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

[Advertise on 4chan]


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: Untitled.jpg (179 KB, 785x979)
179 KB
179 KB JPG
Post any questions related to photography that you have and pray that the photography Gods of /p/ answer.

Last >>4002575
>>
File: 1636082244694.gif (1.82 MB, 480x506)
1.82 MB
1.82 MB GIF
Do I need a super telephoto? Is it just for wildlife and sports, or are there other uses?

I have lenses covering 15mm to 200mm, entire range at f2.8. I could get a 150-600 or 100-400 but with dark maximum apertures of f5.6 or even darker. Shits expensive, though. What else could I use them for?
>>
>>4017360
That's what I figure. But I'm still wondering how they're mostly used, if there's any purpose beyond sports/wildlife. Concerts? Do people take portraits above 200mm?
>>
>>4017363
>how they're mostly used
That is down to your imagination, there are no rules

>>4017366
I managed about 17 seconds of that shit
>>
>>4017357
>>4017363
You can use a fucking 800mm prime for portraits for all you care about honestly. 100-400mm are just handy keeping in the back if you need to get something up close without disturbing it, such as landscapes.

the 100-400 is excellent for landscape photography, because of how in depth you can get with it on specific subjects in your frame. Aperture really does not mean shit at all, since most things are either image stablized, or are sharp at f/8 anyway. The only 2.8 I would ever get is a 70-200mm WITH IS, because of the stabilizer. Everything else can go down to 4 and lower and I would be happy with it, since I do a lot of work with a tripod.

I tried real hard not to sound like a dick because of stupid questions.
>>
>>4017357
The only lens I have is a 600mm f/11 prime. Don't tell me you need more?
>>
Any tips for taking more landscape fotos? I basically only take close up shots. With landscapes or things further away theres always so much things in the frame i dont really need.
Using 32mm prome lens on crop.
>>
File: IMG_0475_copy_2918x3648.jpg (804 KB, 2918x3648)
804 KB
804 KB JPG
>>4017390
Get closer with your composition. You're using 50mm on 35 equiv. which is kinda in the middle of wide and zoom range.

Play around with your angles, if you have a tripod- get high, if you have a tripod, get low. Generally, I would prefer zoom lenses since you can play around with focal lengths instead of focusing specifically on one length.
>>
what causes file size of photos to vary?
>>
>>4017296
what is the most retard friendly, low cost. not absolute shit, film camera? i was thinking about how much i like printed photos and also how i dont have many photos of my friends. so i decided i wanna carry around a camera, something super light i wont get fussy about. somethign i can toss across the room so a friend can snap a quick one. my immediate thought was "man disposable cameras are fuckin rad" but i would rather have the long term cost effecient one. (think safety razor vs cartridge razor)

any recommendations? is this worth its own thread?
>>
>>4017414
i appreciate that suggestion but i really do not like the instax line. the film is retardedly expensive, the format isnt what i want. i would rather have a night where we go througha roll then i get it all developed at the same time, thats the dream. basically i want a reusable disposable.
>>
>>4017408
Even cartridge and safety razors are cosumable to a degree, hun. The film you are going to be investing in for your camera, is alone more expensive than probably the lifetime that the body and lense will probably ever have, or have left.

>>4017414
I recommend the Instax, even if it isn't the format. Sometimes you gotta cut corners to make a beautiful edge. I loathe Sony, but I switched to it because of how it operates better in some better aspects than my favourite Canon bodies.

If you're willing to go through film like high caliber ammo, I recommend an A1, FM, Rebel and older F series.
>>
>asked to photograph a swimming relay for [local arena]
>I have a 35mm, 85mm, and 105mm
>itching to buy a new lens

