[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/p/ - Photography

Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]


All work safe boards are now on the 4channel.org domain. Make sure to update your script blockers and whitelist the new domain.

There's now a setting option under Navigation to display the full list of boards on 4channel.org

The 4chan Vtuber Competition is over. Click here to see the winning entry!


[Catalog] [Archive]

File: FujiG617.jpg (686 KB, 1000x1000)
686 KB
686 KB JPG
wide boi edition

Old thread: >>3397030
All film photography related questions and general discussion on film photography is to take place in this thread.
35mm, 120, large format, developing, scanning, labs, etc.
Feel free to post photos, we want to see that beautiful grainy goodness!

>posting in /fgt/ doesn't make you gay, you use the panorama crop mode on your P&S

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution1000 dpi
Vertical Resolution1000 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
315 replies and 78 images omitted. Click here to view.
>>
>>3405818

Oh absolutely.

But it is also pretty shitty of the place to just take your e6 roll without question and assume you want to ruin it with cross processing.
>>
>>3405654

I actually picked up the instax printer, the Sp-02 or whatever.

On the plus side one hand,t is pretty cool since you can print anything and not worry about ruining any film. On the other hand, it is pretty overpriced, the film is small, and the resolution quite low.
>>
>>3405835
I didn't mention it, and neither did the lab. Being completely honest, I had no idea what processing e6 took, and seeing as the place is called "Northern Artist Prolab", I assumed they knew what to do.

Obviously they did not. And obviously that's partly not my fault for not asking before hand, do you guys develop color reversal slide film. But I'll be honest, had I said that, I would not be surprised if they simply said "yes" and still did the cross processing, seeing as every one there has been incompetent every time I've been there. I dropped of 3 rolls once and none of the sets came with all the prints. I had to stand there with the cashier pointing out all the shots in the negatives that they decided to exclude. I gave them the benefit of the doubt because it was a lot of photos. Another time, they gave me someone else's scans. And another time before that they over charged me. When I went back in regards to the E100 roll, they gave me back a partial refund, except the cashier didn't know how to do refunds, so he gave it back in cash.

I know in my heart of hearts, had I gone to Downtown Camera, not only would they have said "oh E100 huh"! Exclamation and all, they would have asked if I wanted it done properly or cross processed, and if I even knew what color reversal film was.

I take part blame for not doing my due diligence. But the sheer incompetence of this place cannot be understated.
>>
>>3405731
Thank you for all the detail but I'm lazy and a wimp. It has to be said though, Toronto people do not take shit. You fuckers fight tooth and nail. I sent him an insulting email so he knows I have no respect for him though.
>>
New thread
>>3406274
>>3406274
>>3406274

Soz for posting late just got home
/blog

File: iu-2.jpg (39 KB, 474x562)
39 KB
39 KB JPG
It is time.
Send your photos in to:
- 4cpbook19@gmail.com

No theme. Photos will be curated, don't bitch about it, we'd like to maintain the decent quality like previous years. Chances are though your snapshits will be included because the lack of photographers left on this board.

Photo requirements:
• longest side 2000px
• Max. 2 photos
That's it.

Just send your photos in with your preferred handle and an optional quote.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
69 replies and 4 images omitted. Click here to view.
>>
>>3405643
My comment is directly related to the comment I was replying to. You're so stupid I'm surprised your brain can handle the task of holding a camera.
>>
>>3405583
underrated.

