[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]

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 95 posters in this thread.

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


Happy 18th Birthday, 4chan!

Janitor acceptance emails will be sent out over the coming weeks. Make sure to check your spam box!


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: sony_a1.jpg (139 KB, 1000x1000)
139 KB
139 KB JPG
I want to buy a Sony A7R4 because of the lens options. But I keep reading that the narrow lens mount causes more image noise because of the steeper exit angles. Should I buy a Nikon Z7II instead?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.10.22
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2021:09:15 18:37:40
>>
>>3939842
>Snoy
>vignette galore
>Nikon
>sane mount + you can painlessly adapt 60 years of Nikon F lenses
dunno man, seems like a close call
>>
>>3939842
>steeper exit angles
This only really causes problems with certain adapted lenses, like Leica M wides that have a rear element that sits really close to the focal plane
>>
>>3939842

Use your brain for literally 5 seconds and ponder how the fuck a lens mount would create more noise. That's just literally not how it works.

That said, the a7R IV has decently high noise because it's an incredibly high resolution sensor. You want less noise? Go R3 or A1, or S3.
>>
>>3939842
The Sony lens mount isn't large enough for f0.7 lenses, go find some f0.7 lenses you like and report back if there's any issues.

>>3939847
This has nothing to do with the mount size, and everything to do with those lenses being designed for film, all digital cameras have issues with lenses with rear elements too close to the sensor with too wide a lens, when using lenses not designed for digital.
>>
File: 20210805-DSC09613.jpg (1.21 MB, 3662x1831)
1.21 MB
1.21 MB JPG
>>3939866
https://petapixel.com/2019/03/06/sony-e-mount-lenses-could-be-as-fast-as-f-0-63-theoretically/

>>3939842
>I keep reading that the narrow lens mount
___________________________________
Everyone above this line has been trolled. Except (You) >>3939848

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-7RM3
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 10.2 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)200 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2021:08:25 21:41:05
Exposure Time1/60 sec
F-Numberf/11.0
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/11.0
Brightness7.9 EV
Exposure Bias-1 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length200.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastHard
SaturationNormal
SharpnessHard
>>
>>3939866

Let's simplify this even more: go find some f/0.7 lenses you like. idgaf what mount it's for, go show me a *good* f/0.7 lens, made by anybody.
>>
Give me a reason to buy the f/1.4 over the standard f/1.8 50mm other than build quality

After all the research I've done I just don't think the extra bit of aperture size is worth triple the price and I couldn't care less about the 1.8 being made of plastic but what's your guys opinion
>>
>>3940001
>Don't care about speed or optical properties
>Don't care about build quality
Why ask then? the 1.8 is also smaller so buy away
>>
How do you decide what / where to photograph? I’ve barely ever been taking pictures anymore. If theres some kind of event im going to ill take my camera and still sometimes will do some abstract stuff (usually macro) if i see something that gives me a good idea but i never go out specifically to get photos anymore and that feels like a shame.
>>
What kind of ISO settings do you use? Do you always set it manually, do you keep it at like 100 and only raise it if you must, do you keep it on auto (if so what max iso do you have specified)?
>>
>>3940014
Depends on what kind of pictures i want to shoot. If i want to shoot long exposure, i will use iso 100. If i want to shoot fast subject, i will increase the iso
>>
>>3940020
So you typically are manually adjusting it along with the other settings? I generally don’t notice much graininess up to around 20000 iso for my body so i typically just leave it on auto with the limit around there
>>
>>3940012
If it feels like a chore then you won’t do it. What do you like taking pictures of? I like taking pictures of plants, mushrooms, and cats while on walks. And I like taking pictures of my friends. It should have some direct benefit to your own enjoyment and mental well-being.
>>
>>3940014
im rocking the a7ii and set ISO auto to 100/6400. Works well in dynamic situations.
>>
>>3940001
The EF 50mm rendering is fucking gross, that should be reason enough. And once you take transmission of the 2 lenses into account, the f1.4 is just shy of a whole stop faster, allowing you to shoot and focus in half as much light. You'll regret not just getting the 1.4 in the 1st place.
>>
>>3940014
I use auto if I'm in decent to good light. min 100, max 25600, standard auto iso min shutter speed
>>
>>3939842
this is sure to be a productive discussion
>>
I will Travel to south America and i know that robbery IS a common thing there. So i dont want to take my 5k camera setup, and it's too old for having a décent insurrance. So i thinking to go with my smartphone, a osmo and smartphone lens. My question : Smartphone lens are really bullshits ? Because i want to buy some for my Travel i have like a 200 $ budget. Do you know good ones ?
>>
>>3940023
I am using aperture priority, so i only control aperture and iso
>>
I want to get a godox sl-60w light. a lot of people in the reviews say the one that comes with a stand is weak and flimsy (doesn't hold it very well). can anyone confirm? if the stand kit doesn't work, which one should I get?
>>
>E MOUNT SMALL, SMALL BAD
>PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE SMALLER F AND M MOUNTS CAUSING ZERO ISSUES
>>
It's all fixed with in-camera corrections and the lens design itself. You don't design a lens not knowing about the mount you're going to have for it.
Camera firmware takes the other half. Who's shooting with camera corrections turned off?

