Stop. Don't buy that new lens. It's you who suck, not your gear. Learn to shoot.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC (Macintosh)Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2018:02:25 12:10:07Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width1000Image Height570
>>3577917I really want to suck on chelsea's tits so bad
>>3577917Tonys look says>im rubbing my hands at how many books we’re going to sell
I wanaa bang her so much ngl
>>3577917These have to be the whitest mfs I’ve ever seen
>>3577917what's his real name? he looks more meixcan than the cook at my local taco stand who doesn't speak any english yet "Tony" has a very WASPy last name. why did he change his name?
>>3577917what a strange looking couple
>>3577917>It's you who suck, not your gear.Agreed. Also, it's not your computer that's slow. It's you who is impatient
>>3578050>Can't take a good pic with kit lens
>>3577917>it’s you who suckThose beautiful tits!
>>3577988a rat and a horse
>>3577917>It's you who suck, not your gear. Learn to shoot.Why don't they listen to their own advices?
>>3578079But anon I only have the kit lens(es)
>>3577917I wanna glaze Chelsea’s face
>>3577917"learning to shoot" does not help with the fact that I only have a 90mm lens and my targets are usually more than 300 yards away you stupid roastie.
>>3578172>300 yardsGet closer, you fucking retard. No lens is going to get you anything at 300 yards, the air alone will fuck the shot.>roastieConfirmed for incel.
>>3577917Who are these people?
>>3578203Some stock models as far as I know.
>>3578129so they're lame photographers as well as being massive gearcucks?
>>3577931yfw she's latina[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D3Camera SoftwareVer.2.02PhotographerKen RockwellMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.4Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern968Focal Length (35mm Equiv)85 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2010:09:28 11:21:36Exposure Time1/125 secF-Numberf/1.4Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating200Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length85.00 mmComment(C)KenRockwell.com (760) 931-9500Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width4256Image Height2832RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationHighSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknownISO Speed Used200Image QualityBASICWhite BalanceAUTOFocus ModeAF-CFlash SettingNORMALISO Speed Requested200Flash Bracket Compensation0.0 EVAE Bracket Compensation0.0 EVLens TypeNikon D SeriesLens Range85.0 mm; f/1.4Shooting/Bracketing ModeSingle Frame/OffNoise ReductionOFFCamera Actuations58776
>>3578179>No lens is going to get you anything at 300 yards, the air alone will fuck the shot.https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4373704
>>3578281And it looks like shit, exactly what I was saying... I have used plenty of large optics before and have seen what they are capable of at great distances. The reality is, not much beyond scientific measurements or documentation.This is a board for photography. Have some photographic standards ffs.
>>3578287Inb4 the moonPlebs gonna pleb. They think focal length is going to work magic for them. Ignore the angular size of an eagle from 300 yards away, ignore the total shite quality snapshits you end up with from that distance no matter the optics. Plebs are impressed by the notion not the results.>muh look at dis I took dis from 2 miles away>oh wow dats far>ya dats far but I ken do it cuz power!!1!
>>3578299>what is telephoto landscapeI've high quality long range shots taken on ten miles. Quality at that distance stops being about optics at all. You need reach, the rest depends on atmospheric conditions. It's the least predictable form of landscape photography. I can carry 600mm equivalent with me for month and never use it, or get anything with it, and then on a day when I'll least expect it, it'll all pay off.
>>3578374You don't understand scale or angular sizes at all. Stitching landscapes is nothing like trying to shoot an eagle from 300 yards away which is what the retard was showing me here >>3578281How acceptable the image looks depends on subject size. No matter the size of the object, the resolving power is the same though. You cannot compare a mountain range or building to an animal.>quality at that distance stops being about optics at allIdiotic statement. It's both.>depends on atmospheric conditionsI already said that in my first post here >>3578179>equivalentEven more evidence that you're in over your head, babbygear.
>>3578381Where did I mention stitching? You sound to me like someone using long lenses for one thing only. And that's shooting birbs. I'd say you're way out of your depth here.
>>3578374>when inb4 moon still isn't enough to stop your autismwew
>>3578387>>3578172>I only have a 90mm lens and my targets are usually more than 300 yards awayIf you had even half a brain you would understand that this is not about landscapes, autist.