OP do you see the connection between numeracy and the ability to pull this off?
>>
>>3405887
no it isn’t
we’re you in the army or something? you reply like a brain damaged veteran
>>
>>3405890
yes i understand the numbers, they aren’t being stretched out across the page, no one in the right mind would do that, thank god that anon isn’t making it. 2MP is plenty for an ~8x10 book
>>
>>3405887
> My comment is directly related to the comment I was replying to
Hey, I wrote the comment you were replying to. If it was intended as directly relating to it, I think you misread it. The conversation went like this:

Anon: Maybe ten people buy the book
Me: More people [than the ten who buy it] download and enjoy the PDF though
Anon: I haven't enjoyed the pdf for at least 5 years.
Me: You are not all people [i.e., other people besides you enjoyed it]
You: I never said all people had good taste

This seems like a non sequitur given the conversation that came before it, as >>3405643 pointed out. I can't really get on his side of this argument, though, given that he followed that up by complaining about how you write while using the phrase "we're you in the army or something?"

>post a photo of your own that corresponds to an object or motif in the picture in the post above yours

Continuing from >>3317213
>street food
35 replies and 27 images omitted. Click here to view.
>>
File: PB261457-2.jpg (333 KB, 1000x625)
333 KB
333 KB JPG
>>3403014
that air vent thing

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeOLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.
Camera ModelE-M10
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/3.5
Color Filter Array Pattern800
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)110 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2017:12:01 22:45:21
Exposure Time1/60 sec
F-Numberf/11.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating2000
Lens Aperturef/11.0
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Auto
Focal Length55.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlHigh Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
File: edit-21-03-18#010.jpg (146 KB, 667x1000)
146 KB
146 KB JPG
>>3403069
Repetition

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width2880
Image Height4416
Pixel CompositionUnknown
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2018:03:23 18:37:39
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width667
Image Height1000
>>
File: 39790020)2.jpg (254 KB, 1000x590)
254 KB
254 KB JPG
>>3403074
water

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNORITSU KOKI
Camera ModelQSS-32_33
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2019 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width3088
Image Height2048
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2018:11:18 02:11:40
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1000
Image Height590
>>
File: presto@1600-5.jpg (1.8 MB, 2000x1333)
1.8 MB
1.8 MB JPG
>>3403077
texture of the rocks

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.10.1 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution2000 dpi
Vertical Resolution2000 dpi
Image Created2018:02:16 02:39:20
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
>>3404384
Reflecting puddle

File: 810_6834-1600.jpg (443 KB, 1600x1455)
443 KB
443 KB JPG
So I got pic related recently for my birthday, it was my grandfather's. I already shoot 35mm film but the scanner I used doesn't scan 120. What's the best scanner I can get for less then or around 300$, I wanna get the benefits of a larger negative but I'm a jobless university student

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
12 replies and 2 images omitted. Click here to view.
>>
>>3405565
does ok for prints, but the v600 is better suited for medium format (with a proper film holder)

still shits all over 90% of lab scans i've seen
>>
seriously dslr scan if you already own digital camera. this method also scans slide wayyyy better
>>
>>3405245
V550 has that too.

>>3405269
This guy is an idiot, don’t listen to him OP.
>>
>>3405639
The shitbed stockholm syndrome is real.
>>
>>3405639
OP is talking about a 6x6 camera

File: IMG_01.jpg (1.13 MB, 3684x2160)
1.13 MB
1.13 MB JPG
can i get some criticism on this series

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS 650D
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/5.4
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2018:12:05 22:18:11
Exposure Time1/80 sec
F-Numberf/13.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating200
Lens Aperturef/13.0
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length62.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
9 replies and 3 images omitted. Click here to view.
>>
these are clearly all pretty much snapshits with no thought given to composition
but your heart is in the right place
>>
This is just my subjective late nice bullshit..

>>3405533
View is boring.. maybe make her more of the subject, and behind her so you can see what her vision of her shot is.
>>3405536
Cropped out their legs.. maybe better as a vertical instead of horizontal shot?