Finally, for adapted manual lenses, you can find lens corrections in post-processing. An extra step, but with todays technology, it's really splitting fucking hairs. Do you want the camera to wipe your ass as you take a shit too?
>>
>>3941081
>he doesn’t understand focal flange distance and angle is incidence
Ngmi desu
>>
>>3941081
>PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE LONGER FLANGE OF THE F MOUNT
lol
>>
>>3941088
>>3941087
>M MOUNT DOES NOT EXIST WITH COMPARABLE FLANGE DISTANCE AND SMALLER FLANGE DIAMETER
Go ahead, poke the leicafag pit. Everyone else can sit back and watch you two groups of morons slapfight.
>>
>>3941087
FF diagonal size - 43mm
E mount inner diameter - 46.5mm
Lol! Anon failed at pic related
>>
>>3941204
>>3941246
>it sstill doesn't understand angle of incidence
>>
>>3941250
>parrots 'angle of incidence'
>thinks that's affected by flange diameter
>>
>>3941250
Angle of incidence is going to be down to the position of the main element and whether there is a correction element, not the width of the mount. This is basic geometry; considering you couldn't manage shapes, i'm not surprised that triangles are beyond you.

and anon, the mount diameter is still wider than the frame diagonal, lights expanding from the centre of the lens, not colluding from the outside.

you are very dumb, very, very dumb. I bet you shoot jpegs on a crop camera.
>>
I shoot most of my daily snapshot pictures at P mode & depth of field priority mode. The program tends to choose f-numbers around f10.. 18 when shooting on broad daylight. Is this somehow bad for the image quality? I shoot crop
>>
>>3941350
Yes after around f11 (assuming your sensor is 24MP) sharpness is reduced bc of diffraction
https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm
>>
>>3940012
I mostly go for walks and hikes in places that seem like they'd be interesting and see what's to shoot on the way. Obviously if there's an interesting event going on I might go, or few times I went to a specific spot for a sunset, but I don't really do that often.

One thing that helps me personally take more photos is just taking one lens with me.
With multiple lenses:
>well I guess this would make for a cool photo, but it would be better with a wide angle, so I have to switch lenses, and it's easier to just not bother taking it at all
With one lens:
>well I only have one lens so might as well shot with it
>>
>>3941357
Diffraction depends on resolution and sensor size, a 12mp FF sensor can get diffraction only at f22 while an APS-C 24mp might get it before, perhaps at f11 but that does sound low to me.
>>
>>3942021
It's still marginal at f11 but beyond that it becomes somewhat noticable
Check the link it explains everything and has calculators for sensor/aperture combinations
>>
>>3942021
>Diffraction depends on resolution and sensor size
Diffraction solely depends on lens design.
>>
>>3942067
Sure, if you're measuring diffraction per unit area, like if you were interested in measuring lenses and not photos.

But if you're measuring diffraction per photo size, because we care about photos, not lens specs, then sensor size definitely does matter.
>>
>>3942069
The thing is, a higher res sensor (smaller pixel size) will "notice" diffraction earlier and start losing resolution earlier, than a lower res sensor.
Say the high res sensor starts dropping at f/11 and the lower res one at f/16.
But since it starts at a higher starting point, it will still have more resolution at f/16 than the lower res sensor.

So most of the time it's not worth comparing diffraction between different sensors, unless you make it clear that even past its diffraction limit, the higher res sensor will still perform better at a given aperture, say f/16, than a lower res one at the same aperture which happens to be its diffraction limit.
I mention this because I've seen many people miss that point and thinking the lower res sensor will match or outperform the high res one if the latter is past its diffraction limit.

And all that is given an idealised perfect lens. In physical lenses, the lens will have its own diffraction limit which is a hard upper ceiling at the resolution.
Which makes mentioning theoretical diffraction limits of sensors kinda meaningless.
When talking about different lenses, your system will perform the best at the *lens'* diffraction limit, not the sensor's. You might very well have better performance *beyond* the sensor's diffraction limit, because the lens' diffraction limit is further down.

