[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 / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/p/ - Photography

[Advertise on 4chan]


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: pepe think.jpg (46 KB, 339x280)
46 KB
46 KB JPG
Would painting the back of my camera's film door with vanta black make halations go away?
>>
No
>>
>>3875908
try it.
>>
why are you still using film cameras? grow the fuck up and use technology.
>>
File: 14308.jpg (1.2 MB, 2693x1794)
1.2 MB
1.2 MB JPG
What kind of camera do you think this was taken with?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution10 dpi
Vertical Resolution10 dpi
Image Created2010:09:20 12:01:15
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2693
Image Height1794
>>
>>3876082
The one you had with you.
>>
>>3876083
Damn it
>>
>>3875993
Film is awesome you whippersnapper!
>>
>>3876082
>>3876083
You ran head first into that one anon.
>>
>>3876088
These people are not to be talked to. They are to be murdered as an example to others.
>>
>>3876091
I get where dude is coming from though.
Digital has it's advantages. I enjoy both.
>>
>>3876092
>Digital has it's advantages.
understatement of the year
>>
>>3876082
clearly film grain why is this even a question?
>>
>>3876205
Because I don't know anything about photography and this is the stupid question thread
>>
>>3876082
The colors remind me of fuji color negatives (superia?) and the the compression looks like a 135mm f2 lens, so it might be shot on either canon or nikon 35mm film slr.
>>
>>3876213
Thank you anon. I do appreciate it.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution10 dpi
Vertical Resolution10 dpi
Image Created2010:09:20 12:08:56
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2555
Image Height1702
>>
>>3875908
Vanta black isn't paint, and you can't afford it.
>>
>>3876213
some sort of japanese stock for sure, given location and subject.
>>
Is it worth scrimping and buying cheaper manual lenses meant for old film cameras? I'm not a master of manual focus but you sure can get a lot more variety if you give up AF and stabilization. I don't want to gearfag too hard, but I figure picking up a few old manual lenses and learning with them may be beneficial.
>>
>>3876223
it’s provia he’s posted this before
>>
>>3877337
It's not that hard to focus manually.
People were doing it for decades and decades.
I'd say go for it.
>>
Do you need to meter differently for black people? I was shooting sunny 16 and my portraits of african fellows turned out way too dark.
>>
Where to start with lighting for basic portraits? WTB baby's first softbox
>>
>>3877402
you shouldn’t be using sunny 16 for portraits of any race on color negative you’ll be a stop underexposed at the least.
>>
Hey how do you physically get the camera to take multiple photos automatically?

I have a Canon 6D. I have a remote clicker and also the Canon utility iPhone app.

I want to set the camera to take multiple exposures I can later stack for astrophotography. Something like f 2.8, 3200 iso, 8 second exposures 10-20 times

Do I have to click the clicker 20 times or can I set it up to fire automatically and then chill out while it works

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS 6D
Camera SoftwareAdobe Lightroom 6.2.2 (iOS)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2021:05:05 14:17:24
Exposure Time8 sec
F-Numberf/2.2
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating1000
Lens Aperturef/2.2
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length50.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width3648
Image Height5472
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
File: Untitled-1.jpg (156 KB, 463x535)
156 KB
156 KB JPG
Meh I hate asking shit like this but fuck it. How was this achieved? Is it a silver small magnum reflector?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 22.3 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2021:05:05 20:46:38
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width463
Image Height535
>>
>>3877402
You unironically do.
Darker skin people is just like shooting into shadows or whatever.
You gotta expose a bit on the extra side for darker skin, but of course the rest of the environment is just what it is, so you gotta take that into account too.
Like I'm really not making a /pol/ tier argument here. This is just basic light theory. If you're a photographer you have to be sober and real about exactly what you're bouncing photons off of.
>>
>>3877704
Photography is racist! Film was made so white people are exposed correctly.
>there are people who really believe this
>>
>>3877706
Yea, it's a weird place to be in where people will screetch that that's racism or whatever.
That seems silly to me, it's just a physical fucking fact of reality that surfaces of different colors reflect different types and amounts of lights.
>>
tl;dr meter for the darkest part of the shadow in frame.
You'll probably blow out the sky, but so what?
>>
>>3877402
>Do you need to meter differently for black people?
Meter on their faces and stop down half to a stop. Or don't stop down at all if you wanna play safe, and there's not too much contrast in the scene.
>>
Been avoiding off camera flash/speedlights because I thought it would be daunting but now I want to embrace the learning curve in hopes to take portraits that won't simply depend on good natural light on a given day.

I have an idea for a cheapo speedlight, and softbox for beginner learning and before pulling the trigger, I want to ask what should I keep in mind when using a flash? More so in laymans terms what are modes such as TTL mean?
>>
>>3875993
This. Filmfags BTFO
>>
File: DSC08653-1.jpg (1 MB, 2000x2000)
1 MB
1 MB JPG
Does 4chan change the color profiles on images..?
I'm seeing my images way differently, only on 4chan.
Testimage.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-6300
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 22.3 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.7
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)37 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2021:04:23 21:08:05
Exposure Time1/160 sec
F-Numberf/7.1
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating200
Lens Aperturef/7.1
Brightness6.9 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length25.00 mm
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width2000
Image Height2000
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>3878815
What the god damn fuck. When I post on /g/ it has an entirely different gamma. The thumbnail on this one is different, but when I open it in a new tab, it's correct to my local file.
>>
File: 1614124516629.jpg (676 KB, 1512x1002)
676 KB
676 KB JPG
>>3877709
for real, it happens.
>>
>>3878815
You should be exporting photos with sRGB color. Anything else will not display properly on the internet.
>>
>>3878843
That's what I'm doing. Forced srgb in chrome as well. Monitors in srgb and calibrated.
Or has an update fucked me over again in PS?
>>
File: 1590607985336.jpg (241 KB, 1676x1474)
241 KB
241 KB JPG
>>3878852
Your photo has Adobe RGB embedded in it. You're definitely not exporting to sRGB properly.
>>
>>3877337
PENTAX
In body stabilisation

Pick up Bargins for a few pounds, often attached to grandads film camera, as fuckwits don't get the concept of changing lenses.

Got a 135mm prime for a fiver and I'm loving it.
>>
>>3878854
God fucking damn it.
It's the fucking ACR editor that wasn't set to srgb..
>>
>>3877706
I think the complaint is that they don't understand the auto settings.
It never occurs that the full auto seems to work fine for darker skinned SEA people as well as the paler people.
I mean Nikon, Kwanon & Pentaxsu are all Japanese, so any complaints should be directed their way.
>>
I still dont understand when to change aperture. Sometimes a person or part of an object just a little bit further away from the main focus is already less sharp and i want both to be in focus. But i never know how much to add and sometimes i accidently ruin the bokeh.
>>
>>3878882
Just practice. You can always take multiple shots with varying apertures and pick which one you like most when you're done.
>>
>>3878945
Thats true.
I often forget about taking several pics.
>>
How exactly does the camera go from me taking a picture to displaying it? Like how exactly does "taking a photo" work?
>>
>>3878882
You must into zone focusing.
>>
File: gondola fandom.gif (74 KB, 610x667)
74 KB
74 KB GIF
>>3877706
>>3877709
No one's denying that different skin tones reflect light differently. The argument is that color films were balanced and optimised for white skin, meaning non-white (light or dark) don't look as good as they would if the filmstock was designed more sympathetically for other skins.

So in that sense, film literally is racist because it treats white skin better than non-white skin.
>>
File: 1454857698159.jpg (16 KB, 275x206)
16 KB
16 KB JPG
Is there any free, ideally open-source software that could upscale a photo slightly? Not looking for x4, x2 is enough. I have a bunch of old photos I downloaded off my FB account before deleting it, and the images are pretty fucking low quality.
>>
>>3879170
>Skin with mainly high contrast mid tones looks better than skin with mainly low contrast dark tones when recorded on a medium that struggles with contrast in dark tones. Therefore Kodak are racists.

The brain on this lad. Staggering.
>>
>>3875908
You could try one of the things on show here https://petapixel.com/2021/04/27/photographer-uses-worlds-blackest-material-as-a-backdrop/

I don't know that much about filmstock so I don't know how much more absorbent stuff behind the film's own anti-halation layer helps.
>>
I printed some pics and the printing machine somehow cut off part of some of the images despite the ratio being supported by the machine (somehow it didnt happen with all pics)
Now i wonder what kind of sick fuck is ok with having a part of the composition removed in the first place?
>>
Should I use shutter or aperture mode for street?
>>
>>3879224
dunno what your setup is but you probably want to use aperture priority so you can stop down and zone focus
>>
>>3879072
There are a lot of levels of complexity to this answer. There's a rough overview of how digital sensors work here: https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-sensors.htm
Of course film is totally different.
If you want to go to the extreme end of detail, pick up a copy of https://smile.amazon.com/Manual-Photography-Digital-Imaging-ebook/dp/B00ABLRLGY.
>>
>>3879222
Crazy people. I had a lab do this to me once. I had them reprint without cropping my photos.

