>>3663696

enter new thread

>>3663696

>>3663647
These look cool, are they all the Mini 1 ?

>>3663314
Incredible overview. Thanks anon!

>>3663829
Yes :)

>>3660897
Nice

>>3663439
not sure how there are so many photographers too dumb to resize photos that end up here

>>3663433
Definitely a house wall. And the interesting thing is...?

>>3663434
Might be interesting if it was a wide angle or panorama tiled shot.

>>3663439
Take RAW editor + RAWs. Export to ~1MB files with 1000-1500px at the longest dimension unless there are good reasons why you make it larger.

>>3663433
>>3663434
What exactly are you hoping the viewer focuses on in these photos?

>>3663433
Watch the edges of your frame. They're very nervous. Your second pic has the utmost top of the cars cut off. Same goes for the lamp.

>>3663433
>sh*t
you said it yourself first

I have a Nikon f3 and a Sony a6000 and both film and digital are both fun and cool why is this not the prevailing opinion here

I like digital for the convenience and technology options and film for when I want to enjoy a process for a result, same reason I like drawing

File: c print resized.jpg (4.23 MB, 6000x4772)

4.23 MB JPG

>>3659024
I shoot film because it is beautiful and life is short. I also enjoy the process a lot more, as I do my own developing and analog printing. I experiment a lot with light/chemical distortion, and film allows me to do so in a way that produces unexpected results. While you can do really interesting things with image programming in terms of digital glitches, it's always rather deterministic.

Pic related, here's a scan of a recent experimental c-print (analog color, chromogenic print made in a darkroom, for my gen z bros out there).

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop 21.1 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	9457
Image Height	11890
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2020:05:30 17:14:44
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	6000
Image Height	4772

File: poopoopeepee.png (440 KB, 586x616)

440 KB PNG

>>3663581
looks like shit

>>3663585
file name checks out

>>3663585
This poster is british

What lenses you guys mostly use and for what subjects?

Give me your estimates of gh5 peice when gh6 come out. Will an ef to mft adapter limit me?

>>3663425
Price, not peice.

>>3663407
25fps means 25 frames per second.

You can't shoot at 25 frames per second and have each frame expose for longer than 1/25th of a second.

Like, okay, imagine you have a 12 inch sub sandwich. I tell you that I want you to cut it into four pieces, and that I want each slice to be half of a sandwich. You see how that's not possible, right? There's just not enough sandwich there. It's not a technical limitation we're talking about, it's a physical limitation of reality.

There might be a way to fake it, like what >>3663091 and >>3663085 said, but there's not a way to do it on the GH5 or any other camera.

>>3663476
Ok I know the theory. I appreciate you still trying to help. Do you know the way to fake it. >25fps
>Motion blur look like shutter angle is > 360 dregree
I manage to do it once. I spent 2h searching again this afternoon how to without success.

>>3663694
Dude, go check some other individual in different distances, either with your naked eye, or with the same lens and very same focal length, go really really close too. You'll see:
>>3663475
>That entirely depends in the distence between you and her.

And now fuck off with your wrong reasoning.

>>3663978
>>3663455
the main reason why it might not seem this way is because their head will look smaller afar

File: Screen Shot 2020-05-31 at(...).png (327 KB, 1910x590)

327 KB PNG

>>3663978
nah, nowhere close the same fov

>>3664108
youre talking about pehipheral, central fov is betwen 30 and 60 dumbass

>>3664275
peripheral is 200 degrees, central fov is still around 120 for us normal folk, sorry hon

>>3658992
This is a really cool video. I learned things.

>>3658992
Cool video.

>>3658992
Thank you anon

>>3658953
so limit is f/0.5? why does this lens exist?

>>3663441
It doesn't, it's a joke, its f/stop is written as a joke, it's not the calculated f/stop of the lens.
If you can call it a lens even, doubt it even focuses an image on the film plane.

Zeiss was being cheeky poking fun at the speed wars of the era, remember this was the time of Canon's f/0.95, Leica's Noctilux etc., all of dubious usability, especially for what Zeiss considered "good", i.e. high contrast and secondarily high resolving power.

>>3662164

It's the correct way to announce your intentions for anal.

'I wonder when I'll get paid for this PR bullshit. And why is this toy camera so fucking tiny?!? I can't hold it, see shit, or mash lil buttons. I cant even.'

- Beiber-boi

>>3661944
>My penis is just as small as this camera is...