Comparing different systems with different res sensors and lenses, not much can be said about diffraction *in general* without knowing the lens' diffraction limit.
And practically, as long as you don't do something utterly retarded like going beyond f/22 in 35mm (here the format matters not because of size, but because of the different diffraction limits - *usually* - of 35mm vs say large format lenses), you're gonna be fine.
>>
>>3942067
Effect of diffraction will depend on pixel pitch. For example, the same size CoF (Circle of Confusion, the convolved Airy Disc projected the the diffracted aperture) may cover several pixels on a 24MP APS-C sensor, but remain within a single pixel on a 12MP full-frame sensor. As long as that CoF is smaller than a pixel (yaddah yaddah Nyquist yaddah yaddah, you know what I mean) then the effects of diffraction are not detectable within the image.
>>
Doesn't fucking matter when we all view tiny fucking square images on the most compressed website in the world. Literally choosing a camera to say you use brand X or brand y for clout. Doesn't matter. End of.
Buy which ever camera you like using the most. Take your shitty pictures. Move on.
>>
>>3942243
>on the most compressed website in the world
Instagram? because /p/ isn't as bad as Instagram.
>>
>>3942081
Why are you talking about pixel size you stupid fuck.

If you have a 1mm sensor, and a lens with 0.5mm of diffraction, your final image is going to be a blurry mess. Take that same lens and put it on a sensor that's 5m across, diffraction is going to be completely irrelevant.

We view photos, not pixels, you don't print\output jpegs at a smaller size because you're using a smaller sensor camera.
>>
>>3942236
>then the effects of diffraction are not detectable within the image.
Sure.
But my point is that despite being detectable on the smaller pixel pitch (=higher res for a given sensor size) sensor, that sensor will still perform better wrt resolution.
Being detectable on the higher res sensor doesn't mean the final image will be worse, like obsessed retards like him (>>3942247) are implying.
>>
If companies didn't try to cram photo and video in one box, where would photo specs be today?
>>
>>3942252
>Talking about photos instead of pixels makes anon an "obsessed retard"

Enjoy your pixels bro, I'll stick to enjoying photos ;)

If you accept that diffraction is an issue in any capacity, it's beyond retarded to reject the idea of larger sensors minimising said issue.
>>
>>3942509
>BRAND NEW 1000 MEGAPICKLES SNOY
>>
I currently have a Panasonic G7 and a 14-42 kit lens, 25 mm, and a 42.5. I like the little guy, but I'm feeling it's age. I do real estate talking head shit for money sometimes, but want to add more automotive videography/photography.

Since I have the glass should I stick with MFT and go with the GH5 II or GH6. Or save up for an a7siii or some sort of canon system
>>
>>3942509
- Sensor-motion IBIS would be much rarer
- AF-C and other continuous lock-on modes like eye-AF would likely not be as widespread and/or as effective
- Ultra-high-ISO performance would not be receiving much - if any - attention
- Fast full-sensor readout (high burst speeds) would not be receiving much attention - probably no stacked sensors
>>
>>3942561

Literally everything you said is stupid. AF-C is insanely powerful for sports and wildlife photography.

High-ISO performance is incredibly important in almost every single discipline of photography'

Burst speed. Are you retarded? You understand that sports exist, right? That's like the #1 segment of camera use, and burst is paramount to capturing the shot.
>>
100mm macro or 70mm macro for still life photography?
>>
Any tips for getting into macro photography? i have no idea where to start and im having trouble understanding magnification and why it matters. my kit is a pentax k7 along with an SMC Macro Takumar 100mm f4 m42 lens that i got for free lol
>>
People claim that when you use a focal reducer that you only calculate the lens focal length times the reducer and that is your focal length.

Like a 28mm on a 0.7 focal reducer is 19mm.

I always calculate it as 28mm x 0.7 = 19mm x 1.5 crop = 29mm lens.

To me I've tested a zoom crop lens and a lens with the focal reducer and it does appear to equal the 29-30mm frame.

So which is right? To me obviously 28mm with focal reducer did not look as wide as a 19mm field of view from the zoom lens.
>>
Hey guys, I've been googling for the last two days and can't find anything with a direct answer online, so, I have to ask my stupid question here...
I've been using Lightroom for years now, at this moment I use Lr Classic 10.3 - I've been putting together a nice folder of "abandoned" shots from last year and after rendering them I noticed that the grain pattern is the same in all pictures. Has this been a "feature" since a recent update or is the grain in all of my shots from the last few years gonna be identical?

