There is intricately small chance that your potentially stupid question that you're thinking of posting was already answered in The Previous SQT: >>3898639Use /gear/ for gear related stupid questions. Finally back to properly named tradition!
Hello, I am looking for recommendations for a small portable camera around/ under 100GBP. What factors should I look out for/ consider in this price range (second-handed of course)?
>>3909843A budget Android phone.Your budget is not big enough to really benefit from carrying around a used chunky camera and nothing else in the price range will suffice unless you get LUCKY with a used thing.Plan to spend more or consider actually buying a prepaid Moto E6 for around $40 to use just as a camera. Most models will do fine just make sure you're buying something relatively recent that can actually shoot RAW and have auto+manual focus and exposure (shutter speed and ISO, the aperture is locked on phones) or it will never get you a single good photograph. Phones apply all sorts of ugly post-processing to the images and that makes your photos dogshit and unnatural. Shooting RAW is your way to opt-out of all the bullshit and get actually decent images.If you're dead set on getting a real camera than accept the fact you'll probably have dried up feces on the sensor and cum in the lens. If you're not comfortable cleaning a camera, you'll be spending money getting it serviced unless you get lucky at an estate sale or in a thrift store or something. Most ebay sellers will shovel crap and lie about the condition. If you double your price range you can pick up a decent body and buy a prime lens and be good to go but you can still get good photographs at 1/2 your budget with a phone.
OP from last thread. If I wear to buy a new camera since mine's getting old, I want one that is durable and good for using in the rain/outside, somewhat smaller to be concealable in a coat pocket for street photography so I'm not lugging a giant thing around (think like the pentax k-1000 but digital), and handles well in low light conditions and with longer exposures. I've never bought a camera and I have no idea what one would want to look for so any other advice is appreciated
>>3909562>OP: Use /gear/ for gear related stupid questions.>/p/: Continue to ask /gear/ related questionsYep, definitely found the stupid thread
>>3909984If I asked my gear related questions there in /gear/ I would correctfully be called a retard and told to come here
>>3909985the best option is to start your own thread tbqh
>>3910047> start your own thread to ask a gear question> be called problematic slurs and get told to use the /gear/ threadWhat now?
>>3910054>stop being a little pussyit's not really that hard, the whingers have no control over your thread
Are rangefinders like the m5 or m6 good for taking family photos, especially moving kids?
>>3909975Thanks anon! Mind if I ask what compromise I should make for around 200<GBP then? I've been looking for second handed Nikon P340/ Canon G9X/ Sony RX100 (older marks) on ebay for a cheaper price but I think I certainly can expand my budget. What are your thoughts on those models?>>3909984I thought my question was too petty to be in the gear thread
Is it possible to use a Canon DSLR’s settings to make the JPEG’s look like film SOOC?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1242Image Height1238
>>3910092not at all.
If I'm lens shopping, how do I know that a Canon lens will work on full frame?
>>3910332it says ef instead of ef-s
>>3910092>Is it possible to use a Canon DSLR’s settings to make the JPEG’s look like film SOOC?Yes, press the shutter button.They're already a film simulation, anon. That's what their out of the box presets are.This applies to all the brands. The modern trendy "film emulation" settings on Fuji and other gimmick cameras are simply going for the washed out weird over/underexposed poorly processed/scanned "Film" look, whereas all digital camera JPEGs for years have been roughly standardized to look somewhat (loosely) like averaged color slide film in terms of contrast and color vibrancy but they don't look good. The trendy low quality film look is neither good or accurate to actually shooting shitty film.Shoot RAW. Consider using one of the afro jew's presets or something if you're an editfag. The look you're after isn't going to produce good results so save your potential offspring the disappointment and save your RAWs because one day you'll be dead and this trendy fake film faggotry will be seen for what it is and they'll appreciate being able to load up your RAWs when you're dead and get a usable image if you ever manage to breed and take something worth printing in the first place. RAWs withstand the test of time. Instagram trends do not.
>>3910353>rawI know how to expose properly, I don't need it
>>3910364>I know how to expose properlyThat's now what RAW is about. RAW is about producing a natural image and future proofing your digital files.>I don't need itEvery photographer should be shooting RAW.When your camera fucks the white balance up, which isn't a "real" setting but digital post-processing on the bayer output, you should be fixing that. Also, most cameras over bake images in terms of saturation/sharpness/noise reduction and other shit. RAW lets you avoid that and get closer to how the real scene looked in the real world. Before all the S-Curves and shit get applied.The fact that you think you only need RAW if you're failing to get the correct exposure is sad more than anything. You've been lied to and now perpetuate that same lie. End the cycle. Educate yourself.
>>3910343Thanks. A surprising amount of cheap Canon lenses work with FF!
>>3910364Nobody fall for this.
>>3910371That weirdly wasn't me replying to you then. However I don't shoot raw as editing to me is my least favourite part of photography. I mainly shoot film and so have very little control compared with editing RAW files and I'd like to keep it that way. I actually find that part of the fun of photography and also don't want to spend any unnecessary time working at a computer given my IT career.I also know it sounds dumb but I don't mind the fact that I might look back on my photos and cringe because of the pretend film look. I've found that this has been an area of photography that I like when looking back and questioning myself.Anyway this is getting far too reflective for a SQT. Many thanks for your input though. It's appreciated and interesting.
>>3910371Again, I don't need it, here's one of my pictures, I shoot it as a jpeg and my gf edited it on her phone in some way. I shared it, people liked it, what do I need raw for exactly?You sound stuck/obsessed with theoretical control and options you'll never use. Calm down lmao
>>3910381What kinda of editing was done to get this color effect?
>>3910392I don't know, I hate editing, my gf did something on lightroom mobile to it. If you are really interested I can ask her
>>3910403Please. Was it just a filter?
Hello /p/I used to enjoy photography 7 or 8 years ago and was always disappointed with the image quality and end product. I’ve decided I got some spare change and a bit of free time, so I’ve got a good condition AE-1 on the way. I have zero experience with developing negatives, but I’d ultimately like to develop color negatives and scan them to my computer. Any advise, cautions or pointers? Any recommended scanners or 35mm film types?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width640Image Height430Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>3910503Camera doesn’t matter, lens and film stock do. What did you get?
>>3910504It’s coming with the 50mm lens in the photo, and I haven’t ordered any film stock yet
>>3910503Get a Plustek scanner, 8100 is the best value for money, 8200 has hardware (infrared) dust removal for colour negs and is a bit more expensive.Maybe get a sous vide for colour dev, but you can do without if you're diligent with water baths and a thermometer.Maybe shoot a roll or two and send it to a lab when you get the camera to make sure it works fine (and also that your metering and technique is good), you don't wanna be doubting whether it's the development or the camera at fault when you develop your own negs, in case something goes wrong.
>>3910503PlusTek 8200i AiScan in SilverFast or VueScan Pro. Look at Darktable for processing the raw scans and check out the Negadoctor module and the Filmic RGB ones.>>3910565>8100 is the best value for moneyIf you're a bum looking for basic bitch results and just enough pixels sure.But the 8200i Ai is the essential option for anyone serious. The included IT8 slide for profiling it is a worthy accessory (unless you own one already, most don't) and the Ai studio version of SilverFast is the only SilverFast version worth purchasing so getting that included is nice.The 8200i SE is the same exact machine but the package is handicapped without the necessary tools to profile it or the software to get the most. Replacing both of those will generally cost you about the same so it's ideal to just get it all in one bundle.
Hi guysI bought a Polaroid camera about a year ago and have taken pics with it on and off since then, enough to get a feeling for the light needed etc.However, the period of time in between shots is super annoying. Is there any way to adjust it or some device to keep photos protected without exposing them to ambient light?
>>3910577>>3910565Appreciate it, I’ll look into those. Any tips or advice on developing color negatives? Is it worth developing yourself or better to send it off somewhere?
>>3910047...anon...I didIt was the last /stupid/ thread, but no one answered that question in particulat
>>3911043Okay, you need either a special film scanner or a flat scanner that can specifically scan film and comes with holders for it. Alternatively, get a digital camera and a light table for tracing, and take photos of your photos.Also, Sony has recently switched mounts, if you only have kit A, abandon ship.
>>3911059See >>3909983The rest of those questions were answered in some degree or another. I don’t care to much to get my film properly scanned, and if I scan my film prints I’ll just use whatever I have at home since its not super important, they are all old pictures and not my best. I went to a photoshop the other day and the guy basically told me to not buy any other lenses for my camera since its not worth it anymore, so I want to know about what cameras I should look for if I want to buy a new one.Now I’m thinking though, there are probably clueless morons selling quality older lenses for cheap right? Should I keep my eye out for that?
in general, do you ever want grain in a picture?should part of messing with the ISO, shutter rate, and aperture be trying to eliminate grain?
