[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/p/ - Photography

[Advertise on 4chan]

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 71 posters in this thread.

08/21/20New boards added: /vrpg/, /vmg/, /vst/ and /vm/
05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
[Hide] [Show All]


Self-serve ads are available again! Check out our new advertising page here.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: brke52yema321.png (58 KB, 1229x1160)
58 KB
58 KB PNG
Post confessions. I have too many. See in post below.
>>
1. I hate namefags, but I like wakkowarner poster because he tries and adds posts to the board

2. /vid/ If i researched story as much as gear, I'd make a living off of youtube by now

3. Everybody knows the "fullframe" "your a poorfag" has two different devices that he namefags on, and his advice is purposefully wrong or he likes to stroke his dick here.
>>
>>3786188
I take great pleasure in fiddling with the exif data in the jpegs I post here. I use an X-T2 but frequently fake bullshit cameras and settings to make people here go wow at the colours or noise performance or sharpness of lenses for my unedited sooc photos.
So far nobody has picked it up, and it brings me great mirth trolling the utter gear faggots here.
>>
>>3786231

That's not a sin. That's like jesus going into the temple and smacking all those kikes upside the head for doing business in a place of worship.
>>
>>3786188
I've been editing on a screen with a 40% srgb rating

I havr a ff camera yet I only use my p&s with a 1" sensor
>>
I have faked being isi through exif manipulation and RNI presets, simps go and praise the garbage I post without fail. It's hilarious. It's as simple as taking a garbage snapshit of some sign, applying a film preset and adding borders. Simps are drawn to it like a hummingbird to nectar.
>>
>>3786188
I'm such a poser. I just latch onto styles of other people whose stuff I like, but I don't even know why I like them. I feel like I'm learning nothing, and not growing at all. Nothing speaks to me anymore. I just take pictures because it's a habit.
>>
>>3786188
I only have the slightest regards for my pictures because usually I don't try to see them objectively. When I do so, I almost get scared for how weak they are and how wrong I am thinking they are acceptable.

This doesn't stops me from not liking almost 99% of the pictures I see around.
>>
I have faked being moopco but it's really hard to act that retarded. Also I don't enjoy just looking at the camera and never using it
>>
I check Leica M classifieds every single day even if my current camera has a better sensor
>>
>>3786191
You're* a poorfag

And most of the board knows aps-c fanbois are just as bad as mft copelets. Just get a job for one month and buy a real camera.

>>3786231
No you don't, and you didn't fool anyone with your "film" pics either.
>>
>>3786336
lmao seething
>>
I love light trails so much bros
>>
>>3786336
>and you didn't fool anyone with your "film" pics either.
I haven't been caught yet :^) seethe more gear faggot
>>
I am going to buy a gopro 9 and start vlogging
>>
>>3786188
I only shoot digital black and white because color is much more difficult and also more expensive because I would have to buy tons of provia and velvia for it to look good. You can't work with digital colors unless you have tons of free time to spend on manipulating a single picture.
>>
>>3786361
funny, i only shoot color because black and white is much more difficult.
>>
I shittalk cameras I've never seen or used on /pee/.
>>
>>3786359
What about the post you made with the cat photo, you were instantly called out.
>>
>>3786368
>funny, i only shoot color because black and white is much more difficult.
Silver Efex Pro does it for you
>>
I like girl feet.
>>
>>3786406
That's not a confession, it's normal. Imagine liking male feet like I do. I feel like a freak.
>>
I make the same confess thread over and over cause I can't get yous any other way
>>
>>3786276
What? This is the process of becoming. Good artists mimic, great artists steal.
>>
>>3786359
>>3786336
I am so curious as to what you look like, and what your living conditions are. Not saying that to be rude. 100% curiosity.
>>
>>3786188
I use adapted film SLR lenses on a Micro Four Thirds camera.
>>
it's a stunning feat but somehow this might actually be the worst thread on this board right now.
>>
>>3786188