>>3578387>Where did I mention stitching?Literally has no impact on the discussion at all. Stitch them or don't, there is no difference. Wait... are you confusing stitching with stacking? Because that's the only thing that would make your comment make sense. Embarrassing.
>>3578390lol, we've a delegator here. Must I follow your discussion or else! No, the reply was not intended to the above anon, it was intended to you only, and your obviously mistaken conclusions about use of long lenses at longer distances.
>>3578393Also, stop spamming two posts at the same time, it's pointless and shits the board... You can post two things in same post, we don't have twitter limits here.
>>3578396If he was complaining about 90mm and subjects being 300 yards away, he wasn't talking about landscapes and neither am I. Your social retardation prevented you from realizing this. Also:>thinking 600mm is a lot>thinking 600 equiv is actually 600mmPost your snapshits or shut up.
>>3578397>Also, stop spamming two posts at the same timeHe said in his second post. Lol, are you high?
>>3578404Still trying to play the sheriff? Why exactly would I need to post images for your personal convenience?
>>3578396I knew he was talking about wildlife because I can use logic and pick up on cues. He responded to me (not you) and confirmed by posting an eagle photo. What I said still stands: focal length will not compensate for 300 yards for wildlife apart from wide scenic shots incorporating wildlife. He needs to get a lot closer if he wants his subject to be the focal point.You were not part of this discussion and are derailing it with your autism. Fuck off. If you are lonely and just need to talk to someone, try Facebook.
>>3578407>autistic landscapefag with babby gear interrupting wildlife discussionStop typing.
>>3578247even ken's face is saturated
>>3578407>ignores the actual comment>addresses the meaningless partWhy do you think I included it? To give you an out that you would take if you were weak-minded, of course. And you took it confirming what I have already said about you. Once again:If he said 90mm was't enough for subjects 300 yards away, how does your brain manage to come to the landscape conclusion? Are you high right now or just new to photography?
>>3578408Hold your horses cowboy, or I'll have to bring my guns to the table! You're here arguing only with me for the past hour. And you're clearly pissed. Why so mad?
>>3578374Increasing the apparent size of a mountain range 10 miles away is not the same as increasing the apparent size of an animal 1 mile away, retard. Of course you can get acceptable looking mountain shots at 50m/pixel resolution. Try that with an animal though.You're so far off the mark it isn't even funny. Just fuck right off, you're too high for this right now.
>>3578415I don't do drugs. That's your prerogative. It fits with your obsession and anger with someone stating his opinion on the matter.
>>3577917>buying a new lensVintage glass > New Shit
>>3578417You made the moon argument after it was mentioned, noob. Lurk more.>but I didn't even mention the moon!What you're thinking right now because you are too new to know what the moon argument is, or why it makes you stupid for using it.
>>3578420>Post your snapshits or shut up.>Fuck off. If you are lonely and just need to talk to someone, try Facebook.>autistic landscapefag with babby gear interrupting wildlife discussionStop typing.>Are you high right now or just new to photography?>noob. Lurk more.>moon>you're too new>Just fuck right offI think it'd do you good to quit this board for a while. It'd also bring board some much needed peace and tranquillity. All your negativity is not good for both.
>>3577917>RANGE BANNED FOR DISPARAGING THE DISNEY MASTERS OF 4CHANNEL!>FUCK YOU GOOK MOOT!
>>3578418Yeah the softness, flares, and chromatic aberration really improve your images
>>3578452Yep, it makes pictures feel more genuineBased fellow vintage lens user
>>3578410St. Rockwell of Saturatias
>>3578452Chromatic aberrations are gaining traction in vidya lately. I think it'd be wise starting a lens hoarding business right now.
>>3578452Sometimes it adds nice character.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeSONYCamera ModelILCE-7M2Camera SoftwareAdobe Lightroom 5.0 (Android)Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0Image-Specific Properties:Image Created2019:12:01 01:26:21Exposure Time1/100 secExposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating500Brightness0.2 EVExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashFlash, Return Not Detected
Total whore[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image Width891Image Height1080Image Created2019:11:02 10:36:26Image OrientationTop, Left-HandImage Height1080Image Width891
>>3578556>Photography is the worlds oldest profession... what?
>>3578129They used their daughters college fund to print that book lol.
>>3577917I buy a new lens when I feel I need one. Don't tell me how to live MY life or how to do MY photography, BITCH!
