Less gearfagging, more photo posting editionPrevious: >>4533619
>>4538546>>4538525Edited my pic from last thread, just wanted to get some feedback on it
>>4538683>>4538685these would be better black and white
>>4538670keep working on this cat stuffyou haven't gotten there yet
>>4538686Lol no
>>4538649
>>4538704
>>4538706
>>4538704snowing?
Horizontal tilt-shift... for when you want to feel like you've got severe eye strain.
>>4538716>Horizontal tilt-shift... for when you want to feel like you've got severe eye strain.lel i've woken up some mornings having slept on one eye and felt like that. I used to have a 24mm TSE a long while ago, I do miss it sometimes, they can be such fun bits of gear.>>4538665Potentially a step or two to the left might have made the figure in the doorway stand out more.
>>4538724sadly had no room to step before I'd be in the water.
>>4538716I don't think that's how tilt shift works. Shouldn't the focus of the left side be completely different to the right if the focal plane is titled relative to them seeing as they're both the same distance from the camera?
>>4538743Burt didn't do this in post. Compare the focus on the left side of the window to the right side.
>>4538717m8 all of your pictures are severely underexposed
>>4538754Looks like a stylistic choice.
>>4538755it looks unintentional
>>4538752>>4538743>I don't think that's how tilt shift works Well it better be, I took it with a 24mm Nikon TS, camera angled to the right, lens tilted to the left, and the resulting distortion corrected in post leaving just the soft areas.
>>4538728very nice
>>4538649Got myself a used Fuji x20.I love it.
nice foggy morning today.
>>4538906
>>4538907
>>4538908
>>4538909
>>4538906These would make nice alternative prints on warm paper. Argyrotype/van dyke makes brown, but it could look nice or just salt print on yellowish warm paper.
>>4538910Nice mood
>>4538906What camera? The fog and foliage combo looks absolutely terrible in all of these. I don't understand how fog can look so busy and harsh when it's supposed to do the exact opposite.
>>4538835
Recently bought a very cheap chinese manual shift lens. Very fun to play around with but it isn't really that great. The top of the images have purpleish vignetting even on an apsc camera and its extremely soft/out of focus. Not sure if this is just how the lens is or if I just didn't set the focus right.
I like the shift feature but I'd get better results with a normal wide angle lens with perspective correction in post. Still not sure if this is an issue with the specific lens I received, just how the model is that you get what you pay for or whether I'm retarded and not focusing right. Need to experiment more
>>4539064"Perspective correction" doesnt actually correct perspective (what you can and cant see), it just warps lines so the corners are straighter in the center of the image.To get the "real" effect without using a higher vintage point you really do need a large format cameraEven expensive shift lenses for 35mm don't shift enough
>>4538906Are these sooc jpeg?
took this a couple weeks ago and I kind of hate it. I thought it looked okay at first but i hate it
>>4539076Boring light, out of focus, and composition is kind of weak. Im glad you came to your senses.
>>4539061>>4539062>>4539063>>4539064why is the top of everything out of focus? or is this a shitty linear mask with a blur?
>>4539071:'D
>>4539078He literally wrote why, retardkun
>>4539074yeah. I'm a fujishitter through and through, so I never edit pics. just use the "recipe" settings.
>>4538902>>4539087As a fellow fujishitter I recommend you have a look at the RAWs your camera is producing even if you have no strong desire to edit your photos. I was very surprised how much extra detail is hiding in those RAWs and how good they look post processed on a computer vs straight out of the camera. I'm not talking colors but sharpness, noise, fine detail. Turns out Fujis in camera processing is kinda shit even on latest 40MP models.
The 35 f1.4 Z has been pretty solid. I can definitely tell the difference from the 1.8 S though, but it's not enough for me to switch.>>4539094>sharpness, noise, fine detailMost brands JPG processing for that suck. I don't understand anyone who cares about image quality but doesn't shoot RAW.
>>4539087That explains why it looks like phone iq even with how small these images areJapan's lack of developer competence is astounding. 10 year old versions of raw editors processed fujis files better than todays fuji cameras. How does "dont pixel peep then gearfag!" fit in with marketing a 40mp camera for $2000 and selling $800+ lenses priced by their MTF chart?
