I never want to hear a single person on this board ever say film has the same dynamic range as digital ever again.Look what happened to my photo...
>>4306865film has the same dynamic range as digital
>>4307484Make it easy for OP, he's just beginning to open up to reality.
>>4306881niggerstop ityou're using shitty lab scans, come back when you're dealing with drum scans or raw linear tiffs from a high end device without some idiot operator baking in presets to produce a JPEGalso if you're not MULTI SAMPLING a scan for a negativeyou are doing it wrong and cannot speak about the true dynamic range of filmthis means, if you're camera scanning, you should be exposure bracketing and doing a hdr merge to eliminate noise and produce a linear 16-bit or 32-bit floating point file to then invert/edit. Any single digital capture of a negative or slide is limited by the digital sensor used to capture it, and means no such scans can be used to actually judge the performance of film.Grain is grain.Noise is noise.Combine noise and grain, and you get even worse results.
>>4306865>underexpose the scene by like 2-3 stops or more>expose the highlights as the midrange>WHY IT LOOK BADkek
>>4306921yeah cause if you don't overexpose fomashit by 6 stops you might not even get an image
Cheap digicam photography? Only started taking pics very recently on my parents' old Sony cam and I feel like I mog 90% of the posters here[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeSONYCamera ModelDSC-S2000Maximum Lens Aperturef/3.3Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2015:03:15 20:03:46Exposure Time1/15 secF-Numberf/3.1Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating400Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceDaylightFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length6.20 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3648Image Height2736RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardSaturationNormalSharpnessNormal
>>4298229Sometimes I wonder if cheap digicam photography is at all related to the gear and more related to just shooting small jpegs and never editing
>>4307964Hey! That's appreciably bigger than on most digicams.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon DIGITAL IXUS 960 ISCamera Softwaredarktable 4.6.1Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.9Focal Length (35mm Equiv)36 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandImage Created2024:04:27 09:49:01Exposure Time2947/1000000 secF-Numberf/2.9Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating74Lens Aperturef/2.9Exposure Bias0 EVSubject Distance4.04 mMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length7.70 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1763Image Height1321
>>4307993What is big jpeg
>>4307993Shush
>>43080058256x5504
have you ever caught something unexplainable on a photo?
>>4307722Define unexplainableI cannot even explain how my color film works
>>4307756/x/-tier
I don't remember riding with the naked dude
Yea this unexplainably bad photo
>>4308044Posts like this are why fe2fucker is awesome, kek. Made my morning.
What happened to all the hype?A few years ago every photographer was talking about this brand, now it’s gone silent. What camera brand should I be getting hyped about now?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width701Image Height438Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>4307932Not sure how good it is for video since I don't do much of that but I loved the zeiss 55 on my a6400 for photos. I actually really miss it, been tempted to get another one even though I can't really justify it since I replaced it with a sigma 56.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeSONYCamera ModelILCE-6400Camera SoftwareCapture One 23 MacintoshMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.8Focal Length (35mm Equiv)82 mmImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiExposure Time1/320 secF-Numberf/5.6Exposure ProgramShutter PriorityISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/5.6Brightness8.7 EVExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceDaylightFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length55.00 mmImage Width1600Image Height2400RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormal
>>4307932Another vote for the Zeiss 55mm. It's a little expensive for a #50mm f/1.8 but the performance is far above many of the cheaper alternatives, it's up there with the f/1.4s and in return you get a more compact and lighter lens. I also don't shoot video but others say it's good for that, it focuses quickly and silently in AF and in MF there's no lag.
>>4306753their recent releases are just overpriced models of what already came out, barely any changes, that's all
>>4306790What's wrong with their TVs?
>>4306805>I wanted to do macro from the start because I am autisticPost macro autism shots.
>shoot weddings>be a photographer ""influencer"" & sell presetsare these the only two ways to make money with photography anymore?
>>4306549not in my experience, the baby photographer dresses and handles the baby besides the diaper stuff. You also gotta be willing to put up with young kids which is a rarity especially amongst this board and its endless wall of social inepts.
>>4307561Thinking some ugly demon that smells like spoiled milk and ketchup is tolerable doesn't mean you have good social skills, it just means you're probably a woman or just have no taste. Dealing with other peoples children has prevented many people from starting their own families and realizing it's only other peoples kids that suck.