Curious to hear /p/'s opinion on this. Tom MacDonald claims to be an independent rapper and that all his music videos are shot and edited by his girlfriend Nova. /pol/ points out that he's most likely an industry plant and that his music video's are too highly polished to be made by a single person. From a /p/ standpoint, would it be possible for a single person to make videos of this quality? To be fair, Nova is musician herself and is probably into creative type hobbies, so maybe she's just really super into videography.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7lLgDVjYn4&ab_channel=TomMacDonaldhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vny0W0axomc&ab_channel=TomMacDonald
>>3911205Depends entirely on the mood. Digital grain tends to look like shit. If you have a film camera, treat grain a bit like bokeh
If i use a lens not made for the E-mount with an adapter with my A6000, will the crop still be x1.5? Or would the added length from the adapter mess with the conversion?For example, is my 50mm Minolta MD lens 75mm, or something else?
>>3911385The crop would remain. THe adaptor is designed to match the original flange distance.
Ok, real stupid question incoming.Has anyone already done work on opening and manipulating the image databases as Sony stores them to SD cards? Specifically the image related ones in AVF_INFO. I just want basic things like migration and merging. I love my photos being viewable on the camera, and have already split them into two cards.
When will cameras capture the full depth of scenes? 10 years from now? Maybe 25?Aside from some some autistic purity chasers who will never be satisfied with convenience features I see it as the objectively smart thing for the future. I'm talking about basic pre-programmed focus bracketing at full quality in a burst where you can ignore the autofocus step and just have the camera run off a sequence of shots from macro to infinity.Most photos are taken at way quicker than 1/1000 shutter in bright light or with tight apertures so snapping 50 shots off would be feasible. Lens focusing motors are plenty quick enough to do burst bracketing. It seems like the only limiting factor here is the sensor readout and storage.I'm not asking for a niche produce that may or may not already do this, I'm asking about when such a feature will be available on real cameras as either a standard of premium feature (extra onboard processing/etc). All it really needs in theory is a place to dump the RAWs and to generate a JPEG or two to serve as a preview. After you select whatever is your favorite focus distance you could discard the rest so it could live mainly in RAM or a fancy high speed low capacity SSD or something, dumping the JPEG and selected RAW to your SD/whatever for normal use.Obviously getting the right focus in camera for a shot is ideal but sometimes that's tricky and framing/timing is less important. Phones are starting to offer this.
how do you guys deal with living in a boring area (if you do)? There are no good parks around me, I have been to all the interesting (as interesting as they can be) towns near me, and I am slowly getting tired of it, having a bit of a limit on time and pretty much seeing most stuff near me (which is boring in the first place) is really making it hard for me to think of clever things to do.
>>3911930Buy a tripod or portable lights. Take self portraits and long exposures of stuff. Go out in different weather conditions, or in the early morning or late afternoon, or at night. It was helpful for me to learn to take pictures with subjects/environments, not of them. You want the composition and lighting to shape how interesting the photo is rather the subjects themselves (and if you can get a cool subject doing those things then it should be an amazing photo)
>>3911942I'll have to find some places to do that, maybe find places in the towns to do that stuff. sadly the parks are closed before sunset to after sunrise
How much would you pay for a used G7x II in very good condition?I could by one for 280€ right now.
>>3911219Decent lighting, but nothing a single moderately skilled cinematographer couldn't do. I just think he appeals to retarded Facebook boomers
>>3911943You could take these shots in your living room of yourself if you really need to. A tripod allows you to not only play with exposure times, but with perspectives as well. If you play around long enough I bet you could find shit worth photographing that may not be immediately appealing to youAlso how strict is your area that you wouldn't be able to just go into the park at night anyway?
>>3911219Is this guy like a new hopsin or is he even more cringe than that?
>>3911970well it is probably technically possible, but being that it's closed at the road entrance and there is no areas clear on the side of the road would mean having to walk maybe an hour to get there. and I wouldn't be surprised if someone would call the police since I've had the police called on me a few times already walking on the side of farm fields to get shots.I'll probably try experimenting with at home stuff/in towns first.
>>3911975That fucking sucks, people are such fucking pussy bitches. You could try biking possibly? Not as visible and easier to sneak into places.My guess though that if the location is this important to you then you are probably relying on it too much to take interesting photos, or you aren't exploring the locations you do have well enough. Or maybe you've just been in the same spot for years, who knows
>>3912006been in the same area for years. been to the parks nearby many times, in different seasons and all. yea, should probably get myself a bike, could even hide it so when people close up the parks they dont notice. and looking on maps, it does really help, the closest place to me being an hour walk is a 10min bike ride, and the next closest places being 2hrs become 20-30min.
>>3910381Go home Ken
I just shoot at -1 EV to preserve highlights, in raw, click auto in Lightroom and share. Is this okay? What else would I edit for?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 6DCamera SoftwareAdobe Lightroom 6.3.0 (iOS)Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2021:07:04 13:35:24Exposure Time1/160 secF-Numberf/4.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/4.0Exposure Bias-0.7 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length28.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width5393Image Height3595RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
Someone needs to update the nyafuu archive's search algorithm, because it doesn't seem to recognize when you type in the name of a specific camera or lens (or it tries to shill the newest cameras and only look for brand names if it is), even when you put quotations around the whole phrase
>>3912119>I just shoot at -1 EV to preserve highlights, in raw, click auto in Lightroom and share. Exposure is a lie. It is irrelevant. There's no such thing as perfect exposure.You're doing photography like an idiot and that is okay. Continue doing this -1 EV noob, camera auto exposure with a slight reduction in EV is usually pretty good but you would benefit from learning manual controls and getting exposure right through your own settings. Or even fine tuning it to -0.5 EV or something depending on the scene.>Canon EOS 6DYou're shooting on a full frame camera that cost $2100 at launch.When you take a photograph you are just capturing an amount of light and your capture is amplified as it is read from the sensor to give you a more or less standard "exposure value" which is just equivalent image brightness between different settings. Noise and quality is ignored here. Different sensors capture varying amounts of light and some require way less amplification and this results in visibly less noise. For example full frame vs MFT. To get the same "exposure" the MFT sensor's readout requires like triple the analog gain for the same EV and that's what makes them noisier.Your camera can easily carry you through slight underexposure. It has very little noise to begin with and enough dynamic range to push it a few stops in post before it even looks like an APS-C shot.
>>3909983>I want one that is durable and good for using in the rain/outside,Weather resistance is a meme imo, you're gonna get ripped off if you're aiming for that>somewhat smaller to be concealable in a coat pocket for street photography so I'm not lugging a giant thing around (think like the pentax k-1000 but digital), just get a small used MTF or APS-C with a pancake lens>and handles well in low light conditions and with longer exposures. that's mainly down to the lens, not the camera, although it's easier to make a small, fast lens for a smaller camera (so again go for a crop sensor)yes, you could also look for something with IBIS, but that would also make your camera larger in turnI use a Fuji X-T20 with a 27 mm pancake lens for street. Fits in any pocket and is incredibly inconspicuous, especially with the tilt screen. Much prefer it over my Fuji X-S10, which is technologically superior but much more difficult to use and also bigger due to IBIS
>>3910997Worth developing yourself if you do tons of it but best for newbies to get pro development.Only get film developed by people who giveyou the film back, some businesses destroy your film after scanning it and give you only JPEGs back.
>>3912164Hey thanks I appreciate the well-written thought out response
Have anyone tried 3d printed parts for cameras? I'm looking for a waist level finder for mamiya 645 and there is nothing convincing so far. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place?
>>3912284Good to know, thanks
I found my old Cybershot DSC-W800 that I bought on a whim a few years ago; I never actually "got into" taking pictures. Do you guys think that an entry-level digital camera from ~6 years ago can be used to make good photos, or would even a fucking phone work better
>>3912786Honestly not a lot better. ui and controls are arguably even worse, and they simply eat batteries. iq will be good, with skilled use, you could pull some nice photos out of it, but you won't get the skill needed because of control handicaps
>>3912797>iq will be goodI don't know what this means, sorry.That said, it's a shame that it'd be equal to/worse than a phone camera.
how do I practice portraits? do I just go up to people on the street and ask? I'm a fat 26 year old. I wouldn't say I'm threatening, but I'm neither a girl or a cute boy, so some people may be put off by me
>>3912798image quality>>3912799take pictures of your friends, family, or coworkers. if you're autistic then consider doing landscapes/architecture
>>3912799The first time I asked someone if I I could take their portrait she said yes. I’m too afraid to do it again but it went fine
>>3912799If you're confident enough and present yourself well then it shouldn't be an issue, but even as someone who could go and ask for portraits on the street, I'm not used to doing it and it would probably fry my nerves pretty quickly. Obviously if you go that route be prepared to get rejected a lot, just don't take it personally since most people on the street generally don't want to talk much with strangers. The easiest way to practice portraits would be to take self portraits or drag a friend around to take pictures of, or just get some lights and make a small studio space for yourself.
