I'm about to start doing photography again anons. I've always been an amateur and I will continue to be an amateur any pointers?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D7500Camera SoftwareAdobe Lightroom CC 2.2.1 (Windows)Maximum Lens Aperturef/4.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern810Focal Length (35mm Equiv)202 mmImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2019:05:05 12:49:25Exposure Time1/50 secF-Numberf/4.8Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/4.8Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length135.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBRenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
A lot of beginner stuff ignores foreground/background relationships and light/dark contrast. Generally I would say take fewer pics, but put more care and consideration into each one.
>>3680453Thanks for the pointers bro. I'll admit I did just walk past a dead bird and take a quick picture. I'll try and think more about my composition
>>3680384You wanna speak to the manager of photography?You're acting like a Karen right now
amateur [am-uh-choor, -cher, -ter, am-uh-tur] noun1. a person who engages in a study, sport, or other activity for pleasure rather than for financial benefit or professional reasons.2. an athlete who has never competed for payment or for a monetary prize.3. a person inexperienced or unskilled in a particular activity: Hunting lions is not for amateurs.4. a person who admires something; devotee; fan: an amateur of the cinema.
>>3680466Why are you straying from your original path. Obviously you replied that to flame me, but now you're defining words all of a sudden
Why are mainstream sites ignoring or giving the Z50 lukewarm reviews while independent reviewers and users are praising it?Is it a sleeper hit?
>>3680264Probably because EVF doesn't need the extra wide aperture to let light in and make the viewfinder easier to see through. And unless you shoot wide open a lighter weight, more compact and less expensive lens would be ideal. This is the real objective of mirrorless for many people.
>>3680259Why the fuck would you sell a camera to buy a virtually identical one that isn't even out yet?
>>3680282my PP is hard for a full frame camera.Whenever I have one I realize i dont technically need it. But when i dont have one, i NEED it
>>3680287>Whenever I have one I realize i dont technically need itWow you answered your own question. Good job.
60+MPs, illuminated buttons, dual card slots Z8 when
which YouTube personality is actually good at photography and doesn’t just obsess over specs? >pic not related: Jared is a horrendous photographer who thinks pushing the clarity slider to +100 is a good thing[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width452Image Height679Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>3676935>Made a shirt with I SHOOT AUTO* in green>went to WPPI >Never had so many people come up to me>traded contacts with most people, never really was out of work after that point.>>3676967It's all about how you market yourself, even if you do something retarded that makes fun of other retards.
Steve Perry is great:https://www.youtube.com/user/backcountrygallery
>>3678097Gynomastia.
>>3676935christopher frost for lensesbeyond photography for tips
>>3679817>Vuhlandesyeah he's an insufferable gearfaggot that has a very narrow niche. Takes way too long to make his forced jokes and just rides some of the youtube trends. "____-profession reacts to ______"
When will 4chan start supporting 3D photos?
>>3679678Foreground looks pretty good, background looks pretty fake.
>>3679710yes. a mount is a dead mount. It's like buying samsung dslr.
>>3680362yah i resorted to overlaying a gradient which worked surprisingly well but left the background with no depth whatsoever
>>3680363>samsung dslr?Don't go posting that one rebranded Pentax
Does anyone know if there is a curves eye dropper tool in camera raw? I wanna be able to set custom values for black, grey, white like I do in regular curves tool.
How was this achieved?
>>3680268>natural looking>the main light on the main subjects is coming from inside the building completely over powering the sunlol ok
>>3680266>>3680268Not the movie, that picture. I don't think it's possible to get that kind of depth and sharpness in one shot.
>>3680308It's obviously a composite. Look closely at the seams around the camera he's holding
>>3680309This. Both the outside shot as well as the individual window scenes are separate photos.
>>3680281Another underage retard on the internet. Just what the world needed.