>>3405534
Better as a vertical shot, without cropping the tree etc. Maybe shoot the shot from ground level and get something in the foreground to give this image depth?
>>
>>3405533
>>3405534
>>3405536
Use a better computer monitor for editing
>>
>>3405533
>>3405534
>>3405536
>>3405538
here's the 1 tip that will make your photography better, instantly:

Do Not Shoot In Manual If You Have No Idea What You Are Doing

the exposure is all over the place on these, stick to P or Av mode until you understand how your camera works
>>
As a whole- underexposed and too much negative space as a result of being unable to pick a subject

>>3405533
Underexposed. I feel like you wanted a pretty cityscape and happened to see another photographer and forgot to pick a subject- hence the weird middle-ground aperture where your background isn't in focus but isn't bokeh'd to give you a subject, hence it's a fairly busy mess with bad light
>>3405534
Your subject is the people at the bottom so you've got the light in the wrong place (instead, the brightest part of the image is the top fraction which is but a tiny part of the frame). Frame out and give me more leading space at the bottom too, cutting legs and feet is never cool. Also wait til you have less of a busy mess of people. I don't need to see more than 2 people in a cool formation to make something pretty, or wait for a crowd if you're going for a crowd
>>3405536
Again, no idea what your subject is because I don't think you picked one. No idea where your focus is here either. Compositional rules would've helped this, as would simply getting lower
>>3405538
The only one worth a damn, and I suspect that's only because of the post-proc. I'd prefer having just the two on the left with better (standard rules) composition. I'd also like more from those rolling hills- more contrast or a narrower aperture would help

>>3405720
Ignore this. For all of these scenes you're fine in Manual as you have enough time to figure out what you're doing. Definitely worry more about light and exposure though

I'm starting to take pictures of everyday places. Any advice?
2 replies omitted. Click here to view.
>>
>>3405855
What do you prefer?
>>
>>3405860
Thanks. I try to capture everyday stuff, maybe not extraordinaire stuff but interesting stuff.
>>
>>3405855
This. Wildlife is manlier and you won't look like a creep when you show girls your insta.
>>
File: Snek03.jpg (91 KB, 1080x751)
91 KB
91 KB JPG
>>3405878
Forgot pic
>>
>>3405880
The thumbnail looked like interbreeding a flat tire with an extra long turd, not sure that would be such a hit with the ladies

How many anons here are actually making a living doing this? Is photography even a viable career in 2018-2020? Seems like the market is completely cornered by people who made their careers 10 years ago...
43 replies and 2 images omitted. Click here to view.
>>
>>3405165
This anon gets it. This is SO true and in SO many areas of life! Case in point, I used to LOVE to bowl, and was a fairly decent bowler; I was invited to join the company's team/league. Didn't take long before I had lost ALL interest, due to HAVING to bowl every fucking Tuesday night.
>>
>>3405165
>>3405829
This so much. OP, make sure to pick a career in which you'll do something you already hate with a passion.
>>
>>3405165

>there were deadlines, deliverables, expectations, meetings, checklists, etc

You mean like, being an adult? How terrible...
>>
>>3405874
Yes, being forced to be An Adult with the thing you used to do for fun legitimately *is* terrible.
>>
>>3404329
I used Snapseed to shrink it down so that I could share it here. That's all

File: instagram-logo.png (71 KB, 494x487)
71 KB
71 KB PNG
Let's help each other
49 replies and 23 images omitted. Click here to view.
>>
I started taking pictures a year ago, and I have not yet decided what style of photos I like best, so I'm in the mood to take pictures of everything! follow there is @urielmarquess
>>
File: johhny.png (567 KB, 1040x626)
567 KB
567 KB PNG
follow me
>>
>>3405809
Kill yourself Chris, you samefagging schizo pedophile.
>>
>>3405842
No
>>
File: 1542809088610.jpg (388 KB, 906x1296)
388 KB
388 KB JPG
>>3405106
The crying girl photo is good shit

File: 32276245858_6f2a253326_h.jpg (427 KB, 1600x1066)
427 KB
427 KB JPG
Last saturday I went in Paris to shoot the ongoing protests.

