>>4079570
Your response does not further this discussion. Enjoy your third-shift factory work, seems to be the only thing you’re cut out for.

>>4076722
No, easy way to get sued if you're murican.

>>4079669
nice work ethic you have there, zoomer
this country is going down the drain

>>4079684
You show them your portfolio.

>>4076722
It must be such an embarrassing pain in the ass... DO NOT WANT.

>>4062344
That's a Minolta meter, the lens is a 180mm f/2.8 AI-S Nikkor (legendary lens, really really good, still good actually)

No idea about the film body he's got though. Not familiar with it.

>>4077964
Looks like an f3 with the motor drive

bumping

File: 87F2A03B-4B2A-44B1-8964-D(...).jpg (174 KB, 811x1000)

174 KB JPG

>>4070521
This is fucking amazing. Great find bro

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	182 dpi
Vertical Resolution	182 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	811
Image Height	1000
Scene Capture Type	Standard

bump again

>>4082004
that's the line I use myself, the 010 mrc / mrc nano
didn't even realize they updated naming to master until now

>>4082006
Have you personally noticed any image degradation?

>>4082005
no, they are mostly plastic and smooth metal
>>4082007
of course not

Hoya MRC or B+W. Or if you want a more analog filmic look, consider a 1/8 or 1/4 black mist or pro mist (there's a couple varieties, Moment makes one called Cinebloom 10%)

But yeah, don't sweat the small stuff with your lenses. Also if you're poor, consider getting old lenses. They're still great and cost a lot less.

>>4082024
he wants protection not diffusion, if "quality" is his concern you're advising the worst thing imaginable

File: IMG_20220911_015411_320.jpg (1.36 MB, 1500x1071)

1.36 MB JPG

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D700
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop 23.0 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	790
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	55 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2022:09:11 01:48:32
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	Flash, Compulsory, Return Detected
Focal Length	55.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1500
Image Height	1071
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

Thats about it.
One of the few times ive used flash in daylight.

>>4078517
Great

>>4078494
It's a fun effect to take pictures up close with a wide angle

>>4078691
>fun
there's that misused word again

take the bus

File: 20180811-_G000441-web.jpg (651 KB, 2000x1325)

651 KB JPG

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.
Camera Model	GR II
Camera Software	Capture One 22 Macintosh
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	28 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Exposure Time	1/100 sec
F-Number	f/3.5
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	2000
Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Brightness	-0.3 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	18.30 mm
Image Width	2000
Image Height	1325
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal

>>4081980
That's pornography pretending to be art

File: 20181225-_G001583-web.jpg (1.21 MB, 2000x1325)

1.21 MB JPG

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.
Camera Model	GR II
Camera Software	Capture One 22 Macintosh
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	28 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Exposure Time	1/1250 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Brightness	9.1 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	18.30 mm
Image Width	2000
Image Height	1325
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal

File: 20181225-_G001621-web.jpg (928 KB, 2000x1325)

928 KB JPG

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.
Camera Model	GR II
Camera Software	Capture One 22 Macintosh
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	28 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Exposure Time	1/500 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Brightness	8.4 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	18.30 mm
Image Width	2000
Image Height	1325
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal

>>4081940
>>4081941
>>4081942
>>4081943
>>4081944
>>4081945
>>4081946
>>4081948
>>4081949
>>4081951
>>4081952
>>4081953
>>4081954
>>4081955
>>4081956

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

File: 5.-Jeff-Wall-Double-Self-(...).jpg (1.28 MB, 1500x1126)

1.28 MB JPG

>>4081703
>you failed even at 18% gray.
It was never my goal. Exposure compensation exists for a reason. The world isn't 18% gray.
> I'm not seeing where you would dodge and burn your piece of shit photo to improve it. Baby steps my guy. Learn to get a basic exposure first and then you can worry about your master stroke dodging and burning.
lol, you're the type to let the camera tell you what to do
>You are the only person saying this.
You said "better to not post anything then", in /p/ jargon that's a "nophoto".
>This only happens when you have bad, retarded opinions. Again, 16 years, lots of opinion posts, no doxxing.
No, that happens when you have unpopular opinions. Not a worry if you'reparroting the status quo.
>Nah, check exif data in the RPT. There are lots of unique camera and lens combos. Even still, there aren't a few dozen doxxings, so your point is still moot.
I can count at least 7 doxings and attempts, at least one swatting and more and I'm not here 24/7 or anything.
>That's because you're self-satisfied with sub-standard work and you think that no one "gets" you.
No, the public is. I have deleted pictures that got a bunch of likes and comments because I knew they were bad so I felt disgusted by the plebs who thought they were good. If someone has no critical eye they don't deserve to see my work. I'd rather be told something I've done sucks than be praised for it. I don't agree with everything you say about the one picture I posted here, but if you called it good I'd actually be mad and probably hating myself (and you as well) for having posted it.
>You're just not a very good photographer
Fair, I don't consider myself particularly good.

