO is 200 by the way, don't go lower. Besides that you need to get to know the lens that you have, that means do aperture series for different distances for different zoom levels at ISO 200 on a tripod.>>4519321Yup, get the 42,5.
>>4519320Thanks for providing samples. You will want to be using flash for sure with modifiers. Portrait photographers like telephoto primes so most shots will be with that but even with a zoom you can absolutely get that kind of detail https://www.olympuspassion.com/2019/01/18/portrait-photography-with-the-olympus-e-m1/ . That was done with the PL 12-60mm but at web size you won't see a difference. https://www.johngardnerphotography.com/olympus-omd-field-test-with-damien-macgillicuddy/ shows the detail you can get if you scroll down for a pixel view, again with a prime but they were done with whatever Olympus had in 2012, so the same sensor you have I think.
>>4519325>>4519334Thanks! You have been most helpful
>>4519338buy this man an ND filter
>>4519336no problem. If you can't get a flash, do outdoor photos and use a reflector or at least stand your model near reflective surfaces for fill. The key without a flash is fast shutter speeds, low ISO, stopped down a bit, and avoid blowing highlights while maintaining good exposure on the subject. Flash simplifies that quite a bit which is why it's the norm for fashion. That instagrammer you posted also has a hair and makeup person so you'll have to do that as well.
>>4519338>>4519341>>4519380My headcanon for a while is that you're secretly actually Alex and just sharing snapshots from various digishits while doing your photosAlways in great locations, and I feel like you're one of the few people here where better gear would actually yield better results
>>4519034You're right. Here's another one from the same spot that's hopefully a little better.>>4519392No idea who Alex is, but I'm always down for some nicer gear. Should I start a gofundme?>>4519342I have one, I just never remember to bring it along.
Weary of the amateurs...
not great as i took it on my digi
completely out of focus, but the spider web looks cool
>>4519394>No idea who Alex isGreatest landscape photog to grace p, and one of a handful of the actual professionals that have been here through the years
>>4519171think if you transformed the vertical a bit, corrected the leaning in of the stacks, this would look better.
>>4519171>>4519446*leaning out I mean.Maybe something like this.
>>4519447True enough
>>4519414That does look gorgeous.
how much contrast for snapshots is good
>>4518547Mr Darcy ahhhhh shot
>>4519537eeh...depends on how you want to tell the story?Top left is nice because it captures the feel of the backlight from the sun, while bottom right makes the face of the girl in the middle pops more.
I should probably call the water company about this leaking hose in an abandoned carpark instead of taking photos of it. Oh well.
I'm sorry.
>>4519571Sorry for what?
>>4519573I'm more or less new to photography and was experimenting with Double Exposure on my Nikon D90 which yielded picrel. It's a very silly picture compared to what most Anons post here.
>>4519537Bottom right is good, top would be best like halfway between either, but would go top left if I had to pick 1
>>4519573>>4519576Here is something more serious. I recently removed the hot mirror filter from an old 2010's Samsung camera for some infrared shenanigans.I tried to compensate the low quality with some noise and vignette filters in Darktable. I gotta work on my composition, but I guess that comes with experience and reviewing/critiquing my own stuff.
(1)
>>4519594(2)
>>4519217nice.lens?
>>4519582>>4519552thanks i see it would be photo by photokind of hard to judge by myself.now in these pictures im not sure if color ormy elitist black and white mind needs them to be black and white
>>4519658Sony 24-105 G
>>4519713You have some nice landscapes>50mm lens on a nikon crop sensor (making it "75mm") ND16 filter f 1.8 iso 400Why doesn/t it show the exif data anymore on this site? when did that stop?
>>4519723Last year when there was an attack that brought the entire site down for weeks
>>4519756oh, the sharty thing lmaowho makes y'all's generals.This thread has reached image limit.
>>4519813The generals seem to be made by whoever gets to it first. I made this one, someone else made the new one.NEW THREAD:>>4519819>>4519819>>4519819
>>4517536Really nice, love the vibe
>>4519336No problem, and by the way, the 12-60 is still a good and very versatile lens. Compact for hiking, reasonably sharp, you can have a lot of fun with it.
>>4520293I returned my 12-60 quick. Sharp? In a 4x6. Not otherwise. Not if cropped. The olympus 12-45 is actually sharp. I had a bad time with other lumix lenses.>20/1.7Noise banding. It has EMI issues. >45 macroCrashed the firmware, occasionally refused to focus>42.4/1.7Decentered NIB, noisy autofocusM43 is almost good but you HAVE TO only use olympus lenses and olympus cameras. Panasonic is a retarded sideshow. Microscope company >>>>>> toaster company
>>4520294My 12-60 (the PL) one is good. All the Panasonic lenses, even the Leica branded ones, have awful variance. Olympus is way more consistent and honestly the cameras were just better.
>>4520299I genuinely think micro four thirds only did poorly because half of it was panasonic. Olympus has so much more experience as a camera company, and it shows. Panasonic is a generic consumer electronics company that uses focus groups, engineers, and committees to design everything. M43 is not appreciably different than canon’s 1.6x
>>4520315I think you're right. m43 comes out in 2008 and it enjoyed some good advantages by being small and all the other mirrorless advantages. Sony comes out in 2009 with its NEX which was just as small and APS-C but the two were pretty competitive for a while but Panasonic got a lot of help from the popularity of the GH series. 2012 rolls around and Sony puts in phase detect and it wasn't until 2023 until Panasonic did the same. That's over a decade of people complaining, rightfully so, about the bad autofocus in Panasonic cameras compared to everyone else especially for video which is why people even cared about Panasonic in the first place. That's over a decade of negative m43 experience because Panasonic was too proud to dump DfD.The m43 alliance was also stupid. Both of them had weather sealed lenses but they weren't designed to be cross brand compatible. Both systems had optical stabilized lenses but they wouldn't work together with the built in systems; it was same brand only if you wanted full stabilization. Even plain lenses had issues like when you could get purple flare if you used certain Panasonic lenses on Olympus. Both companies abandoning the ultra compact body segment is a mistake. Panasonic refusing to update the 20/1.7 pancake to have good autofocus is a blunder. It's a sorry state when a lot of m43 people are hoping the chinese will pick up the slack.