How did I do?
155 replies and 54 images omitted. Click here to view.
>>
File: Compti2.png (1.22 MB, 1600x900)
1.22 MB
1.22 MB PNG
>>3405528
second without colourization of the french flag to put focus on the women, either could do
>>
>>3403942
>>3403944
>>3404027
Nice kino, but maybe increase the highlights on the police one.
>>
>>3402407
boring do gooder
>>
File: 20181208-DSC04262-2.jpg (204 KB, 1600x900)
204 KB
204 KB JPG
>>3405561
Thanks but #3 is from Nikon D90 guy.

>>3405528
Here you go. Stop using .png on pictures.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
File: 2.png (365 KB, 788x414)
365 KB
365 KB PNG
>>3403812
This is great

File: IMG_0009.jpg (1.01 MB, 2592x1944)
1.01 MB
1.01 MB JPG
Good evening /p/, I've been taking landscape shots since July as sort of a hobby, I was wondering if you guys thought they were any good. I'd just like some tips if you have any

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon PowerShot S2 IS
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.7
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Lens Size6.00 - 72.00 mm
Firmware VersionFirmware Version 1.00
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution180 dpi
Vertical Resolution180 dpi
Image Created2018:06:19 05:06:25
Exposure Time1/60 sec
F-Numberf/2.7
Lens Aperturef/2.7
Exposure Bias0 EV
FlashFlash, Auto, Red-Eye Reduce
Focal Length6.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2592
Image Height1944
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
Scene Capture TypeLandscape
Focus TypeAuto
Metering ModeEvaluative
ISO Speed RatingAuto
SharpnessNormal
SaturationNormal
ContrastNormal
Shooting ModeUnknown
Image SizeLarge
Focus ModeSingle
Drive ModeSingle
Flash ModeRed-Eye Reduction (Auto)
Compression SettingFine
Macro ModeNormal
Subject Distance65.530 m
White BalanceAuto
Exposure Compensation3
Sensor ISO Speed128
Image Number100-0009
9 replies and 2 images omitted. Click here to view.
>>
>>3404745
Rule number one is that a good landscape photo needs a subject.

Oh course, all artistic rules should be broken. The trick is mastering the rules so that you know when to break them.
>>
>>3405266
>Great series, found this set for just a couple dollars at a thrift shop.
I don't think I've ever been more jealous of anyone in my life. Excellent find, my friend.
>>
>>3405830
>Give up and win some sort of obscure prize for last photograph taken.

Easy money.
>>
>>3405830
can be true sometimes
>>
>>3405849
It’s also a pretty common find. I got my set the same way. Cheapest I’ve found them was once I saw the set at my local Goodwill Outlet for about $.10/inch measured at the spine, but I see them in thrift stores all the time.

>make a photo in jpg
>open it in a normal browser (IrfanView, Firefox, Internet Explorer or whatever)
>it looks alright
>open the exact same photo in Photoshop
>it's oversaturated trash
>print photo from Photoshop
>colours are very similar to ones from a normal browser; it's completely different from what I saw in PS
Any ideas why it's happening?
How to unfuck my photoshop?

Pic related, photoshop is on the left.
1 reply omitted. Click here to view.
>>
File: 1540316752549.jpg (120 KB, 1994x526)
120 KB
120 KB JPG
>>3402944
It's just Adobe trying to force their way to be "muh industry standard"

>be Adobeshit
>no one likes your programs
>launch proprietary license fee-ridden .DNG file extension
>no camera manufacturer jumps on the train
>be buttmad and butthurt
>change the default color profile in the RAW editor to some garbage that looks like shit on all cameras unless they surrender and pay the ransom (read: use .DNG in their cameras)
>>
>>3402944
Your color profiles are all messed up.
>>
>>3402971
capture one shills are delusional, my god
>>
>>3402944
Put everything to sRGB - your camera, Windows, Photoshop - everything.
Problem solved.
>>
>>3402971
>>launch proprietary license fee-ridden .DNG file extension
DNG is an open standard and Adobe licenses it for free: https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/digital-negative.html#dng

Hi people.
>Looking at getting into star watching, planet watching, and so on.
I'm looking for a good camera or scope which will allow me to focus on things like the moon, mars, saturn and so on.