>>3577917there must be wins of her out there somewhere
>>3578513What the fuck? This looks like a female Zuckerberg
>>3579013And Bill Gates.
Just dropped $22K on my next lens, succ ma dicc.
>>3579364I should clarify that it's CAD not USD.
Yeah I know but I wanted a full frame body to use my nice lenses on rather than this crops sensor
>>3578914>They used their daughters college fund to print that book lol.awkward
>>3578129The book has gone through several revisions by now... but the shitty pictures are still the same lol.
>>3580281>settings dont matter
>>3578914They used her daughter's college fund to print that book lol.fix'd
>>3580378I typed "his wife's daughter" immediately but decided not to meme so hard for once.
>>3578418>>3578472What are your favorite (affordable) vintage lens, anons? I bring a cheapo Minolta MD 135 2.8 around and while it's far from sharp, I'm really liking the film look I get from it.
>>3580521I love my Rokkor 55mm f/1.7.
>>3580521You should have bought the MD 135 3.5.My favorite is the MD 45mm f/2. It's a cheap lens and came standard on the lower end SLR's (SRT 100x etc.), but it's tiny and offers the ideal "natural looking" focal length.
>>3577937Those are some nice cans
>>3580856I’ve got a cheapo celtic 135 f3.5. Actually takes some nice pictures. Sharp with good contrast.
>>3580378>ha ha we know you wanted college just get waitress job instead Are they eternal boomers?
How do they, and ken rockwell become such giants in tech review when theyre objectively bad photographers? All their advice is wrong and they have such an unlikeable persona
>>3581520The same way anyone becomes a giant in any field. They're great at marketing, networking and organisational skills.
>>3578427Heartily kek'd, thanks>>3580856For me it's the MC PG 50mm 1.4>>3581525Sure, networking and organizational skills, maybe; but those two could never successfully market anything to me. Even if it was totally free, I wouldn't buy what they're selling.I don't trust those eyes.
>>3577917IDK. I'm shooting photos on my phone and would like some new gear.
>>3581782>>3581520Tony is a gearfag because early in his career he was a programmer and tech writer. Gearfagging just comes with the territory. You don't have to be a photographer to review technical aspects of tech products. >t. developer and gearfag
>>3582598obviously a camera with aperture, shutter speed and focus controls is the minimum point of entry. that costs about $20, analog or digital.
>>3582694My phone already does that in pro mode and takes raws. It's sensor is just noisy and isn't that great. It's rather sensitive and finicky.
>>3582682>You don't have to be a photographer to review technical aspects of tech products.You do if you wish some credibility.
>>3582927lol yes. Tony hardly ever takes photos. Chelsea is the photographer, Tony takes photos of his wife's daughter running about after soccer practice or some shit. The story about how Tony gambled the kid's college fund while his "wife" cried says enough. OK it worked out but what a shitbag.
>>3577917is that guy some kind of disgusting aged hapa half-breed?he looks like he has fetal alcohol syndrome, yikes.
>>3582927I disagree. He isn't (usually) talking about art, but consumer products for capturing and displaying images. You could argue that one shouldn't take advice about creating compelling art from him, but his gearfagging is fine.
>>3582959How are you going to trust someone to recognise qualities needed for any kind of photographer if the man trying to review equipment is oblivious to simple photographic terms?He thinks dutch angle is tilting a lens while doing a portrait!
what if I don't have a lens that covers that focal length. should I still not get it?
>>3582682>You don't have to be a photographer to review technical aspects of tech products.You don't need to know how to drive a car to review a car.You don't need to be a gamer to review a game.You don't need to know what fps is to properly asses a graphics card.You don't need need to have astrophysics degree to approve spaceship launch.You don't need need manly parts to review fleshlight.
>>3583004>You don't need to know how to drive a car to review a car.False.>You don't need need to have astrophysics degree to approve spaceship launch.I don't know what specific specialized knowledge you need, but you do need specialized knowledge in order to make an informed decision.>You don't need need manly parts to review fleshlight.False.
>>3582944>Tony gambled the kid's college fund while his "wife" criedFucking BASED I have a whole new level of respect for Tony.
>>3577917How many times have I fapped to her?
>>3583455You tell me, Tony.
>>3577937>giant milkers>equally massive nosedefs a crypto.
