[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] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile 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]


[Catalog] [Archive]

File: IMG_0272.jpg (4.73 MB, 2992x3992)
4.73 MB
4.73 MB JPG
I apologise if these sorts of threads aren't welcome here and/or if you get these questions all the time (and also for the blogpost), but I don't really know where else to ask.
I want to buy a camera and I don't know shit about them.
There's so much choice out there that it gets a little overwhelming, and I already waste too much time on my hobbies, so what would you recommend as a reliable beginner's camera + lens combo? Something that will last me a while even if I get into the hobby, and preferably something common enough that can be easily found used in Europe. I'd also prefer not to have to edit my pictures.
Unless this solely depends on the settings I choose, I want something with good colors that performs well in situations with a lot of contrast when it comes to either colors or lighting. Basically something that will reliably take pictures that realistically portray what I see, even in conditions phone cameras have trouble with.
A link to a trustworthy online source where I could find this information would also be appreciated.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2992
Image Height3992
Scene Capture TypeStandard
32 replies and 6 images omitted. Click here to view.
>>
>>3606046
I see, thank you.
>>
>>3606044
An electronic adapter can cost more than the lenses themselves. For modern lenses with autofocus you will need to buy this, or the lens won't work

A "dumb" adapter for vintage lens mounts are affordable and a good option. But they you will have to manually focus and set aperture. But it's a decent way to get cheap old lenses to work

I would stick with native lenses if you're just getting started. You're coming from a place where all you're shooting is phone snapshots, and going from that to ANY real system will be a huge improvement

>>3605929
>For some reason I can't even hold a camera/my phone straight most of the time
yeah you're supposed to crop and straighten the horizon when you edit in post

>>3605929
nice lighting on the building, but photo is tilted, and you have all this empty road space infront. You could have positioned yourself square with the building, then cropped the road out

>>3605930

Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
>>3606074
>yeah you're supposed to crop and straighten the horizon when you edit in post
I like that mine has an electronic level built in but you're supposed to do your fucking best with the one on the tripod first because you lose a lot of real estate and add some unsharpness when you fix it in post. But yeah, always plan for two fingers of crop.
>>
File: IMG_20191221_075604.jpg (2.89 MB, 3840x5120)
2.89 MB
2.89 MB JPG
>>3606074
I'll reinstall photoshop and see if I can do something. No access to Lightroom at the moment. Do you think pic related is salvageable? I have brighter versions of it, one of which shows more of the train and less of the sky, but I feel like my phone really struggled with those. How would you have rather taken this picture?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width3840
Image Height5120
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Image OrientationUnknown
Light SourceDaylight
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width3840
Image Height5120
RenderingCustom
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
>>3606084
>No access to Lightroom at the moment

There's a mobile version that's free and pretty good. Also a web version that's free.

File: DSC00425.jpg (4.75 MB, 7952x5304)
4.75 MB
4.75 MB JPG
I didn't see a general thread for simple photography questions.

So, what's going on in this pic? For whatever reason I feel like it's from the silent shutter mode of the camera, but what's actually happening? And is there any way to correct issues like this once taken?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-7RM2
Camera SoftwareILCE-7RM2 v4.01
Maximum Lens Aperturef/4.5
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)43 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution350 dpi
Vertical Resolution350 dpi
Image Created2020:01:25 17:07:27
Exposure Time1/250 sec
F-Numberf/4.5
Exposure ProgramShutter Priority
ISO Speed Rating1600
Brightness2.4 EV
Exposure Bias-1 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length43.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width7952
Image Height5304
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
1 reply omitted. Click here to view.
>>
>>3606112
Oh very interesting. Thank you.

And yeah just like those threads lol I guess I missed that one when I was looking...
>>
>>3606112
lek
>>
>>3606104
I'm afraid it's not fixable. Just use mechanical shutter instead.
>>
>>3606170
You have to use leaf shutter for swirly bokeh. Cloth is for fast cars.
>>
>>3606104
Sony was a mistake

Photo of a local abandoned drug house

File: payne006291-R1-037-17.jpg (4.54 MB, 3637x2433)
4.54 MB
4.54 MB JPG
I started shooting photos more seriously about a year ago. I still feel that I am beginner and would like some feedback. Any flaws due to technical failures ie. exposure, clipping highlights/shadows is either intentional or I am aware of the failure. Any feedback on conceptual ideas, subject matter and composition etc. I'm happy to hear

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 9.1 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2020:01:22 22:36:03
Color Space InformationsRGB
13 replies and 9 images omitted. Click here to view.
>>
>>3604876
I don't hate the idea but the framing ain't quite what could be. I'm thinking you couldn't frame to the right because there was something there that would distract from the photo. Weak effort.