>I hear/see that the Nikon p900 does a decent job.
>Would be using the above model as the benchmark.

Budget is $500 or less USA dollars.
Looking for a camera or telescope new or pre owned. Please detail reasons why I should purchase your item also.
>Pic related, and in focus.
2 replies and 2 images omitted. Click here to view.
>>
>>3404964
Fuck off this isn't a camera recommendation board lurk more faggot
>>
>>3404979
This is another board for your local faggotry and homosexuality?

I see.
>>
You missed /x/ my dude.

Also anyone remember that flat earther who turned up asking for a lens with 'no distortion' because he was convinced the curvature of the earth in photographs was because of the lenses being used to take the photo. He similarly had a budget of neetbux and goodboy points from mommy.
>>
File: jupiter_opposition.jpg (21 KB, 687x703)
21 KB
21 KB JPG
>>3404964
>I'm looking for a good camera or scope which will allow me to focus on things like the moon, mars, saturn and so on.

All cameras can focus on those objects (the stars in your pictures are not in focus btw) the question is if they can resolve them or give you enough magnification to view them.
I would recommend an 8inch reflector telescope on a dobsonian mount. The dobsonian mount will make it easy and fast to set the thing up and it will also bring down the price significally. Only downside is that you'll have to track the objects manually as they move across the sky and they move quite fast especially on high magnifications so it can be a pain to keep them in your field of view.

https://optcorp.com/products/skywatcher-8inch-f6-traditional-dobsonian-s11610

This package includes two eyepieces. One 25mm eyepiece and one 10mm. The 25mm will give you 48x magnification while the 10mm will give you 120x magnification. You can calculate the magnification by dividing the telescopes focal length with the focal length of the eyepiece.

1200mm/10mm = 120x magnification.

If you want higher magnification you'll either have to buy some more eyepieces with shorter focal lengths than 10mm or you can buy a 2x barlow lens which I recommend. It's a lens you put between your telescope and eyepiece that will cut the focal length of the eyepiece by half doubling the magnification.

https://optcorp.com/products/tpo-2x-barlow-lens-1-25

Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
>>3405039
>Also anyone remember that flat earther who turned up asking for a lens with 'no distortion'

I remember some retard who said that telescopes give a false view of the sky because it focuses light into a point and he couldn't explain how a camera lens forms an image even though it does the exact same thing.

>1500 photographers
>fanbois thought canon, fuji or nikon had the best color science
>blind poll
>sony actually rekt everyone
26 replies and 6 images omitted. Click here to view.
>>
>>3405175
>just 1400.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS-1D X Mark II
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Macintosh)
PhotographerDrew Angerer
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width3874
Image Height2583
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2017:02:06 13:46:47
Exposure Time1/160 sec
F-Numberf/2.8
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating8000
Lens Aperturef/2.8
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length50.00 mm
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width1548
Image Height1024
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>3405180
Yes, quality comes at a price.

name a better 24mm f1.4 for less money.
>>
>>3405180
High end lenses are like this. The cost of precision optics, and there is a lot of optics that is discarded during quality control as well.

It's not unusual to see 3000 dollar Canon lenses either. That level of pricing will probably shock you to death.
>>
>>3405183
Sigma 1.4 A
>inb4 muh dock
>>
File: 1537472197945.jpg (252 KB, 1014x570)
252 KB
252 KB JPG
>>3405834
It is cheaper, but a worse lens.