I don't actually own a camera. But I'm here because I like to troll people. And /p/ can easily be trolled with gear related things.
>>
>>3786610
White, tall, fat, very comfortablely well-off engineer in Australia.
>>
I only call people poorfag to make them seem more like me.
>>
File: 1601333586251.jpg (651 KB, 2000x1333)
651 KB
651 KB JPG
>>3786610
>>3786630
This is my living room.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeFUJIFILM
Camera ModelX-T3
Camera SoftwareCapture One 20 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperturef/4.0
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)24 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Exposure Time1/15 sec
F-Numberf/4.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating800
Lens Aperturef/4.0
Brightness0.5 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length16.00 mm
Image Width2000
Image Height1333
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
>>3786647
Do you masturbate to cartoons?
>>
File: 1583500572000.jpg (46 KB, 700x538)
46 KB
46 KB JPG
I edit on HP monitors from 2009 with only 1440 X 900 resolution
>>
>>3786647

It looks like a basement.
>>
I post on pee every day and I haven't taken a photo in months ;-)
>>
>>3786699
We know
>>
>>3786275
Ok isi
>>
>>3786647
>aussie animechad
GIGABASED. If you lived in Brisvegas I'd be your pal.
>>
>>3786647
Not sure why you'd lie but that power outlet looks a lot more like a North American one than it does Australian.
>>3787290
>Brisvegas
Incredibly cringe inducing
>>
>>3787343
Fuck off melbournian cunt
>>
I bought a bunch of cameras and never shot a single thing with them. I don't even know where they are.

>>3786235
Its more like a pharisee making up laws to get his way.
>>
>>3787352
>melbournian cunt
CQld actually, not that it matters. Calling it Brisvegas is still some spine tingling fucking cringe.
>>
>>3787374
>not calling it brisvegas
Bro...
>>
>>3786370
I like /p/ I don't like /pee/
>>
>>3786614
I dont think this is bad at all.
>>3786616
The gearfag reveals himself
>>
>>3786630
Age? I'm guessing late fifties, but possibly 60s.
>>
I have bought a 1/4 pro-mist filter for the meme. In hindsight i should probably have bought a black pro mist, and i don't really see anythimg different in the photos
>>
>>3787362