Where the fuck do I find pigeons downtown? They're one of my favorite birds and I love to shoot them, but there are none around. I wanna get pictures of all the different colors you see.I live in a pretty decent sized city, but I only see a couple loners whenever I go looking. I remember seeing flocks of them when I was a kid, but they all seem to be gone.The city put in this-anti crow system (I unplug the boxes whenever I find them but they plug them back in), could that be scaring them off?Is there some specific feature I should look for? Tall buildings? Old buildings? Nearby dumpsters?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D500Camera Softwaredarktable 22.214.171.124Maximum Lens Aperturef/5.9Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern39572Focal Length (35mm Equiv)630 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandImage Created2021:06:21 21:57:11Exposure Time1/2500 secF-Numberf/6.3Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating1250Exposure Bias1/3 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length420.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1500Image Height999RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlLow Gain UpContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknownImage QualityRAWWhite BalanceAUTO0Focus ModeAF-CFlash SettingNORMALFlash Bracket Compensation0.0 EVAE Bracket Compensation0.0 EVLens TypeUnknownLens Range200.0 - 500.0 mm; f/5.0 - f/6.Shooting/Bracketing ModeSingle Frame/OffNoise ReductionOFFCamera Actuations6564
>>3912799If you live near a university, do it there, provided you look like you could fit in as a possible student.
Do people pay for Lightroom/Capture One or does everybody just pirate it? $10/month doesn't seem too bad but I'm wondering if it's a sucker move.
There has to be a better way of culling photos than writing down the file numbers you think are worth saving, Ctrl selecting them on the SD card and then dragging them into a folder right?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakemotorolaCamera Modelmoto g(7)Camera Softwareriver-user 10 QPUS30.52-23-13-4 d00bb5 release-keysSensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2021:07:06 05:31:48Exposure Time1/15 secF-Numberf/1.8ISO Speed Rating1612Lens Aperturef/1.8Brightness-3.4 EVExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length3.95 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1836Image Height3264Exposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>>3913001Why not copy all the files from the card to your pc and then delete the ones you don't like?Most photo organizers have a flag system to help you sort out rejects and keepers.
>>3913001Nope. That's pretty darn based.
>>3912841Don't be silly. Adobe is installing spyware on comps of paying customers, and then threatening those that it detects using older programs that they paid.https://fstoppers.com/legal/adobe-customers-using-old-software-threatened-legal-action-company-battle-dolby-369032
>>3913001> move everything onto a computer> make a bad, alright, and good folder> bad is for actual mistakes, sometimes its fun to go back and look at how I fucked up> alright is for alright, no noticable mistakes but there are better versions of the shot or I just didn't get it right, could fuck around in photoshop to see what happens> Good is for photos worth going in and editing properly, not all of the good photos need to actually be edited, just pick out the best> put all three folders in another folder with the date the pictures were taken, and make other folders with all of your .psd files and final editsI think that adobe bridge is supposed to be an actual program to do this with but I know my way enough around my computer's files to just organize everything myself
>>3913009what the heck is an SD card?I don't want to open my phone
I see so many people striving to achieve that One Specific Image that will be forever attributed to them (think of McCurry's "Afghan Girl") and thus pursue the "banger" photo.But does this even make sense? Are there any photographers out there that have *actually* seen success from the approach of standalone images take solely for the purpose of being huge? I feel like almost all of the Great Photos in our history have almost always been picked out by the public from a photographer's projects or books. Asking because I personally work my best in project settings or when I'm working on a publication, and I've always told myself that if I want to ever be known for a photo, it has to be from a book I make.
>>391362350/50, great photos have been picked from good books or published sets but this is done to very bluntly summarize someone's field of work.Imagine someone who has 2000 decent photos, and his best one is pretty good, now look at someone who has 100 "okay" photos, and his best one is actually great stuff, a lucky strike where he emptied the entire roll in a few seconds with his flagship camera; in a normal publication about them the one with the smaller and more average work will be seen as the superior one despite knowers knowing the other guy is vastly better.The "banger" shot is important but it also depends on your public, if you want to sell snake oil then sure, go for the banger, study a situation or possibility in which you might, sooner or later, get it but you won't replicate such thing when demanded. A more self-paced photog will pull decent results consistently but might not be able to get the banger for years or even decades.Also people are cattle, dumb as circular bricks, and will always pick the image with a person rather than a good composition. For example MrCurry has great photographs but a rather simple portrait with a girl with great eyes is his most famous work, an example of a good photograph of an outstanding subject rather than an outstanding photograph of a good subject. Galen Rowell is another example, his Rainbow Tibetan Castle is great but has rather uninteresting colors and shadow game other than the rainbow itself, but you have his Horse Race in a Mountain or his Twilight Lake which are superior compositions but rarely get a mention, why? because people are gorilla nigger cattle who don't actually look at books, they look at a single image that represents the entire field of someone and also look for the rare instance rather than an exemplary case of the photog's tastes.Final example, Ricky Carioti, acclaimed photojournalist who has traveled all over the world: His entire career is this picture, taken outside his office.
>>3913665stellar answer anon, thank you so much for taking the time on this. I really appreciate it the examples and perspective
>>3913665Composition is the crutch we use to compensate for inferior subjects and colors.
>>3913665Also to provide a musical example, "complexity" is the crutch some musicians use to compensate for sterile music. See Dream Theater vs AC/DC. Only nerds are impressed by the scale wank that Dream Theater engages in. But their music is utterly soulless. Now, composition can sometimes improve a photo that has something worth laying eyes on, but sometimes less is more and minimalism can make it more powerful. Afghan Girl is a prime example of that. And then you have photos like pic related where both composition and subject are interesting.
I need some help.I photographed a room twice. Once with an old light bulb, and once more with a new brighter high CRI bulb. I thought I was being smart ahead of time so I went and calculated the equivalent exposure time necessary depending on the lumens of the light bulbs but I fucked that bit up. I thought the old bulb was brighter than it was, thought it was 800 lumens but it was only 500. Because of that I fed the wrong shit into the exposure calc and now I have exposures that don't match. Without retaking new shots with the correct exposures, I'm not sure how to proceed. I just want to normalize the shots I already have with software exposure for the time being since I can't be bothered to go back and re take the shots. I shot RAW btw.I have the following two exposures.A) 1/10s 400 ISO f/4.0 for 500 lumensB) 1/25 400 ISO f/4.0 for 2000 lumensThe shot with the 2000 lumen bulb looks best when I add +0.5 EV in post.How many EVs do I add to make A match B?Doing some basic math I figure normalizing the two by giving A +0.6EV should match raw B but how do I ensure the two stay matched when B is also given +0.5EV? Do I just give A +1.1 and B +0.5 or is simple addition there not suitable?
People keep saying full frame has more bokeh but it sounds like a meme because that's controlled by the aperture. The same people who shill about "compression" and shit without realizing perspective distortion is due to position not the lens are the ones spewing this shit. At the same time smartphones with wide ass apertures have a very deep depth of field so sensor size matters. It plays a role it's just not the whole story.Are there any easy guides for finding a 35mm equivalent aperture between different form factors? Like how do I find out what f/stop yields the same DOF a f/2 phone has vs an APS-C lens and what would be needed on a full frame? F/2 on a full frame has shallow DOF, APS-C has noticeably wider, and phones are deep.
>>3913985Bokeh is qualitative. You can't have 'more' bokeh. Its the quality (jittery, smooth, creamy etc). What people probably mean is 'depth of field'. Larger formats don't have 'deeper depth of field' per se, but they typically allow you to use longer focal lengths at the same subject distance whilst maintaining eq. FoV and framing. I can take a headshot from say 1.5m with a 35mm(DX) or 50mm(FX) and get largely the same framing. But, all else being equal, I am using 50mm on my FF body and thus will have a narrower depth of field at the same apertures. To get 'equivalent apertures' I think you just multiply the aperture by crop factor (which seems unintuitive given the logarithmic(?) nature of aperture to me so I could be wrong). I.e a 35mm 1.8 lens on a crop body will produce similar DoF to 50mm ~f2.8 on FF (1.8 [f] x 1.5 [crop factor] = 2.7).Checking the above calculations in an DoF calculator finds that the calculations are close enough for me (can't insert custom f value to be sure). Note there will be qualitative differences in the bokeh. Some say that the 'roll off' (the rate that DoF changes) is also different. Make your own tests and confirm but for my purposes I rarely if ever see much of a difference.