What lens would be ideal for this situation? Is 70-200 enough? Or 100-400? Or 150-500/600?
>>
Beyond the spec sheets, which reviewers do you trust to give you important info when making a camera buying decision? Some clearly favor the product since they got it for free, some shit on it as shtick, some shit on it in comparison to cameras costing hundreds more.
>>
>>4017461
I like Chris Frost and Kai W. I don't really like Fro because he doesn't go into any depth at all, really. Chris Abbot if I want to know every little thing, but usually Chris Frost does the job.
>>
>>4017463
Cheap Sigma as in the 150-600 Contemporary? Even if it's the cheapest, many say it's one of the sharpest unless I compare to similar focal ranges like 100-400.
>>
>>4017398
Aside from resolution and quality, how busy the image is has a big impact. A photo of mostly plain sky and water can be compressed very effectively but for a scene with lots of varied textures and colours and tones, JPEG or whatever other format will have a harder time discarding unnecessary detail.
Film scans are the worst case scenario because the grain makes nothing in the image uniform.
>>
Im using preset 'neutral' colour profile from canon. What are some.good ones to try out?
>>
>>4017394
Got m6 mark ii and keep hearing efm zooms are not good enough for it so idk.
Maybe its bullshit.
>>
What was the point of TLRs? Why not make them as SLRs in the first place? Just seems like overcomplicating things..
>>
>>4017669
>What was the point of TLRs? Why not make them as SLRs in the first place?
There's a reason TLRs came first and why SLRs were a revelation and technological leap when they first came up.

Also, it's not just the moving mirror (that has to be synchronised with the shutter, which is in the lens) that made SLRs more complex to manufacture.
There's lots of cumulative improvements that contribute a huge lot to how practical SLRs are, and which we now take for granted, but which took time to be developed and introduced to SLRs.
For instance the instant return mirror. At first, after taking a shot with an SLR, the mirror would stay up, blanking your viewfinder, until you brought it down. Instant return mirror came later.
Then, full aperture metering. At first, you had to stop down to the shooting aperture to meter, cause the camera had to way to know the full aperture of the lens and calculate exposure from wide open. Heck, at the very early stages, the aperture wouldn't even automatically stop down to the taking aperture at the moment of exposure and open up right afterwards, you'd have to do it manually.
TLRs had none of those issues.
Even the pentaprism we take for granted now for SLRs, wasn't a thing in the very early ones, and the image was mirrored horizontally like in TLRs.

SLRs might seems like a no brainer now for practicality, but picture this:
You're in the 50's, and there's this new fangled type of camera that costs 50% more than the "normal" cameras you're used to, but every time you need to shoot you have to set the lens aperture (just for the shot, not before and after cause then vf would be too dark) and reset it afterwards. And when you take a shot, the viewfinder blanks out until you reset it, interrupting your shooting. Oh, and you can't really use wideangles, plus the camera is heavier and more expensive. But damn, you can see through the lens while shooting, see the effect of focal lengths and filters, that's cool right?
Would you buy it?
>>
>>4017668
It's up to you personally to make that judgement. I use a 70-210mm and a 28-80mm from the 90s and very late 80s to this day and I absolutely love them. The 55-200 is decent for the native M-Mount, and will get you what you need to get in that higher range. If you're willing to expand, get an adapter with a Speedbooster and Buy L glass. Throwing a 24-70 or a 70-200 with the M, will get you excellent results. Sometimes you just gotta learn to work with what you got.
>>
Some MFT cameras say they can take superresolution images by using IBIS to tilt the sensor to take consecutive shots. Something like the G95 can take an 80MP photo this way.

Is this just a gimmick? It sounds rad as fuck, is it just hype? Looking to buy my first camera.
>>
>>4017818
pixel shift is legit but has some limitations in use cases
>>
>>4017357
Wildlife, Sport, and Landscapes, yes.
>>
File: smithad_image1.jpg (95 KB, 550x433)
95 KB
95 KB JPG
>>4017683
SLR happened at 1882 or so.
>>
What's a good checklist/idea list for photos in a city? Every time I go into a major city, my mind blanks on what would make a good photo. The photo challenge threads were useful but only in small portions.