>>3604877
So, the focus in on the forehead. There's nothing too interesting about it. It's fine but I'll say snapshit.

>>3604878
It's good. Composition is alright. Nice colours. Quite ominous. Decent effort.

>>3604879
This is a nice place to shoot. I think you could do better here. Composition-wise it lacks something. It's too wide. We can see the top of a few houses, which annoys me. I'd try to either get them or don't. Can't say for sure because I'm guessing what the place looks like outside the frame. I understand what you were going for, framing the trees like that, but the thing you tried to do didn't work.

>>3604880
Really strong. What can I say except you nailed this one.


Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
>>3604876
i like
>>3604877
>>3604878
i don't like
>>3604879
>>3604880
i like
>>3604881
i don't like
>>3604882
i like
>>3604884
>>3604886
i don't like
>>
>>3605075
I'm not sure about this one, talking about colors in a blatantly monochromatic shot is a red flag for me.

>>3605186
The English in this one reminds me of some jive talking parody in a film, also a red flag for me.

>>3605251
This is binary and straight to the point, excellent style, you could just write a legend at the top and type 1s & 0s for each post, and it would still work, fantastic minimalist style that is often lost in translation far too much these days.
>>
>>3604876
0
>>3604877
0
>>3604878
1
>>3604879
1
>>3604880
1
>>3604881
0
>>3604882
1
>>3604884

Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
>>3604880
This one is great.

You really should fix chrominance noise on it and on some other images also. It's such a basic fix.

File: moment_lens_pixel_3_1.jpg (111 KB, 1600x800)
111 KB
111 KB JPG
Smartphone cameras are pretty good these days. Have you had experience with any that have impressed you? Have you taken any good photos with yours?
52 replies and 12 images omitted. Click here to view.
>>
No, smartphone cameras aren't as good as proper DSLRs with big lenses and sensors. Everyone knows that, and the people in this thread going "NUH UH" aren't somehow super intelligent for recognising this.

Thing is, most people are bad at photography because they're bad at framing, positioning, etc. Which is all stuff that you can learn with a phone camera, without spending $1k on a proper camera setup.

I would have thought a board like /p/ would encourage people to try to learn to get good at photography regardless of their kit.
>>
>>3605913
This.
>>
File: IMG_20200126_002224.jpg (792 KB, 1500x1123)
792 KB
792 KB JPG
You just can't do decent night shots with it. Everything comes out as blown out as it tries to get as much light as possible and it just doesn't work.

Photo is an example.
>>
File: IMG_20200126_002231.jpg (742 KB, 4016x3008)
742 KB
742 KB JPG
You can edit it to look better but the grain remains.
>>
File: IMG_20200126_002017.jpg (394 KB, 1896x2527)
394 KB
394 KB JPG
So unless you can deal with massive digital grain you need to shoot in daylight.

File: IMG_5715.jpg (395 KB, 693x1500)
395 KB
395 KB JPG
New IG thread - post your Instagram profiles so you can stroke your ego even more
Rate others, provide critique, and follow if you see anything you like

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2019 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2019:12:10 00:28:15
CommentScreenshot
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width693
Image Height1500
135 replies and 68 images omitted. Click here to view.
>>
>>3602311
I feel like your images are a bit empty.

That's my problem with film photography on IG. Sometimes I feel like the fact that you have that film looks carries the images over the subject while it should be the other way around for me. I get that you have this mood, but I feel like the mood should emphasize the subject to make the picture.

Film is probably the best way to tell a story or give a certain ambiance that leaves to the imagination. It's lacking a bit here.
>>
Don't forget to rate other's profile before posting yours, or the whole thing is pointless.
>>
File: awd.jpg (220 KB, 1081x927)
220 KB
220 KB JPG
>>3602487
Having a consistent layout is stressy and might even lead to you scrapping good pictures/ pictures you like because they don't fit into your layout. Maybe it's better to not have a consistent layout.

With that said: check out my dumb, limiting layout. @kippzu
Sorry for triple posting my page. I just want to bump~
(>>3602351 that's my rating~)
>>
File: firefox_ycEIDLZEqP.png (1.01 MB, 678x676)
1.01 MB
1.01 MB PNG
https://www.instagram.com/mattchus77/

Beginner looking for a little feedback, will be posting more often as I get more and more comfortable going out and taking pictures
>>
File: 165891c965[1].jpg (142 KB, 1027x677)
142 KB
142 KB JPG
99% film. Mostly street photography. I really enjoy traveling and am hoping to do more so I'll have more to post.
https://www.instagram.com/mileslwayne/

>>3599786
Ayy I live in SF too. Nice photos. I wouldn't have guessed they were all film.