>>4307355if you want to slave away for 12 hours a day and then some more on your PC when you get some, all for $900 - $1300 a month, then sure, go ahead, be a photojournalist
>>4306672Being a wedding photog sounds kind of based since it pays so much but idk the anxiety of potentially missing a shot fucks me up. I guess that's why they get paid though.
>>4307022If Spider-Man can do it, so can you!
The first known photograph of a little girl[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:PhotographerTodd-White Art PhotographyImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpi
>>4254822when you see it...
>>424103 pdf file alert
>>4299134See what?
>>4254822damnbritish roses are even ugly at young age
Now post the last known photograph of a little girl
I was watching an old hd tv program from the 90s and it just looks gorgeous. What's the secret? Can we even replicate it now?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width1920Image Height1080
>>4301842it has unusual depth of field and subject separation. it's probably a large sensor. the colors look kind of funky because it has weird vibrance, saturation, and looks like there is a low bit depth. as someone else said, it does kind of look like a CCD sensor. Idk anything about tube sensors. it's a strange effect. the grass and sky seem to have a good dynamic range, but the building and bushes seem like they have a low color depth.
>>4304637i'ts definitely a big ass sensor with a non-zoom lens.
>>4301842try a diffusion filter if you want to shoot digital
>>4305356why nonzoom
>>4301842could be MUSE, its means of encoding creates that motion and background blur
How do I take a pic of someone with a bright sky and some landmark behind them?Either the person gets dark or the sky overblown.
>>4307765>mft users have girlfriends and practice proper camera technique to extract max quality per image taken Can't argue with either of those points, darn
>>4307793>mft users have girlfriendshad, she left for chad when he took a better pic on his fuji with DRO400 turned on and sent it to his instax printer
>>4307794have again, she came back for the thermal printer
>>4307765If my phone can do it so easily why is it a pain on my camera?
>>4308295On your camera the blur from motion/alignment errors looks obviously bad because it is mixed with real details so you go "wow, HDR sucks" because it is higher resolutionOn your phone the entire photo is already smeary sharpened blotches so it's just a little ghosting sometimes, nothing stands out if everything is shit
Pic related is latest photo I made.I got a question, if I was working with stressful people in their 20s to 30s, how can I make sure I get a satisfying film or photo shoot instead of one that gets overly dramatic for no reason?
>>4308137nothing in life is certain my friend, but if it is one thing that makes people happy and calms them down it is money.
>>4308144Not really anon. Give me something hard, practical, and logical.
As a hobbyist, I'm not qualified, but my guess is planning all details beforehand, making sure that everyone knows exactly what to do in advance and whatever is needed for shoot is available and ready at start would help things go smooth.
>>4308145Fap before shooting, easy>c: PSASST
>>4308137Well that would depend entirely on what you decide will satisfy you. When you figure that out, do that.
does anyone know the Olympus OM-1 mark I also has a silver version of it?and does anyone know where I can find a good second hand one from in the UK?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeOLYMPUS CORPORATIONCamera ModelE-M1MarkIICamera SoftwareOM Workspace 2.0.2WPhotographerIVOR RACKHAMMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Color Filter Array Pattern17660Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2022:06:15 16:04:52Exposure Time1/640 secF-Numberf/3.5Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating200Exposure Bias-2.3 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length12.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1920Image Height1306RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormal
>>4304802>non-spiteful build quality.When are they gonna bring back the metal E-M5?
>>4305151I know right, the mark 2 will always be my fave. So weighty and the last one to keep that metal tripod mount. Worth giving up 4 megapickles for i reckon
>>4304585yo yo yo
>>4306684stop bumping your shitty gear threads that should've gone in sqt. there's nothing to discuss further
>>4304718kek
English:(For those who use Facebook)Can you support this image, pleaseWe strive for this and we are willing to do itIt would be of great help if you supported by liking and sharing this photoWe are willing to win a contest, it will end on MondayThanks for the supportEspañol:(Para los que usan Facebook)Puedes apoyar esta imagen, por favorNos esforzamos para esto y estamos dispuestos a realizarloSeria de gran ayuda que apoyaras dando like y compartiendo esta fotoEstamos dispuestos a ganar un concurso, terminara el lunesGracias por el apoyo
>>4308162>virgennice. do i get to pick one or is it random?
Well, it's a competition.But perhaps that is where we stand out the most.