What is the point of putting white boarders on your Instagram posts if everyone else does the same thing? Also most reposting accounts like https://www.instagram.com/goldmoony/ https://www.instagram.com/film.wave/https://www.instagram.com/thedaily35mm/Won't post your image if you've tacked on that basic boarder
Instagram crops photos. On top of that I suppose it helps to add to the le instagram photographer aesthetic.White borders + stupid soft colors = likes
>>3677970It's mainly to fit your entire image with in the apps shit aspect ratio Teenie bopers thought it looked cool & a e s t h e t i c so they appropriated it
>>3678746
>>3678746Actually improves the presentation desu
>>3678746The presentation on this is remarkable!
Have you signed up yet /p/[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera ModelMAR-LX2Equipment MakeHUAWEIImage-Specific Properties:Image Width1080Image Height1941Image OrientationTop, Left-HandImage Created2020:07:05 19:03:39Image Height1941Image Width1080
I never had an Instagram.
>>3680191https://courseupload.com/photographic-storytelling-by-alec-soth-magnumphotos/ for example.
>>3680197Thanks
>>3680055Dog shit meme agency populated by legacy boomers. You won't get a look in unless you're doing woke shit or are a nig
>>3680318ok zoomer
How do you think photography will evolve into the coming years? >will smartphones largely replace cameras?> most brands die out and survive by partnerships with smartphone developers?> photography as a medium of storytelling dies out?What is your opinion /p/??
>>3680230Isn't all that auto stuff is mostly software? I don't know if removing it would cut the price back far enough to even bother with.
>>3680230I'm sure there is. Tech is all there. It's just that companies are too dumb to jump on it. Leica does it, but ramps prices too much, and the rest wish to sell you auto focus lenses instead.If a company would release a mf lens only digital body, price it competitively, they could tap large filmfag and hipster market. There are few things that you'd need. Quality EVF. Just as good so people would not need to rely on helpers a lot. Auto WB setting, or something to change defaults quickly. One dial for shutter. One dial for ISO. Aperture and focus is on lens. You'd not need back lcd, metering modes, possibly not even auto modes involving shutter, although those would be possible. Could keep it at M all the time and make people learn as it is shot on film.
>>3680278I'm not hipster but I'm usually on manual and rarely use auto-focus. If removing automatic modes, auto-focus and tracking, and video could reduce the price by $500 then I'd be in on it.
>>3680230Leica exists
>>3680278Needs excellent (possibly customizable via user extensions?) in-camera processing too in order to produce sooc jpegs with character. Various image ratio crops, curves, color management, maybe even Lab colorspace for saturation by luminance etc.
When I take a photo of a stranger I return a small nod. 80% of the time I get a nod back, does /p/ experience similar non-verbal affirmations?
>>3680146>take photo of stranger>get death stare>if they are physically smaller than me, stare at them back until they break eye contact
That's being polite. good anon, keep taking photos and being a good person
I love my X100F and its probably one of my favourite cameras, but what the fuck did Fuji mess up to have such awful image quality on close focus.The output of anything focussed at 50cm or less is unusable. My 4 year old phone does a better jobNo way they weren't aware of this awful lens performance when releasing
Well what's the problem goy? Can't afford a new upgrade?
Dear 4chan,Why is new lens better than old? No way they weren't aware of the awful performance when releasing.
>>3679886>The output of anything focussed at 50cm or less is unusable. My 4 year old phone does a better jobIt's not a macro lens.The optical path changes quite a lot when focusing obejects so close.To get the optical path to be closer to what it's supposed to be, reverse mount the lens, stop it down to f/8 or higher and use the shortest focal length.Depending on lens and camera, you can get 1:1 to 4:1 macro that way with acceptable quality.The Canon 18-55 mm kit lens for example is known to be great for that, a cheap reverse-adapter usualy does the job.Pic kind of related, a part of a microSD card and a hair photographed with an 18-55 mm kit lens reversed and cropped.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 2000DCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Express (Android)Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2020:06:05 20:12:13Exposure Time1/100 secExposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating100Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageFlashFlash, CompulsoryFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBRenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>>3679968x100f = fixed lens camera.