>>3913992Some discrepancy probably comes from the fact that the FF equiv of a 35mm lens is actually 53.2mm (on CF of x1.52). The actual equiv aperture by calculation is also f/2.7 and not f/2.8. The tool below will let you set better custom values to experiment if you don't have the room or equipment to perform real life tests. https://dofsimulator.net/en/
How do I expose when using a flash during the daytime? My 35mm rangefinder has a flash sync speed of 1/60 - wouldn't that completely blow out every daytime image even at f/22 400 iso? pic related - how to use flash like this during daytime?
>>3914025What flash?Gotta know the brightness of it, relative to your scene, you need a powerful flash for it to even be visible in daytime.
>>3914025This isn’t digital anon there’s a reason a lot of film cameras came with 1/60 sync speeds
>>3914025technically speaking, most films except for slide should have enough latitude to handle overexposure. beyond that, would depend, F22s pretty low i cant imagine many bright enough days where that wouldnt be low enough.but i guess if that was the case use ND filters?
>>3914036don't know why ND filter didn't come to mind, but I think that would actually work great. thanks anon>>3914033never used flash with my film cameras so I don't know shit, please enlighten me
What's the deal with photography vests?
Is this a good price for a new canon G7x mk II?
>>3914087It's not a bad price brand new in box, used should be 50 cheaper.
>>3914087I'd say so. Prosumer point and shoots will either tank miserably in value or shoot up. I assume some of the G series and Fuji's early X point and shoots (XT10 and the X100 obv) will hold value but I could be completely fucking wrong.
>>3913985This is why we use aperture equivalence.Google aperture equivalence calculator to find sites that let you put in any lens specs and sensor size and it will give you the full frame equivalent focal length and aperture.The cool thing about aperture equivalence is that it not only lets you compare dof, it also accounts for noise performance.
>>3914104>>3914106thankshe didn't accept 230. just offered him 245 which should be good. in the description it says that it was a present and that he never used it. looks brand newcosts like 500 bucks new on amazonoh got the notification, he accepts 245 bucks
Are there any cheap razor sharp lenses with no distortion? I'm trying to set up a copystand for scanning film and some other things and I want high quality at the best value. I'd be happy adjusting the camera/object position to bring things into focus. I don't need a focus ring or anything. Just need sharpness and lack of distortion.I would rather buy a dedicated lens to own long term but I guess if there are no real good options I could just rent a luxury lens for it.
What software is appropriate to quickly make collages like pic related?
>>3914245That isn't a collage
>>3914260You're correct, I'm not sure what to call it.
>>3914271Framed presentation i suppose?You can use pretty much anything that allows rulers and guidelines, i use Photoshop and it is quick due to snapping on borders. A free alternative is GIMP although i don't remember if guidelines snapped there.
I don't want to open another beginner thread>interested in photography>want to do mainly landscape photos for now when going hiking in the alps>probably also dabble in astrophotography>don't want to spend an extreme amount of money on my first cameraSo far I have my eyes on the Sony Alpha 6000 and the Fujifilm X-T100. Both seem to be recommended for beginners and both are available out of the box with a lens. Sony would cost 350-400 Euros new and the Fuji almost 500 new (again, both with a lens). Any mini-reviews/recommendations from you guys? Any help is appreciated.
>>3914245Make an action for this: https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/aligning-layers.html
>>3914333>Use /gear/ for gear related stupid questions.
>>3914333A6000- better AF and buffer rate- has built in grip, easier to carry- has support from lower cost third party lenses (for astro, landscape and price/performance ratio, Sigma 16 1.4 DC DN should do the job)XT100- a bit better image quality (newer sensor), but they cheaped out on the processor so you may experience lag- better skin tones- better EVF- lenses tend to be more expensiveboth have confusing UI but eventually, you can live with them
>>3909562I took some photos of my cute red head neighbour. I want to transition her legs into a fin to make her look like a mermaid. I would like to put it all together to form a gradual transition from the original picture to a full mermaid.What is the best editing software to accomplish this quickly?
>>3914471paint.net, photopea, gimp, photoshop, you can even use inkscape. it's not a complicated job.
>>3914475I am a noob. Which is best to do this quickly and aesthetically?What if I want to see what a bigger fin would look like? I might want to enhance her features too.
>>3914476Post neighbor pic?3 layersFind Fish picNeighborBelt (To hide the transition from fish to lady.)Superimpose fish on Neighbor as a new layeruse mask function for bring neighbor parts to the front layerPut belt on topuse feather edges to make it look less crap.Use Distorts to enhance features,
I want to take photos of the sun. What should I consider? Also gearwise? Pic related[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:
I don't understand white balance.>use 5000K light bulb to light room>take photograph in RAW with good exposure>set white balance in RAW editor to 5000K>looks way too warm>use droplet selector to white balance off something white>looks pretty spot on>the white balance it chose is 3900KWhat the fuck?That's so fucking far from the color temp of the light source. I don't get it.Are you not supposed to choose the white balance based on your lights but always meter the scene itself? Is this why color checkers/white balance cards are so popular? I thought this would be a simple process.
>>3914561you're discovering that digital cameras can't "see".there are a number of technical ways of selecting the right white balance, ranging from the general scene illumination, to modelling eye colour cones using von kries/bradford models, etc.fundamentally it boils down to making a mathematical representation of the pixel array, and making sure 18% grey appears in it. this is an educated guess and usually gets it right.you're finding out what happens wrong. ergo the existence of calibrated colour charts and white balance cards, etc.
Where the hell do I find a smartphone gimbal that supports 2 phone mounts, without buying some cheap shit literally who brand that's going to break the moment I try and mount anything?I've got an idea for something, I just don't know if there are readily available options available, and I can't fucking find any because I'm too fucking retarded to do any internet searching. Worst case scenario, I'll (try to) build one myself.
>>3914568>you're discovering that digital cameras can't "see".I know they don't see like human eyes do but I figured they'd still be objective enough for tools to work as expected.>there are a number of technical ways of selecting the right white balance, ranging from the general scene illumination, to modelling eye colour cones using von kries/bradford models, etc.I know it's a complicated subject and the 80/20 rule is a real bitch here and there are tons of color science things but that ain't what I'm after.I just want the colors in the ballpark with known lighting. I've got low expectations.When I light a room with a 5000K LED and expose it properly I figure choosing 5000K white balance in the RAW editor should be all that's required to get things in the ballpark. That's not happening though and I'm seeing differences greater than 1000K from the expected target based on the light with my DSLR. It's not a CRI issue either. My phone RAWs don't seem to have as much of an issue, They're maybe 400 off, never 1000+ but they've got way worse color vs the DSLR after getting the right WB.When I set white balance to 3900K it looks as expected. That doesn't make sense when it's lit by 5000K lighting. When I set the white balance to the camera neutral mode and enable the color calibration module with the linear bradford or CAT setting with daylight illuminant and 3300K color temp it produces similar color to WB at 3900K but has better looking saturation. That's 3900K or 3300K depending on modules, neither get anywhere close to 5000K.The only thing I can think of is maybe there's a misread between the software reading the camera RAW. Like the software expects the neutral WB'd result from the sensor to be for 6500K temp but the camera's made for 5500K or something (due to the more balanced spectrum) and that would be 6500K-5500K=1000K which explains 1000K white balance mismatch but maybe I'm retarded for thinking that.
EOS 90D. I have tried a few things to get the white balance consistent (white posterboard background should be the same color- white- in every picture), but no matter what I do the camera just does its own thing. Any suggestions?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 90DImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2021:07:09 12:35:02Exposure Time1/2 secF-Numberf/13.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/12.9Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo FlashFocal Length55.00 mmImage Width6960Image Height3904RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>>3914657[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 90DImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2021:07:09 12:36:43Exposure Time1/2 secF-Numberf/13.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/12.9Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo FlashFocal Length55.00 mmImage Width6960Image Height3904RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>>3914658[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 90DImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2021:07:09 12:31:32Exposure Time1/2 secF-Numberf/13.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/12.9Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo FlashFocal Length55.00 mmImage Width6960Image Height3904RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>>3914657Are you shooting JPEGs?
>>3914657use manual white balance obviously. why would you want the camera to make any decisions for you?
>>3914669Don't.Shoot RAW, it's mandatory for the level of consistency between shots you're looking for.
>>3912786Update (since the batteries finally arrived. I lost the charger to it, so I got a set of batteries with a charger): If I use the default software, they're roughly equal, but the camera has slightly better controls. If I use OpenCamera then I feel like the shots could be better, (having briefly looked at it) but I understand absolutely none of the settings. Really fucking odd that phone makers gimp the fuck out of the phone cameras desu
>>3914480Which software program is easiest to use? I plan on printing a copy of the picture, then putting it in her mailbox anonymously. She does not know I even have pictures of her! She will be so excited!
