i don't

File: ed2.jpg (3.01 MB, 2639x1759)

3.01 MB JPG

>>3662538
I agree with this anon, decide where you wanna put the focus, either on the sky, or on the foreground, and actively give it a bigger part of the scene.
Right now it feels kinda neither here or there.
I made two quick 3:2 crops to show what i mean.
Here is more focus on sky

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop 21.0 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3072
Image Height	2048
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2020:05:29 02:46:37
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2639
Image Height	1759

File: ed1.jpg (2.12 MB, 2244x1496)

2.12 MB JPG

>>3662560
And here is more focus on the road (you do need to brighten up the landscape a bit if you wanna put focus on it, and I brightened the road a bit more to guide the eye).

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop 21.0 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3072
Image Height	2048
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2020:05:29 02:45:08
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2244
Image Height	1496

File: ed3.jpg (2.09 MB, 1568x1960)

2.09 MB JPG

>>3662561
If you do not mind to change the format though, I like this 5:4 crop the most, it seems to suit the flow of the image the most.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop 21.0 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3072
Image Height	2048
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2020:05:29 02:50:27
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1568
Image Height	1960

>>3662558

You're the result of participation trophy parenting.

>>3662561
That's all wrong. Saturated red sky only works when it's alone. For foreground, you need to do different edits. Lift shadows, drop highlights. There's enough dynamic range in source jpg to allow it.

>>3662563
When are you going to edit it?

File: LRM_EXPORT_19916702691556(...).jpg (3.95 MB, 3016x3016)

3.95 MB JPG

>>3661639
Ah, it's been a while since I've spammed this one.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Xiaomi
Camera Model	MI 6
Camera Software	Lightroom
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	52 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2019:03:18 14:13:05
Exposure Time	1/620 sec
F-Number	f/2.6
Exposure Program	Not Defined
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/2.6
Brightness	7.2 EV
Metering Mode	Average
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	6.06 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated

File: meema.jpg (1.19 MB, 2000x1333)

1.19 MB JPG

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-6000
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	5535
Image Height	3690
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2020:05:28 19:54:15
Exposure Time	1/100 sec
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	250
Brightness	0.2 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2000
Image Height	1333
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>3662514
What percentage of the actual photo did you crop out?

>>3662567
>>3662514
Never mind, it was taken with a phone

>>3662094
A tripfag

>>3662094
can someone post a photo, id like to see

>>3660474
>Chad P Anus II

>>3662077
Chosis was ultimately another fraud who never cared about photography in the first place. All he wanted to do was creep on 13 year old girls around schools and run shitty '90s era scams on 4chan/reddit.

He had no real passion for the art of photography or any love for the craft. Hence why he's completely given up on photography now after only two years and probably sold his camera to buy some bathtub heroin & some dark web CP (gotta keep reviewing those CP websites on reddit!).

>>3662550
Source for any of this stuff? Do you have their reddit account? Or screenshots of these scams.
I would like to see

>>3662448
>>3662449
kinda reminds me of when you try to scan B&W film on a plustek with the IR channel activated. the silver on the film reflects light and fucks up the dust removal algorithm, resulting in software rendering pics almost exactly like that.

>>3662369
>Would pulling be the way to go?
In one word, yes.

>>3662369
I mean it’s also the Mohave so like, I feel like waiting for less contrast light before changing processing.

>>3662448
>>3662449

This >>3662501
No way that's on the film. You're fucking up scanning somehow. What software are you using? This could be either trying to use dust removal, or degrain, or some shit like "adaptive contrast" that Silverfast has.

>>3662511
These were shot between late afternoon and sunset on a (relatively) cloudy day. The first pic with the shrub is the earliest of the three and the closeup of the yucca plant was the last (maybe 30 minutes till the stars came out). Given what >>3662445 mentioned though is it possible I might've shot the film ok but blown it out in production?

>>3659686
These photos scream “ I let composition and frame splitting dictate the image”
In a boring predictable way.

>>3662476
Might as well look at Justine kurlands work while you're at it

>>3662507
He uses third worlders like backdrops for uninspiring photos that have no merit when you consider its so self serving for a supposed “journalist”. His whole schtick was he used kodakchrome and he got btfo a few years back for manipulating his digishit images.

>>3662505
>>3662515
Steve McCurry quite nicely fits into the canon for the era he was shooting in. Don't hate on him so hard. Sure to the modern viewer it's a bit of an eye roll but you have view his earlier work within the context of when it was made. He was active before the internet era when such images have become too ubiquitous. His main mode of publishing was National Geographic which communicated and displayed cultures and locations foreign to the general American populous. To see similar images during that time period relied on books and the odd cinema/tv show. Look at movies made during his childhood and early career. For example Around the World in 80 days (1954) whose first half was used a to show case cultures that wouldn't be normally seen by American audiences. Those show case scenes are hard/tedious to watch these days because that kind of imagery and information is now easily available.