>>3679886Accordong to the engineers, compromises had to be made in order to keep the lens small with a fixed rear element. One of those is spherical aberration at close focus when wide open. Shooting macro without stopping down is a smoothbrain move anyway...https://web.archive.org/web/20170121071457/http://www.finepix-x100.com/en/story/lens-2
I want to try out photographing with a tele lens because I never done it but I do architecture photography mostly and I would feel awkward walking around with such a huge lens. Would it be silly to buy a Micro Four Thirds camera just for the tele lenses? Because of the huge 2x crop the lenses are compact. Am I overthinking it? Do people not care?
I've got one of these big bazooka lenses, my flavor is the Tamron 150-600 in the OPTele zoom lenses are great for shooting birds when you really can't walk around much like on a boat or if you are not mobile, they're cool. Most of them are slow but they are quite versatile and these days they have decent IQ and some sort of image stabilization.I shot Rolex 24 with this and a 105 f2.5 manual focus, on a Nikon Df, and not only was I under 300 most of the time but I got more keepers from the manual focus 105 as panning shots and as stills of cars in garages. My 150-600 has rarely been shot above 500mm and most of the time it was shit like >>3678905 but it has been there.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON DfCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1 (Windows)Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern800Focal Length (35mm Equiv)105 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2020:02:26 19:03:42Exposure Time1/125 secF-Numberf/2.5Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating3200Lens Aperturef/2.5Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length105.00 mmRenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlHigh Gain UpContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>>3678891My face already looks like I'm on the spectrum and I actually am on the spectrum so I don't think I care too much.
>>3678953I have no clue since I'm not a gearfag
Yeah it may seem cool being so small but then you realise the resolution is shit.What would you rather: crop a 61MP image while using an 80mm prime to get effectively 300mm zoom or use a 300mm prime on an 16mm body. The trade offs just arent there.
>>3678845The only advantage of longer focal lengts is archtecture is that you have less paralactic distortion as well as spacial distortion.Once your equivalent focal length exceeds ~500 mm both are pretty much gone and your image becomes nearly telecentric.Going any longer won't even be visible as the differences get cut in half each time you doubble the focal length and at that length they are pretty much gone.If you want long focal lengths in a compact format and don't care about low light performance, you may want to look into bridge cameras.They have even smaller sensors than M43 and crop-factors around 5 or 6 with equivalent focal lengths usualy over 1000 mm at the long end.But going over 300 mm doesn't realy make sense for architecture and requires you to stand REALY far away.Hell, even 200 mm forces you to go realy far away, wich usualy is impossible.
Why is it so hard to take a really good photo?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1024Image Height1280
>>3675430Is it weird that I consider this hellhole my hug box
>>3672889i like this picture anon :)
>>3668848> That's the most terrible hitrate I've ever heard.You do release some people just take more pictures? We're digital, nobody cares about taking a few thousand shots. Its not like your development costs go up
>>3668848>>3668846Considering Japan is on the other side of the planet from where I am, and takes a full day just to travel day + time lost in zones, I would absolutely take thousands of pictures because I know full well I would not be going back soon to re-do them, if at all.
>>3679879Using linux is also free if your time is worthless. They might not cost anything in terms of monetary value.
What the fuck happened with the wiki? How long until it gets back, if that? I really wanted to look at the p photobooks. Anyone have a link to those??
>>3679285/mu/ and /lit/ wiki are still up
>>3679285/fit/ wiki is also kill
>>3679285>trusting the cloud with your datayou all deserved this
>>3679295Which is strange>>3679739I hope /fit/ at least figures that out. Had a lot of important information for them, specially to redirect beginners
>>3679275>Who controls those fandom pages?(((Who))) do you think?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1607Image Height2047
Quick, I need an eulogy for Olympus[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareInstagramImage-Specific Properties:Image Width750Image Height412
Found while searching around an abandoned school there is a secret network of tunnels[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationRight-Hand, TopHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width4032Image Height3024Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>3677997>>/x/
>>3677997any more?
>>3677997More like "Shitty blurry photo I took that I'm trying to pass as creepy by creating a fake "mysterious" backstory even thought there's fuckall to be seen on it."