Which one you have?
>>
>>3787383
Mid thirties.
>>
>>3787479
Favourite colour?
>>
>>3786614
But why tho. Lenses wide angle enough to be practical are expensive as hell. Are using vintage fast 50s for portraits?
>>
>>3787444
Is it misty though? You know, pro mist. Not make mist.
>>
>>3787488
Light blue.
>>
>>3786188
I always read AF as "as fuck" in my head.
>>
>>3786188
I don't participate in photography.
>>
Lately, I feel like soon I'll have to use cameras that I don't like. The old cameras are nearing their end and the recent cameras offer customization options, not really as a feature, but actually out of necessity for compactness and proof of snazzy improvements. Although the cameras have indeed increased in functionality, more and more dedicated buttons are missing - the extensive ability to manually adjust settings deliberately and without detours is missing. You might think that intelligent autofocus would not require manual intervention, based on the naming. I guess my intelligence must be dumber to really not want to manually intervene when the autofocus struggles or fails situationally.
Is someone who really uses the camera to its full potential supposed to constantly struggle with too few buttons that are overloaded as a result? Is this the nucamera? Like really?!
>>
>>3786188
Ive spent the last 5 years trying to obsess over gear like I do guns. I went from Sony, to Panasonic, to Fujifilm. Spent thousands of dollars and it doesn't help that I work around camera equipment all day too. As a preemptive new years resolution I decided to ditch it all. I just finished selling everything and only have an RP and the RF 50mm 1.8. I can already tell im having a better time.
>>
I got hit into by a drunk driver a while back and I saw someone die on the side of the road so I've been very afraid of driving anywhere I don't have to lately and when I want to take pictures I just walk around the same little tiny city and wooded towns
>>
>>3789347
idk in some ways I think it helps me as a photographer and forces me to be more creative and explore different genres but in some way I feel like I'm limiting myself
>>
>>3786647
Based fig photographer. Honestly, though, my biggest problem is the desk itself. You can get a nice, much larger desk from IKEA for far less than the cost of any one of those figures. No one should ever have to hold their mouse so far from their keyboard.
>>
>>3789341
buy yourself a fuji and transcend.
>>
>>3789384
I used an X-T3 for a couple years and enjoyed it. I almost got an X-S10 but then I realized that I was essentially overspending on an APS-C camera simply because of its video features that are essentially useless if you decide to take it to the next level. If I ever want to take video seriously I'll just drop 4 grand for a C70 and use all the lenses I already have for RF at that point. Maybe someday I'll be able to really appreciate stuff like the X-E and X-Pro series though.
>>
>>3789384
more like transition
>>
>>3789400
kek
>>
I have no idea what I'm doing in DarkTable.
I mean I get what it's for and how to use the interface, but I have no idea what makes photos look better.
I end up tweaking stuff forever and I don't know how any of it actually improves the original photo.
>>
I reply to every photo in the /rpt/ critiquing them but I never post photos
>>
>>3789400
LEL
>>
Idk how to post-process at all. I just go into darktable and fiddle with random sliders until I think it looks cool.
>>
>>3790551
And do you name your files CUK...?
>>
>>3790573
sorry friendo, I don't get the meme
>>
I used to lust after the creamy full frame f1.4 bokeh.
But since I've switched to full frame I've rarely shot wide open.
>>
>>3791800
Are you me? Shooting at f/1.2 was fun for the first few days, but I knew it was a crutch to lean against and hide my juvenile inability. I frequently just shot at around f/2 to have SOMETHING in focus, and to stop having the entire photo smeared into oblivion.
Sold the lenses for faster compacts. f/1.8 is enough.
>>
>>3791800
>>3791827
Apertures below f/2 may still be relevant for e.g. full body shots, distant portraits or wide-angle portraits.
>>
>>3791800
Bokeh is the biggest meme. I only shoot full frame for good low light although APSC works fine desu.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1280
Image Height853
>>
i bought three 1dxmk2's and they're just sitting there
>>
>>3791871
Why did you get three of them?
>>
>>3791901
i thought they looked really cool with L lenses so i got one for each of my favourite lenses but photography is like super boring so i never got around to taking more than 10 or so pictures
>>
>>3786275
They look nothing like her shots though, yours are clearly from a suburb and have no soul. I have a feeling you have to samefag most of your "praise". You also just admitted to being obsessed with a female who apparently takes bad photos. That's a bit sad and creepy, anon.
>>
>>3791800
>>3791842
kek, when travelling, I shoot at f8 or f11 with my apsc. I only use wide open when lowlight handheld.
>>
>>3786231
>I am mentally ill
Cool I guess.
>>
File: 1608970945774.jpg (3.96 MB, 2800x6300)
3.96 MB
3.96 MB JPG
>>3786647
why didn't i see your christmas contribution this year?
>>
>>3786647
Are you catboy kami?
>>
I stop down because my work isn't strong enough for the subject to be isolated. I need as much photo as I can get in the hopes that people won't notice how shitty I am.
>>
>>3786188
I think Jared Polin is actually a fantastic photographer and I'd fuck the shit out of Chelsea Northrup.
>>
>>3792186
We'd all fuck her. Anyone who says otherwise is lying.
>>
>>3792188
I wouldn't admit that other than completely anonymously.
>>
>>3792195
Why? I bet she has a horse cunt. Who doesn't like horse cunts?
>>
>>3792196
Isn't she a Jew?
>>
>>3792198
Pretty sure, yeah. She looks Israeli. You can still fuck them, just don't respect or trust them.
>>
File: hmmmmm.jpg (216 KB, 460x459)
216 KB
216 KB JPG
>>3792186
>Chelsea Northrup
She's up to no good. Stay away.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 21.2 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2021:01:04 15:42:45
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width460
Image Height459
>>
>>3786231
yeah you're the film fag. no one here believes you.
>>
I take creepshots of my old and fat female neighbors
>>
>>3786191
>I hate namefags, but I like wakkowarner poster because he tries and adds posts to the board

Literally never seen that anon in my life, seems like a /co/fag
>>
>>3791827

It's always useful for night shooting, though. You don't have to be right next to something to get that stupid bokeh. Shoot at normal distances and everything is usually in focus even at something like 1.2
>>
>>3789628
Half of it is just having an idea ahead of time about where you want the photo to go. That just takes experience.

The other half is that Darktable has a gorillion different settings and a lot do quite similar things. There's no obvious start to finish workflow all laid out for you like in Lightroom. Look on youtube for screencasts of people editing photos start to finish. Stick to the more recent ones though as DT has changed in recent versions and the recommended way to edit photos is with Filmic and the newer RGB modules rather than base curve.
>>
>>3787376
>>3787290
I-I'm in Brisbane bros.... let's go shooting sometime...
>>
>>3786647
i don't know who you are, but i'm >>3786231 and i just left your post up without contesting just to see the fall out. terribly good fun. thanks anon :)
>>
I love full colour saturation bros...
>>
>>3786188
I don't have a tripod!