>>3879224
If you're in aperture priority, see if you can change the aperture priority minimum shutter speed setting. For moving people at a distance, you really don't want to be slower than 1/125, and if people are close and moving, you might need even faster to freeze motion. But you also don't want to go total shutter priority, beacuse depth of field control is important to your vision of how you want to capture the scene. If you're OK with motion blur, then it doesn't matter. I would just shoot in manual - set the shutter speed and aperture and let the ISO auto adjust.
>>
Why are my fotos so dark or have a blue hue when printed?
Using canon.
>>
>>3879306
You're not doing cymk right.
>>
if dirt specs vary with focus, is it safe to say that it's dirt on/inside the lens or filter and not on the sensor? I never take off my lens other than cleaning the sensor and I wonder why I still get dirt specs sometimes.
>>
>>3879367
If they are especially apparent at small apertures and close focus, it's probably on/in the lens.
But if dirt is on the sensor, you might also see a difference depending on your aperture/focus setting. A lot of detail in the scene can mask sensor dirt. But it might show up especially in out of focus areas, like the background in a portrait.
Maybe take pictures of a white piece of paper (well lit) at different apertures and focus settings. If it's on the sensor or the back of the lens, you should hardly see a difference between the shots. If it's inside the lens or on the front glass it should get more noticable when you close your aperture further.
>>
>>3879224
Probably aperture priority during the day. If you're dealing with moving subjects you want a somewhat large focus zone.
Also, if you go shutter priority and your aperture varies from shot to shot, the difference in depth of field might make your work look inconsistent. I mean, if you're working on a project rather than just hunting for single shots.
>>
>>3879177
well.... waifu2x is the only one I know, and that doesn't work well on photos at all.
dunno if it's FOSS either
>>
>>3879377
thanks I'll try that
>>
>>3879363
Idk
>>
>>3879224
Shutter. It gives you consistent motion blur.
>>
>>3877699
probably a fresnel
>>
>>3875908
>painting the back of my camera's film door with vanta black
You can’t actually paint with vantablack—it’s not like a goop you spread on; there’s this whole process they need to go through to bind it to a material.
>>
>>3879224
>Should I use shutter or aperture mode for street?
Personally, I actually use manual mode for setting my aperture and shutter speed, but then let the camera float my ISO.

You need to set your aperture manually so you can zone focus and not have to wait for an autofocus system. You need to set your shutter manually so it’s fast enough to get a sharp shot. So, I dial both of those in manually and let my camera decide on an ISO for me
>>
>>3879180
This is an extremely reductive way of looking at the issue, but I’d wager everyone on here is way too dug in on their opinion to understand the nuance to it.
>>
>>3879431
The nuance is: The world is a place of, at times, extreme visual contrasts. Film companies have been working on maximizing the dynamic range of their products since the dawn of photography. There is a limit to what's possible, though, and the only way to lighten the darker areas in the frame once you've hit that limit is to expose your film/sensor to more light. Which will blow out the highlights. Because you either expose the entire frame, or nothing at all.
>>
>>3879170
it's made to depict the world as best as it can you dunce.
try taking a photo of a few bushes on a sunny day. expose it perfectly, so that every area retains detail. put a white person in the frame, they're gonna look okay wihtout you having to adjust the exposure because their skin doesn't contrast too much with the environment film is optimized for. put a black person in the frame, they're gonna be underexposed.
>>
>>3879367
>>3879377
He's not right. If it's on the sensor, you'll see it when you stop down and take a picture of a white wall or paper. You can also take a picture of a clear sky with your lens focused at maximum closeness and your aperture stopped down. I don't know where "if it's on the sensor or the back of the lens, you should hardly see a difference between the shots" comes from, but it's not true.
>>
>>3879468
>He's not right. If it's on the sensor, you'll see it when you stop down and take a picture of a white wall or paper.

It'll look the same if it's in the lens. Only way to be sure if by changing the lens for a different one. If spots stay, it's on sensor.
>>
>>3879438
Nah, the nuance is that if you take photos of black people today, you just raise the shadows to bring the skin tones up to the midrange, the unedited raw is still just as racist. Digital has much, much less latitude than film.

Flashes up close are a great way to shoot black people though, so you can reduce the DR across the frame.
>>
File: spot.jpg (390 KB, 1914x1772)
390 KB
390 KB JPG
>>3879468
>>3879483
so I just cleaned my sensor with a swab and the cleaner that came with them, I wiped across the sensor twice per side of the swab and I still get these spots (from top mid to bottom mid in the picture) which are more or less visible depending on aperture. should I just clean it again? the sensor looked spotless to me.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-7M2
Camera SoftwareRawTherapee 5.8
Maximum Lens Aperturef/3.5
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)28 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width1914
Image Height1772
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2021:05:09 10:36:07
Exposure Time1/20 sec
F-Numberf/22.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating50
Brightness9.2 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length28.00 mm
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>3879665
Cleaning a sensor without a sensor loupe is a complete crapshoot and will never get good results.

Get the right tools for the job and you'll be fine.
>>
>>3879667
so let's say you find a spot, how do you get it off if the swab didn't get it?
>>
>>3879672
With enough cleaning fluid and swabbing, it will go.

What usually happens if you try and clean a sensor blind is that the cleaning fluid is enough to unstick the debris, but then you're just moving it around the sensor and when the fluid evaporates it gets stuck down again, you need to move it to the edge so the swab grabs it instead of the surface tension from the glass. Cleaning a sensor is more like carefully sweeping a yard than wiping a whiteboard clean.

And you're not actually cleaning the sensor, you're cleaning the cover glass, it's job is to be hard wearing, you don't need to be ultra delicate, keep rubbing at stubborn bits until they go.
>>
>>3879675
ok thanks.
>>
>>3875908
an actually good question, if they make it durable enough for rubbing against film stock in theory it would be very good at preventing bounce back. most c41 have very good anti-halation tech anyways so its kinda useless.

>>3876082
>off magenta highlights
>visible halation
>non existent grain
>cold w/b

provia/velvia
>>
>>3879675
>Cleaning a sensor is more like carefully sweeping a yard than wiping a whiteboard clean.
great analogy.
>>
File: dirt.jpg (1.03 MB, 3041x2030)
1.03 MB
1.03 MB JPG
I don't know, I've been trying to clean my sensor for hours now, using 10 swabs with or without cleaner and I always end up with at least 5 tiny spots somewhere, if anything I made it worse. I guess I'll try it again with a blower and different swabs next week.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-7M2
Camera SoftwareRawTherapee 5.8
Maximum Lens Aperturef/5.6
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)61 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width3041
Image Height2030
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2021:05:09 13:52:48
Exposure Time1/5 sec
F-Numberf/32.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating80
Brightness8.8 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length61.00 mm
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>3879726
Read the words i fucking wrote you cock gargling moron.

you're not going to achieve anything without a sensor loupe, i recommend the lenspen one as it sits solidly in the mount, has adjustable focus and a gap so you can reach in to clean and view at the same time.

All you're doing right now is wasting money on swabs, and leaving residue over everything in your camera.
>>
>>3879438
>>3879621
No, the nuance is that the tones produced by film back in the day were calibrated specifically around Asian and Western European skin tones. They just didn’t make any effort whatsoever to render shades of brown properly, to the point that they actually used a sample image of just a white women for things like calibrating the color filters on optical enlargers. Dynamic range was an issue when taking pictures of black people too, sure, but that’s not the issue that anyone’s pointing to as systemic racism.