>https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4483073 (the only thread that describes the problem I found, though no answer...)
>>
>>3942684
you have to account for the sensor size too, of course.
a 23mm on a 1.5 crop "feels" like a 35mm, the focal reducer is gonna make the projected image circle "smaller" by the 0.7 factor, thus giving you back the 23mm feel on a 1.5 crop sensor.
1.5*0.7 = 1.05, which means that you can basically say that if you put any focal lenght on a crop sensor with a reducer, its gonna look like the intended focal lenght
>>
>>3942680
Between those two 100mm for sure.
>>
>>3942774
So uhm... I was browsing through my older renders, just to be sure that it isn't a fault in newer lightroom/camera raw versions...
It's the same bullshit even in my photos from 2019 with 8.2.1, the same grain pattern is applied to all the photos (if they are uncropped, it probably still will be the same if its cropped, but its much harder to judge)
fuck adobe lol
>>
I have an old semi broken Pentax 35-70 lens.
I'm thinking of rehousing a projector 85mm f2 lens into this lens body. The lens body has a max aperture of f3.5.

Would the aperture blades in the donor lens change the max aperture of the projector lens to f3.5, or does the lens dictateax aperture?
>>
Is there a difference between shooting a FF camera in crop mode, and shooting full size and manually cropping in post?
>>
>>3943040
Both is gay, so pick your poison.
>>
>>3943040
Metering area.
>>
Is a lens CLA worth it?
>>
>>3939842
Why Sony banned my account for no reason right after I signed up? I just want to buy that timelapse app for my A6300. Is there any other work around on this bs?
>>
>>3943040
Shoot for then crop, gives wriggle room on composition.
>>
>>3939842
>scan negs
>.tiff 50mb
>rotate portrait photos in viewer
>save as
>35-40mb
is this bad? should I rotate it another way?
>>
>>3943794
You can install a third party timelapse app with https://github.com/ma1co/Sony-PMCA-RE
>>
I use Polarr editing. Lately when I upload photos on it they are appear overexposed for no reason, without any tweaks, how do I fix it?
>>
I bought a Nikon d200 and a tamron 90mm macro lense…. Did I do ok?
>>
>>3946685
>d200
>Apsc
>did I do ok?
Biggest mistake you’llever make in photography
>>
What is the focus IR beam shit on my DSLR? Does it do anything
>>
>>3946974
lowlight AF assist for short distances so your lens wont hunt
>>
File: bird.jpg (616 KB, 857x1200)
616 KB
616 KB JPG
>>3946965
>>3946685
It's fine and probably was cheap. Don't let people bully you cuz they dropped $2000 on a full frame mirrorless and never shoot anymore.

Crop is fine for most things, and better for a couple autisticly niche things. If you like macro shit I think you get an even higher magnification ratio.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON D500
Camera SoftwareAdobe Lightroom 4.3 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/6.3
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern812
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)900 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2021:10:02 23:56:05
Exposure Time1/1000 sec
F-Numberf/6.3
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating2000
Lens Aperturef/6.3
Exposure Bias0.7 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length600.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlLow Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
>>3946685
Which Tamron 90mm? There's a few. I wouldn't get APS-C myself, much less old APS-C, but 90mm macro is definitely a better choice than buying some boring 50mm equivalent.
>>
I have an Olympus E-M10 III that I'll probably upgrade to an E-M5 III (or IV when it releases) later.

Should I bother with a compact like Panasonic Lumix LX100 II or is it redundant?
>>
I started looking into stop motion and was writing a script to do it with my collection of action figures as a hobby, and at some point the idea of doing big sets came up; like castles and military bases and things like that.
I was wondering, would making small models of these places for establishing shots and separate rooms in scale with my figures for every other scene work or would they look weird?
I really don't have room for a 1/10 full castle and I doubt I'll ever have.
>>
>>3946978
holy vignette batman
>>
>>3940001
Both are made of plastic the only difference is the mount.
I wish Canon would make a good 50mm with a real ring type USM instead of this film era holdover.
For all my criticisms, the f/1.8 MkII is worse in all regards.
I'd go with the 40mm STM; (and I did) I haven't used my f/1.4 for a couple years now, the pancake is just too convenient.
>>
>>3939842
You should buy an EOS R6
>>
Can I adapt Leica M lenses to an EOS R body?
Would autofocus still work well?
Do people do this?

I am asking because I would like to get a cool Voigtlander M-mount f/1.2 and adapt it to my EOS R rather than get an M-mount camera.
>>
>>3947161
I want to say the olympus is about the same size and functionally better in most ways, but it's been years since I've even seen a panasonic in the wild.