What do you all focus on when doing city photos?
>>
File: 1629170526972.jpg (59 KB, 500x500)
59 KB
59 KB JPG
I have a canon m50 mark ii and I've been using the AV mode with no problems with the kit lens, but then I bought a sigma 30mm prime with no IS and AV mode always tries to auto set the shutter to 1/60 when there is enough light, which always give me blurry handheld photos. I've made some tests and I need 1/100 or at least 1/80s to get sharp photos, but afaik there is no way to set the minimum shutter speed on AV mode. So what now? AV mode is useless and I have to use manual mode all the time?
>>
File: SANY0177.jpg (1.14 MB, 2048x1536)
1.14 MB
1.14 MB JPG
>>4018176
To boil it down to a list like some kind of tourist at the mercy of an itinerary is counterproductive. You should be walking around seeing subjects, angles, lights, reflections that stand out to you. Half the job is seeing them, the rest is figuring out how to capture them. Soon you'll start seeing more than angles. You'll see moments, events, stories and if you get even halfway decent, you'll start seeing emotions.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSANYO Electric Co., Ltd
Camera ModelS1414
Camera Software1.0200
Maximum Lens Aperturef/3.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)28 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution96 dpi
Vertical Resolution96 dpi
Image Created2010:01:01 23:30:56
Exposure Time1/1000 sec
F-Numberf/7.2
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/7.2
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length5.05 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2048
Image Height1536
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>4018316
Yup. Work on your technique to shoot fine at 1/60 or shoot in M. Keeping auto ISO and leaving the shutter speed at like 1/125th will be the closest to Av, but you'll still have to adjust the shutter speed every now and then.
>>
>>4017461
Ken Rockwell
>>
File: url(52).jpg (89 KB, 426x731)
89 KB
89 KB JPG
Are there any /p/ anime?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwarePicsArt Photo Studio
Photographer213418306005102
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Image Height731
Image Created2017:07:19 14:06:16
Image Width426
>>
>>4018399
Tada-kun wa Koi wo Shinai
bad ending though

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2017 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width1280
Image Height720
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2018:04:26 23:56:02
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width1280
Image Height720
>>
>>4018402
Any cgdct ones?
>>
are pelican cases worth it. how do you store your gear??
>>
File: 20220115_100229.jpg (4.42 MB, 3743x2675)
4.42 MB
4.42 MB JPG
>>4018487
I like Nanuk cases. Pretty much the same thing as Pelican but smaller brand = smaller price.
>>
What would i really notice if i switch from crop sensor to fullframe?
>>
>>4018487
>>4018491
if you're american, Harbor Freight makes extremely competitive cases to Pelican for a small fraction of the price.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution144 dpi
Vertical Resolution144 dpi
CommentScreenshot
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2100
Image Height886
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
a lighter wallet
>>
>>4018487
I leave most everything in a combination of PD camera cubes. The large + small fits basically everything I use when at home, and I use the medium (or large) when travelling. I think I'd only go the hard-shell route if flying and having to check the gear. I usually just carry-on my photo gear though, and never been concerned enough in other traveling / usage for a hard-shell personally.

>>4018494
Better high ISO noise, a "proper" / wider field of view for FF lenses, potential for shallower depth of field. Depending on model, you'll also get better build, better performance in other areas (like fps dynamic range), a larger viewfinder, etc. With good equivalent lenses, it can be hard to tell the difference between sensors in a lot of situations. Definitely noticeable differences, but simply getting better lenses (if possible) can give you an even more noticeable difference, just depends.
>>
>>4018516
I'm >>4018491

Try to get an older Nanuk if you can. They no longer use metal eyelets for securing with lock. I bought one in 2021 and then one a couple months back and the newer one is not as high quality (but still great).
>>
>>4018356
I see. It seems like it would have been simple enough for Canon to implement a minimum shutter speed setting, different people and different lenses have different stability performance. But it is what it is, I'll work on manual. Thanks for answering me.
>>
File: 20211027_165315.jpg (3.89 MB, 4000x3000)
3.89 MB
3.89 MB JPG
>>4018534
Here's what I mean. As well the handle is a little more flimsy. If you get it for travel, be a little weary, but for home storage it's nbd.
>>
>>4018550
sounds like a fake nanuk
>>
>>4018553
No, I bought it directly from Nanuk. I even asked them through their contact form if maybe it was a manufacturing error and they said they no longer add the metal eyelets to some of the SKUs like the 940.