Is it worth it to buy photoshop or paint.net?
>>3914806No, because GIMP exists.
Going on a trip to Iceland soon, what lenses should I rent?I'm a beginner and only have a 25mm prime (MFT, so fov equivalent to 50mm in full frame) and the kit lens (14-42mm). Would I be fine with just renting a 35-100 zoom (70-200 full frame)? Or should I also go for a 12-35 zoom
>>3914806just use photopea, dont even need to install it broski
>>3914806>buy photoshopYou can't even do that anymore, it's a subscription now.Take a look at Affinity Photo, it's pretty well featured only costs like $50.
Why isn't there a ".photo" file format?Something that can hold a JPEG, EXIF, the RAW, and a processed TIFF or other embedded image file.>shooting JPEG+RAW>wish they were just one file, behaved like JPEG in a file browser but could right-click open the RAW in an editor
I set my camera to zone focus but it still takes solid 2-3 seconds to autoexpose after being lifted out from its hanging position, so first few shots are always overexposed or completely white.What can do I do to avoid that?
>>3915062For what purpose would you need this?
>>3915062Just use a zip
>>3915068I have no idea what you're trying to do. Zone focus, autoexposure, hanging position?
Need advice on how I can get a tripod to stay on this bag. I was thinking of using bungee cords down the middle but I dont think it would hold that well. I'm too cheap to buy a bag with tripod straps.
>>3915255bind a carabiner to one of the tripod legs.
>>3915255Generic buckle straps like these on Amazon. You can even buy the cheaper ones that are basically one loop, like a belt. Strap it in like in this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iO-pVpU5oxU
>>3915259>>3915273thanks guys, this helped a ton.
>>3915112Idk, organization?Condensing files?Unless I use a special file browser or RAW manager I see IMAGE1.JPG IMAGE1.CR2 and its basically duplicate spam with hundreds of these.>>3915169That sounds really inconvenient.I don't really know what the proper solution is but I guess it's not viewing my photo folders with windows explorer and just viewing my shit through a dedicated program instead.
Are this total shit or is it worth gambling some little money to try it out?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeSONYCamera ModelILCE-6300Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 8.2 (Macintosh)Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Focal Length (35mm Equiv)54 mmImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2019:03:18 10:35:46Exposure Time1/125 secF-Numberf/9.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/9.0Brightness10.0 EVExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageLight SourceDay White FluorescentFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length36.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBRenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormal
>>3915321Also interested in this.I'm sold on the idea for these but I'm concerned because my phone's native optics aren't great. It has vignetting visible in the RAWs and the JPEGs are edited to remove it. I don't like the JPEGs though.Would an external lens like this possibly make vignetting worse? Or could it improve it? Or would it more or less stay the same?I'll probably just start saving for a higher end phone with a decent lens if these can make vignetting any worse.
>>3915323Yeah. I'm going for some casual goofing around with it, so the technical quality is not super important. Just wouldn't want to buy total shit... Then again, if these were total shit the company probably couldn't build 4 generations of the product. Then again, it is always stupid to over-estimate the idiotism of consuming which I am taking part here as well, after all.
>>3915321It's shit. I bought one without any expectations at all, and yet i am still disappointed by it
>>3915325Ebin. Was it some random china shit from AliBaba or branded stuff? What was the main issue?
>>3915321Samples that I've seen from some of them are not bad, actually.
>>3915323>vignetting worse? Or could it improve it?It won't worsen it, but won't improve it, provided phone lens isn't too large for it. Highly unlikely.
>>3915326Yes, it was some random china shit. The iq is way blurry than my phone's macro camera
Will a tiny scratch like this on a lens show up in a photo, especially when you stop down?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 22.4 (Windows)Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2021:07:11 21:31:55Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width806Image Height784
>>3915529hard to say, I don't think so. but don't trust me.
>>3915530Reason I ask is that I've seen that dust and shit on your sensor and on the front element can show up when you stop down.
>>3915532>front elementBack element*
>>3915529Nah. It may cause a slight flare streak under flaring conditions.
I own a minolta x-700 film camera, I often buy iso 400, 800 (both in color) and may experiment with 3200 film.I have two questions, 1 on flash, 1 on the iso levels.1- a minolta 280px and 360px flash have a max of iso 400. Should I be a bit further/use a higher aperture to compensate for the difference?2- My minolta has a film speed ring limit of 1600. If I use the 3200 iso b/w film, do I need to compensate by underexposing/ smaller aperture?
>>3915529What lens? Wider lenses with deeper DoF show more scratches and dust. Doubly so if they flare out (which wides do more than tele). Try and flare the lens out at f/8 and see if you can see it. You probably will, but how BAD will it be? No idea. >>3914657What light you using? Try and get a flash if you aren't already. Next, dim all other light into room. Set camera to manual WB@5600k. Shoot. Tweak in post. Win.
how is bokeh pronounced?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:PhotographeruserImage-Specific Properties:
>>3915711however you want it pronounced. you'll pronounce it the same way as the people you associate with pronounced it.much in the same way nikon is pronounced "nigh-kon" in the us and "knee-kon" in the jp/au.the japs pronounce it "boh-keh", mutts pronounce it "bough-key".
>>3915672Just a pair of these. Not as flashes though. I think there are 40W LED bulbs in them. And I turn all the lights in the rest of the room off.
Are there any websites that have catalogs of different photographers works?
>>3915719>"knee-kon" in the jp/au.I think everybody pronounces it like that other than americans.>the japs pronounce it "boh-keh"This, it's that simple, to be more pedantic it would also be BOH-keh but i've heard japs use boh-KEH, maybe it's dialect thing. In movies when they insult people for being clumsy or blind they use that word too, so it's lies from museum jews that the word originated as a referral to the out of focus backgrounds, japs used the term to describe the "blind" or blurry focus planes which include the foregrounds too.
>>3916108>BOH-keh but i've heard japs use boh-KEH, maybe it's dialect thingjapanese has pitch accent which varies across the islands, but when in doubt you follow the nhk dictionary which is concruent to yamanote dialect. there is also unvoicing and destressing phenomena on certain vowels between mora.just use BOH-keh.
>>3916112Its pronounced 'boKee' actually.
>>3915711I say BO-kuh, but I'm a burger
>>3909562Hi /P/. first time here. just a simple question.You go out hiking at night.clean sky, full of stars.Take a picturea black void with some dot.why does this happen?
>>3916263Your exposure isn't sufficient to capture the light. To get stars without star trails there's an equation that can be used as a guide : if your full-frame equivalent focal length is 20mm for example, the 500 rule would suggest that you use a shutter speed of 500 ÷ 20 = 25 seconds. If you want star trails, just do a long exposure. Can you post an example?There's an astro thread here >>3913430 that will be of help. Give it a read.
>>3916272Not posting anything, thanks. I just wanted to understand what's going on. I'm not into photography, I have no gear.but I never understood why when I try to get a photo of a sunrise or maybe star with the cellphone I just get nothing.you answered me, is exposure. and I would need at least basic gear and longer time exposure to get a good photo.thank you
>>3916276> I would need at least basic gearYeah, but some phones have pro modes or stuff in the store that gives you more access to features on the camera. I've personally never used them but could work
>>3916276>I never understood why when I try to get a photo of a sunrise or maybe star with the cellphone I just get nothing.This guy >>3916272 would be right, but he's not all correct in this case. Exposure isn't the full story here.Because you're using a phone you're probably having the post-processing done in the phone fuck your photo up. They apply all kinds of contrast enhancements and noise reduction and tiny bright spots in an image are often hit with erasure or blending with surrounding pixels. That will "delete" many stars from a night sky in a phone's JPEG. If you shoot RAW DNG and open it in an editor you'll probably be able to see them show up no problem.Do try increased exposure, just don't expect it to solve everything. Enable RAW+JPEG mode on your phone and open a RAW in darktable and disable curve presets. You'll see tons of cool shit not visible in the JPEG.
Since aperture is relative, why don't any smartphones have a 1.0 aperture or even bigger? Due to the sensor size it wouldn't give unusably shallow DOF but it would just give visible DOF. Something they all fake with multiple camera setups with shitty post-processing fake bokeh. Why not do it properly?
>>3916541>why don't any smartphones have a 1.0 aperture or even bigger?you still have to design an f/1.0 lens, which still needs to compensate for abberations and distortion and imperfections and so on. it's hard to do no matter the image circle the lens must project.most cameras these days have a fixed f/1.7 prime and you can get plenty of background blur, just compose your shot correctly.
