>>3523845
you now have a more frictiony button. congrats anon

>>3523845
You're an actual animal, if it was that easy to pry up it would have come loose with time. Enjoy your now mangled camera i guess.

>>3523502
He can use a dropper tube or just pour it on sparingly

>>3523845
>i am currently travelling outside of capitalist society for
So you finally decided to leave LA huh?

>>3523845
anon, you madman. bless your raped shutter button

File: PolsenPier.jpg (1.46 MB, 5184x3456)

1.46 MB JPG

i love the sunset in this one

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS REBEL T3i
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 8.0 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2019:05:06 11:45:45
Exposure Time	1/30 sec
F-Number	f/13.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	125
Lens Aperture	f/13.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	24.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: 20190819_230324.jpg (2.05 MB, 4128x2322)

2.05 MB JPG

no

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	samsung
Camera Model	SM-J730GM
Camera Software	J730GMUBS6CSG2
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.7
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	27 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4128
Image Height	2322
Image Orientation	Right-Hand, Top
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2019:08:19 23:03:24
Exposure Time	1/26316 sec
F-Number	f/1.7
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/1.7
Brightness	11.1 EV
Exposure Bias	1.1 EV
Metering Mode	Spot
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	3.71 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4128
Image Height	2322
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Unique Image ID	X13LSKA00MM X13LSMD01MA_

File: 20190811131812_IMG_2498.jpg (150 KB, 834x1100)

150 KB JPG

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 1300D
Camera Software	RawTherapee 5.0
Photographer	Shankar Sivan
Firmware Version	Firmware Version 1.1.0
Lens Name	EF-S24mm f/2.8 STM
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	834
Image Height	1100
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Exposure Time	1/640 sec
F-Number	f/3.5
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	24.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Exposure Mode	Manual
Focus Type	Auto
Metering Mode	Evaluative
Sharpness	Unknown
Saturation	Normal
Contrast	Normal
Shooting Mode	Manual
Image Size	Unknown
Focus Mode	One-Shot
Drive Mode	Single
Flash Mode	Off
Compression Setting	Fine
Macro Mode	Normal
White Balance	Auto
Exposure Compensation	3
Sensor ISO Speed	160
Color Matrix	130

>>3523332
Very nice
Maybe desaturate the pinks a tiny bit, you're losing a bit of detail there.
RAW therapy defaults the curve to film-like which seems to oversaturate certain colours a tiny tad so I often compensate with the HSL sliders

Ok Man,
Thanks

Dollar store. You'll easily get 4x6 frames. 8x10 might be harder to come by.

Learn to build them and you'll understand why they are expensive.
I built a frame out of walnut when I had access to a wood shop. It looks nice but dam what a bitch to make and fit.

>>3522597
i have a lathe so i just make my own

try some thrift stores, they may require some sanding and staining or painting.

>>3523919
Smell and mold are the biggest downside and you only smell them outside after you purchase the frame. But otherwise cool wooden frames can be had used for cheap. If the frames consist of only wood then sanding and coating can get rid of smells but be ready to throw all cloth and paper parts out.

You can even buy old painting or art from thrift store and only keep the frame. This may be easier thak trying to find frames only.

New gay sheeeeeeit
>>3523979
>>3523979
>>3523979
>>3523979

>>3523980
Isn’t this a bit early? We haven’t even hit bump limit yet.

>>3523984
Now we have, thanks to your contribution

>>3523881
>hasn't been used for long time
that's seller code for "it may work but most likely won't so take your risk but you were warned" and you also should read it as "desperately needs service to make it work properly".

File: 81920012.jpg (1.26 MB, 3090x2048)

1.26 MB JPG

Praktica MTL 5

Kodak ColorPlus 200

My first film roll

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NORITSU KOKI
Camera Model	QSS-29
Camera Software	QSS-29 K001
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3090
Image Height	2048

>>3523704
What the hell is going on here? Excessive green boost, some kind of hdr, and focus stacking? The rest are fine, though a bit dull. With >>3523694 being a pleasing gem.

very nice thread. my personal favorites:
>>3523691
>>3523693
>>3523706
>>3523735

All solidly done, but like >>3523743 said, very post-card ordinary

this one stands out though >>3523693

other personal faves
>>3523694
>>3523716

>>3523690
I'm retarded. How do you do these types of pics? Is it seriously just a 10sec shutter or are these multiple pictures put together?

