File: DSCF6479.jpg (747 KB, 1200x800)

747 KB JPG

>>3920061

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-Pro2
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	42 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	6000
Image Height	4000
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	2021:07:23 09:07:26
Exposure Time	1/450 sec
F-Number	f/1.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Brightness	4.0 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	28.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1200
Image Height	800
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Soft
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: DSCF6491.jpg (1.22 MB, 1200x800)

1.22 MB JPG

>>3920063

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-Pro2
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	42 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	6000
Image Height	4000
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	2021:07:23 09:07:16
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/1.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Brightness	0.9 EV
Exposure Bias	-0.3 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	28.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1200
Image Height	800
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Auto Bracket
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Soft
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: DSCF6508.jpg (738 KB, 1200x800)

738 KB JPG

>>3920064

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-Pro2
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	42 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	6000
Image Height	4000
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	2021:07:23 09:06:36
Exposure Time	1/160 sec
F-Number	f/1.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	640
Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Brightness	-0.3 EV
Exposure Bias	-0.7 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	28.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1200
Image Height	800
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Auto Bracket
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Soft
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: DSCF6511.jpg (518 KB, 1200x800)

518 KB JPG

>>3920065
Last one from this lot

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-Pro2
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	42 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	6000
Image Height	4000
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	2021:07:23 09:06:25
Exposure Time	1/160 sec
F-Number	f/1.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	1000
Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Brightness	-1.0 EV
Exposure Bias	-0.7 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	28.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1200
Image Height	800
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Auto Bracket
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Soft
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>3919741
>3919741
Crop this better. I like it.
>3919743
nice, hat and bottle of scotch
>3919748
Too much stairs but sick perspective. Crop better. Also, song name the dude is playing.

Expose for the sky. Shoot with the sun behind you - this way the models, facing you, and therefore the sun, will be well exposed too.

>>3919879
>>3919908
Oh noooooo not the whites!
Calibrate your monitors.

File: untitled-12-of-14-scaled-(...).jpg (228 KB, 1400x800)

228 KB JPG

>>3919938
fuck the whites amiright?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated

>>3919938
>jpg compressed to shit
>implying there's any detail hiding in the highlights that would be visible with a "calibrated monitor"

>>3919568
>>3919570
use super wide angle, shoot with a low hanging sun preferably somewhere on the southern west coast, crank the saturation in post like you're ken rockwell's whore

>>3919788
It will reduce the amount of light hitting your sensor.
That way you can use slow shutter speeds in daylight without having to close your aperture all the way.

>>3919648
I like this one.
Was there some camera movement in the exposure, or is it just the blades causing the ghosting over the logo?

There is an awful lot of sensor dirt on it though.

>>3919880
interesting. ty
>>3919881
thanks
its the car window thats dirty, not the lense. couldnt do anything about it.
>just the blades causing the ghosting
this

literally feel dizzy like I have a hangover looking at these kind of photographs. how do people do it

>>3920032
fuck yeah
just play with exposure times

>>3919702
>like 135 is 36x24
>he doesn’t know that 135 is 35mm wide including perforations..
Ngmi desu

>>3919799
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/135_film

The frames are literally 36x24 jfc. The film itself is 35mm wide but almost no cameras shoot to the sprocket holes.

>>3919752
There was the GM5 which came close, but it was a rangefinder-styled body
I think the biggest reason is heat, digital sensors need a larger body to dissipate heat better, and an m43 camera that small would overheat and explode in your hands after using it for a while

>>3919808
>he film itself is 35mm wide
exactly, which is why its called 35mm retard, it is not as arbitrary as you're making it out to be

anyone ever hit that point where you just want to sell all your gear and buy a nice digital setup because of how much simpler it is?

I do photography semi professionally and whilst I love the results I get with film, it's sometimes more work than it's worth, especially if you dev/scan your own film then have to deal with correcting things.