>>3583629Weird phenotype for sure. Could be garden variety La Luz Extinguido tho I suppose
>>3578513>when you're the manager
>>3577917I would pay to bust a thick, hot load on that face.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 7DCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)Maximum Lens Aperturef/4.0Image-Specific Properties:Image Width2832Image Height2832Number of Bits Per Component16, 16, 16Compression SchemeUnknownPixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Data ArrangementChunky FormatImage Created2014:01:20 12:14:54Exposure Time1/60 secF-Numberf/9.5Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/9.5Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashFlash, CompulsoryFocal Length82.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width2832Image Height2832RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
What's happening here?
fuck you faggot i upgraded my gear and its bad ass my pictures are in focus now because i have phase detection eat shit you goddamn reject
>>3577917I will buy 50/1.4 for my analog Oly and 105mm macro for my digital Nikon next year and you won't stop me!
>>3577917Oh yeah, the classic YouTube photog mantra:"Sure 95% of my videos are sponsored content designed to make you feel inadequate about what you already own, but GeAr DoEsN'T mAtTer tHe BeSt cAmeRa iS tHe oNe U hAve wiTh U"
I'm really just a faggot :-)
>>3584302Where did this come from? Reverse image search only brought up another /p/ thread. Is it hornyposting Tony?
>>3588005Tony shills his channel all over the net. Whenever he's got some clickbait topic, there will always be a mysterious poster that will mention his video on every tech and photography related forum, message board or reddit.
>>3578559that's a joke title someone edited in. "the world's oldest profession" is prostitution.
>>3578206just for future reference, stock photos by definition don't feature specific brands
>>3582963tilting the camera while shooting is exactly what a dutch angle is
>>3577931They're tanned as fuck though. White people rarely go that dark.
i love seeing chelsea handle big lenses
>>3588029>Tony shills his channel all over the net. Whenever he's got some clickbait topic, there will always be a mysterious poster that will mention his video on every tech and photography related forum, message board or reddit.Also, when someone calls him out, or brings his deceits and lies out, you'll see this averting of attention operation:>>3588045>>3588062>>3588063>>3588092>>3588140
>>3580369right, who cares that we absolutely needed a fast shutter speed to deal with sunset backlighting and not be at f16 for a fuckin portrait. people who say settings don't matter are pathological liars.
>>3584302but she's your wife tony
>>3577917Shut up, Chelsea. Your comically ballooned features give your face a quality suited only to pornography. You're one of those girls who was never hot enough to be popular, or get fucked by boys you actually wanted (for more than one night, at least). Queen of the losers is what you get to be. You married a half-cuck huckster. Take your 8/10 body and your 5.5/10 face and go be a cumdumpster on Pornhub. Probably more lucrative and only slightly more bereft of dignity.
>don't buy that lens don't do it!>shows off their 4/8K cameras just for video for YT>shows off their 3-6 cameras>3-6 lenses for each>24-70 on all of them>5+ camera bags>go on some trip to NY for 3 nights>we need it!
>>3578452Having those tools in your hardware arsenal is better than adding those effects in post processing. The trick is learning how to use them to your advantage.>>3580521My fave vintage lenses & best ebay purchases, for my D3400 were,Nikon NIKKOR-S Auto 50mm 1:1.4Nikon Zoom-NIKKOR 35~200mm 1:3.5~4.5Vivitar Auto Wide-angle 28mm 1:2.5
>>3589341Did she hurt you?
>>3577942he kinda looks typical east coast waspy though. I'm not american, but dont you basically have to be wealthy to have a nice life in Connecticut?
>>3589440>Vivitar Auto Wide-angle 28mm 1:2.5I've got this one and don't like it at all
>>3592912Yes. A shitload of people who work in NYC live there and there’s a lot of money.
>>3577917Those 2 have to be the most insufferable niggers in photography
>>3584302Only if she put the work in with those big pump lips. It'd be a tossup to watch her choke down a thick sticky load instead.Either way she'd leave her dignity behind but with a good chunk of the scholarship fund back.
>>3577917Are you going to tell me that getting more expensive 35mm lens over my cheapo one will make me a better shot?
>>3577917Chelsea is a better photographer than Tony.
>>3581520They're the least bad out of a field of horrific youtube choices. Most of their advice is fine btw.