Very nice

Nigga, remove that shit from your registry manually.

>>3522777
Trips of truth. There is a hosts file on github that should do the job. Just google "hosts adobe".

>>3522906
You're talking out of your ass.

>>3522910
Thanks a lot guys, this is super helpful.

>>3522907
fucking dumbass, I'm not retarded.

First of all: Burn your computer; Magnet your hard disk; Go live in the woods.

that's the only solution to get from Adobe.

>>3523559
*and for photojournalist work too

>>3523559
>>3523567
Got a point there, can't deny it.

What do you shoot then?

File: 3CFB474D-A4E2-4628-BF3D-E(...).jpg (460 KB, 2048x1367)

460 KB JPG

>>3523574
Models and photojournalist stuff ha.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D750
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.10 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.7
Image-Specific Properties:
Exposure Time	1/4000 sec
F-Number	f/1.8
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Other
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Image Width	2048
Image Height	1367

guys why is there a bunch of vignette

is that normal?

I have only owned expensive lenses

>>3522662
Did you add the vignetting or is that lens really that horseshit? it looks like you took a DX lens and put it on a FX body.

>he has one with him

>>3523724
>>he doesn’t shoot RAW exclusively
who?

>>3523724
Yup, I do shoot JPG+Raw but that's just for a good preview.

Even for the most mundane shots I edit the raw file.

>>3521354
>Literal autism
Impersonating a real expert would be autism, that's not me.
I'm just familiar with proper scanning methods and tools.
I don't know the proper tecniques or physical cleaning options for such old and poor condition film because I only work with things in decent condition.

For all I know OP could bathe the film in some solution to remove most of the gunk and get an excellent scan with no effort. But I'm not an expert and wouldn't know. All I know is his scans are absolute shit and he's wasting time by working on garbage.

OP's basically doing the IRL equivalent of saving low quality thumbnails and trying to upscale and enhance them when high res originals are waiting for him.

This man has some good advice. >>3521352

>>3521352
DSLR scanning is a bit overrated but would probably be a good option here.
But nothing really beats a professional properly calibrated film scanner.

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

>>3521257
I once randomly found pieces of b/w Super8 film by the side of a canal. Took them home and had a look with a magnifying glass, looked like an old porno, kek.

I spiced the pieces that weren't destroyed together in what looked like the right order and viewed it on an old hand cranked editor...
>late 60's/early 70's
>set in a living room
>"Steptoe and Son" is playing on TV
>sex scene (not hardcore)

One of these days I'd like to digitize it, there's probably only about 15 seconds of footage. With it being b/w and silent an animated GIF would do.

Why would I bother? Well, I found it intriguing as to why someone would destroy a film and throw most of it in a a canal. I'll never know why but I rescued a bit of it.

>woman is wearing leather underwear

>>3521356
>DSLR scanning is a bit overrated but would probably be a good option here.
If anything, DSLR/MILC scanning is underrated.

> But nothing really beats a professional properly calibrated film scanner.
They work very slowly in comparison, and aren't really better for 35mm film.
Actually probably a lot of larger film too, now that cameras have increasingly immense resolution with their high resolution sensors and pixel shift tricks and so on.

They may still be better on large format film simply because AFAIK there are very few quickly workable solutions to do tiled macro shots as you might have to do to get the same resolution per area of film.

>>3521392
>If anything, DSLR/MILC scanning is underrated.
Stitching is lossy.
Using low megapixel cameras is limiting due to the bayer filter and anti alias filter in most cameras.
Cameras, unless processed directly from a RAW following good archival style tecnhnique, will affect image quality in a way that may seem pleasing but is actually inferior if there's no built in mode specifically for film digitization.
Lens distortion is also more of a relevant thing.

DSLR scanning has a lot of cons.
Sure if you use a high end hasselblad with a super high end lens you'll BTFO almost all scanners on the market except for the ultra high end pro gear but most people DSLR scanning are doing so to compete with flatbeds or to save time.