And no ones saying that Kodak chemists were going “let’s make it so our film works worse on those apes, then we’ll go laugh about it at the Rochester Klan meeting tonight”. We’re just saying that they didn’t think about black skin tones at all until the 80s or so. Same reason why “flesh tone” is so often synonymous with pink. It’s not people actively hating black people, it’s people just not thinking about black people, and there not being enough diversity inside the companies for there to be a black executive to go “hey guys, everyone in my family looks like shit on our film, even when you bump up the exposure. Maybe work on that?”
>>
>>3879729
the dirt isn't stuck there, it's in different places every time I give it a final wipe so how would what you're suggesting help at all?
>>
for cleaning ML always turn off the sensor to remove the finest dust, even if that means that the stabilisiation is unlocked, otherwise the static charge will always immediately attract dust again. I also put my camera in a fresh trash bag whenever I take it apart. The static charge of the bag when you open it up helps a lot to prevent dust from even getting inside your camera.
>>
>>3879726
I wouldn't bother with those unless they're visible at usable apertures f11 to f8. They won't effect your image quality.
>>
>>3877402
>Do you need to meter differently for black people? I was shooting sunny 16 and my portraits of african fellows turned out way too dark.
Watch this video then try again
https://youtu.be/c3nq6qOBF-0
>>
File: smirk.jpg (545 KB, 2304x3456)
545 KB
545 KB JPG
Why does the user manual says that I must retire the lense cap BEFORE turning on the camera. What could happen if I let the lens cap on when the camera is ON?
>>
Should I shoot raw+jpeg?
>>
>>3880588
thats a man
>>
>>3880624
it depends. shoot raw if you need the utmost editing flexibility (recovering shadows, highlights, dynamic range, retaining IQ in higher iso, etc). shoot jpeg if you want the effect straight from camera, smaller file size, faster transfer, but less flexibility when editing. if you need both, it's fine.
>>
>>3880624
Shoot in RAW, pirate Adobe Lightroom
Just importing to lightroom and clicking the AUTO option will give you far better results than your onboard camera JPEG exports.
>>
>>3880631
Don't care.
>>
>>3879746
Ok, show me a film photo that is exposed for dark skin that shows these issues you imply.

It's crazy how no-one ever said "these black people on the fresh price of bel-air, shot on film, seem to have dodgy skin tones" eh?
>>
File: carlton.jpg (105 KB, 854x1200)
105 KB
105 KB JPG
>>3880741
I don't know, Carlton looks good to me
>>
>>3880774
Poc often come out looking spectacular on film, thanks to their super saturated tones and much larger contrast range with the right lighting.
It's literally just boomer racist losers that whine about this shit.
>>
>>3880788
>"racist losers"
>uses the term "poc"
You are not only a retard, you will also never be white
>>
>>3876088
You will use a digital camera whether you want to or not, to scan your film.
>>
>>3880815
>Never be white
Shit, how come I've got pale skin and green eyes then? Or are you just implying that being a racist bigot is an integral part of being white?

Your post said a lot more about you than it did me, champ.
>>
>>3880815
>I’m a racist loser
>>
File: 16uuqcp61aiz.jpg (30 KB, 790x503)
30 KB
30 KB JPG
Legit noob question here: If I store a camera upside down on my backpack, could it be somehow damaged?
>>
>>3880741
>It's crazy how no-one ever said "these black people on the fresh price of bel-air, shot on film, seem to have dodgy skin tones" eh?
The fact that you’re referencing a show from the 90s (after Kodak had finally gotten around to putting significant effort into making their film stocks render black skin tones better) shows you really don’t know enough about the subject to be arguing about it.

That, plus the fact that I’m pretty sure fresh prince, like most multi-cam sitcoms of its era, was done on video rather than film.

But in any case, yes, you could get decent quality shots of dark skin on older film stocks if you had an entire movie or tv show’s lighting budget and a trained cinematographer. Meanwhile, white people looked fine most of the time shot with a point & shoot under whatever light was around.

This video has some more explanation of it, including example pics from before they started formulating emulsions with brown skin in mind:
https://youtu.be/d16LNHIEJzs
>>
>>3880852
Yes the image dyes might leak out
>>
>>3880860
How can I be sure the camera doesn't turns inside my backpack?
>>
Does the large lens mount on Nikon cameras mean that the images are actually a crop of the full image circle?
>>
>>3880861
He's fucking with you. No, there's not really any way that the camera being upside down would damage it, other than stuff like it being upside down right on a pointy hard thing that'll break the lens.

>>3880862
>Does the large lens mount on Nikon cameras mean that the images are actually a crop of the full image circle?
The large lens mount doesn't mean that, but with *very* few exceptions, images on every camera system are a crop of the full image circle. If for no other reason, making a rectangle fit inside of a circle cuts off a bunch of the circle.

But the size of the lens mount doesn't significantly affect the size of the image circle. There are even some camera systems where the lens mount is a little bit smaller than the image circle (e.g., the Sony FE mount) and they work just fine.
>>
>>3880874

Doesn't the Sony FE mount work like a aperture? And because the lens mount is so small everything will be more in focus on a Sony camera.
>>
>>3880880
>Doesn't the Sony FE mount work like a aperture?
Nope.
> And because the lens mount is so small everything will be more in focus on a Sony camera.
Nope.

Anyone who told you either of those things is either trolling you or a halfwit.
>>
has anyone shot corporate team photos before?

been offered a gig taking photos of a construction companies team in their offices + a few separate shots of the 2 owners, any tips?

my background is mostly fashion so I'm used to taking photos of people, though usually only 1 or 2 at a time and usually in a studio or specific area, not really indoor office.
>>
>>3877687
intervalometer
>>
>>3881035
Do the same as fashion but with environmental props (desktop, office space, etc) and use a wider focal length for the team shots like a 50mm or maybe a fast 35mm.
>>
>>3880852
No, but all your images my come out upside-down

Happens all the time in Australia
>>
>>3880874
Thank you anon!
>>
>>3881038
I use a 22mm equivalent (45mm on 6x7) for half of my fashion stuff, and never go shorter than 50mm

this would be shot digitally though and I have a 24-70mm that I'll use

I really like things like pic related for the owners shots though, much more easy to make look cool, it's the team shots that are going to be the struggle
>>
>>3881057
that's so good I can't believe someone on /p/ee shot it.

congrats anon! nice use of a super wide lens to an environmental portrait
>>
>>3881065
oh nah sorry that's not my shot just one that I included in my client brief as an example of what we can aim to replicate!

pic related was also in the brief for the team shots, best I could find that didn't look like 5 people standing against a wall

I can post a super wide angle fashion shot that I've taken if you like
>>
What size tripod do I need for hiking/birdwatching?
I havent gone out yet, but I have a bad neck and cant carry a ton of weight on my back.

Is there a good way to carry a tripod on your waist?
I have a fotopro Xgo Max and a manfrotto compact action already, but I dont know if I really want to carry them around on a hiking trail.
>>
>wondered why i'm getting heaps of noise
>didn't realise zooming in causes it
If that's the case should I sell my RX100 for a compact prime of some sort? I hate noise in my stuff
>>
File: multiply-blend-before.jpg (22 KB, 450x300)
22 KB
22 KB JPG
>>3880857
>No not those black people on that film stock, other black people, here look at this 4 minute video that only managed to find a single snapshot that's clearly already underexposed that made black people too dark!

Of course, white people don't lose detail when overexposed, right anon? Pic related, looks fine to me.

>White people look fine in whatever light
As long as they're not too white... Much like Ashy black people look fine, because here's the shocking bit, mid tones are always going to be the easiest to resolve detail from.

Hell, in very early film and photo, white people would wear very dark contouring makeup so the cameras could make out the basic shapes of the face, if they were just a bit black and used bright lighting, they would render just fine without makeup.

Your eagerness to follow this half baked idea shows how little you know about photography and exposure.
>>
File: wood.jpg (951 KB, 605x3280)
951 KB
951 KB JPG
how to get the whole piece of wood sharp?Is this because i tilted my camera a bit?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS M6 Mark II
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2021:04:22 15:28:25
Exposure Time1/160 sec
F-Numberf/4.5
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/4.6
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length32.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width6960
Image Height4640
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>3881161
>>No not those black people on that film stock, other black people
Again, you're too dug in on your opinion to be swayed by any sort of evidence or outside research. But maybe tonight, while you're replaying this argument in your head and thinking about how you totally owned me and my dumb liberal communist sjw cuck opinions, maybe for a second take a moment to watch a few minutes of The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air--lots of clips are available on youtube--and really give it a good hard look and ask yourself "Was this shot on film at all? Was my argument entirely idiotic?"
>>
I know absolutely nothing about photography, but after seeing a review for the galaxy note s20 plus camerq, and just how much the software locks control away from the user, I realized I need to learn about the field to make a counscioua decision. Where do I start? There are 300 ways and reasons why and how I want to take photos, not sure if that's important.
>>
>>3881201
dont confuse gear with the art of photography.
you can start photography already with the piece of shit in your pocket.
having the finest gear on the planet won't do shit to help you with composition, time, moment, etc.
>>
>>3881205
Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that I want to learn about both. The equipment does influence the result after all right?
>>
>>3880818
Not if I print with an enlarger.
>>
>>3881181
It could very well be a result of the tilt.
Photographing a flat surface with the focal plane not square with the subject could result in some of the subject not being in focus, depending on distance from the subject and depth of field.
>>
File: Alice01a.jpg (91 KB, 380x494)
91 KB
91 KB JPG
>>3881069
There are devices for carrying equipment attached to a waist belt with the load distributed across the shoulders.
For example, the All-purpose Lightweight Individual Carrying Equipment.
These older military designs can be had for cheap in surplus stores, and even cheaper if you're okay with Chinese knock-offs.
It would take a little bit of DIY'ing to re-purpose it for photographic equipment, but not much.
>>
>>3881218
Any idea how to properly align them?I checked other pics of flat surfaces and the same happened.
>>
>>3881310
Are you sure the camera is square?
From what I've seen people tend to hold their camera basically the same way every time, so you think you're square and, you are, according to your proprioception.
What I mean is, in the image you posted, the top looks sharper than the middle and the bottom is the part that's obviously blurred.
Have you tried just making a conscious effort to cock your camera bit over the other way?
>>
I want to start doing photography once again.