>>3947281
It works better because you get a more "realistic" depth of field. Larger models have a hokey, shallow DoF---especially when you use macro lenses.
>>
>>3950018
>Leica M
>autofocus
What are you about? M mount lenses are all manual focus.
There's an adapter by Novoflex.
>>
>>3947161
I guess if I were in your position I'd consider the LX100 first gen. It's very cheap on the used market, the Leica lens is way better than a camera with that low resolution would ever need (I think the first gen is effectively 12MP with the crop and all that), and if you treat it as a secondary backup camera you'll be very happy with it.
But the LX100 II is too expensive to justify having it alongside a new E-M5.
>>
How do I get better at identifying faults and making adjustments in the field?
>take some photos
>look fine at a glance
>check them later on my PC
>look awful but it's clear what should have been improved
It's just hard to tell if everything is in focus and exposed properly on a camera screen. For pictures with a clear subject it's fine but I've been trying to take some landscape and I'm struggling.
>>
>>3950029
basically this but don't get the LX100.
>>3947161
the best thing you can do if you want a backup camera is to get one of these tiny M4/3 bodies they sadly don't make anymore. like the Panasonic GM1. get a pancake zoom lens if you don't already have that and you're set. that was always the greatest appeal about M4/3 to me. being able to shoot with a high tech no compromises body, but then taking those same lenses and hooking them up to something pocketable.
>>
>>3950035
Since you don't have any manual features like focus scales or external light meters, the best thing you can do is learn to read your meter. Put it in spot mode and ride the exposure knob to shift objects from a middle grey to where you want them. Matrix metering only works for you when you can identify the most prominent light value and adjust accordingly.
>>
>>3950028
>What are you about? M mount lenses are all manual focus.
Wew I really should have known that, sorry.
I just really like the form factor of the lenses more than anything.
>>
>>3950051
They have that form factor because they don't need to accommodate for all the tech that comes with autofocus. The price you pay really is all about the optical excellence. Just use focus peaking if you have a manual lens on a digital body.
>>
Someone please help me out with lightroom. I'm on the latest version (4.1) and i cannot figure out how to show the pins for things like the brush tool. When i look it up all of the info seems outdated as they usually mention to press t to bring up a toolbar below the photo or use the "edit tools" top menu but neither of these are a thing in the current version.
>>
looking at buying a used sony a7ii. the shutter count is just under 10.000. is that too much? what shutter count is too high?
>>
>>3939842
i cant tell if sony has vignetting issues or if its just paid posters from other companies slandering sony. ive never seen anyone outside this forum complain about vignetting.
>>
do I need a specific expensive wire to tether like something from tetherpro or can I just buy a cheap one that fits my camera? will there a be a noticeable difference in performance?
>>
>>3950186
In-camera corrections get rid of it all.
So for those lenses where it does vignette a bit (not all of the lenses, only some) they draw out the apparent problem by turning off all in-camera corrections

this can also be done with pretty much any issue that a camera compensates for such as pin cushioning distortion
A nice article from Canon:
https://www.canon.com.cy/pro/infobank/in-camera-lens-corrections/

So it's not just Sony, but Sony might use a vignette correction more so than other manufacturers, it in no way implies it gives you worse performance because Sony designs these lenses with the correction ability in mind. Any digital camera can compensate lenses made for them, which is why I love digital photography so much. It gives you a lot wider breadth of lens options that you normally couldn't have.

Give the article a read. It's 10000% better info than what most people on 4/p will give you
>>
>>3950191
thanks for the proper answer, i just ordered it.
>>
I'm colorblind,what would be a good camera /process /software setup to get good looking color results without needing
my input
>>
>>3950194
Here is Sony's article

it isn't as good though. But it will tell you what Sony's "words" are for the same things. For example they call it "Shading" which is dumb, but whatever its the same diff
>>
>>3950196
you didn't link the article
>>
>>3950196
erm:

https://www.sony.com/electronics/support/articles/00018031
>>
I have a bunch of silica packets. Should I keep a few in my gear bag? In my lens bags? Is fungus a real problem?
>>
Instagram bros, how do you calibrate for variability in phone screen brightness? I've heard people edit on their phones to help with this, but then at what brightness?
>>
>>3950226
Would it hurt your gear to just do it? The worst that can happen is that you get no advantage from this. And in a best case scenario your lenses won't get fungus.
>>
>>3950229
No one cares but you
>>
>>3950237
Why wouldn't you concern yourself with the quality of your output? It's different if you don't use social media and think its fag shit, that's fair. It's real different when you also post on sns but just don't care to think about how your photos appear.
>>
>>3950195
most recent 'enthusiast' cameras according to your budget will have good straight out of camera jpegs. just check the reviews if they have color issues, mushy details, oversharpening, to noisy at low light, etc.
or if you want, just embrace the black and white pill like I do. you can start toying with apps on your phone like Snapseed, Lightroom mobile with photos you shot with your phone.
>>
>>3950195
Doesn't matter. Actually, edit your photos to your liking, with no regards for a normal person't color perception. Then VICE is going to feature you as that 'brave colorblind photographer who forever changed our view on the importance of color'
>>
>>3950270
I know that asvp shooter guy from Toronto who was featured in a vice article a few years back. He got a little bit of fame from it and even had German girls flying out to his ig meetups to none him. He got to do a shoot with Stephanie Knight. He sometimes gets into free concerts and hangs out at the side of the stage taking photos. Not sure how he sneaks a DSLR and 24mm fast prime into the venues.