>>3599863
Nice. I feel like your pics would definitely be better from more post and editing, and if you really enjoy it then that's a win win. And I feel ya, I think I was shadowbanned for most of 2018 for being too inactive.

>>3600064
I love your feed. Very pretty and diverse in terms of colors.

>>3600122
Good editing and colors. I think you would benefit with more interesting subjects but the compositions are on point.


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

File: 20200125_182849_014_saved.jpg (2.28 MB, 4608x2240)
2.28 MB
2.28 MB JPG
I took a picture of a fire and captured the devils asscrack

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width4608
Image Height2240
Image OrientationRight-Hand, Top

File: 41IVwruviTL._AC_.jpg (22 KB, 388x373)
22 KB
22 KB JPG
How many people on /p/ collect/own early DSLRs?

Does anyone share the idea to start a thread challenge to get the best photo from the cheapest early DSLR you can obtain?
8 replies omitted. Click here to view.
>>
>>3605634
Occasional Nikon D40 shooter here. Great little camera with nice colors. But I wouldn’t use it as a main camera for let’s say a vacation. I have a D700 for that. Also pretty old
>>
>>3605665
Awesome!!!
>>
File: DSC_9651.jpg (530 KB, 1000x665)
530 KB
530 KB JPG
>>3605711

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON D40
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 7.0 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.7
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern756
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)52 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2019:11:09 19:18:02
Exposure Time1/2500 sec
F-Numberf/1.8
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating400
Lens Aperturef/1.8
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length35.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlLow Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationHigh
SharpnessHard
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
>>3605677
I have 4 cameras I essentially got for free (they were attached to a lens I wanted to buy for that price), but none of them is a "beater". Treat your gear well, mate.
>>
File: EPSN3903.jpg (469 KB, 665x1000)
469 KB
469 KB JPG


[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSEIKO EPSON CORP.
Camera ModelR-D1
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 9.1 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2020:01:25 17:16:00
Exposure Time1/220 sec
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating200
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash Function
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlNone

File: 1.jpg (1.72 MB, 4032x2268)
1.72 MB
1.72 MB JPG
r8? simple yet still artistic and pleasing..
24 replies and 7 images omitted. Click here to view.
>>
>>3605812
the film is what gives it soul, not the corner
if it was shot digitally, people would call it a snapshit
>>
>>3605900
I wouldn't say that...the film adds to it, but that's not why the picture kinda works
>>
>>3605817
The plane is photoshopped in.
>>
>>3605815
But I use a Japanese camera.
>>
>>3605812
the dark corner is a roof and unfortunately that was just a crow, not an eagle or hawk

File: P1170002.jpg (143 KB, 1000x714)
143 KB
143 KB JPG
Hi,

I've been trying to be a lot more mindful of composition within my shots.

I was hoping to post a few here so you guys can give me some pointers/tell me what works/what doesn't.

These were all shot on the same day.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
85 replies and 57 images omitted. Click here to view.
>>
nothing today, because we had a shit day BUT have a bump of a photo thread anyway
>>
File: P1240001.jpg (966 KB, 714x1000)
966 KB
966 KB JPG


[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
>>
File: P1250003.jpg (537 KB, 750x1000)
537 KB
537 KB JPG
59 images.

Only 91 to go!

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
>>
File: P1240002.jpg (857 KB, 1000x750)
857 KB
857 KB JPG
I like this one.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
>>
>>3606057
It's out of focus and shaky on top of that. Take some fucking pride in your work man and put in some effort.

File: Capture.jpg (33 KB, 570x569)
33 KB
33 KB JPG
Anyone here use a filter set like this? I'm getting stick of using step up / step down rings.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
PhotographerJeremy R
Image-Specific Properties:
3 replies omitted. Click here to view.
>>
>>3603798
I'm planning to get either the Tamron 17-28 or the g master 16-35. What filter systems should I think about for those focal lengths?
>>
>>3603842
Not sure, I'm only able to tell you about the Cokin system. Go find specific information about wide angle filter kits; try and find reviews maybe.

In any case, the closer your filter is to the lens, and the less the filter system sticks out, the better for wide angles, try and find information about that too.
>>
>>3603798
Cokin has different kits with different widths for wide angle lenses. They do get a lot more expensive though.
>>
>>3603480
your lenses have built-in filter holders i.e. the threads, don't fall for the filter holder meme - just a waste of money
>>
>>3606013
If you're shooting a long exposure with the sun in the frame, the exposure for the foreground and the sky will be a couple of stops, using a Graduated filter to stop the sun is practical. Over exposure bleeds into the foreground and will leave artifacts after post processing.