>>4018551
It's not a huge deal. I use them to store my stuff at home, I use a bag for travel. Just something to keep in mind.
>>
>>4018274
>>4018324
Well I meant like having a subject goal list. Like certain colors, reflections, materials and that kind of thing.
>>
>>4018593
Well excuse me for being black.
>>
>>4018593
Joke's on you, I'll actually complete this assignment.
>>
>widest Canon lens I can find is 14mm f/2.8 or 11-20mm f/3.5
>widest Sony lens I can find is 12mm f/2

I don't really understand this stuff beyond what focal length and aperture means. What do these numbers mean in the context of landscapes?

I don't have a camera but I cycle cross country a lot and have been taking cellphone photos when opportunity arose to document my travels. Should I consider Canon? Sony? What system is best if I want the widest non-fisheye (rectilinear?) photos? Does aperture matter when focal length is so wide?
>>
>>4018639
It is the Stupid Questions thread after all.
Focal length is angle of view, the smaller the focal length the wider the angle of view. Take in consideration the sensor size and lens tag as many of these are still using legacy numbers from the time of 135 film.
For example in a full frame camera 35mm lens is 65ish degrees of view, a 12mm is 120ish degrees, a 24mm is 85ish degrees. In an APS-C sensor the 35mm full frame is a 45ish degrees, a 24mm is near that 65ish now or a bit less depending on the actual crop (Canon is different from Nikon).
Some faggot brands, i guess most of them, use full frame numbers for their crop sensors so many users get confused, for example one of the most popular lenses in the world, the Canon EF-S 50mm f/1.8 "The Nifty Fifty", is actually a 75-80mm equivalent which makes it go from 45ish to 30ish degrees which is a big difference. Fuji i think does the same.

It was kept like the ISO values except in this case it is much worse, lenses should use angle of view degrees now that the retrofocal thing and 1:1 is not universal among optical formulas, but people are strange and for that reason some of those who think about stuff deserve answers.

>What do these numbers mean in the context of landscapes?
If you asked this is because you might not know what focal length is.
>the smaller the focal length the wider the angle of view
This means the 12mm will capture a wider area, which is something good in full context landscape imagery unless it's "too wide" which many regard the numbers under 15mm but 12mm is the deep cutthroat (120 degrees). Aperture here means capturing more light, in the context of landscapes it doesn't mean that lot other than freeze motion in vegetation or water on late hours, it can be useful if you want to isolate harsh backgrounds or make clouds dreamy at times.
>What system is best
Sony has way more options for lenses but Canon camera bodies, at least before the R5/R6/RP, are much better build but also heavier.
>>
>>4018654
>Some faggot brands, i guess most of them, use full frame numbers
Because anything else would be retarded when the mounts are the same for FF and crop. If it were like you suggested then you would have different degrees of view from two 50mm lenses, one for crop and one for FF, that you buy for the same camera.
>>
not really sure what's going on here
>x-pro3
>godox v350f in ttl mode

if i set the camera to auto exposure, it will expose for the light condition without flash, then the flash will blast light on top of that, overexposing the photo

if i set the exposure manually and chose something like 200 iso and 1/250 and f8 (underexposed for light conditions) the ttl seems to work and the flash makes up the difference, and the image is correctly exposed with flash.

what the fuck is going on here? i feel like the camera in auto mode should instead pick exposure settings that factor in the flash metering, but obviously it doesn't. it just picks settings, and then the flash decides what to do afterwards. why would it be designed like this
>>
>>4018870
googling "ttl flash with auto iso" reveals many people asking the same question. i do not understand why, but the auto exposure of the camera is based on the ambient light reading only. it won't take the flash metering into account. if you want to use ttl flash, you need to use manual exposure. 400 iso at 1/250 or whatever.

i have no idea why cameras are designed this way.
>>
>>4018870
I have fuji EF-60 flash and auto mode works perfect with both x-t4 and gfx50sii. it automatically set flash power
>>
>>4018654
Do you have to be so negative? How is it a stupid question? I know what focal length and aperture mean and do, I even said as much. Why did you feel the need to explain it again despite that?