>>3661944
Millennials... the cringe generation.

>>3661944
"Look at that man with his DSLR"
"He must think I'm a total fag"
"He's not wrong"

File: 40324213981_480961afbe_k.jpg (72 KB, 920x920)

72 KB JPG

Did you try Google?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2019:12:17 20:17:49
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	920
Image Height	920

Use Google Streetview in the Japanese country side

>>3662939
The picture is a flat plane, so technically it does not matter much what focal length lens you use, however, you do want a lens that introduces little distortion and vignetting (although this can be fixed in post), but most importantly, has a very flat focus field. A lot of lenses have a curved focus field.
Anyway, I would choose a focal length of 35 to 50mm for practical reasons (go higher than 50mm and you have to stand pretty far back and need a lot of space, lower than 35mm are more likely to have barrel distortion). Specifically, I'd go for a macro lens since in general they are exceptionally sharp.
As for settings I would definitely shoot around f/8 to f/16 since you can use a tripod, and it is around the lens's sharpest point. Also don't need to worry nearly as much about getting your focus right.
With any modern camera, I think just a single image is probably sufficient, depends how high resolution you want to print at. I think though, any modern camera with 20+MP is sufficient to print A3 sized images. You'd have to calculate yourself with ppi etc what you want to achieve.
The problem is, shooting multiple RAWs and stitching them together takes a lot of processing work and can still leave nasty artifacts, better to avoid it.

So in essence, I'd use a high MP body, with a 35 to 50ish macro prime lens with little distortion, shoot at f/8 to f/13 in a single image.
Probably I would even put on a polarizer to combat any reflections caused by varnish layers on top of the painting.

The lighting part is very hard though, it depends on how the original artist intended the work to be viewed. I would definitely include a gray card in the shot, to compensate for white balance, and use as flat and soft of a light as possible falling straight on the canvas.

>>3663024
I was thinking, for paintings you might want to go even further than a gray card for color accuracy, so you might want to use a spydercheckr to compensate for light colors.
Also, daylight is probably not good to use, since it is not a consistent light source if you want to photograph several different paintings. It is probably best to use some large softboxes around the camera pointed directly at the painting

I think colorchecker is a must-have

>>3662939
>what kind of lens would you use?
A good macro lens since they tend to have flat focus fields.
Also get a color chart.
Stitching can be a good option to increase resolution but you will have to be very precise in aligning everything.

>>3662939
Get yourself a technical mount and do it properly:
https://www.alpa.ch/_files/ALPA_Tilt-201206_E.pdf

>>3662281
I actually do check under my bed every now and again to look at my Nikon DSLR box slowly gathering more and more dust. And no I'm not a sony/fuji/oly fat I use a Z6.
Also what's with the xe?

>>3662336
He's accusing you of being a tranny/basedboy because you don't use a DSLR like he does. And since a DSLR weights a few grams more than a mirrorless you must prefer the latter purely because you are too physically weak to carry a DSLR

>>3662339
Ah I see, thanks anon

pentax is trying really hard lately?
This thread
>>3661027
>>3659772
and more posted daily. Sales really that bad for DSLR they are shilling to 4chan?

>>3661027
I'm skinny as fuck, but give me the heaviest DSLR and I will fucking lift it to high heavens

File: nope.gif (18 KB, 220x220)

18 KB GIF

>>3662840

File: 1137-003.jpg (644 KB, 1200x810)

644 KB JPG

This is now a Kodachrome thread.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi

File: 1137-004.jpg (744 KB, 1200x798)

744 KB JPG

These all would have been December of 2009 and now that I have a proper DSLR slide scanner I will be scanning a ton of these in very soon

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi

File: 1137-142.jpg (782 KB, 1000x657)

782 KB JPG

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi

File: img019s.jpg (1.81 MB, 4042x2720)

1.81 MB JPG

Good old Nikkor-S 50 1.4 pre-AI

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

Please stop these look like shit

>>3663118
>anyone know how to tell if they work?
Only way is to put a pack of film in them, as the film packs contain the battery ro power the camera.
Left one takes Polaroid SX-70 film the right one takes Polaroid 600 Film

>>3663121
op here, thanks anon for the info

>>3663122
No worries I wouldn't bother with the OneStep as it doesn't have a flash just get a pack of Polaroid 600 and have fun with the Impulse

>>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

The first one was dogshit.

i don't

>>3662571
hope you like it

>>3663040
sorry i still don't like it