>>3786231
>>3786275
based
both gearfaggotry and idol worship are stupid pursuits and should be mocked

>>3786361
>You can't work with digital colors unless you have tons of free time to spend on manipulating a single picture.
I don't think that's true, once you get the hang of your program of choice, you become very quick.

>>3789628
>>3790551
Same goes for you two, developing RAWs is its own skill that you need to practice, but it's worth it.

>>3786699
>>3787362
>>3791871
>>3791960
classic /p/

>>3789400
go back to /g/

>>3795669
Hi Ken!
>>
i nutted to some photographer girl from tiktok
>>
>>3795616
>>3795960
But what I don't get is: Why edit at all?
>>
>>3758112
I posted this as bait to see if people would have a serious discussion and they're arguing to this day.
>>
I don't know who isi is, and can't say I really care.

I don't look at your exif data or file name, even if I like your image.

I probably saved your image and didn't bother to comment.

I've been shooting for almost 5 years, have a good amount of success, but still don't feel like I know what I'm doing.

90% of my model shoots involve nudity, kink, or both. 50% of those I get bored by (even though getting good shots), but I'd rather shoot something then nothing.
>>
>>3786188
I have never seen any of the photos I've taken on film, because I'm too lazy to drive 15 minutes to get them developed, or do it myself.
>>
i dont know what i'm doing here. this is all new to me
>>
>>3786188
I shoot RAW, but only edit in-camera
>>
I use a vaccuum cleaner to clean my lenses and cameras.
>>
>>3796140
seems as a very good option desu, will do this
>>
I often crop and edit my digital photos into various film boarders (MF, 35mm, Polaroid) and pass them off as such
>>
File: bayer-simulation2.png (14 KB, 500x300)
14 KB
14 KB PNG
>>3796034
Every image is edited, if you don't do it then it's done by the camera, which means the japanese engineer who wrote the firmware is now editing your photos.

When you process RAWs yourself, it just means that you define how it looks like, instead of some hardcoded algorithm.

Well, technically unedited photos exist, they look something like pic related. That's the actual unedited data coming from your sensor.
(Not entirely true since the gamut of your camera is much larger than your average sRGB monitor, but you get the point).

Developing RAWs means working in the darkroom yourself instead of sending pics to be developed at some random store.
>>
File: unnamed.jpg (159 KB, 900x900)
159 KB
159 KB JPG
>>3796631
some further thoughts

- The lines between a "natural" edit and manipulation are very blurry. What is manipulation? Changing the white balance? Removing sensor dust from the image? Removing a person?
Even back in the film days, photos were often manipulated.

- Some people oppose "editing" because they want their photos to be "realistic". See above regarding firmware vs. you doing the edit.
But a photo can never be realistic, if it was, then looking at a picture of the sun would both warm your skin and damage your eyesight. It does neither.
And a film comparison again, Cross-Process completely fucks with your colors so they're obviously false, but it can look good so people did it. I don't see many people complaining about Cross-Processing being "unrealistic", it's obvious that it is.

- Sensor is unrealistic, the lens is unrealistic, the filter is unrealistic etc.

- If you like your SOOC colors, that's fine. I like some of my cam's presets more than what I can make in darktable too sometimes. Just be aware that JPEG is a very compressed and limiting format.

Looks like that's it! Got to go.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareGoogle
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
>>3796631
>>3796633
All that makes sense.
If your camera only does jpegs, what all are you losing as far as image data? Or I guess I'm asking limited how?
>>
>>3796647
A JPEG is lossily compressed, this means it loses information compared to the original. It does this by creating an approximation of the image aimed at looking like the original to a human viewer.
Lossy audio codecs like MP3, AAC, Opus etc. do the same thing with sounds, get it to sound close enough to the original with a fraction of the data. And the same goes for video codecs of course.

Some (especially newer) codecs are better than others at creating the same perceived quality with less data (or a higher quality with the same amount of data). This is why YouTube for example is testing AV1 now, it's more efficient than older ones like AVC/H.264 and VP9.