>>3916541It's not easy to manufacture a good f1. Lens.
>>3916543SINCE APERTURE IS RELATIVEa 1.7 on a sensor with a 6x crop factor you wont get any background blur
>>3916565.... have you never framed a shot correctly?
>>3916543My phone is f/1.7 and it feels like at f/8 tighter on my DSLR.>>3916566The hyperfocal distance on phones is just a few feet away. Despite the wide aperture you don't really get the background separation/DOF effect in anything but macro shots where you are focused inches from the lens.
>>3916569>My phone is f/1.7 and it feels like at f/8 tighter on my DSLR.thats because your phone lens is smaller than the one on your dslr. you'll get the same DOF on all sensor sizes if you use the same lens
>>3916573That's not how it works.Aperture is relative.
>>3916577>>3916582nolenses don't know anything at all about whats behind them. they don't know anything about sensors or their sizes.they only have a focal length, aperture, and an image circle.
>>3916587Aperture is relative.Lens diameter and the size of the focused image circle matters but aperture itself is a relative.You can't just throw a full frame f/2.0 lens on a phone and get a shallow DOF.
>>3916589>You can't just throw a full frame f/2.0 lens on a phone and get a shallow DOF.you understand a phone sensor is just a crop? and that the image doesn't change when you crop?f/2 is f/2 is f/2 is f/2.lenses are just glass and have no knowledge of whats behind them.
>>3916589>You can't just throw a full frame f/2.0 lens on a phone and get a shallow DOF.That's exactly what would happen. Phone is like 6x crop. If you'd 20mm f2 lens on a phone you'd get 120mm f2 with a lot of bokeh.
>>3916589>You can't just throw a full frame f/2.0 lens on a phonea full frame f/2 lens is just a normal f/2 lens with a big enough image circle to cover a full frame sensor.my sammysung s21u has a 1/1.33" sensor with fixed f/1.8 lens. that lens is designed with a smaller image circle.my 1/1.33" sensor is a 3.58x crop factor, so its f/1.8 lens is a 24mm equivalent f/6.4 lens on full frame.if you can't get background blur with f/6.4 on fullframe............. i dunno what to say to you except that you need to go out and take lots more photos for christ sake.
>>3916593you multiply the aperture by the crop factor too
>>3916589no it's not. aperute is nothing more than the diameter of your diaphragm. aperture affects DOF and if your phone lens has a diameter of 0.5cm your aperture cant be 5cm wide like on a 100mm f2 lens. f-stops simply indicate light intensity, they have nothing to do with DOF which is why you get more blur on a 135mm 3.5 than 35mm 1.8
>>3916596only when playing the equivalence game, pretending you're taking that image and stretching it out to full frame.
>>3916598you get more blur because of the compressed background
>>3916600and the bigger aperture
>>3916601bigger aperture number means smallersmaller number is bigger aperture
>>3916541fuck youlook what started
>>3916605aperture and f-stops arent the same thing
What would be best for wildlife?Was about to grab Nikon D500, but there is a huge sale an cashback on Sony.. Making the Sony A7iii the same price as the the D500.. Price being 1969,68 $ where I live... Thanks in advance!
>>3916849>Use /gear/ for gear related stupid questions.
>>3916598It's a relative value you dumb son of a bitch.The maximum varies but the steps are relative. Do you not understand what that means?The measured diameter for f/2.8 on full frame is way wider than it is on a phone.
]please reccommend a video editor, I tried quik but it suck, does any of you know better alternatives?Also do i edit on phone or computer, editing on phone is way quicker, but the result is lame.
>>3915068manually enter all your settings except for one which you can control with a back/front dial as needed.
>>3916883davinci resolve is free for 1080p output
>>3910427not that anon. it looks like a turquoise and red filter with vibrancy turned up.
>>3914245you can achieve this look in lightroom using the 'Print' module. Looks like Multiple images printed on one sheet.
>>3909562I just bought a Z6. If I need to update the firmware to use cfe cards with it, then I need to already have an xqd card to do the update with, don't I? or does it happen another way?
>>3916972Correct, the Z6 only updates from the card.Do you already have a cfexpress card?
Hi,I bought a Fuji XE-2 last year with a cheap wide-angle Meike Lens MK 25mm f1.8 from AliexpressI'm very happy with this setup but I would like a lens with Auto-Focus for more casual events.I would like to buy something (very) cheapWhat does /gear/ recomend?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:PhotographerThomas CuvellierImage-Specific Properties:
>>3917169fujifilm xc 16-50mm, or for the same price, kitlens fujifilm xf 18-55mm. don't pay more than $200.
>take RAW photo on phone in known lighting>Colors come out fine>do the same with LED in lamp mode>not sure what the color temp of the flash isHow do I figure this out?Are the LEDs on phones a decent CRI or are they all highly variable shit depending on the model? I know different phones have different color LEDs (some warmer, some cooler) but are they actually quality light sources at all or no?How would I even go about measuring it?
>>3917169If you don't mind it being a prime the 27mm f2.8 is pretty comfy.
>>3917203Most 'white' flashes are 5600k or so. Try that as a start. You can also balance in post by using a grey/white card to calibrate your grading to a 'known' white/mid-grey point.
>>3913665Very good post anon
I have a Cybershot, I'm not sure what happened but when I turned it on I got the "Turn power off and back on" message which after some googling is often because of dirt or dust in the lens. I opened the back, went over everything with some compressed air and put it back together, still no luck. After turning it on with the back off and having it work fine I narrowed it down to this cable coming off of the lens. When I close the back, any pressure on the bottom right of the camera from the backing causes the lens to blur and the "power on and off" message. Is it possible that there is some kind of aggregate causing damage to the lens mechanism behind this cable or is the cable loose or what? I touched the cable which it was on and the slightest pressure causes issues but it works fine with the back off.
I want a real camera what do I need to buy?I want to point my lens at something and shoot whatever I am looking at and have it be color accurate within reason but not based on some approximation based on "color science" but just basic what-you-see-is-what-you-get, with (You) in this scenario being the camera.If I shoot a white wall that's lit with ugly yellow lighting I want it to be that ugly yellow lighting not white-balanced-adapted to try and make it look "correct" to human eyes just give me a true reflection of real life as it is in the physical realm. Recording based on actual light not simulating human vision.Can I just shoot RAW on a Foveon body? What about bayer? I'd only want to correct for the green if it's bayer based and can do what I want.
>>3917650>I want to point my lens at something and shoot whatever I am looking at and have it be color accurate within reason but not based on some approximation based on "color science" but just basic what-you-see-is-what-you-getWhat you're looking for does not exist. Anywhere, not on film, and not on digital. If you want it to be automatic, your best best is good enough image processor. It's image processor that decides exposure and white balance for camera. If you really wished to be as accurate as possible, you'd need to look into white balance cards, colour passports, and evaluation of the scene with spectrometers.
>>3911642Panasonic has a mode for this and there is nothing that stops you from running a series of photos with focus bracketing. or get a light field camera like a lytro.
>>3914554long reach lens and strong nd filters like the one in the glasses to look at an eclipse
>>3916972Assuming you bought a CFExpress card and dont want to buy another, you can either send it in to Nikon and wait a month or so for them to update it for you, or just buy a XQD card off Amazon and return it.
>>3911642Look for focus bracketing tech. Canon, Panasonic and Olympus have it, it's probably on some other brand as well. Canon has it even on EF mount for several lenses.
I recently acquired an Auto-Takumar 55mm f/1.8 and I'm concerned about the radioactivity. Is it only dangerous if the glass shatters? Or can it do stuff to the sensor or me?
>>3915711BO-KEHIt's a very unsatisfying word to say
Need some help trouble shooting the infamous "Err" error message on my Nikon D7200>happens a lot with fast lenses. My prime 1.8 50mm gets the message if I shoot at anything but the widest aperture>tried different lenses, doesnt happen at all with my sigma 150-600, happens with my 18-70mm if I change the aperture to anything but the widest settingIs there something wrong with the aperture control arm? Already tried cleaning contacts and a factory reset. Help pls
>>3917889No one?Google gives me anything between "it's fine, you can even lick the glass" to "you'll fucking die".
>>3917889>>3917972They're not wrong.You can lick it, and you will die.
>>3917972You can lick it, and you'll probably taste metal for a while before you get something worse.
>>3918010>>3918016But is it safe enough to use on a camera?I just want to know if I should keep and use the lens or sell it.
>>3918020>But is it safe enough to use on a camera?You can lick it, and you will die.The camera will be fine. It will take photos. Long after you are gone, if well kept.>keep and use the lens or sell it.Up to you.
How do you anons store photos? On what medium or digital service do you store your digital pictures?