>I don't have a job>I shoot 100 rolls a month>When the stimulus check hit I've been spending a lot>1200-1300 undeveloped rolls in the fridge>500 rolls that are developed but not scanned (not seen by me)Why are filmfags like this?https://youtu.be/gqxzx2BDm0Q[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution1828 dpiVertical Resolution1828 dpiColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1280Image Height849
>>4305579>>4305480Share with me what the ideal non/anti-gearfag setup would be? Can I still shoot large format film without being a gearfag, or is 35mm the only permissible film format?
>>4305619gearfaggotry isn't something you can buy and sell, gearfaggotry isn't a line drawn in dollars, and gearfaggotry isn't a status you earn because you have a nicer camera than someone else. you might be financially irresponsible, rich, a scrooge, or addicted to retail therapy, but you're not over the line yet. you are not yet gearfag just because you have gear. you are definitely a fag, but not yet a gearfag.it's a way of life, it's a way of looking at photography, from the results to the process - all through the lens of gear. making excuses based on gear. passing judgement based on gear. it doesn't stop at the camera, it doesn't stop at film vs digital, ccd vs cmos, or full frame vs mft. gearfaggotry runs deep. deeper than "i will finally take those photos once I get my leica". the tripod, the head, the flash, the modifiers, the reflectors, the scrims, the fucking STANDS, the screen, the printer, the paper, the frame, the glass. the gearfag is exacting. the gearfag is never satisfied. the gearfag has spent a lot of time thinking about all of these, arguing about the best - the gearfag sees all of these things, all this gear, as so inexorably intertwined with photography that photography is mostly just about what you used to make the photo. and it need not be expensive, the gearfag may very well decide that expensive things make photography worse. it's just about the gear. when the gearfag is presented with a photo they want a closer look at the exif before they even look at the fucking picture so they can make sure they're allowed to like it. and if you used flash, they will ask you which flash you used. so they can say "oh, doesn't the color temperature vary up to 400k? you shot on that trash? no wonder your colors are FUCKED".that is what it means to be gearfag.just by asking what to buy so you can not be a gearfag, as if a purchase can make you more authentic photographer, you put a toe over the gearfag line. retract it. Now!
>>4305622That must have been fun to write, and I agree with you. It's an excuse to judge an image based on the gear rather than the content. I like prints more than looking at images on a screen. I have fun imagining a pixel peeper/gearfag using a loupe or standing 1 inch away from a framed print on a wall exclaiming that the corners are soft from a shitty lens and declaring it a terrible picture for that reason alone. In a completely silent gallery as well.
>>4305387valid>>4305524<1% is actually is like that
The Winogrand on the golden gate, but more gay
what's the /p/ consensus on this dude? seems like the prototypical sleazy art photographer, albeit talented
Who
>>4308138Bro you are like that one dude in Calculus 2 in college who when all of us are trying to figure out integrals and trig substitution you ask, "Do I have to write down the teacher's name on the test"BRO WHY?!
>>4308141>Noooo you have to know who my boyfriend is!!!
>>4308143Finally someone who doesn't take this god awful website seriously.
>>4308133>likes sexWhat a disgusting pervert.
Now that JEWKON bought red.I can already see what is going to happen to Red.Do you want to hook an external HDR OLED 8k monitor? Only the flagship model has this, the most basic is limited to 1080p.Do you want to use two SSDs instead of a single one?Only the flagship model can do it, the most basic is limited to a single ssd.It is over for red.
>>4306246Did you know that a 34mm lens used for 8x10 film would be the equivalent of using a 5mm lens on 35mm film? Bonkers.
>>4306293I thought itwas an aerial photography lens
>>4306386Maybe it was a 34 inch lens? That would be a 120mm equivalent on 8x10.
>>4306293It had a 10 inch front element
>>4301522Nah, Blackmagic still has a special looking image and BRAW is fantastic. I've been using my BPCC 4k for the last three years and the image from it outclasses cameras that are thousands of dollars more. It's a total workhorse that's taken a beating. As long a Black Magic keeps their value proposition, they'll be fine.
which one would be the best one to go for, more to the point I'm making here is which one would you say stands out the most as being the one that has the best performance in most of it's functions and settings?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
up
>>4294290bump
>>4296582Great combo. Get the panny 35-100 f2.8 and you won't need more in the years to come.
>>4296582>Same price and size as an a7c+40mm f2.5 with a softer, slower, larger, heavier lens.Same WR too, because olympus doesn't build the -5s to the -1s standards. I find it easier to locate a parts only olympus -5 or -10 camera than a -1 camera with WR related failures like glitchy screens, ports, and buttons.Get literally anything else, you're overspending to gain almost nothing over an e-m5 and 17mm.
hello