Seen him recently and it's sad, he lost most of his 15 mins of fame and people don't care about him anymore. Saw him with fake large blonde dreadlocks trying to fit in and it was just pathetic.
>>
>>3942561
This is one of the dumbest posts here. Newfags beware.
>>
Did anyone EVER take a good photo with a LENSBABY?
>>
File: Canon-EOS-Rebel-XS.jpg (49 KB, 700x525)
49 KB
49 KB JPG
Is this camera my parents were getting rid of any good? I am a complete beginner when it comes to photography. pic related, it's the camera
>>
>>3950471
The camera should be ok. I had an XSi back in the day. Supposedly 450D and 1000D (the names I know them by) were quite similar. Don't know about the lens.
>>
>>3950484
The XSi is the 450D. They just used a very weird naming scheme for the north American market.
>>
File: blue.jpg (331 KB, 660x575)
331 KB
331 KB JPG
What settings would I edit to get a bluish tint like this?
>>
>>3950586
Looks like you‘d want to use split toning. But maybe just reducing color temperature could already be enough on some shots.
>>
>>3950589
I see, thanks for the tip. I've just been editing to make photos look like their natural colors, now looking to add more flair through editing.
>>
File: 1525420273227.jpg (386 KB, 1920x1280)
386 KB
386 KB JPG
There's an old photo I'm looking for. I can't find it anywhere and I don't remember any of the names involved.
>Black and white
>Man, possibly shirtless, wild and panicked, looking around as if he's unsure of where to run
>Backstory is that he's an escaped killer or something who ran off into the crowd of press and the photographer, frozen in fear, accidentally snapped off a shot as the guy ran past
Ringing any bells?
>>
>>3940014
Manual
>>
>>3940014
I use auto with a range of 200-1600 during daytime shooting, 200 being base ISO on my camera. but I always go full manual for night photography because I really have to decide on a shot-by-shot basis how low the ISO can be kept.
>>
>>3939846
The amount of cope from Nikon slugs makes me wanna sell all my Nikon kit and just give money money to Sony.
>>
if i like playing around with film cameras than i do actually shooting, does that mean i dont really like photography?
>>
File: P0.jpg (170 KB, 1280x1280)
170 KB
170 KB JPG
Just ordered this since I really wanted a film camera and it was kind of cheap. I ordered it from a finnish guy who collects and restores vintage cameras and he was really open about any defects, so I trust him.

But I can't find almost any info about it, seems like nobody has it.

Anyone have any thoughts on it?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1280
Image Height1280
>>
>>3950709
i doubt you're gonna get much information here. it looks to be just a standard 90s point and shoot. nothing special.
>>
>>3950709
Lol i have one of these.
Its quite plasticy but doesn't feel completely hollow. The nice thing about these are that you can disable the flash on demand.
The less nice things are the type of batteries they use, its a chunky and sometimes difficult to find cr-p2, and the battery door is a little flimsy so you dont want to manhandle it too much.
>>
I'm too much of a pussy to take them apart to check, but I've got 2 cameras at the moment - Canon PowerShot SX540HS, and Lumix FZ35 - I have no clue what lens mount they offer, if any. Is it feasible to buy aftermarket lenses for either, or is it not possible?
>>
>>3950752
Neither of them has a lens mount. They're bridge cameras from what I can tell. The lenses are integrated into the body.
>>
>>3950739
Nice man, got any shots from it to share?

The fin guy said he replaced the battery so hopefully I won't need to go chasing for it for the time being.
>>
Sony a7 iii vs a7r iii? Will I be mad in the future if I don't choose the a7r iii because of the megapixels, or doesn't it matter at all?
>>
any reason not to use a spotting scope + mount + phone camera instead of a dedicated camera and supertelephoto lens?
>>
Reasonable upgrade for T3i/600D?
Feeling held back by low light and lack of (working) video.
>>
>>3951022
>lack of (working) video
I've seen good stuff with a T3i, lower your BlackMagic Pro 9000 RAW standards or learn to edit.
Alternatively if you are doing it for work, what's your budget?
>>
>>3951022
Magic Lantern. It's free.
Also learn to light a scene, a well lit scene in a shitty camera will look better than a dark as fuck scene on a expensive one.
>>
>>3950962
Depends. No if you just want to document your binding, not necessarily if you are thinking of getting a bridge camera, yes if you want to have take high quality photos of distant twitchy subjects (it's a pursuit where gear does matter).
>>
>>3951342
do any bridge cameras have a 60x magnification factor?
>>
>>3950709
Just got this and was wondering what the ST in the front stand for? Anyone know? It's a switch
>>
>>3951059
By (working) I mean no matter the speed of the card I put in it it won't record more than a couple minutes.