File: This_cheating_cunt..png (19 KB, 1024x1024)
19 KB
19 KB PNG
Is there a way to see the timestamp on a picture sent through facebook messenger? I caught my gf in a lie and knowing the date of the picture is the only way I can confirm she's cheating on me.
43 replies and 1 image omitted. Click here to view.
>>
>>3405657
What exactly is the picture of?
>>
>>3405660
>We live separate right now so that's hard to do. One story that doesn't add up is that we play an online game together. I got back from work early and asked her what she was doing. I was already logged in playing this game and she told me she was online playing too. I said something like "oh cool, hows the cat doing?" because she always sends me a picture of the cat next to her monitor. I think she sent me a picture she took before. She didn't get online until a little earlier than the time I usually get home settled down. I'm fairly certain she just logged in on mobile. We talked back and forth for awhile and she had to go. I tried to track her exp to see if she was in privacy mode and it wouldn't let me.

This comment goes into depth about the picture but it's of her computer monitor.
>>
>>3405664
I don't see how that means she's cheating at all. Like when someone asks for a picture of my tattoo, I usually send an old one right? I think you're being paranoid
>>
>>3405617
Just tell her you're breaking up. It doesnt matter. Tell her you need to work on yourself. If she finds someone then she finds someone. You need to make yourself valuable to the world. Don't chase women, let them chase you.
>>
>>3405584
There’s no way to tell with stripped exif data.

Thing is, unless you’re completely paranoid and making things up (ie she didn’t actually lie to you), if she’s lied about locations and time she etc. you can take it for granted that she cheated on you or was planning on doing so.

You don’t have to break up straightaway but start looking around, and when you find someone else and get close to them, make the switch. By that time you won’t be feeling much for your current girl and it’ll be easier, without bitter drama.
Grow the fuck up and stop thinking about marriage especially if she’s your first love and you suspect her already. Your suspicions and insecurity will make you less fun to hang around and she’ll grow more distant and Probably do it again. There’s no future in this and the harder you try, the more doomed the relationship is.

File: you-stupid-meme-20443.jpg (23 KB, 600x412)
23 KB
23 KB JPG
Stupid questions that need no extra thread. Post them here and get enlightened.
Last Thread >>3386761
214 replies and 32 images omitted. Click here to view.
>>
>>3405382
I'll search this, thank you anon!
>>
File: Capture.png (514 KB, 460x459)
514 KB
514 KB PNG
>>3398613
ctrl + shift + m (works in chrome and mozilla I think) let's you enter phone mode which usually shows upload buttons n' stuff
>>
>>3405697
I fucked up, chrome assigned some other shortcut. Just open dev tools and do the same thing
>>
>>3405258
Yea I have a few general questions.
After doing a quick research regarding manual/adapted lenses on canon I'm getting mixed opinions some people don't recommend it at all,so how bad it is exactly?
Also I've heard that some adapted lenses can't reach infinity, so what's up with that?

The impression I'm getting that if it's not L glass I shouldn't bother because everything else is either in the same price range or some cheap garbage, and manual lenses probably won't be the answer either.So I can't really find a decent lens for a ff canon at all, neither old nor a new one.I don't wanna go with sony or fuji but I also don't want to shall out $400-500 for a used lens.
At least with a full frame nikon without any adapters I would be able to use pretty much any old nikkor lens and have AF too.
With E-mount or Fuji I would get focus peaking and greater lens selection, but not with Canon.

So now the question,does Canon even have affordable medium/wide angle lenses with fairly decent IQ for like $70-180(used)other than generic EF 50/1.8 stm?
If not, what kinda off-brand would be worth getting or what would be worth adapting for the same price?
>>
>>3397139
How does Chosis get the balls to take street photos so upclose of strangers? I have been looking through his work on his website and Instagram and I just can't imagine being that brave. Like I am scared to leave the house and hate going grocery shopping god forbid anyone actually tries to talk to me in public. How can i become braver? Also I am a 27 year old virgin if that helps explain things. I do have a waifu gf that i have been "dating" for 3 months and have held hands with a girl that was not my mom. (havn't kissed a girl yet) thanks /p/.


Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.