>>4539112My FD collection is slowly growing, this was a minty 100mm f2.8Portra 400 + Noritsu
>>4539087What lens?
>>4539113This looks more like choosing to use the negative clarity option (or using a bad lens) than "normal" Fuji processing
>>4539087out of focus does not equal soft focusyour trees are glowing green and it's bad
>>4539112The problem with row is that you need to edit.If all you do is adjust 5 sliders or apply presets and export then maybe it will make sense to shoot raw. If you start fucking with 20 masks colour grading tone curves then i ll just shoot jpeg with profiles and be done with it. I can t be bothered to spend that much time fucking around editing pictures if i m not making any money out of it.Also there are no social media sites where you can upload full res photos so why even bother?
>>4539112Man why are Nikon photos always so yellow. They look kinda weird. Can it be easily fixed in camera? I'm planning to get Z7III when it comes out as a second camera.
>>4539136>row is that you need to editYes, but that's only a problem if you're a beginner or extremely lazy / don't care about your images. Like anything, if you spend the time actually trying to learn and practice, you'll get more efficient at it.>so why even bother?Lots of reasons. One good one is to be able to go back and change how your images look after the fact, as your own taste, processing skills, and software change over time.>>4539142Neat thing with editing is you can make colors whatever you want! Pretty silly to assume this is "just how Nikon looks" when you don't know how an image was edited. Whenever I've posted unlabeled comparisons, no one here can ever tell the brand by the colors, do you think you could?
>>4539145>no one here can ever tell the brand by the colors, do you think you couldYes. I've seen many sample photos shot on Nikon Z cameras and they are usually yellow. I want my images to be good straight out of the camera and only edit my favorites or shots that need a bit of extra love. I'm not getting paid to spend hours in front of my computers fixing shitty camera color on every single photo I take.I don't think Nikon colors are objectively bad but personally I would prefer more true to life color reproduction.
>>4539078I think it's just a lens issue just not sure if its the unit I got or the model. I had focus at infinity so I don't see why it should be that badly out of focus but this is the only manual focus lens I've ever used >>4539071>Even expensive shift lenses for 35mm don't shift enoughYeah this lens has a max shift of 6mm that isn't really enough but it still requires less editing in post. Its a shame about the lens quality though otherwise it would be passable. Seems like use a sharp wide angle lens and editing may just be the best option even if it gets a bit weird with the distortion. Proper shift lenses are just too expensive to justify. There are a couple old nikon pc lenses that maybe in the future I'll get to experiment with
>>4539149Try thishttps://www.yukosteel.com/2020/03/repair-infinity-focus-precision.html?m=1
>>4539149There is a cheap-ish option I've been considering myself: the Arsat 35mm f/2.8 Shift. It was made in Ukraine and the user reviews are somewhat mixed, but it's a quarter the price of a decent perspective correction (PC) lens, sitting around $400AU, and it has 11mm shift and rotates 360 degrees. It was made in M42, Nikon F and Pentax K mount, and maybe some other mounts, but all that's available on eBay right now are Nikon F and M42 options. I've hesitated because I don't want to spend even a relatively small amount of money to only be disappointed and have to spend more later on to actually get the effect I want from a PC lens. I would also need to buy an M42 adapter, making this "budget" option just that little more expensive... There are also Schneider-Kreuznatch options for M42 PC lenses, but they're even more expensive used than this Ukrainian lens and don't have as much shift.
PS: 35mm seems narrow for architecture photography, another reason I haven't closed the deal.