Can any of you anons give me an (out of the comfort zone) photography project with a dead line as my abstract teacher?

Thank you, anon-sama.
>>
>>3881364
If you want a real rabbit hole, Trees: Their lifecycle, seasonally, and over years, their behaviors, their physiology, their communications, their symbioses, etc.
>>
>>3881331
I thought it was square but it clearly wasnt hence the blur. I already use a grid so i can align easier if there are visual reference points.I wonder if f/16 will make everything sharp regardless.
>>
>>3881398

Your lens could be decentered. You should check it by doing some test shots.
>>
I want to start a little photo project about Chinese food restaurants, there are tons of Chinese food restaurants and Asian stores near me. Does this sound retarded?
>>
>>3880724
Right on, me either.
>>
>>3875908
Found a good offer for a T5i with like 4 lenses and a lot more stuff, should I take the shot and buy it or try and get a t6i? It'd be my first camera, I'm interested in using it to shoot video
Are they that different or is it only the wi-fi thing? Searching on ytb the t6i footage looks a lot better, dunno if it's actually the camera that's making the difference
>>
>>3881416
Maybe you can focus on a specific aspect like this guy did:
https://www.benjaminli.nl/menu/works/Nr_39_with_Rice.html
>>
>>3881189
>No, not those video cameras, these video cameras, which were tuned for better representing black people, even though ccd cameras had worse colour depth and dynamic range than film!

Go on, move the goalposts again!
>>
>>3881426
Both are very limited for video use. 1080p 30p is really on the low end. On budget filming is Panasonic's domain. You can get 4k with decent bit rates with g7 and g85 models.
>>
>>3881553
455 usd budget, man. At least where I live, these panasonic are more than I can afford
>>
>>3875908
I got one of those chink 420-800mm telephotos. The t2 to body adapter adds 50mm, it's on an APS-C sensor.

Is there a way to calculate it's actual distance with it fully extended to "800".
Its not great but I've been having fun with it. I was looking way up into gigantic trees and I'm just wondering how far away you can see.

I'm just a retard and don't understand enough to figure it out
>>
Think I can do chest mounted FPV with an rx100m3 well enough? 24mm eqivalent FOV, image stabilization
>>
What are and how do I use "true stops"?
>>
>>3881776
Why not use a gopro instead?
>>
>>3881776
It's going to look really bouncy when you're fucking that girl, even with stabilization. There's just too much hip movement during porn. You need to have another guy with a stabilized mount basically wrapped around your naked body so he can handle the camera work while you handle the cock work.
>>
>>3881865
Fstop is the mathematical light transmission, Tstop accounts for real world lenses not being 100 percent efficient. Metering through the lens you won't have to worry about it, but it's useful for matching between cameras and/or using a light meter
>>
File: windowsxp.jpg (14 KB, 500x400)
14 KB
14 KB JPG
If I want to take pictures from an object very far (a plane flying) what aperture focus do I need to set up? I was on 5.6 (the lowest I could when zooming in).
>>
>>3882065
The middle of the aperture range is usually the sharpest, but it doesn't really affect shooting something in the distance. The brightness of an object as it's captured in an image doesn't change with how far it is from the camera.
>>
Should I switch to Olympus as of right now? If I wait with switching to Olympus it may not be possible because they are going out of business.
>>
File: 1589925522020.jpg (8 KB, 250x250)
8 KB
8 KB JPG
Newbie here, wat is a rangefinder? is it different from a P&S?
>>
>>3882138

There aren't many options if you are interested in a rangefinder. The only true rangefinder is the Fuji X100V. The Fuji X100V has an x-trans sensor which performs like a medium format camera in low light because of the unique 6 by 6 pattern of photosites.
>>
>>3877337
takes 5 second to learn manual focus bro. Turn le knob
>>
>>3882138
There aren't any digital rangefinders.

A rangefinder uses a non through the lens viewfinder, with a rangefinder patch in the middle that shifts left and right as you focus, when the patch lines up with its surroundings, you should be in focus.

It's crap for actually framing images, it's crap for focusing accurately, the only advantage it had over SLR cameras was a shorter flange distance and smaller body; something mirrorless digital cameras managed years ago.

Fuji and Leica both make fake rangefinders, with a crappy little window and a small digital screen to emulate the rangefinder patch, it's the worst of all worlds.

Fujis RF style cameras are known for having the worst electronic viewfinders on the market, but look how much more usable it is than the "rangefinder" window, which despite the tiny lens on the x100, still blocks 1\4 of the frame, imagine how bad that gets with a larger lens https://youtu.be/H6a7_NNP-t8
>>
File: LEICA_M9_FINDER.jpg (67 KB, 700x469)
67 KB
67 KB JPG
>>3882138
A rangefinder uses two overlaid images to determine the range to the subject.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width797
Image Height534
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2017:03:30 17:33:28
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width700
Image Height469
>>
File: 552423522.jpg (165 KB, 1287x860)
165 KB
165 KB JPG
What is this problem called and how do I prevent it from happening again?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
PhotographerDerick(ADM)
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
>>3882991

bit rot
it's caused by failures in a storage device
you prevent it by having multiple back ups and by using high quality storage devices
>>
Is high aperture useful to counter windowreflections if you want to take a pic if something behind the window?
>>
>>3883149
You will be wanting a circular polarizer filter for that.
>>
File: 81l6xdQOHyL._AC_SL1500_.jpg (141 KB, 1473x1398)
141 KB
141 KB JPG
Hello guys, I have a Canon PowerShot (bridge camera). Is it possible to turn the flash ON while recording?
>>
>>3881181
You might not be perfectly parallel with the wood, or it might just be the edges of the lens not performing as well. Is that the entire width/height of the image? You could try closing the aperture down a couple of stops which would help with both problems.
>>
>>3883170
You mean while recording video? No. All flashes are designed to fire for a very brief moment like 1/10000s so it wouldn't even last one frame of video.
>>
>>3883174

It's because the lens is decentered. The lens should be returned to the seller because it is a defect.
>>
File: wood2.jpg (1.15 MB, 681x3276)
1.15 MB
1.15 MB JPG
>>3883174
i went back again and tried to get it more square this time

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS M6 Mark II
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2021:05:16 18:42:32
Exposure Time1/160 sec
F-Numberf/4.5
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating125
Lens Aperturef/4.6
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length32.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width6960
Image Height4640
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>3883192

This looks ok.
>>
>>3883177
>All flashes are designed to fire for a very brief moment
Not *all* flashes, but certainly the one built into a DSLR.

He’s probably asking because cellphones and such have LED “flashes” that are really just a continuous light source. There are external flashes like that which you can get for a DSLR, too, but it’s not the default.
>>
>>3883193
made me realize how much i tilted my camera
>>
>>3883033
I should have never trusted SanDisk.
>>
>>3883212
It's your camera writing the data wrong, just ask Eggy
>>
>>3883177
>>3883194
Is there a reason why the flash on cameras can't be used as a torch like the smartphones?
>>
>look at pics from ancient dslr
>Sharp at 1/15 to 1/60
>Take pics with recent mirrorless
>Constant motion blur at 1/100 or below
Do i have early parkinsons?Is it the image stabilisation in the lens?Is it the different weight of the cameras?
>>
>>3883276
A camera flash like that takes a lot of current over a very short amount of time.
It doesn't draw strait from the battery. There's a capacitor that gets charged, and that gets dumped to fire the bulb. It takes a couple seconds to charge up that cap.
>>
How do I learn to edit photos when I don't know when they need to be edited in the first place? I can't look for tutorials if I don't know what I'm searching for.
>>
>>3883631
Might just be that the modern camera has higher resolution, so the slight bit of motion blur is more noticeable. How ancient is the DSLR and how recent is the mirrorless?