I asked what they mean or how meaningful they are for landscapes. Does focal length even matter for taking pictures of canyons or forests when wide? I know it matters for portraits and singling out subjects, but can I get away with a dark maximum aperture for landscapes even if I couldn't for portraits?
>>
File: nature.jpg (2.38 MB, 4320x1350)
2.38 MB
2.38 MB JPG
>>4018639
So it's important to consider the differences in FL (focal length) and A (aperture) when comparing across different sensor formats. For the sake of convenience, I'm only going to reference in terms of a full frame camera. Wider isn't necessarily better.

You really can do landscape shots with any FL. Picrel (more nature shots than landscape) shows different shots at 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm.
Most cell phones are around 28mm, so if you've often felt the need to go wider, consider that. If you've felt the need to zoom in a little, consider that too. Wider lenses will let you capture more, but distant objects (mountains) will appear smaller, and they also have a benefit with the reduction of star trails. Telephoto lenses are better for capturing specific things like a mountain or wildlife, and can make it easier to exaggerate star trails (if that's the look you want).

Aperture will come into play in two main ways. The first is with subject isolation, for when you like the aesthetic of a certain feature (flower for example) being crisply in focus, and everything else falling into a blur. The second is with light gathering, where if you're shooting in lower light (stars especially), you'll be able to use a lower ISO for less noise, or use a faster shutter speed to avoid movement like handheld camera shake or star trails.

Every brand / system is totally capable for general landscape shooting, but each has their pros/cons. Larger sensors give you less noise for lowlight shooting / stars, but m43 cameras have great stabilization for handheld shooting, some have built-in image stacking for higher resolution, etc. Really can't go wrong with any of the systems nowadays.

I've slowly transitioned to doing most of my landscape stuff with 18mm to 24mm, and now 28mm. If I need to go wider than 28mm, it's usually easy enough for me just to take 2-3 shots and stitch them together later.
>>
>>4018916
>>4018932
To summarize again, FL matters for the type of shots you want. In practice I don't need wider than 24mm in 90% of cases, and can usually pano stitch if I need more. When you get too wide, you may capture a lot, but everything just looks small as a result. For good light, everything in focus type shots, aperture doesn't matter that much, but I still like the flexibility of faster lenses for subject isolation, lowlight shooting, and generally better optics.
>>
How do I take continuous 30second photos without being present to push the button. Is it possible
>>
>>4018942
Intravalometer, dedicated smartphone app, timer, etc...

Make sure if you have a DSLR to reduce mirror slap.
>>
>>4018684
>that you buy for the same camera
There's a reason they are separated, Nikon for example has the F line and the D line, the FX and DX is also a separation.
>you would have different degrees of view from two 50mm lenses
Like we do sometimes nowadays? or the Fuji digital line having a 33mm and a 35mm? putting the angle would merely be a sincere thing, the chinks sometimes do it in their lenses along with Voigtlander in their boxed presentations.
And let's be fair, many many photogs think 50mm on the APS-C is the same view as the 50mm in the full frame.

>>4018916
>Do you have to be so negative?
Was i? i thought i was lenient and if i was that negative i would've insulted you.
>How is it a stupid question?
Because it's misguiding, either it was a question from a very beginner who thinks he knows or from someone who knows but didn't think how to format it properly. Hence i went for the beginner route and explained it.
>I know, I even said as much.
>Why did you feel the need to explain it
>...Does focal length even matter for taking pictures of canyons or forests when wide?
>can I get away with a dark maximum aperture for landscapes
Do you even read yourself? do you even read my post?
>>
>>4018948
Consider your answer versus >>4018932
Aside from being negative, it's also just simply incorrect / misleading at points, and fails to address the intent of OP's questions.
Focal length is not simply field of view, it is a physical property of the lens, just like the filter thread size or number of aperture blades. All brands list FL in "FF" terms, because again, it is a physical property of the lens. Some optionally also include the equivalent for the intended sensor size.
Sensor coverage designation (FX vs DX, EF vs EF-S, E vs FE) is also distinctly different from focal length and field of view. The DX 35mm and FX 35mm the same field of view on a FF camera, the DX 35mm just vignettes a little at close distances (and a lot at medium-far distances). You could also adapt both those 35's to an even smaller sensor (like Nikon 1) and end up with the same FoV between them.
Canon doesn't make an EF-S 50mm f/1.8, they do certainly make EF 50mm f/1.8 lenses though. It is a 50mm lens, and has a 50mm FoV on a Canon FF camera, or 80mm FoV on Canon APS-C. Cropping and equivalency is 100% on the camera side of things.