>>3918056Hard drive(s).A few of them, since any drive can fail. SSD or otherwise. Don't "eggs in one basket" yourself.
Hi could someone who has a Sony A7C confirm to me that it can do live 1080p output via the micro-HDMI port without showing a HUD or anything overtop? Camera specs never really seem to cover what the live output can/can't do
>>3917889You're gonna be fine, just don't lick the lens, keep it close to bare skin for long periods of time or huff the lens cleaning cloth.This sort of radioactive glass is harmless unless it gets inside you, and for radiation shielding, it can be done with simple PU plastic.Gamma rays are mostly harmless as they will pass through you like light through the lens, the harmful radiation is the alpha and beta particles, but they're stopped by skin and clothing.
>>3918120Finally a good reply.Thanks, will keep the lens. It's the fastest one I own.
>>3918120>Gamma rays are mostly harmless>>3918122>Finally a good reply.the blind leading the blind.
>>3918123If you have a better reply then shoot.This is the stupid questions thread, not the stupid answers thread.
Are the Fropack presets worth buying?
Question. I am leaving for a 30 day hunting trip (working not the client) in the Alaska Range. I leave in less than two weeks and I kind of want to get a camera better than my iPhone SE 2020. Will pic rel be a total waste of money.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution144 dpiVertical Resolution144 dpiImage Width750Image Height1203
>>3918173Don't get anything that doesn't have RAW support.
>>3918135Why the fuck would you buy someone elses presets tied to proprietary software?Just learn to edit.Pirate them instead if you insist on using them and if you REALLY like them pay for them. Don't fork over money for saturation 150% contrast +20% clarity 40% hue shifts and whatever else he sells. They are designed for morons who barely understand their cameras and software. Are you one of those?
Why are so many people on r/photography awful photographers? I was bored several days ago and clicked through some of their instagram/flickr accounts and I'd say that a good 99% of it is landscape, plant macros, and fat women failing at being a model.The photos here suck too but at least I see interesting shots more frequently.
>have Minolta XG-1>viewfinder has this thing where it splits the image in two to help you nail focus without having to "eyeball" it>isn't available on my DSLRDo these exist in digital? If so, I really this in my next digital camera.Autofocus is great but sometimes you just wanna do it manually and this thing really helps with that.
>>3918123point is he's not going to get cancer from using the lens as it is intended, saying gamma rays are harmful is like saying UV rays are harmful, it's relative to the intensity of the rays. The gamma rays released by a thoriated lens element is not going to be at the same intensity as that of UV rays on a sunny day, so they are as i said MOSTLY harmless.
>>3918347If your DSLR body has the ability to swap the focusing screen, yes. Back in the day I think people used to buy katzeye products but they've gone out of business now. Might need to buy some Chinesium glass off ebay.
>>3918062like this?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Wt2_dLQ7a4>>3918347The closest approximation is the digital-split-image manual focus assist found on certain Fujifilm cameras. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1zfIwpaYbMI'm not sure which models do or do not have it.
>>3918395Canon 200D, do you know if it does?Probably not gonna upgrade it unless it's easy/cheap. Definitely want it when I go full frame though.>>3918403That looks kinda crap, here's a vid of what I was talking about.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abxTvVjtyrAGo to 3:30. It's optical and works when the camera is powered off, not looking for an EVF/LCD thing.
>>3918407This might work for you.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmYatRpy_5g
I want to learn how to use the camera on my phone more effectively, as in I want more control because right now everything is automatic. Is pic related a good place to start?
>>3918487If your phone has a mode with manual controls, switch it to that and play around with it for an hour and experiment.
How viable is taking macro shots handheld? I've been having fun taking some insect photos so I'm thinking of upgrading my macro capability but not sure it's even going to be practical without setting up tripod and shit every time.
>>3917650Can you tell us why you need this?
I had a bird in the middle of the viewfinderscreen yet my af decided to focus on the ground in front of it. Why is this? This seems to happen often.
Is it safe to bring my entry level camera to the beach without any protective cover except filter?
>>3918558It seems you have front focus problem. You might have to calibrate your AF if you have this feature on your camera
>>3918562Its a mirrorless though
>>3909562what kinda gear do i need for beginner astrophotography? i already have a decent tripod, d5600 w/ wide and tele lens.
>>3917654I think slide film on a projector would fit my needs.>>3918520I want to photograph things under varying lighting conditions and just want things to represent the scene as it was lit, not be "fixed" to make whites look white when there isn't any pure white in the scene to begin with.
>>3918570There is no calibrating option
>>3918611You are good to go
>>3918611A tracker, lens hood, handgun with flashlight, flashlight, insect repellent, bottled water, some food, a spare battery maybe too.
>>3918892Have all but the tracker, can you reccomend one? All I know of from searching it is the star adventurer 2i
>>3909562Is there a specific reason not to shoot with auto white balance if the white balance can just be moved with post processing anyway?
>>3918942>Is there a specific reason not to shoot with auto white balanceYes.AWB can fuck up, or nail it. It's convenient and unreliable at the same time. If you have the time to prep, use a grey card and lock WB before important photos.Also, shoot RAW.Also, if you're in variable lighting conditions such as a concert with colorful stage lighting that's a classic case of do NOT use AWB at all.>if the white balance can just be moved with post processingIt cannot, at least for the JPEGs. Once it's white balanced that gets baked into the image, forever and post-process white balance corrections later won't work as good as getting the WB right from the start. It'll be visibly better getting it right in camera.If you're shooting RAW you adjust white balance in the RAW editor and the camera WB setting becomes irrelevant.
Do I use A or S mode?
>>3909562Why is the search function broken on the Nyafuu archive? it only indexes certain brand names and gives no results any time you try to look up anything less common than a Rabal
>>3919072S when dealing with movement and need for low shutter speeds. A for everything else.
Opinions on essential Gimp plugins?????
>>3918964Cheers, that was actually really concise and helpful
Ihave tried photoshop and gimp.I dont understand what photoshop has the ability to do better.Wy is the program 20 times larger>
>>3919333Photoshop has some fancier hardware accelerated nonsense and more "community use" so there are more widely available babymode plug-ins but you can always write your own for FOSS shit to match.In short, GIMP does everything.In babyminds, GIMP is evil because it doesn't have the identical UI and their photoshop plugin they downloaded from a YT video description doesn't work with GIMP.
>>3909562I've never done photography before, what camera should I get for taking time-lapses of growing plants and fungus? Thank you /p/.
>>3913116Not him but what's a good the alternative?The software is good and cloud sync makes it super appealing, specially when you can get Photoshop bundled for cheap.
How much should I max pay for a used Sony RX100 Mk III in good condition? 240 €?
What's a good, quality brand for ND filters?
How the fuck do I view a regular jpeg on my camera?!I made a guide for this a6300 to put on the sd card for easy access, but it won't view the image.
How do macro tubes actually work optically? I bought some and it's a bit counter intuitive, they work great with my 45mm but with the 135mm(adapted) I can't focus nearly as close and magnification is worse.
In never edited a foto.where the fuck do i start
How do I make my photos less stark and more cozy?
>>3920536Take pictures of cozy things
>>3920528Fuck with the sliders lel... Seriously though have a read of this:https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/photo-editing-tutorials.htmAnother option is to replicate the look of work you admire.
>>3918558where is the focus point set? if you focus over the whole screen cameras chose the closest point.
What would one call the sort of tripod head interface, where the head can be secured from rotation by a few threaded inserts?For instance, to prevent a video fluid tripod head from rotating about the tripod-head interface, when you're panning.
Telezooms often begin at f/4. They have image stabilisation but when i want to shoot birds i use 1/1250 anyway. How the fugg do you use these things when it isnt superbright? Would my iso always have to be 3200?
Nikon P1000 (125x optical zoom). I get it as a technological flex for the company, but what would be a use case for such camera, apart from staling people at the beach?
What f number do I use if I'm shooting handheld?
>>3920744Taking pictures with it and not worrying about lenses?You know, like a bridge camera?
>>3921078You need to worry about shutter speed and your focal length if shooting handheld. F number deals with the aperture.What are you generally shooting? Do you need subject separation in terms of the focus plain? Do you want everything in focus?