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

>>4081708
>The world isn't 18% gray.
It literally is.
>You said "better to not post anything then", in /p/ jargon that's a "nophoto".
No, a nophoto is someone who doesn't actively shoot photos.
>No, that happens when you have unpopular opinions. Not a worry if you'reparroting the status quo.
So now you're convinced that you not only have good photos, but also good opinions that no one else can appreciate. It doesn't even occur to your narcissistic ass that you might be wrong.
>I can count at least 7 doxings and attempts, at least one swatting and more and I'm not here 24/7 or anything.
No you can't lmfao. Also, 7 doxxings over 8 years (that you imply to have been here) and thousands of users isn't anything, and it's certainly not a big risk for you.
>No, the public is. I have deleted pictures that got a bunch of likes and comments because I knew they were bad so I felt disgusted by the plebs who thought they were good. If someone has no critical eye they don't deserve to see my work. I'd rather be told something I've done sucks than be praised for it. I don't agree with everything you say about the one picture I posted here, but if you called it good I'd actually be mad and probably hating myself (and you as well) for having posted it.
I literally called it. You think no one gets you.

I also like how you post Jeff Wall but then say that you shouldn't look at photobooks. It's amazing.

>>4081703
>you're self-satisfied with sub-standard work and you think that no one "gets" you.
I'm not. The only way in which the photo posted here satisfied me was as a rough draft of a concept, a concept that obviously requires more refinement if it is to be explored further.
>This is a tautology. If you're a bad, inexperienced photographer, you will only see bad photos.
I see good and bad.
>Take many more photos and you will learn how to turn the mundane into something wonderful.
The fetishization of the mundane is a problem I have with a lot of photography.
>You're not gatekeeping your output, you're gatekeeping your input, but you're not yet qualified to do that.
I upload something I know to be garbage and get showered with likes instead of the deserved insults. I'm not going to cast pearls before swine.

>>4081711
>It literally is.
Way to destroy your credibility.
>No, a nophoto is someone who doesn't actively shoot photos.
No, a nophoto is someone who doesn't POST photos.
>No you can't lmfao. Also, 7 doxxings over 8 years (that you imply to have been here) and thousands of users isn't anything, and it's certainly not a big risk for you.
I'm not here 24/7 to know all the doxings that happen, those 7 I remember off the top of my head.
>So now you're convinced that you not only have good photos, but also good opinions that no one else can appreciate. It doesn't even occur to your narcissistic ass that you might be wrong.
I may be wrong, but the way to show someone they're wrong isn't by doxing them. If you go against the circlejerk you're bound to get stalked in return.
>I literally called it. You think no one gets you.
Not really, but it does bother me when I'm uploading something ironically and the people I'm making fun of praise it.
>I also like how you post Jeff Wall but then say that you shouldn't look at photobooks. It's amazing.
I never said that. I said "just take photos" and "just look at photobooks" is garbage advice and doesn't really make people grow as photographers. I enjoy Jeff Wall's work, but I don't delude myself into thinking looking at his books will make me a good photographer.

File: 1431424072859.jpg (19 KB, 400x298)

19 KB JPG

>>4081711
>nophoto

>>4074025
what camera and lens did you use for this? looks kino

>>4073942
>if you're using photography as a way to "get" girls: you'll just be a creepy weirdo with a camera instead of a creepy weirdo
it's not about getting girls, it's more photography will let you meet people you can then date. if you have chemistry with someone and are attractive then it isn't creepy

>>4064097
Post em

>>4064097
10 bucks says you dont

Bump in hopes of more

File: _DSF2987.jpg (914 KB, 2000x1333)

914 KB JPG

>>4078458
(2/9)

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-T4
Camera Software	Capture One 22 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.4
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	75 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Exposure Time	1/280 sec
F-Number	f/4.5
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	320
Lens Aperture	f/4.5
Brightness	6.9 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Image Width	6240
Image Height	4160
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown
Time (UTC)	08:02:31.000
Geodetic Survey Data	WGS-84
Date (UTC)	2022:08:28

>>4078458
HELL YEAH. This is great. More more more.

>>4078437
imagine the smell

>>4076050
I love cloud photos. Don't care if it's literally the most trite thing imaginable to take a picture of.

>>4081701
Thanks, me too.
I just love clouds, I can take 40 photos of the same sky and never get bored.