If you scroll up and look at my original response to the post about McCurry my issue with him is that he's had a hard time adjusting to that shift making his newer work much less interesting and relevant.

>>3658206
check out vivian maier

>>3662519
it’s called completely irrelevant butthurt anon

>>3659006
50s has articulating screen
view finder can be removed/ also articulates a bit
has top LCD

its kinda like a fuji x-t # series vs an X-E#
similar photos imo but the extra goodies come at an added cost. sometimes a bit too much in this case.

>>3662524
>give an example of another technology that has a paradigm shift which results in shifting definitions of vaguely defined terms
>this is somehow irrelevant
Please, you are just embarrassing yourself

>>3662529
You aren’t even replying to the same person lol you’re just buttrustled

>>3662543
Then what is your point even replying, there is a discussion going on on a discussion board, what is the relevance of your butting in?
You don't even seem to understand what is being talked about, that is what is embarrassing.

>>3661922
the REAL question is why don’t they make something the shoots in 4:3 but with better quality than a FF sensor

>>3662385
Olympus I know does.

>>3662387
It's called a fuji.

>>3662385
Higher end nikons can shoot in 5:4 crop which is pretty close

>>3662408
>better quality than FF
>Fuji GFX

You only get once choice today sorry anon

>>3662387
Common digital medium format size

>>3629487
>i didnt want to risk causing an accident for a photo.
but you took a pic while the car was moving?

>>3629828
shits fucking creepy
nice

>>3659857
you are just pretending to be this retarded, right?
it's like op wasn't the one driving or something

>>3629641
Why did you shoot this portrait when the bridge seems like it would have nicely filled a landscape image? Was it to get the water texture? I want to look at the bridge but for some reason my eye is dawn to the bottom of the frame with the one vertical section of the dark water. Not that I expect a response seeing as how that post is months old.

>>3662427
It was for the water tezture. Honestly I don't like that image as much as I did when I processed it, there are others even from that day and time I like more. I did shoot the bridge in landscape too; would post it here but we are at the bump limit.

File: Looks+like+the+soyboy+fac(...).jpg (187 KB, 600x759)

187 KB JPG

>>3662443
>I own both X100V and Coolpix A, love them both. Image quality of the Nikon is great but the autofocus is painfully slow and it lacks a viewfinder. Size is great tho, can fit in the pocket, which is not really possible with the X100V, so both now have a place in my kit.

>>3662441
Sorry Mathias, I dont discuss fiction with strangers

File: R1000072.jpg (479 KB, 1280x847)

479 KB JPG

>>3662441
>tfw dust
>fuji GR is literally unusable and also gets dust
how do I free myself from dust

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.
Camera Model	GR II
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7.1 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	28 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1280
Image Height	847
Compression Scheme	Unknown
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	96 dpi
Vertical Resolution	96 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2019:05:26 14:29:04
Exposure Time	1/1600 sec
F-Number	f/5.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	280
Lens Aperture	f/5.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	18.30 mm
White Balance	Auto
Sharpness	Normal

File: 49241211607_a72b095864_o.jpg (330 KB, 2000x1325)

330 KB JPG

>>3662470
Just fucking get over it. I've had my GR for seven years now and I took it apart once to clean the sensor. That's how long people on /p/ have been parroting this GR dust meme. Show me the dust spots in this photo. Do they matter?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.
Camera Model	GR
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop 21.0 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	28 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4928
Image Height	3264
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2020:05:28 15:08:07
Exposure Time	1/160 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Brightness	7.3 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	18.30 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2000
Image Height	1325
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal

>>3662441
>yet
that shit is very old and sucked

>>3660128
>Why not a Z6?

It's too expensive :(
Not to mention I have like 12 F mount lenses. Getting a Z mount plus adapter pretty much just negates the lightness of a mirrorless camera.

>>3660166
>I like it a lot, but it´s really pretty heavy.

Thats why I decided not to get one. I almost got a D610 last year but decided against it due to the oil spill issues.

>AF-D 35mm f2.0

I have it as well. I bought one last year and I love it. Autofocus might be slow at times but I love the way it goes swish swish as it searches for focus.