Might also be that the mirrorless is lighter, so its mass doesn't fight against changes in momentum as much. Or alternately, yeah, the in-lens image stabilization might be better than the in-body stabilization of the mirrorless, but we'd have to know what lenses and cameras you're talking about first.
>>
>>3883276
>Is there a reason why the flash on cameras can't be used as a torch like the smartphones?
Because the two types of light are entirely different technologies. A flash is a little tube of (usually) Xenon gas that gets bright as shit when you dump a shitload of electricity in it. If you let it stay that bright for more than a fraction of a second, though, it would explode and/or melt through the casing. Sometimes you can get a cheaper flash to do that just by firing it a bunch too fast, in fact.

Conversely, the flash on your phone is just an LED--a light emitting diode--which are designed to put out continuous light. They don't put out nearly as bright a light as an actual flash, but they can do it for basically as long as your battery lasts no problem.

You can light up an entire room with a real flash. You can light up a few feet in front of the cellphone with the light on your cellphone.
>>
Anyone have that elements of design/composition cap?
>>
File: Nihon-Seiki-Ranger-35.jpg (22 KB, 400x441)
22 KB
22 KB JPG
HOW DO I USE A FUCKING RANGEFINDER FFS THE VIEWFINDER DOES LITERALLY FUCKING NOTHING WHAT IS EVEN GOING ON
>>
>>3879746
Bro, you're kinda dumb. The biggest problem with shooting black people on film is that their skin can absorb around 30% more light than white/asian skin. The tones render just fine. The races you got wonky skin tones for were Indian (dot and feather) as well as Asian (east Asian/Oriental). This had jack shit to do with racism and everything to do with where the primary markets were and who the dominant people in those markets were. Asians, incidentally, got sorted quickly when the likes of Fuji got into the game.
>>
>>3884081
In the middle of the view there should be a little square of a slightly different color.
Ok, so you point that little square at something with a hard/sharp vertical edge, then you twist the lens for focus and you'll see there's a wee little double-image like if you crossed your eyes.
You line those up into one image and then you're focused at that range.
>>
>>3884081
Wait, I just now opened the thumbnail.
That's not a rangefinder.
That viewfinder literally DOES do nothing.
>>
is there a better app for Android to use in order to browse my Instagram feed? I usually search hashtags look for new accounts and like a whole bunch of photos if i see an account that i like
>>
>>3884081
That awkward moment when you think you're buying a Nikon rangefinder but you're actually buying a Nihon Ranger.
>>
>>3884111
SO WHAT THE FUCK IS IT
JUST A CAMERA WITH AN EYE HOLE
WHAT DO THEY EVEN CALL THAT
CAMERA
LIKE WHAT

It's actually lovely to shoot with. Should have the roll done by tonight.
>>
>>3884452
It does look like a comfy little camera.
>>
>>3884081
holy shit lmao
>>
>>3884452
yea that's a viewfinder camera it's zone focus only you crazy dillhole
>>
>>3884475
>>3884494
>>3884495
I'm dumb as fuck. Often. I do have some actual rangefinders coming. So I'll be sure to ask more dumbfuck questions when they arrive. <3
Also, I had to watch a video about all those funny markings on my lenses, too. Honestly never had any single clue why they existed. Come to find out: for a very good reason lol.
>>
>>3884497
I'm a big fan of rangefinders. They're great.
It's true that they might not be quite as precise as an SLR would be, but for me that's part of the fun.
>>
How to achieve this effect in my landscape/nature photos? Can I do something similar with a 50mm lens + APS-C camera?

Photo taken from here:
https://mare.photo/en/what-lenses-and-focal-lengths-are-best-for-travel-and-landscape-photography/

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeLEICA CAMERA AG
Camera ModelLEICA SL (Typ 601)
Camera Software3.70
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)28 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2020:06:13 13:52:56
Exposure Time1/30 sec
F-Numberf/3.4
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating50
Exposure Bias0.6 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length28.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width800
Image Height533
RenderingNormal
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationLow
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>3884515
Look for film presets, they should look pretty close.
>>
I remember seeing a photo of an ancient walled city. It was square shaped. I thought it was babylon but nah.
Can someone tell me? It looked so beautiful. I am putting different words into google search and haven't seen anything yet.
>>
>>3884532
Hong Kong walled city? Not ancient, though.
>>
>>3884537
>Hong Kong walled city
Nah, I think it was in the middle east, which is why at first I thought it was babylon.
The place looked like a desert. There was a guy walking up to it. I think it was a little elevated.
>>
>>3884537
>>3884540
Okay, found it.
Ur, Sumeria
>>
>>3875908
Can I turn my camera's color presets into a LUT for use in image editors?
>>
I buying a 5DSR from the grey market reliable? the price difference is more than 50%.
>>
>>3884660
price is lower because you get no warranty covfefe
>>
>>3884022
Dslr is from 2008 and the mirrorless from 2019. Weight difference is 100 grams but the dslr is way bigger.
>>
>>3884530
Thanks for replying, but I mostly meant how to replicate the lighting in that photo.
>>
>>3885066
wait until the light is right and/or find good light
>>
Buying a new body... currently have a POS Nikon d3300

I think I wanna stick to APC-C for bird shots but I NEED an AF motor in-body.

The D5600 has one right?

Or am I being a tard and should buy something FF?
>>
>>3885121
>The D5600 has one right?
No it doesn't. Get a D7200 or a D500. D7500 is crippled for differentiation so it doesn't have an aperture feeler and will work in a less than optimal way with most lenses.
>Or am I being a tard and should buy something FF?
You may not need one. You probably have a bunch of DX lenses already.
>>
>>3885066
It looks like the shadows from the trees play a big part there, but looking at the background, it might also be partly cloudy with some of those big thicc clouds sweeping large shadows across the landscape.
For that you'd mostly just be looking at finding the right environmental lighting conditions.
Mid-day-ish with sporadic thicc clouds and a bit of luck for something like this would be my guess.
Then of course there's the exposure. There's not really any way to get a shot like that without at least partially blowing out the brightest bits, otherwise the more interesting stuff in the darker areas would be too dark so I guess you'd have to plan ahead for the blow-out.
>>
File: IMG_0096.jpg (1023 KB, 2000x1333)
1023 KB
1023 KB JPG
Uninspired subject matter aside, most of my attempts at wide-angle landscape shots look a bunch of soft-focused and fringed dogshit on a technical level. Am I doing something wrong or is this just what the Canon kit lens be like?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS 70D
Camera SoftwareDigital Photo Professional
Lens Size18.00 - 55.00 mm
Firmware VersionFirmware Version 1.1.3
Lens NameEF-S18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution350 dpi
Vertical Resolution350 dpi
Image Created2021:05:19 16:42:27
Exposure Time1/400 sec
F-Numberf/16.0
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating400
Lens Aperturef/16.0
Exposure Bias-1 EV
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length30.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2000
Image Height1333
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto Bracket
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Exposure ModeAv-Priority
Focus TypeAuto
Metering ModeSpot
SharpnessUnknown
SaturationNormal
ContrastNormal
Shooting ModeManual
Image SizeUnknown
Focus ModeOne-Shot
Drive ModeSingle
Flash ModeOff
Compression SettingFine
Macro ModeNormal
White BalanceAuto
Exposure Compensation3
Sensor ISO Speed224
Color Matrix135
>>
>>3885187
hella overexposed, those clouds look flourescent
try exposing a bit less, pulling up the shadows in post a lil and apply some sharpening
>>
File: Untitled_Panorama-11.jpg (1.15 MB, 815x2000)
1.15 MB
1.15 MB JPG
>>3884515
You just need right conditions and do the correct exposure. I don't think that it's edited much. Foreground and road are in the shade, while the background is sunshine/overcast. Early spring, noon or close, so the sun is overhead, and you don't get harsh shadows from the tree trunks. Exposure is done for the shade, but composition is such that blown highlights aren't distracting.

The hard part is finding right conditions. In the summer it will be very hard, best chance will in the morning, or after a shower, and when trees are without the leaves, it'll be outright impossible, though you'll get different opportunities.
>>
>>3885121
No, the D5600 hasn't.

if you want some bird shots and keep APS-C, I'd recommend you to look forward a D7200 or a D7500. What fits you the best.

both have the in body AF, a good dynamic range, and a good ISO perform, allowing you to increase your shutter speed when necessary.