>>3951339
How am I supposed to light up clouds?
>>
File: 1617523942322.jpg (1.07 MB, 3000x2000)
1.07 MB
1.07 MB JPG
im quite new to photography and wanted to know what is the best way to shoot in extremely bright environments?

All of my pictures have extremely washed out looks, not primarily because of the exposure but because the sun is almost bleaching? The sunlight is extremely white both in the camera and in person. Its not the white balance as once i take pictures primarily in the shade/out of direct sunlight, they're great.
When it comes to these scenarios and trying to take pictures, is it just best to not even try? With great contrasts - extremely bright sunlight and shadows/dark in the same pic - just dont bother?
My XT-2 auto-exposures too much or too little, manual adjustments are needed but it seems to still look washed out even after editing raws. Would there be equipment to mitigate like my example picture or is just skill and composing a photo to eliminate situations like that?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeFUJIFILM
Camera ModelX-T2
Camera SoftwareCapture One 21 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperturef/3.5
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)203 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Exposure Time1/85 sec
F-Numberf/6.4
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating200
Lens Aperturef/6.4
Brightness5.8 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeSpot
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length135.00 mm
Image Width3000
Image Height2000
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
SharpnessHard
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
>>3951421
you expose for highlights and bring shadows up in post
>>
I don't understand the point of f stops beyond the extreme ends
>>
>>3951423
what do you mean you don't see the point of f stops?

That's like saying you don't see the point of the metric system when you're an engineer.
>>
>>3951423
depth of field and slow shutters
>>
>>3951423
Go shoot some medium format and it’ll make sense
>>
>>3951355
For example Nikon P950 has "2000 mm equivalent" 83x zoom. With a tiny sensor, smaller than some phones have.
No idea how it compares to 60x scoping with a upper end phone.
>>
>>3951421
Increase your shutter speed and decrease aperture size? Should be step 1 to adjust for lighting. Your EXIF data says your shutter speed was 1/85th of a second, you could easily increase the that to like 1/200th of a second.
>>
As someone totally new into photography, please talk me out of buying a preowned fuji xt-2 and investing in fuji in general. I'm still not sure whether I would go to full frame in the future so yeah that's another concern.
>>
>>3951600
unless you're going into some niche part of photography that requires specialised kit, Fuji will be fine
>>
>>3951421
have you accidentally bumped your exposure compensation dial?
>>
File: Lense Flare 2.jpg (3.78 MB, 5184x3888)
3.78 MB
3.78 MB JPG
Is this some kind of Lensflare?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeOLYMPUS CORPORATION
Camera ModelE-M1MarkIII
Camera SoftwareVersion 1.0
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution350 dpi
Vertical Resolution350 dpi
Image Created2021:10:15 22:50:42
Exposure Time1.3 sec
F-Numberf/1.8
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating4000
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length8.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width5184
Image Height3888
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlHigh Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>3951645
what else would it be?
>>
>>3951647
aliens
>>
Please help me understand lighting w.r.t. portraits.

>compose picture
>set aperture you want
>set ISO to 100/200
>expose for the background using shutter speed
>use fill light to accent one half of face, adjust power output to give effect you want
>then add key light to fill in the face, adjust power output to give effect you want

Is this the gist? Do you really take like 20 photos just setting up your lighting right?
>>
File: 81XeVWWyUUL._AC_SL1500_.jpg (216 KB, 1500x1141)
216 KB
216 KB JPG
hello /p/, i bought a sony a6400 + kit lens for ~400 off recently but it's a best buy open box, meaning it was purchased and returned. are there any ways i can quality test this camera before I commit to something that could potentially fuck up well before it ought to?
>>
>>3951657
Check shutter count. Check if hot shoe works (a lot of times these can fuck up with carelessness). It's hard to quantify the shape of a body other than shutter count, but that presupposes the previous owner wasn't a mouthbreather.
>>
>>3951658
thank you anon. godspeed /p/
>>
>>3951661
Wish I could be more help, friend.