Then again I could never get a similarly priced DSLR version of my Pentax 67 :(

Honestly, unless it's your hobby, fixing old cameras by yourself is not worth the time and money. Leave that shit to the professionals.
If the shutter is fucked there are probably other things that need some fixing you aren't even aware about

>>3919437
True. Didn't cost me anything so might as well find one that does work at a thrift store for 10 bucks.

>>3919418
Looks like one of the blades is a little bent. If you dont know whatv oure doing, youre never going to get it straight. The tolerances here are within less than a tenth of a mm.

>>3919418
sounds like a short circuit, a bug has probably crawled inside and died. Good luck, have fun, its fucked so there's no reason not to pull it apart and investigate

>>3914370
Lol unironically this. Get good.

5 years into photography, never used AF even for a single shot.

>>3919937
wow so cool you must be very advanced

AF is for snapshitters

Good thread for a fuji slug like me thanks!

>>3919903
I thought stuff like this was just called point-and-shoot film cameras; I have one from the late 90s/early 00s with 2x zoom, double exposure, timer, and automatic rewind
Only downside is that it eats batteries like a mofo and sometimes the flash takes forever to charge and it won't shoot without flash afaik
Got some great pics of cops in my area arresting dindus

>>3919914
I called it a reusable disposable because it's the same spec as a disposable. It is a point and shoot, but it's supposed to make pics that look like a disposable if you like that aesthetic, but not the waste.

>>3919915
>you like that aesthetic
aesthetic as in the look of the film or as in the look of the camera?

>>3919948
disposables have shitty plastic lenses, some p&s are actually quite fucking sharp

>>3919948
its like comparing a Holga to a Hasselblad

>>3919884
>I bet you filmlets don't even take photos
I do and develop them myself but you'll bully me if I link them

>>3919884
>If it's a flaw why are you trying to mimic it
>It's not hard to mimic either. You would know this if you actually knew how to edit.
>Even if it was difficulty =/= good. Just like you =/= a woman.

When printed, paper takes care of it, but for display, I'm adversely effected by too clean output, so I put a little bit of grain on most photos, unless iso is high enough to take care of that.

>>3919581
Can you just not?

>>3919735
unpopular opinion: I don't mind iso noise and actually think it looks good

File: IMG_1868-JPG.jpg (2.02 MB, 2048x1366)

2.02 MB JPG

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 6D Mark II
Camera Software	Adobe Lightroom 5.2.2 (Android)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2021:07:20 15:09:24
Exposure Time	5 sec
F-Number	f/16.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/16.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	50.00 mm

not that bad - but i would honestly make a composite shot - get a regurarly exposed shot for the scene and just brush them together to get rid of the leaves moving and shit

>>3919388
>Would like to know if I've made any mistakes
The highlights look blown out

>>3919475
>The highlights look blown out
this

you're better off waiting for clouds to move in to get even flat lighting. Also no need to stretch out to 5 seconds, even 1 second is enough unless there's a good reason to stretch out longer

>>3919420
this

File: anon.jpg (540 KB, 1200x1205)

540 KB JPG

>>3919485
>>3919487
The colours are mostly your editing and inversion process anon.
For instance, in your pics you have a different colour cast (green vs magenta in midtones and shadows, for instance check the rim of the lampshade) or blue cast in the shadows of the scanner pic.

Also, I agree that the epson flatbeds don't ever look good at 100%, but in your pics the scanner version seems sharper. Check the chain area on the lamp.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	EPSON
Camera Model	Perfection V600
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 9.3 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	1600 dpi
Vertical Resolution	1600 dpi
Image Created	2021:07:22 01:26:12
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1200
Image Height	1205

ITT: scanner apologists try to cope with the fact that camera scanning is superior in every way.