I used to have a D500. amazing camera for birding.
>>
File: d3400.png (21 KB, 975x352)
21 KB
21 KB PNG
>>3885199
D7500 is crippled in a lot of ways compared to D7200.
Because they launched your wonderful camera and feared not enough people would be interested they stripped the D7500 from a bunch of "pro" features, some irrelevant like dual SD slots and some important like the aperture feeler and the DoF preview function.
This trend of aggressively removing features only for differentiation's sake started with the D3400. The D3300 was low end and the features reflected that, but with the D3400 they went out of their way to cripple it.
Pic related
>>
File: d7500.png (33 KB, 1220x340)
33 KB
33 KB PNG
>>3885202
>>
>>3885187
That's kitlens alright, but you're also at diffraction, and focusing on the incorrect place. Take same scene at f5.6 and f8. Both should be visibly sharper. Then focus on the meadow directly in front of you, around the first fence, or slightly closer. Far landscape is usually getting hit by haze in such conditions, so it won't be any sharper even if you focused on it, and slight off focus softness usually becomes clouds anyway. By having foreground sharp, is better for the whole illusion regarding the whole image. It's not overexposed, though. I'd expose it the same.
>>
File: _IMG6918.jpg (83 KB, 2000x1335)
83 KB
83 KB JPG
Rangefinders are in. What an absolutely curious technology!

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeRICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.
Camera ModelPENTAX K-1 Mark II
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 10.2 (Windows)
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)50 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2021:05:19 14:36:07
Exposure Time1/50 sec
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeSpot
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length50.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastHard
SaturationNormal
SharpnessHard
Subject Distance RangeMacro
>>
>>3884656
There exist some unofficial and official luts. Most notable example for the former is for fuji cams, for the later look for Panasonic luts.
You also have profiles that do similar job is some raw editors. Rawtherapee (or it's possibly Darktable), can detect and duplicate it from jpeg, Lightroom has camera profiles (off by default) that duplicate them for nearly every possible camera, and Capture One has film simulations, but I think that they're only available for Fuji cams. Then you should have the exact copy of them in raw editors from manufacturers themself.
>>
>>3885217
Is that a Jena?
~cA
>>
File: s-l1600.jpg (200 KB, 1600x963)
200 KB
200 KB JPG
>>3885261
It's a Tougodo Optical Buena, of course. (?) Well-known (??) for making the world's only horizontal TLR (???).

I got a few Japsnappers. Y'know. Honorary and all.
>>
File: OIP.jpg (36 KB, 474x651)
36 KB
36 KB JPG
>>3885261

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
>>3885271
Very interesting.
>>
>>3885217
Cool shit innit?
>>
How do you take good photos of dark subjects on bright backgrounds? For example, a crow in a parking lot on a sunny day. Spot meter for the crow and then deal with the overblown background in post?
>>
>>3885338
It's way more hologrammy than I was expecting. I think I'm a fan. Going to find a working one in the pile and take it out tomorrow for a test spin.
>>
>>3885271
What does anastigmat mean for a lens?
>>
>>3885449
Means corrected for spherical aberration, astigmatism and coma.
>>
>>3885421
It'd be worth running some simple tests to make sure it's still in an acceptable state of alignment.
I mean, there's distance marks on the lens so you could set it to a certain distance and measure out that distance and look at something from that distance and see if it lines up right or not.
There's not really any grey area there, either shit triangulates at the right distance or it don't.
>>
File: IMG_0096.jpg (953 KB, 2000x1333)
953 KB
953 KB JPG
>>3885207
Aaah goddamnit, I picked f16 because I thought it'd sharpen the image without going into diffraction, I'll read up on it some more, but seems like f11 is the limit before diffration sets in and indeed f8 seems more like what I should be using.
Thanks for the focusing tips, too!

>>3885190
My dumb ass went on a walk primarily in the direction of a low sun and it blew the sky out on my of the shots I took, but I've done what I could without making it look like a dodgy HDR thing! Cranking sharpness in DPD feels like something I shouldn't be doing, but did save some pics from the batch.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS 70D
Camera SoftwareDigital Photo Professional
Lens Size18.00 - 55.00 mm
Firmware VersionFirmware Version 1.1.3
Lens NameEF-S18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution350 dpi
Vertical Resolution350 dpi
Image Created2021:05:19 16:42:27
Exposure Time1/400 sec
F-Numberf/16.0
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating400
Lens Aperturef/16.0
Exposure Bias-1 EV
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length30.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2000
Image Height1333
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto Bracket
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Exposure ModeAv-Priority
Focus TypeAuto
Metering ModeSpot
SharpnessUnknown
SaturationNormal
ContrastNormal
Shooting ModeManual
Image SizeUnknown
Focus ModeOne-Shot
Drive ModeSingle
Flash ModeOff
Compression SettingFine
Macro ModeNormal
White BalanceAuto
Exposure Compensation3
Sensor ISO Speed224
Color Matrix135
>>
>>3885529
Excellent advice and much appreciated.
>>
>>3885126
>>3885199
Thanks guys. I went with the d500 and have a tamron 200-500 in the mail too.

Can't wait to play with these fuckers.
>>
>>3875993
cuz digital looks like dogshit
>>
a lot of websites are saying that 35 - 50mm is the sweet spot for portraits, but they dont specify sensor size

should i assume they mean crop or full frame?
>>
>>3885546
>but seems like f11 is the limit before diffration sets in
It depends on sensor and megapickles, on a 20-24mp APS-C diffraction is around f11 or f14 i think, on a 12mp FF it sets at around f22.
On smaller sensors you can go to 5.6 at most, hence the importance of speed.
>>
>>3885786
>sweet spot for portraits
>35-50mm
Whoever says that is a streetfag who should kill himself or an inexperienced photographer in the portrait field, and he should kill himself too for trying to push advice.
>>
>>3885786
That could be for full body portraits maybe, on full frame I'd say 85-135 is the sweet spot.
>>
>>3885387
Expose to the right and protect the highlights
>>
>>3885167
>>3885197
Thanks a lot. Need to keep an eye on such locations.
>>
>>3885786
>35-50 for portraits
>should i assume they mean crop or full frame?
Crop.
>>
>>3885800
>Whoever says that is a streetfag who should kill himself or an inexperienced photographer in the portrait field, and he should kill himself too for trying to push advice.
... Or they're talking about crop cameras, where 35-50 is indeed a good range for portraits.
>>
>>3884515
prolly was shot on film but colors aren't super crazy, def achievable with any gear. Expose for the high midtones and either compress your dynamic range on post (not too much). or 'S' shape your tone curve.
>>
>>3881419
same
>>
>>3882119
Nobody knows what OMD will relase in the future. Even if they don't, you'll still have a huge used market. Don't forget Panny too.
>>
>>3885202
I thought only Canon had the Cripple Hammer™.
Thanks for the warning.
>>
How do you deliver photos to a customer once you're done editing them? Do people actually use Dropbox/Drive for this?
>>
How do I calibrate the colors on my computer with more detail?
I used the color management shit with the dots and dude smiling in a suit, but the colors are still too blue compared to my phone. I don't wanna edit shit on this computer and then have it look bad everywhere else. Is a separate monitor necessary?
>>
>>3884081
It could possibly be broken. Inside the viewfinder(s) there're a bunch of mirrors and shit and they have to be lined up a certain way. If you can find a repair manual it can tell you how to adjust it, it might need a certain setup to do so, or you could wing it and do some sort of trial and error thing (or send it to someone who knows how to fix it, assuming it even is broken).
>>
>>3885202
>This trend of aggressively removing features only for differentiation's sake started with the D3400
It goes at least back to the D40, where they removed the in-body AF motor even though the vast majority of their autofocus lenses still required one.

Possibly even earlier than that--I'm not sure when they removed the aperture auto-indexing coupling that allowed for autoexposure modes with manual focus lenses.
>>
Any good zoom lenses in Minolta SR/MD mount for a beginner? I'm really enjoying my current 35mm f-2.8 lens, but I always find myself wanting to get closer to things in my shot.
>>
>>3886601
In-body AF is actually a decent chunk to save though, it makes sense to remove it so they could offer cheaper cameras.
>>
>>3877337
Yes and no. Yes, you get potentially interesting "character" and affordable bokeh.
No, modern lenses simply are better than cheap vintage lenses in most cases and while manual focusing is not a big deal, modern cameras are not designed to make it ergonomic.
>>
>>3885786
Full frame

Everything in photography is based around the 135 format.

But 35-50mm is ok for full body portraits, landscape orientation, full body portraits off a 35mm f1.4 are pretty nice. Normal portrait range is 70-200mm
>>
>>3881068

>contrasty paintings on the bg

should have removed them
>>
>>3882350
Ignore this retard.
>>3882353
What the fuck? Leica's digital M cameras are real rangefinders. They have an optical viewfinder with a real rangefinder patch. You've clearly never seen or used one. What you said is true about Fuji's fake rangefinders.
>>
File: DSC_0329-2r.jpg (339 KB, 1620x540)
339 KB
339 KB JPG
Is 126K shutter count on my used D800 something to be worried about? Shot 2 years with it with my cheapskate AF-D glass and haven't encountered any issues yet.