File: ads11512338569778.jpg (553 KB, 1000x1000)

553 KB JPG

Found these browsing old /p/ folder. Hola if you're still around.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.
Camera Model	E-M5
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.10 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Color Filter Array Pattern	804
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	50 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2017:12:03 22:57:53
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/3.5
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Exposure Bias	-1.3 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Auto
Focal Length	25.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

File: ads11512338504235.jpg (525 KB, 750x1000)

525 KB JPG

>>3662464

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.
Camera Model	E-M5
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.10 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.7
Color Filter Array Pattern	804
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	30 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2017:12:03 22:57:53
Exposure Time	1/80 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	4000
Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Exposure Bias	-1.7 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Auto
Focal Length	15.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

File: ads11512338439484.jpg (252 KB, 750x1000)

252 KB JPG

>>3662466

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.
Camera Model	E-M5
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.10 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Color Filter Array Pattern	804
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	50 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2017:12:03 22:57:59
Exposure Time	1/10 sec
F-Number	f/1.4
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Exposure Bias	-0.3 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Auto
Focal Length	25.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

File: ads11512338700372.jpg (451 KB, 1000x668)

451 KB JPG

>>3662467

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.
Camera Model	E-M5
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.10 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.7
Color Filter Array Pattern	804
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	30 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2017:12:03 22:58:01
Exposure Time	1/500 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Exposure Bias	-0.7 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Auto
Focal Length	15.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

File: P190326-1001154.jpg (378 KB, 1000x665)

378 KB JPG

>>3662177
>I should just go and shoot. Dont think just shoot like what Lomography preaches.
It does kinda sound like you're overthinking things a bit. So yeah, just run a few rolls through it and don't stress too much about being "worthy" of the camera.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Leica Camera AG
Camera Model	M9 Digital Camera
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
F-Number	f/9.5
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	160
Shutter Speed	1/3000 sec
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Exposure Mode	Manual

I just bought a M6 classic with a 0.85x finder. The finder's probably been changed at some point, as the camera has the Leitz logo and AFAIK the 0.85 finder became available a lot later.

Since I shoot a 35mm 99% of the time, what am I in for? It'll be a bit until I get the camera, so I don't know how it will be in practice. FWIW I don't wear glasses. A 0.58 or 0.72 would've been my pick (I'm more likely to get a 28mm than a 50mm next) but I got a good deal with the 0.85 so I thought what the hell.

File: Kentmere 100 005.jpg (697 KB, 1200x800)

697 KB JPG

>>3662373
Just wait till you get the camera to see for yourself. You'll answer that question best but from what I know I don't think there's any issue using 35mm on that camera...even with glasses.

Pic unrelated: CV 35/2.5

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Bessa R4A + CV 35/2.5 + Yellow 12
Camera Model	Kentmere 100 + HC110 dil B
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2020:05:28 16:13:50
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1200
Image Height	800

>>3661010

Based and movement pilled

>>3662415
I wear glasses and I can't see the 35mm framelines completely, and I only have a .72. If you wear glasses, you're fucked for 35mm with a .85.

Welcome to /p/. First things first, consult your camera manual.

>>3662135
Hi, is that video? look int the settings for the aspect ratio and change that to 3:2 (that should be the whole frame)

or look if you have any guides for composition active also in the setting and disable those or change them

>>3662141
No, just a picture. Alright, I'll get to it.

If this is a troll. Fuck you up the ass. If it's isn't. Your camera is in video mode and not photo mode. You're dumb either way.

>>3662135
Lemme see more of them feet anon

>>3661541
>instagram.com/beckephotos
Way more interesting than the beer shots. Not a huge fan of some of the process, particularly the crushed blacks. It works well enough on a screen but when printed it just looks too washed out.


>>3661556
you IG lays out nicely and the images are decent but none really standout.

>>3661582
that bottom middle one, the hazy train station, is grand

>>3661762
Lol that goat. I would shoot under better lighting. Im knocking out most of my outdoor doggos during golden hour still.

>>3661821

Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.

File: Screen Shot 2020-05-28 at(...).png (1.06 MB, 972x1406)

1.06 MB PNG

Used to take more but still on lockdown...

https://www.instagram.com/asrawaspossible/

File: Screen Shot 2020-05-16 at(...).png (313 KB, 472x500)

313 KB PNG

I do nude photography and street shots.

i'll also include my professional website for more photos.

https://www.instagram.com/turnerhaut_photography/
https://www.turnerhaut.com/photography

>>3661500
i love wet plate collodion. your photos look great.

>>3661541
love the mountain photos and the use of hue and contrast.

File: 2733A150-2111-459C-9B00-9(...).jpg (165 KB, 634x818)

165 KB JPG

This is mine. I'm not a professional (yet) but I learn every day to be one one day.
As you can see I love black and white photos. I think much more emotions and feelings can be expressed without colours.

https://instagram.com/bonti.foto?igshid=8alzs220hiqt

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Comment	Screenshot
Image Width	634
Image Height	818

File: Screenshot_20200528-22300(...).jpg (918 KB, 1079x1765)

918 KB JPG

Here's mine.