File: IMG_1701.jpg (137 KB, 1078x724)
137 KB
137 KB JPG
nice to see you folks are still taking photos, awesome more and more photo threads here recently which is heartwarming.

spent 2019 wherever I could get the cheapest flight tickets to, met new /p/eople and some old friends and one of my photo-senpai

some are reposts, some are new, no particular order probably
enjoy
85 replies and 59 images omitted. Click here to view.
>>
>>3605303
also sold that lens in tokyo for a profit and bought a 50/1.4 nikkor-o, though that was my fav lens ever and I miss it, i’m gonna look for that tamron 35/1.4 or 1.8 if i ever have throwaway cash
>>
>>3602052
This is very cool.
>>
>>3605581

I have that exact lens, you will love it. Shoot it wide open for glowy highlights but watch for sphereochromaticism
>>
stop shooting every photo wide open.
>>
>>3605625
no u

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1067
Image Height600
Scene Capture TypeStandard

File: Fujifilm-X-T200.jpg (128 KB, 2240x1154)
128 KB
128 KB JPG
It is over.
All hail our new Fuji overlords.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution144 dpi
Vertical Resolution144 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2240
Image Height1154
>>
Gay
>>
I just want a Fuji XT-20

Realistically, the XT-30 was an incremental upgrade except for video (I don't care about video), and the XT-40 probably won't be more than an incremental upgrade, either.
>>
>Nikanon
>all hail our new Fuji overlords
wat
>>
What is the difference again between the X-Ax, X-Tx00, and X-Tx lines again? In particular, what's the diffrences between the X-A7, X-T200, and X-T20?
>>
>>3605984
NikonxFuji OTP

File: mfw.png (106 KB, 612x491)
106 KB
106 KB PNG
I'm looking to get a new 35mm camera and I'm a bit torn. One side of me wants to get something hipster-ish like a Zenit, which are very cheap in my country (eastern Europe) and another side of me wants to get something Western like Canon, Olympus, Pentax, you name it.
I know that the Western brands are pretty much objectively better in terms of quality, but the Soviet shit attracts me a lot.
Can anyone relate? I'm not sure to what extent the aesthetics/history of a camera weigh up against quality, system availability/adaptability etc.. My heart tells me to get something Soviet but it feels a bit weird.
16 replies omitted. Click here to view.
>>
>>3603496
US here. I'd get the Soviet camera for the simple reason it sounds like they're easy to find and thus inexpensive. Past that, these things are functional antiques and so you should have a connection to them as >>3603710 states.
My daughter is taking art film class and they needed a camera. I grabbed my father's Yashica FX-D, cleaned it up and she's using that, making her the 3rd generation to learn photography on it. Connection.
>>
>>3604969

If you want to fully automate a lot of EOS film bodies can be had for cheap and the lens catalog for the EF mount is amazing. The higher end bodies can rightfully be pricey but a lot are cheap as hell since they’re not memed yet.
>>
>>3605694
That's really wholesome, keep it up my man

>>3605699
So that's Nikon then? Aren't those like visually the same as DSLRs?
>>
>>3603496
Something I have learned in life is to follow 2 rules
1)Buy what you like
2)Buy what you know

If you follow these two rules, you will never make a bad purchase. Don’t worry what strangers on the internet think.
>>
>>3605911
It’s canon’s first autofocus system, which is still used on their DSLRs.

File: true story.png (248 KB, 680x680)
248 KB
248 KB PNG
i thought taking pictures of cool and egdy looking strangers was fun...
28 replies and 5 images omitted. Click here to view.
>>
"Street photography" is the cringiest fucking thing in the photography scene by far. I can hardly believe the level of autism one must posses to want to go out and take pics of complete fucking strangers walking by them in a sneaky fashion. Furthermore, Nobody, and I mean nobody wants to see any more b/w portraits of fucking street urchin homeless people. This stuff is honestly pathetic you guys, god help you.
>>
>>3605961
It's a good genre but one co-opted by strange ideologies from some sneaky and slimy individuals.
It should be just landscaping in hard/man-made environments along with man's interaction in it, not a voyeuristic and downright douche activity from cunts flashing people on the public sideway.
>Nobody, and I mean nobody wants to see any more b/w portraits of fucking street urchin homeless people
Part of the ideological aspect of it, which is okay as a direct critic to something/someone but not as a way to make money from misery gluttons. I blame the jews for this genre degeneration.
I don't understand the need to make B&W all the time, thou
>>
>>3605961
This so much. Worst is if they have a GoPro attached on their camera to POV film their street photography process and upload it on youtube. Jesus christ. You can always see the people thinking like "wtf men, why you photograph me without asking?".

I'm fine with street portraits though. That danish guy in Mexico is fun to watch, especially to see how nice people react if they get asked.
>>
>>3605532
Stop making me regret selling my X-T2 lol
>>
>>3605961
Agreed on the BW homeless person part.


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.