If anything, am looking to find an excuse to jump to a FF MILC (already use a M4/3 and APS-C MILC).

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON D800
Camera SoftwareRawTherapee 5.8
Maximum Lens Aperturef/4.0
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)17 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width7101
Image Height2367
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2020:08:01 12:21:29
Exposure Time1/250 sec
F-Numberf/9.0
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating100
Exposure Bias1 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length17.00 mm
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlNone
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
ISO Speed Used100
Image QualityRAW
White BalanceAUTO1
Focus ModeAF-C
Flash Compensation1.0 EV
ISO Speed Requested100
Flash Bracket Compensation0.0 EV
AE Bracket Compensation0.0 EV
Lens TypeNikon G Series
Lens Range16.0 - 35.0 mm; f/4.0
Shooting/Bracketing ModeSingle Frame/Off
Noise ReductionOFF
Camera Actuations121315
>>
>>3876199
I’m guessing you tried to shoot a roll in manual mode and it killed you
>>
>>3886516
I've found out that adjusting "night light" in windows 10 made a significant difference
>>
>>3882350
Dumb troll
>>3882138
It's a camera with a split prism focusing mechanism. One advantage over a DSLR is that it allows you to see things before they enter the frame.
Disadvantages are many, but it's undoubtedly superior to the detached experience that mirrorless cameras with electronic viewfinders provide.
The only digital rangefinders available new right now are Leicas.
>>
File: sigma.jpg (8 KB, 194x259)
8 KB
8 KB JPG
Say I get a Sigma 17-50mm 2.8f lens to use instead of my canon kitlens.
Increase in speed aside would there be a marked improvement in the image quality? I mostly do landscape and general snapshittery so speed isn't super important, I'm just after image quality.
>>
>>3887347
There is no marked difference when shot at same aperture. I have both Sigma and the shittiest version of the kit which with my 2nd hand 100D, with no stabilization at all. I shamelessly use the kit when I don't want to carry the weight. And without checking exif I can't tell of my own snaps which lens I used.

Sigma has better stabilization, is bit sharper in center of frame than kit, has more chromatic aberration in wide end compared to 18-55mm kit. Sigma alone also weights roughly same as Canon 100D with the kit lens.
>>
>>3886516
shell out for a color calibrator like the spyderx.
>>
>>3887281
All you need to be worried about is that you have the correct regional model so you can get the shutter serviced when the time comes. Otherwise the D800 will last you basically forever.
>>
Embarrassed to say I have no idea what ND filter numbers mean. What are the differences with the following?
ND16, ND64, ND500, ND1000...Is a higher number simply mean its darker or is this just a naming scheme like when Canon EOS rebel cams came out?
>>
What is a good source for learning how to use cinematic lighting?
>>
>>3885624
>cuz digital looks like dogshit

The vast majority of film photographs look much worse.
>>
>>3888160
its number of stops
>>
So I just want to casually take pictures and record shit. Is a gopro hero 9 good enough or should I use my phone? Honestly, a phone doesn't seem convenient because it's easy as hell to drop that shit. Oh, and my phone sucks. It has a terrible camera and I can't justify "upgrading" a phone.
>>
Where should I post my photos? 500px or Flickr? Send your thoughts is about it.
>>
>>3888279
Neither are good enough to take photos with. You need a camera. What did you expect? You're on a photography board.
>>
>>3888321
Elitist take. Needed a proper response.
>>
File: IMG_20210522_171806955.jpg (4.66 MB, 3000x4000)
4.66 MB
4.66 MB JPG
Hello /p/uritans, i currently have a Xiaomi Redmi Note 7 as my only camera, i would like to buy a not overly expensive nice camera for proper photos instead of a smartphone, which models or which featureset is recommended for this type of photos
>picrel. a small hill in Medellin

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera ModelRedmi Note 7
Equipment MakeXiaomi
Camera SoftwareHDR+ 1.0.362396382zdy
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)26 mm
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Image Width3000
Image Height4000
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Image Created2021:05:22 17:18:06
Lens Aperturef/1.8
Subject Distance RangeDistant View
Exposure Bias0 EV
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
Subject Distance3.90 m
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Height3000
Brightness8.6 EV
White BalanceAuto
RenderingCustom
Exposure ModeAuto
Exposure Time197/1000000 sec
FlashNo Flash
F-Numberf/1.8
Image Width4000
SaturationNormal
ISO Speed Rating136
ContrastNormal
SharpnessNormal
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
Focal Length4.74 mm
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>3888326
Pretty much any body will do, if you want something close to the phone experience get a mirrorless with a 28mm prime lens.
>>
>>3888326
>i currently have a Xiaomi Redmi Note 7 as my only camera
yeah you have a phone not a camera
>i would like to buy a not overly expensive nice camera for proper photos
you didn't give an amount so I don't know what 'not overly expensive' means for you. an entry level kit is a nikon d3500 with kit lens and it costs like $600 for the camera and 18-55 kit lens.
>>
File: 2880px-FiveHundredPixels.jpg (1.04 MB, 2880x1908)
1.04 MB
1.04 MB JPG
>>3888308
500px has been bought by the chinese.
>Visual China Group
>Marketplace is kill
>Forward the users to Getty Images & VCG
>Creative Commons Licence is kill
>Shady terms of use

Flickr is free (now with ads!) and can display your pictures at full res.
>>
>>3888327
Fine, although i was reading in this precise board that a 27mm lens/camera is better overall solution, or is that way more expensive?

>>3888328
well, desu somthing around 150-200$ used, i had the impression (from a few years back readings) that nice photography gear could be obtained used dirt cheap with barely no wear, btw im looking at fujifilm cameras, whcih models are the best price-to-quality ratio
>>
>>3888333
>Fine, although i was reading in this precise board that a 27mm lens/camera is better overall solution, or is that way more expensive?
You were likely being trolled.
The difference is negligible.
Mind the equivalences, though. The 28mm perspective on full frame is the same as the 14mm perspective on micro four thirds and the 18mm perspective on aps-c.
If I were you, however, I'd try to get a wide zoom instead so that you can experiment.
>>
>>3888333
>well, desu somthing around 150-200$ used, i had the impression (from a few years back readings) that nice photography gear could be obtained used dirt cheap with barely no wear, btw im looking at fujifilm cameras, whcih models are the best price-to-quality ratio
I just read this part, lol.
Forget about Fuji, they're not a budget solution or a solution at all.
Are you in the USA? For that kind of money I'd get something like a D5200 with kit zoom lens (18-55mm) from eBay.
>>
>>3888331
was this taken on foveon or film?
>>
I'm an idiot and want to buy a camera
I have no experience taking pictures other the my normie cell phone

I want to buy a camera so I have an excuse to actually start going outside, I want to take urban pictures of animals birds and crows and hopefully befriend one.
Recommendations?
>>
>>3888386
Check the birding threads
Bring roasted peanuts with no added salt
>>
>>3888392
Thanks, ill bring snackies to my bird friends
>>
Is there any usage of processing an image into vectors in post? I'm curious if anyone has experience in this. I can see multi-scanning an image then adding grain to get passable mp gains for prints.

Additionally, I have a google pixel I'm not using that I'd like to adapt to a lens and use for something since it's just fucking stellar quality. I've looked around and it's a bunch of retards doing dumb shit that's worthless. Any suggestions?
>>
Please tell me how I can use hugin or something similar to just crop together two different sequences for a time lapse (they share pixels). I tried, succeeded a little, and then it starting giving me some red flicker bullshit.
>>
Any advice on getting prints of digital photos? I saw a comment on here a few days ago about digital hoarding vs having something tangible to place in your life, and I'm thinking about ordering a few of my photos on some fancy paper to put up around the house. Anything in particular I should watch out for to not get scammed, etc?
>>
>>3889635
Order from quality sites that involve you in choosing color profiles and give you samples of how the printing will affect the colors in the image. Don't use cheap consumer stuff like Google's offerings, Shutterfly, CVS, Cotsco, etc. Use stuff like mpix.
>>
Why do people shoot moon at f/11?
I thought we were supposed to use out biggest aperture (f/4 in my case) for moon.
>>
>>3889732
Why would you do that? The Moon is very bright, and stopping down gives you a sharper image.
>>
why would you want to get rid of halation?
>>
>>3889733
>the moon is very bright
f/11 1/100s and 100 iso was too dark for me and using slower speeds gave it a slight aura.
>stopping down gives a sharper image
Never heard about that before actually. Should I just try f/22 then?
The weather is too bad to shoot the moon but I can experiment
>>
>>3889635
redditspace
if poorfag, groupon that shit / search for coupons. There are a ton of offerings to jew it up. research dpi/mp for prints beforehand and consider viewing distance. Also give snapshits to family for Christmas so they have to awkwardly hide it somewhere or say they are 'buying a new frame for it'
>>
>>3889745
Every lens has a sweet point for the sharpest aperture
>>
File: 1591131981929.png (99 KB, 746x512)
99 KB
99 KB PNG
>>3882353
>>3882462
>>3887320
>>3887266

I see, I wanted to try something different from p&s film cameras but maybe this is too complex for me.
>>
>>3890925
It's not really complicated, there's a patch in the viewfinder and if you look at some vertical lines through it they're misaligned until you nail focus.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAmjugcBkmQ
>>
>>3889499
I retried and the flicker doesn't happen anymore. Shit's whack. Gonna post the result somewhere.
>>
How do I account for image stabilization when using the shutter speed rule of thumb to reduce motion blur.