File: 663268811_06bf8dc204.jpg (44 KB, 296x499)

44 KB JPG

Guys, dumn question, I bought my first medium format camera, a pretty old Agfa Billy Record 8,8, the thing was made whem Hitler was in power, the thing is, being that 120 film is so expensive I dont want to waste all of my film with a roll that is not fully compatible, so I was wondering if you could tell me what is the best film for this kind of camera

The 120mm film available in my country are:
>Fujifilm Pro 400H
>Fujifilm Velvia 50
>Fujifilm Neopan Acros 100
>Kodak Portra 400
>Kodak Portra 800
>Kodak Tri-X 400
>Kodak Ektar 100
>Kodak Ektachrome 100 (Expired) at a ridiculous price
>Ilford FP-4 Plus
>Ilford- HP-5 Plus

I know thia is kind of a dumb of question, but I heard that low ISO is needed for some older cameras, and I am a noob

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

>>4082747
>>4083119
Provia 100F, dev+scan by thedarkroom, only light tweaks in lightroom. It was shot on an F100 which might contribute to the "look".

>>4083744
>I heard that low ISO is needed for some older cameras, and I am a noob
no low iso film was just more common, so on cameras with light meters (not yours) they usually dont go above 400. I'd put some HP-5 through it if you wanna devlop yourself. If not then just get some porta 400.

>>4083744
Buy the cheapest one. Ilford hp5 is a good option for b&w. Fuji400h or Kodak gold 200 for color.
Do search of Fomapan 400, I am sure it should be present in your country.

In your case higher iso is better, because it is really small DoF for your frame format and you need to raise the aperture value up to have enough room for focus.
Check this dof calculator http://bobatkins.com/photography/technical/dofcalc.html

The deed is done.
Fresh thread this way

>>4083883
>>4083883
>>4083883

>>4076266
> using the flash

Don't

>>4076266
made a timelapse once with Camera FV5 app, but that was around a decade ago. jej

>>4076266
Just take the background photo then multiple photos same shot with you in them and overlay?

File: clone.jpg (221 KB, 1280x720)

221 KB JPG

>>4076266

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1280
Image Height	720
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	2022:09:21 09:19:10
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1280
Image Height	720

>>4077780
sauce?

>>4077779
that's not orange enough to be in mexico

horizon is crooked

>>4081806
that's because the earth is round

>>4077779
Bullshit. Mexico is sepia-toned.

File: D3A60F03-68C4-4F6C-B96F-1(...).png (4.25 MB, 828x1792)

4.25 MB PNG

You’re in luck. Maybe. You’re not going to be catching any action shots- you need very good noise performance for fast action. BUT just to capture night scenes, you don’t need that at all. You can get fantastic results with a cheap camera, cheap lens and a tripod by doing long exposures most cameras can do 30 second exposures. Some can do linger but 30 is easily enough. You can get lots of light trails and other interesting effects. I’ll google an inage for you as I haven’t done any of that for years and have nothing of mine on my phone to show you.

check out the thread at >>4069562

fultron12 gets all his shots with a fucking little ricoh gr camera, some of them are pretty noisy but it definitely proves you dont need to drop $1k+ on anything to get decent shots

Area 88 sort of.

>>4033175
>>4033380
W-what is wrong with Sony?

>>4081612
they obsoleted our dinosaur DSLRs

>>4081612
The only good sony products are playstations and walkmans

>>4081101
Based Foveon/CCD chad.

>>4081370
I would kill for foveon being widespread. Fuck most Bayer filters and their gay double greens. Does anyone even use RGBW filters on their sensors? Either way interpolation is for fags whose shit’s all retarded

>>4080272
https://youtu.be/PHYidejT3KY?t=476

File: Screenshot_20220919-233935.png (360 KB, 1080x2280)

360 KB PNG

>>4081540
Pixel shift chads rise up!

>Captcha RHGAYX

>>4081546
pixel shift seems cool, but I think I'm too parkinsons (and pooor) to use it

>>4078217
Big and heavy isn't winning everything. Apsc is fast and nimble 500cc Honda, FF is slow and cumbersome 2,000cc Harley Davidson.

>>4081253
Canon has also faced accusations of using Sony sensors in their R cameras when they're usually known for homebrewing their sensors

>>4081614
We've already shown that all things being equivalent, full frame is the smaller, lighter option 90% of the time.

And a much better analogy would be mft being 50cc, very limited, can't be used in many situations, aps-c is 125cc, can just about do everything on the road but is noticeably struggling at the speed limit, FF is 250cc+, can happily cruise on any road without any problems.

Also, I don't think you know shit about bikes, there's only been 2 factory production 2000cc+ bikes ever made, and neither were Harleys. And the giant 266kg 1.4l hayabusa will do the 0-60 in half the time Honda's only current 500cc will do it in. Harleys have large engines and are heavy because if you're going 200 miles on the freeway in one journey, 3000rpm and ploughing through bumps is a lot more pleasant than 9000rpm and having to concentrate intensely on the road swerving every pebble.

>>4081620
bruh 90% of crop setups don't even have a FF "equivalent"

>>4081618
Canon fabs their own sensors across their ILC lines. That has always been the case. They have used Sony sensors in some P&S cameras.