Saving time is kind of a meme for most because anyone shooting film in the modern era who isn't drum scanning their shit or getting darkroom prints is basically a moron because all analog gains are thrown out the window when you get low quality scans. You've either got a family history to scan in, or you're a pro buying rolls and scanning them weekly. If you're the latter, and haven't switched to digital, and are DSLR scanning you should just be shooting digital in the first place.

bruh these arent even worth saving. they dont look interesting at all. theyre just normie family photos.

File: 2019-06-28 10.12.29 1.jpg (2.4 MB, 2979x1985)

2.4 MB JPG

>>3523298

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Model	nubia Z17mini
Camera Software	VSCO Android Version
Equipment Make	nubia
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	20 mm
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2019:06:28 20:26:54
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Time (UTC)	17:26:54
Date (UTC)	2019:06:28
Color Space Information	sRGB
F-Number	f/2.2
Focal Length	3.46 mm
Exposure Mode	Auto
Image Height	4160
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Exposure Program	Not Defined
White Balance	Auto
Image Width	3120
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Brightness	0 EV
ISO Speed Rating	100
Exposure Time	1/945 sec

File: IMG_20190820_130732.jpg (2.94 MB, 3456x4608)

2.94 MB JPG

>>3523301
that's all from me

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Model	COOLPIX P900
Camera Software	VSCO Android Version
Equipment Make	NIKON
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	75 mm
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.7
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2019:08:20 13:07:33
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
GPS Satellites	14
Date (UTC)	2019:07:21
Time (UTC)	17:20:4.000
Altitude	1466.90 m
Geodetic Survey Data	WGS84
Color Space Information	sRGB
F-Number	f/3.5
Subject Distance Range	Unknown
Focal Length	13.40 mm
Light Source	Unknown
Exposure Mode	Auto
Image Height	4608
Rendering	Normal
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Saturation	Normal
Exposure Program	Normal Program
Sharpness	Hard
Image Width	3456
Metering Mode	Pattern
Gain Control	High Gain Down
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Contrast	Normal
Exposure Bias	0 EV
ISO Speed Rating	100
Exposure Time	1/400 sec
ISO Speed Used	100
Color Mode	COLOR
Image Quality	FINE
White Balance	AUTO1
Focus Mode	AF-F
ISO Selection	AUTO
AE Bracket Compensation	0.0 EV
Auto Focus	Single Area, Unknown Selected, Top Focused
Noise Reduction	OFF

>>3523297
I'm a sucker for simple shots like this with a lot of negative space.

>>3523301
this ones really cool. the other ones i dont really care about.

>>3523297
Bretty good 8/10

>>3523298
3/10

>>3523301
Good quality but sunsets are overdone as fuck. 6/10

>>3523304
Kind of bland. 5/10

>>3523184
They sure could use some *good* publicity as of late.

>>3522803
>tfw just bought a 16-35mm f/2.8 for $275
When I think about some of the things I've bought before, I don't feel like I missed out.

tfw still haven't found a deal that matches the one I got for my camera in our local used market

feels good

>>3522934
>>3522966
Panasonic is ending the m4/3 line

File: maxresdefault.jpg (127 KB, 690x947)

127 KB JPG

>>3523563
Wet wishes of sonyggers. Turns out they're just starting.

>>3523593
Oh no I might have knocked off a sony shill or m43 is a tiny penis thread

>>3523579

Take your longest lens. Everyone takes landscape photos of mountains with wide angles. Wide angle lenses aren't about "getting everything in the frame." They're about getting a shot from a different perspective than you normally see. You still have to fill the frame with a wide angle -- people always forget this.

Take a tele and shoot some mountains with a 200mm. Or something over 100mm. Shoot mountains in portrait, not always in "landscape" mode.

You'll get good results.

>>3523620
>learned new meme advice for specific circumstances
>regurgitates it immediately, in general terms
/p/

>>3523624

Buddy over here is going on a hike... Not shooting for a travel magazine. Why not try something different for once?

>>3523620
Not bad advice, but it's also lacking. Sometime you'll be so close to the mountain that you'll just get a cliff on 100mm. And sometime you'll have as much haze, you'll get nothing useful. Everything depends on context, light and environment you get.

haha

>>3523179
never

>>3523179
Patience, it's getting funded by skateboards and patches.

>>3521363
you need off camera light

>>3521363
Light a bonfire

>>3521363
Dance around it, naked.

The one you have with you

>>3521363
yes
with a window and darkened room