Got example on my 50mm f1.8 I know to use at most the reciprocal shutter speed 1/50

I also have this ef 24-105 with image stabilization so I should use at most 1/125 to reduce blur. But what about with IS?

My guess is IS will help me reduce camera shake but objects in motion will still blur if I use a slower shutter speed. Still, if I would normally shoot at 1/125 at 105mm, where can I safely set shutter speed instead?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width460
Image Height257
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>3891039
The reciprocal rule is at best a starting point to get a rough idea. But you really need to get an idea of how steady you can personally hold your camera and lens, because everybody is different. The only way to really find out is to take a bunch of test shots and see how they come out. Take a series at different shutter speeds, check at 100% crop, and see when you can consistently get sharp images. It's a good idea to take multiple samples at each shutter speed, because at slower speeds, you may see some pictures sharp but some not. Your hit rate will go down slowly as opposed to completely drop off.
>>
>>3882353
>Leica [...] make fake rangefinders, with a crappy little window and a small digital screen to emulate the rangefinder patch, it's the worst of all worlds.
Uh, no, digital Leica M bodies are legitimately rangefinders. Same with the Epson R-D1 line. Digital rangefinders definitely exist.
>>
>>3875908
No, halation is a fundamental property of film. If you mean red channel halation like with cinestill, yes, but you couldnt dev it or scan it later since the black paint is in the way
>>
>>3891039
>How do I account for image stabilization when using the shutter speed rule of thumb to reduce motion blur.
It's going to vary from lens to lens (or from camera to camera with image stabilization). Usually the manufacturer will claim X stops worth of stabilization, so you can use X-2 or so as a guide because camera manufacturers are trying to sell you cameras.

But it's a rule of thumb, so it's kind of just something you have to feel out individually with the lens(es) you personally own and their stabilization systems and how steady you are when you're shooting.

My experience has been that I usually get an extra stop or two worth of handholdability with my IS lenses, but I'm a pretty fast and sloppy shooter most of the time, so your mileage may vary.
>>
>>3891059
>>3891080

Thanks!
>>
>>3882065
real retarded question, this picture is low quality but I like it. How do I shoot video that looks like that? Would it work on a k-7 or t5i?
>>
>>3881211
The biggest influence gear can have on your art is how much enjoyment you get out of it, and thus how much you want to use it. I always hated using a phone to take photos, so I bought a camera and haven't looked back.
>>
I posted some cellphone plant pictures on FB, and someone contacted me to buy a few off me for their website.
How much should I ask for them?
>>
File: 1.jpg (36 KB, 600x600)
36 KB
36 KB JPG
How do I get these shiny highlights with film?
>>
>>3887347
Do not get an older f/2.8 zoom if IQ is your primary goal. They have issues with softness and chromatic aberrations of all sorts.

If you're using one of the newer kit lenses, such as the Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM, or Canon EF-S 18-55mm F4-5.6 IS STM, they are actually sharper across the board then such a lens. Instead of just replacing your kit lens, consider getting something different. Such as a wide angle zoom, or a prime.
>>
How accurate is focus peaking? On my dslr I miss focus with fast manual focus glass too often for comfort. With the OVF even if it looks in focus I might miss just a bit. Can you accurately focus on like a z6 or something with an f1.2 lens?
>>
Would adapted primes like pentax Ks, helios, etc. be sharper than the shittiest canon 18-55 kitlens, or otherwise offer any desireable qualities? Besides speed.
>>
>>3892583
yes and no, it really depends on the lens, and the sharper ones are generally gonna go for a lot of money compared to modern budget glass of equal quality
the 18-55 is fine for most things, even low light if you just expose for longer
>>
If I want to emulate a film stock in lightroom, shouldn't I set WB to be the same for every shot in every light, as films are white balanced in that way?
>>
>>3892437
Looks like a regular star filter.
>>
>>3892709
It's useful, but you can also use wb as means of further refining and balancing film sims.
>>
>>3888333
> 150-200$ used
T2i and Kit lens.
Nikon equivalent and kit lens.

I still use my T2i for everything from birding to astro. The kit lens is solid and sharp enough for a noticeable improvement over a phone cam. When you reach the limits of the lens you will know what you need to upgrade to. Easiest way to avoid GAS is to try and use your kit to its limits, only upgrade when it limits you. If you have to ask you don't need an upgrade.
>>
>>3892527
Can you adjust the focus peaking settings? In magiclantern firmware on canon systems you can adjust the sensitivity of the peaking and nail focus with 1.4 lenses every time. 1.2 wouldn't be too much harder, assuming the lens wasn't butter wide open.
>>
File: 2milky4me[1].png (12 KB, 500x500)
12 KB
12 KB PNG
what's a good camera that does 720p 60fps without usb C ? I need it for webcam but I find everything with usb c
>>
>>3880818
>he doesn't use enlargers
ngmi
>>
>>3893426
why cant you just get a USB C adapter. They're 5$
>>
File: DSC_0424.jpg (42 KB, 676x507)
42 KB
42 KB JPG
I noticed that the aperture of my kit lens is very slightly asymmetrical. It's the PENTAX DA 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 AL II. Is this normal?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSony
Camera ModelE2303
Camera Software26.3.A.1.33
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.0
Sensing MethodNot Defined
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width676
Image Height507
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2021:06:02 15:29:56
Exposure Time1/30 sec
F-Numberf/2.0
Exposure ProgramNot Defined
ISO Speed Rating365
Lens Aperturef/2.0
Exposure Bias-1.7 EV
Subject Distance0.00 m
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length3.57 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width676
Image Height507
Exposure Index294
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeUnknown
Gain ControlLow Gain Down
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
Does anyone sell prints? If so how do you go about it?
>>
>>3893478
they don't transmit video signal
>>
>>3893509
Not good not terrible.
>>
>>3893426
My canon 90d does 1080p 30 fps with micro B type USB, there's probably a way to reach 60fps but I haven't bothered.
>>
File: IMG_1156lowres.png (4.87 MB, 1333x2000)
4.87 MB
4.87 MB PNG
(Ignore the fucked up color treatment) Does the background look out of place? I blurried it, darkened it, and desaturated it, only slightly, in photoshop.
>>
>>3878839
>character not unlocked yet
>>
Stupid question: I'm doing sports photos of some runners tomorrow with my old D3100. Which lens should I put on:
* Kit lens 18-55mm f/3.3.5-6g 5.VR
* Prime lens 35mm f/1.8g

Which focus mode is best? Spot, area, 3d tracking etc?

Would the prime lenses larger aperture result in faster shutter speed and sharper images or is it better to go with a stabilised lens at a smaller aperture/longer shutter speed.
>>
>>3875908
is there anything more cringe than holding your camera overhand when shooting portrait?
>>
Hello my friends can someone please explain how I should use AI Servo?

Pic related is what prompted me to look into this. I used single shot and you can see the results

I set up my camera for half-press shutter to meter only, and set up back button to focus and meter start. I also selected AI Servo instead of AI Focus and single shot

I did a test with my wife, asked her to walk towards me. I press the back button to focus on her face and then hit the shutter button a few times. The first image was sharp but the closer she got the less focus, so I don’t think the camera followed her face.

Do I need to hold down the back button? What mechanically do i do?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS 6D
Camera SoftwareAdobe Lightroom 6.2.2 (iOS)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.9
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2021:06:06 22:46:45
Exposure Time1/1000 sec
F-Numberf/2.0
Exposure ProgramShutter Priority
ISO Speed Rating1600
Lens Aperturef/2.0
Exposure Bias1/3 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length50.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1615
Image Height2422
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>3894582
ask your mom to run in a circle in your house and see what options work for you
why don't you have a longer lens
>>
>>3875993
holy btfo film bros...
>>
Bought a body and lens, got a charger, 2 additional batteries, and UV filter for free. What else do I need? I only used point and shoots before.
>currently looking for a camera bag
>will buy a tripod and maybe polarizing filter next
Anything else?



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.