JPEG has held on so long because it's "good enough" (the enemy of "better") and images tend to be small in file size. But there are also interesting newer formats like AVIF which basically encodes an image as a single-frame AV1 video.

>If your camera only does jpegs, what all are you losing as far as image data?
You're losing the original image data. You can make JPEG's compression artifacts more visible by taking a good quality image and saving it as JPEG with quality set to 30 or so in an image editor.
Pic related is what happens when you save a JPEG over and over, the tiny errors accumulate until it's just noise. Had to compress it as a high-quality itself because of the 5MB size limit here lol

Apart from the lossy compression, there are two other problems:

- Your cam most likely uses chroma subsampling, this means that the colors are saved at a lower resolution than the brightness in the image to save data.

- JPEGs have 8 bit color, this means for every color channel (red, green, blue), there are 256 possible brightness steps. RAW files come in 12 bit (4096 steps per color) or even more.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
File: 1487995050333.jpg (340 KB, 1280x1280)
340 KB
340 KB JPG
>>3796688

>Or I guess I'm asking limited how?
Limited in how much visual information you can squeeze out of the image. One common case are shadows, when they're almost black you can hardly lighten them up without it looking terrible, but if you have the same image as a RAW, you can usually lighten them up by quite a bit with good quality.

And then there's the fact that cameras sometimes do some heavy-handed processing that you might not like, such as strong sharpening or denoising that loses detail.
>>
>>3796688
Your comparison is a little off

Raw data is a relative format, meaning it has no colour information until a raw editing program assigns them. This means the editing potential isn't limited by the file format but by the sensors performance.

Wav is uncompressed but still absolute, raw is more like getting all the original master tracks for a song and composing it yourself.

>>3796647
To put it simply, jpegs what you see is all the data you get, raw stores a lot of data you don't see in the preview; giving you much more flexibility in post.
>>
>>3796127
Well, film is all about buying into a lifestyle, being seen with film gear and telling everyone that you shoot film. The images don't matter.
>>
>>3796712
>Raw data is a relative format, meaning it has no colour information until a raw editing program assigns them.
You're right, my bad.
Maybe the equivalent to WAV would be something like 32 bit float TIFF.
>>
File: 1609956227442.jpg (38 KB, 801x814)
38 KB
38 KB JPG
I have fucked a couple of instathots I shot with and am scared of getting cancelled now.
>>
>>3786191
namefags are held to the quality of the content they post

tripcodes are fine if you are posting stuff that benefits from being attached to your identity. except with basically no exception it's just used to attract attention. there is never any use for a vanity trip
>>
I've got a couple sessions that I uploaded to my computer, but still haven't looked at them. i want to go take more pictures, but I should probably look at the past that I took.
>>
>>3796647
>what all are you losing as far as image data?
A lot. A RAW can be a thousand different photos since you have shitloads of room to edit the exposure and colors. A jpeg is a processed raw.
>>
>>3797715
Totally /x/ tier schizo question inbound.
So you know how there's legends of... stuff showing up on film that wasn't visibly present to the photographer?
Can a digital camera do that?
Does the process of the camera making a jpeg out of the raw harm that?
>>
>>3797027
good for you desu

i think you'll be fine as long as you weren't a douchebag about it.
>>
>>3796078
I started the Fuji worms thread and it's been a huge success, mostly thanks to one very dedicated hater.
>>
>>3797938
>Can a digital camera do that?
Yes, because you can recover details you weren't aware of.

>Does the process of the camera making a jpeg out of the raw harm that?
Yes, because a jpeg is just a crude approximation of the original information that looks good enough to a human. You can recover lots of detail from the shadows in a raw for example, but in a jpeg it will be blocky garbage mostly.
>>
File: wojak poster.jpg (307 KB, 1080x1331)
307 KB
307 KB JPG
>>3786188
>>
>>3797938
Light leaks, double exposure, poor exposure, high grain, developing abnormalities and intentional hoaxes all give the much increased chance of supernatural phenomena. Digital takes this out, so everything that looks like a ghost on digital are really ghosts.
>>
File: fuji XT5.jpg (34 KB, 250x176)
34 KB
34 KB JPG
i admit im really like my xt2 alot

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2018 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2021:01:15 06:20:56
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width250
Image Height176
>>
>>3795618
Let's go brisbane bro
>>
>>3795669
I love high contrast black and white





Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.