>>4539168The cheapest shift lenses I could find besides the chink shit I bought are the nikon pc 28mm f3.5 and 35mm f2.8 which can be found for $200-400 cad. Sample images I saw online don't seem too bad. Only issue for me besides adapters is that 28mm is pretty tight on apsc. Lots of other newer options from canon or laowa are just too expensive to justify >>4539169Sovl
>>4539148>I'm not getting paid to spend hours in front of my computersIt should never take hours unless you're doing a full session or wedding (and getting paid)If it takes more than 5 min of tinkering to get the colors you want, save that as a preset that you can auto apply on import, you simply don't know what you're doingYou can see whatever colors you want from whatever brands with enough motivated reasoning, happy to point you in the direction of yellow sooc shots from other brands if it will help your knowledge baseWhat is an example of a camera with colors you so like, that are more true to life?
apologies for the border cbf re-exporting
>>4538713pretty dark desuyou would only gain contrast from making the lighter parts of the image lighter
>>4538715>image called "society">it's a telegraph polegod bless all newfags
>>4538721pretty niceI don't think the shadows being so dark helps the image look better, though.
>>4538727coolthis would work well in a photoseriesor a photo carousel for instagram, if you do those.a series could draw out the "travel" and "holiday" vibe more than this image does on its own
>>4538728this is the kind of image that, once upon a time, was printed in magazines.
>>4539198that's beautiful.
>>4539112You've posted this photo before.
>>4539076yeah, it's pretty rough. it does look okay but it could look better.>compositionmove left and open up the image of the creekbed more. if that's not possible, well, hmm... it's a tough nut to crack. you want the creekbed and the bridge in the middle and the foliage to frame it right around. all I would do is keep looking for an angle. if you've got time, keep visiting this spot.>lens and focusthe lens you're using is very soft. it's probably not very bright, either, and you're lowering your shutter speed & raising iso to compensate, compounding the softness. it's not pretty softness, either, unfortunately. it looks like someone smeared a very fine off-white paste through all the fine details. >exposureon top of all that, it's probably a little overexposed and the shadows are too filled-in, making the image look very flat.>solutiona tripod: it will hold the camera steady so you can lower shutter speed without having to also raise the ISO and blur the image, and you'll be able to stop down the aperture to get a sharper image from the same lens. very few lenses are at their sharpest wide-open, and that's especially true of cheap lenses or kit lenses, or whatever it is you've used? curious to know. you don't really need to buy a new lens to get better results, although it will help. you could buy a new lens and get marginally better sharpness at all apertures and less aberrations, but maybe it's soft wide-open too, or has other problems. you don't know. tripods are a safe bet. think how long photography has been popular now, how many different phases and fashions have come and gone, yet tripods have not gone out of style.
>>4539050I love cats but I really don't like this image. the colours, the shadows, the bokeh, the wide angle. it's all a perfect storm of dissatisfaction to me. somehow, though, I'm convinced I'd like it if it were shot on film. some digital photos are truly soulless.
>>4539061it's a cheap and uncorrected lens. the field curvature problem... is very obvious. you can stop down and get a deeper depth of field. there may still be some softness at the very extremities, though. not sure what aperture you've used.>sauce on picrelhttps://www.discoverdigitalphotography.com/2015/lens-problems-field-curvature/
>>4539208ty nonny!
>>4539198This is a great picture, the depth of field is mind fucky in the best way. Perfect leading lines.>>4539205That's quite literally what I used it for, so great vibe check haha. Had about 15 together on a post.>>4539207Thanks anon was really happy with that one. Got some of my best shots from a Mexico trip. I'll drop a few more.
>>4539224
>>4539225
>>4539226
>>4539228
>>4538665
>>4539236the shadows are too dark and it's fucking up the saturation of everything elseor you adjusted saturation too much independent of shadow adjustments
>>4538728Good shit
>>4539229Something feels off.Don t know what.
>>4539181>What is an example of a camera with colors you so like, that are more true to life?Not sure if they are more true to life but I enjoy Fujifilm Provia ("standard" color profile) with highlight and shadow at -1 and color at -1. White balance on Auto or Auto Ambience Priority depending on lighting. Very accurate color reproduction with a little bit of enhanced color/contrast. Beautiful, natural skin tones. No weird hues.
>>4539236Keep colors from original image and framing from this image. It's an ok photo but no matter how much you'll play with those sliders it won't win any awards.
>>4539246The bed of the truck sticks out past the ship's composition line I was going for. We we're offloading from our boat and couldn't really stop to get the perfect lineup. That's what I noticed anyway and it bothers me. Overall the giant cruise ships and the rusty dock truck was a nice contrast.
>>4539229