File: 000_1487-Edit-2.jpg (3.1 MB, 3405x5107)

3.1 MB JPG

>>3919610
For 35mm sure, especially if you have a macro lens with a slide copier, but for anything bigger than 35mm i would rather use a flatbed since its good enough for big negatives and way easier.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D800
Camera Software	Adobe Lightroom 6.3.0 (Android)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.3
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	60 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2020:06:28 23:59:29
Exposure Time	1 sec
F-Number	f/11.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/11.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	60.00 mm

>>3912174

I don't know a whole lot about scanners but I used a Canoscan 4000US when i was doing my own developing. Results were always pretty good and I just adjust contrast/exposure in lightroom if I need to - you could probably skip this step if you set it up properly. Fairly cheap, I picked mine up second hand for about $250 AUD.

>>3912489
what focal length macro you got on there brah?
Been wanting to do some scans with my xt2 as well.

>>3918357
No but no one even make! lkem they not enthusiast totally and less even development can do.

i think i got dumber reading this thread

this is painfully trying so hard to be a "lol so random" thread.

>>3918366
>he says randomly

>>3918364
low IQ breads low IQ, sorry you don't understand physics, maybe give the jerking a break and try reading a book

single photon detectors exist and are used for spectroscopic or photophysical measurements but until room temperature superconductivity is figured out, reproducible and mass produced like current CMOS or CCDs then its not gonna happen

>>3919488
>>3919585
well don't hit on them during shoot where it counts as "work". but if you shoot long with them you can develop a relationship over time and then date them

>>3917514
That's because they are top photographers not random chuds

>>3910910
what the hell kind of tip are you shooting in? looks like a horder house in there

>>3910910
Yeah, I know that feel.
I usually wank off before shoots but sometimes I still have a boner. Fortunely, I work with models that I want to work with(so the ones I would fuck mercilessly) and usually, I make them understand that I am shooting them because I'd also fuck them given the chance. However, I also like to be professional about the whole thing and usually too busy with technically shit to concentrate on other stuff. Plus, I wear loose pants to capture the low angles and that kinda hides if I have a hard penis.

>>3919829
>looks like a horder house in there
t. has never seen a horder's house

>>3915340
$300 total, mint condition FE2 + Nikkor 50mm F1.8 pancake.

>>3913589
>>3913734
Its a good camera, now get yourself a 35mm lens and you are good to go.

File: Ross-2.jpg (3.54 MB, 3007x3759)

3.54 MB JPG

>>3913632
If you have an FE2, I would recommend getting an f mount DSLR so you can use your lenses between your film and digital if you want to go digital. Id recommend the d610 since its pretty cheap and takes killer shots.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D610
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 10.3 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	844
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	50 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	1600 dpi
Vertical Resolution	1600 dpi
Image Created	2021:07:18 13:01:56
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	2200
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Exposure Bias	-1/2 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>3913591
The camera requires batteries to function. There is nothing tricky about the coupling, you just put the lens on and it works.

>>3913589
Good camera. I picked one up locally and fixed it up and it's my favorite between it and my Canon AE-1P. It just feels good to work.

The only problem I have with it is it has no shutter priority. Because of that my next film camera is probably going to be an F4 or even the great meme itself, the F6.

Zone focusing

>>3918763
I miss this shit. Super easy to get perfect focus and newer cameras don't even even have them because everyone is lazy and retarded

>>3919020
>Serious question, have you ever shot medium format?
No, but I do realize that medium format is really beautiful

Man how did people even exist before the internet?

>>3918760
They were just always out of focus obviously

>>3919341
Yes, every hobbyist is already well equipped to partake in both as your phone literally does both to a better degree than you would ever need

>>3919341
Sure it is! As long as you can afford it yeah, your scope for doing shoots and videos becomes much wider. Wish i'd have the drive to do that.

>>3919341
Absolutely not. That's preposterous.

>>3919341
Yes, the biggest sect of people who are into both equally are probably storm chasers.

>>3919341
Sure. But sometimes we catch dreams of doing this professionally; having been inspired by professionals. Particularly with cinematography in TV and movies, which makes elements of what they do second nature. What looks 'right', etc. Sadly, the market is so saturated, that it's very difficult to get noticed.
I started with it as a hobby, but hoped to be noticed by professionals. That didn't happen, so I am back to just doing it as a hobby.