>>3921090I'm generally shooting street and small sections of landscape, I'm a newfag to this so right now I don't think I need subject seperation
>>3921091>I'm a newfag to this so right nowNo worries, we all were once. Most lenses will have an aperture at which they are sharpest, if you want that, then use it - if you have enough light of course. For street you can try setting the lens to infinity and then turning off auto focus. Much more responsive, it's called zone focusing. You will need to check what your set ups hyperfocal distance point is.I use aperture priority pretty much all the time because like you, in general, I don't need a shallow plane of field. Then I check the auto ISO settings, if for example I am shooting a 50mm equiv lens then I will set auto ISO to step in at around 1/100s to be safe. The general rule of thumb is to set your minimum shutter speed to the lens' focal length (full frame equiv of course). So if you have a 50mm lens on a full frame camera, you dont want to go below 1/50 of a second to avoid camera shake affecting the shot. A good resource to learn is : https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials.htmI takes a bit of time to learn everything but once it clicks ( no pun intended ) you will be fine.
help me darkroom bros i fucked upi mixed up unicolor c41 chemicals for the first time, and i fucked up by using hard tap water for the stabilizerbeen using the chemicals to develop a few rolls, but the last roll started getting mad water stains, so i got a few questions:1. i noticed these little clear/white flakes floating around in the stabilizer, what are they?2. can i filter out these white flakes using a coffee filter?3. can i filter out those hard minerals in the water using something like a brita filter?4. what should i do with the negatives which already have water stains on them?
>>3921133>2. can i filter out these white flakes using a coffee filter?Sure.>what are they?No idea, are you sure it's not residue from the bottle or the tap? There shouldn't be much left in the film to leak into the stabiliser bath, if you fixing and washing was done properly.>4. what should i do with the negatives which already have water stains on them?What I do is breathe on them and wipe them with a cotton glove, kinda like what you do with your phone screen.Also you can put some drops of normal wetting agent (photoflo etc.) in the stabiliser, to help with marks. But if the water is really hard, it's only so much the wetting agent can do. Give it a try though, at worst you'll get marginally better results.
How do i avoid having a dark subject when sun/light is behind it? I tried both matrix, center and spot metering but nothing helps.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D3300Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 22.4 (Windows)Maximum Lens Aperturef/5.1Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern854Focal Length (35mm Equiv)67 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2021:07:27 17:53:25Exposure Time1/4000 secF-Numberf/5.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/5.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceFine WeatherFlashNo FlashFocal Length45.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width2000Image Height3000RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>>3910054>problematic slursHave you considered not being a problematic slur?
is it possible to shoot videos for youtube with a ricoh gr ii?
>>3921369It's likely not the first choice if video is the important feature for you but yes, it can video.
>Looking for a durable camera for hiking/fishing>Looking at the Olympia Tough >It has the same megapixel count as my smartphoneCould someone break down for a retard what the difference if any between these two specs are?12 Megapixel BSI CMOSDual Pixel 12MP AF
Why my dslr sometimes miss focus?
>>3921567different focus modes look for different things, and different areas of the frame, so make sure you pick the proper one for your situation. Also sometimes there's a setting where it will wait to take the picture until it's in focus
Will immersion in ethanol remove lens fungus?
>>3921731no but it will remove coatings
Can someone please give me any info on this camera? If there is a labeled diagram of all the parts or manual please post it I'm going insane[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakesamsungCamera ModelSM-G970UCamera SoftwareG970USQS5GUF1Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.5Focal Length (35mm Equiv)26 mmSensing MethodNot DefinedImage-Specific Properties:Compression SchemeJPEG Compression (Thumbnail)Image Height3024Image OrientationTop, Left-HandImage Created2021:07:29 07:17:56Vertical Resolution72 dpiHorizontal Resolution72 dpiImage Width4032Altitude0.00 mTime (UTC)00:00:00Lens Aperturef/1.5Exposure Bias0 EVExposure ProgramNormal ProgramColor Space InformationsRGBImage Height3024Brightness-2.1 EVWhite BalanceAutoExposure ModeAutoExposure Time1/20 secFlashNo FlashF-Numberf/1.5ISO Speed Rating640Image Width4032Focal Length4.30 mmMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageScene Capture TypeStandardLight SourceUnknown
newfag here, guys pls help. Is it true that mirroring your selfies tells you how others perceive you irl? Because if so then I'm fucked. I got a new phone recently with a pretty good front cam, I snapped some selfies thinking I'm quite alright looking, much like when I look at the mirror, then I mirrored these photos and holy shit my face looked completely fucked. Everything from my jaw to my nose, mouth, eyes etc. suddenly look so off and asymmetrical, it was genuinely shocking to look at myself, I mean I didn't have much confidence in my looks to begin with, but now it's down to negative numbers. Have I been looking at myself the wrong way my whole life? How tf do I even cope with that?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareWindows Photo Editor 10.0.10011.16384Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandImage Created2019:09:07 19:04:34Color Space InformationsRGB
>>3921274Metering may struggle with tiny targets. Matrix metering can't read your mind either. It tried to expose the picture right. Even if you did expose the shadowy parts then the whites would probably be blown. As others have mentioned try a reflector. The D3300 doesn't have HSS and can't 'fill flash' under those conditions. You can also edit to bring up shadows in post. Try to shoot RAW. >>3919756Under 'studio conditions' almost any camera with an interchangeable lens and a built in 'intervalometer' will do. Find something that is compatible with 'strobe/monobloc' type lights (check out Godox/Neewer/YongNuo if on a budget. If you aren't just buy the most expensive shit you can find). Get something that runs of mains power so you don't need batteries. OR you could try to use LED grow lights (you need that to grow indoors right?). You might run into problems with color cast/flicker but if you get them anyway its worth a shot. >>3918618All films were balanced to provide 'neutral' colour results under an assumed 'light temperature'. There were tungsten balanced slide films which are analogous to selecting the WB mode on a modern digital camera (whose names ended in T i.e CineStill 800T) with many other films anticipating a relatively 'cooler' (or more neutral) daylight. All films produced a degree of color-cast and tonal properties, that's why there were so many of them. If you're doing critical color work buy a goddamn grey card (which you'd probably need to get precise results out of slide film) and go from there. >>3918560If weather sealed maybe. If not weather sealed maybe. Depends on camera. Depends on lens (some third party lenses aren't weather sealed). Many factors. >>3918505You can do it but try and get a flash to increase shutter speed. Off camera with radio triggers for best results. The ring flash many people use often produces flat light. 'Focus with your hips and legs' by pivoting back and forth rather than racking focus on the lens.
So, for timelapses, using the electronic shutter(silent shooting), it's simply the sensor turning on and off, correct?There's no mechanical shuttercount going up?
>>3921955Mirroring images does help to get rid of bias, but I dunno if it's instant "how others perceive you". In general to see yourself in a photo in a similar way others see you, you need to be at the same distance from the camera as you'd be from other people's eyes. If you're snapping a selfie from an arm's length away, your proportions will be distorted. For symmetry keep in mind that shadows are important so make the lighting isn't biased to one side when composing and taking the picture, or else it will look off when flipped.
>>3921957>>>3921274 (You)I figured it out, it was actually my fault for not reading the info. I did shoot raw, but my fault was that the spot metering was off because i used wrong AF area mode
>>3909562Are "budget" full frame cameras worth it? I'm considering getting a Canon EOS RP. Is it worth it? Does anyone have any good alternatives if not?
Why is it called low light instead of no light
I’m looking for a cheap set up for doing video portraits for Instagram and Tiktok of pretty women frolicking in grass fields.Right now I have Fuji XH1 but I’m not really invested too deep since I only use the Viltrox lenses. I fucking hate the autofocus, it loses the model even when she’s literally standing still.I was thinking staying Fuji and getting the XS10 with a Weebill S, but wondering if the autofocus would really be that big of a step up for video. Otherwise, was thinking an a6400 + Crane M2 with a cheap Sigma.
>>3922185Because you need SOME light. Try taking a photo with a lens cap on to see what no-light photography looks like. >>3922171"Worth it" is a really tricky phrase. I don't know much about mirrorless offerings (still stuck with a DSLR due to glass investment). What do you want to use it for? My general rule has always been 'if you need to ask' then it probably is not 'worth it' for you. For 90% of people buying a camera (for the first year or so) is not 'worth it'. Your phone (or even budget APS-C) is probably more than enough to help you along. If you don't have a budget, then just buy the most expensive stuff. If you do have a budget (like most of us) ask yourself why you are looking to buy that cool new full-frame camera.
>>3922171>Canon EOS RPit might be a "cheap" ff body, but it's using an ancient sensor out performed by aps-c sensors, and if you're shopping this camera, you can't afford the rf glass to put in front of it.
>>3922171I wouldn't go for the Canon(or Nikon) mirrorless because of lens selection, like the other anon said. For mirrorless I'd get a used A7ii or ideally A7Rii, and you'll get access to a quite sizeable selection of both affordable third party lenses, as well as a developed second hand market(at this point some fancy FE lenses are literally 50% off used).If not mirrorless, Nikon DSLRs are also a possibility, but personally I haven't been find anything that wasn't beat to death second hand.
How do i know at which f stop the entire image gets sharp?