Shutter count might mean less for mirrorless bodies, but it's a good gauge of how much it was used. "This was used for 200 shots" might not tell you much other than how long they used it, and you can come to some conclusions about typical wear and tear over a period of time.
>>
>>3951657
Look closely at the sticker covering diopter adjustment, if it looks like it was pried off, camera was opened. Check AEL/AF switch, if button is stuck in one position, camera was opened by a monkey.
>>
>>3951656
please respond
>>
is darkroom printing worth it? i have the gear but im starting to question whether it's worth it or not.
>>
>>3951645
a leaf
>>
>>3951674
>I'm $600 in and getting cold feet
It's all about the art of the print. You get out what you put in.
>>
There are a bunch of Rebel T7 bundles on Amazon, just wondering if this is a good buy for baby's first camera. My only true /p/ experience is with a Pentax K1000 for my high school photography class (~2009)
>>
>>3951700
A baby as in an infant, or girlfriend? I doubt an infant would be able to comfortably grasp a chunky DSLR properly.
>>
>>3951674
If you do presentable prints with dodging and burning to get tones you want, yes it is. Printing a roll of snaps postcard size is better left to machine.
>>
>>3951706
Lurk moar
>>
File: koda.jpg (400 KB, 800x812)
400 KB
400 KB JPG
>>3939842
So are rolls of film all processed at the same time, or frame by frame?
Like, if I fuck up and underexpose one shot on the roll, they can't fix that. I would need to underexpose the rest of the roll and ask them to fix it in development?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 22.0 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2021:10:16 05:46:53
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width800
Image Height812
>>
>>3951780
No they develop the entire roll. And film has a wide exposure latitude so if you underexposure a shot it’ll probably come out fine in the scans.
>>
>>3951791
If it's negative film and you underexpose, you're fucked, if you overexpose, you're fine.

If it's slide film you've gotta be spot on.
>>
>>3951793
Most negative film is designed to handle up to 2 stops of underexposure. The usual caveats apply but you can pull a lot from scans, even thin negs will print with the right contrast filter if there aren't too many blown shadows. It really helps to know your film's latitude in practice and have some experience with day for night or spot metering for studio work. Then you have a sense for when you're about to fuck up and can minimize what is going to be lost in bad light.
>>
File: colonia san benito.jpg (1.96 MB, 1500x1000)
1.96 MB
1.96 MB JPG
>>3951700
I would get the body with the kit lens. Had my T7 for a week already (first camera) and I'm having a blast but I want to try other lenses already.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS Rebel T7
PhotographerVictor Guzman
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2021:10:16 09:04:44
Exposure Time1/500 sec
F-Numberf/4.5
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating800
Lens Aperturef/4.8
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length40.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1500
Image Height1000
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessHard
>>
>>3951850
A kit lens is great in general but a prime gives you the control and options that bring out the best of the camera. When you edit, you can see what you use the most and get a prime in that range. It takes discipline to not be a zoomfag but you learn a lot and eventually the results speak. Having to move to find the composition and being slightly limited prevents lazy snaps from wherever you're standing. It's also funny watching zoomfags struggle with a portrait prime.
>>
File: 20211013_153408.png (758 KB, 608x1069)
758 KB
758 KB PNG
>>3939842
My wife
>>
File: building.jpg (1.57 MB, 1500x1000)
1.57 MB
1.57 MB JPG
>>3951889
>When you edit, you can see what you use the most and get a prime in that range

Thanks for the tip. I think I will save for a 50mm prime and a ~200mm zoom for the shots I take while driving. Having a zoom lens really makes you lazy but there are some places that I'm unable to get close to.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS Rebel T7
PhotographerVictor Guzman
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2021:10:16 12:04:21
Exposure Time1/500 sec
F-Numberf/4.5
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating800
Lens Aperturef/4.8
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length36.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1500
Image Height1000
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessHard
>>
>>3951898
I don't consider super telephotos part of that. Having a zoom is just plain smart for long range. It's the 35-120mm range where taking two steps back or squatting makes for drastic changes. I wouldn't recommend a portrait prime over 85mm either unless you shoot textbook portraits all the time or need to sneak a decent camera into a live show.

50mm is always nice. 40 or ~70 if you have them in your system and there's something you really don't like about 50. Those are really common medium format focal lengths and work well for print sized crops. I don't know how well they work with 3:2 but they are good 50mm alternatives without being noticably wide or telephoto.
>>
Hey guys
Don't know if stupid but I'm beginner, what's the most important kind of filter ? I'm hesitating between a ND8 and a polarizing one. Maybe I'll buy both, especially if I can put them together. I'm lucky though since my two lenses are 49mm diameter.
>>
>>3952008
Do you often find that you want to use longer shutter speeds in daylight? Then get an ND.
Does glare and reflections annoy you and you want skies to be super blue? Then get a polarizer.
>>
>>3952011
Kek thanks okay. But can I use both at the same time, or does it depend of the model I use ?
>>
>>3952014
It depends, if they're thicc and you're shooting wide they might cause vignetting, it might also affect IQ. I'd start with a nice polarizer for your favorite lens diameter, you can use it as a low strength ND. If you see that want more D in the ND, just get one of those.





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.