Purely my opinion now, but field of view is less relatable, especially to a novice, than focal length, and it also 100% relies on considering the camera side too. A lenses effective field of view will change depending on the camera it's used with, which lens manufacturers have no way of knowing. The Sony / Canon take is naive too, but whatever.

It's ironic that you essentially shame the OP for asking a question, when you yourself don't have the best understanding. Prime dunning-kruger example right here.

>>4018942
Interval shooting setting if your camera has it, or using a compatible intervalometer. Camera app / tether shooting for "pressing the button", just more remotely.
>>
The Northrups and Bald Ken both strongly recommend against mixing crop and full frame lenses on bodies. But is there any real downside in using full frame glass on a crop body? Especially if there's no crop version available.
>>
>>4018992
it's retarded to have apsc glass if you have full frame bodies but there's nothing wrong with using full frame glass on crop. it'd just be larger and more expensive than needs be
>>
Is there a resource to see which settings a camera allows you to program to an available button? Like a fast way to swap between Auto-ISO on/off and silent shutter on/off.
>>
>>4018992
It's totally fine, just usually not optimal from a size / price perspective in most cases. In some cases, with lenses that sharp centers / less sharp corners, you'll end up with better corner performance since you're "cropping" in. The opposite is also true though, where if the center is less sharp, that can be even more apparent.

There are some APS-C lenses with usable coverage of a FF sensor, but if you have a FF camera, you really should just be getting FF lenses too. Same goes for FF lenses on a GFX sensor.

>>4019014
Each model's going to be different, and most manuals only give a few examples (if any). For a more popular model, I'm sure enough googling might uncover a user created list somewhere. As far as I'm aware though, the only way to see all the options with most models would be on the camera itself, as you're picking through what to set.
>>
I fell for the micro four thirds meme. There's no lenses and I feel like the low light performance is just shithouse.

Should I just sell what my E-M5 and get a generic sony frame?
>>
>>4018911
so you can full auto with the fujiflash? I wish I knew that before I got the godox v350f. it's still technically Auto exposure when you're using TTL and manual settings because the flash is making up the difference, the only real problem is that you have to fidget around with the ISO dial when you want to use the flash
>>
>>4018870
might be lens focal length/distance to subject and EV compensation settings within the Godox flash? with everything to be in default mode. just guessing.
>>
>>4019029
>>4018870
My TT350f on X-Pro3 works totally fine in TTL mode and auto exposure (and aperture priority with auto ISO). It definitely meters differently if I turn the flash on/off for the same scene, depending on my auto ISO settings.

> i feel like the camera in auto mode should instead pick exposure settings that factor in the flash metering, but obviously it doesn't. it just picks settings, and then the flash decides what to do afterwards.

It shouldn't be overexposing the subject in most cases, but it should considering the ambient exposure absent flash. That's just how auto modes work with flash, for pretty much any system. If it's truly overexposing (min flash output still too powerful, subject too close to flash, etc), that's were flash compensation comes in, just dial it back.

If you don't want it try and expose for ambient as well, you need to override the auto / shoot in manual. The exposure comp dial is an easy way to do this, try at 5 and you'll see ambient drop dramatically, while flashed subject remains well exposed. You can also play around with the TTL lock functionality on the camera and see if that approach works for your shooting style.
>>
>>4018948
The FF lenses still works on DX though, and some lenses are only made in FF editions, not in DX. Those would either have that mix up, or you would have to print both on everything. Which is of course impossible to do on previous lenses.
I guess DX lenses could have something like 50mm (75mm FF eq.) or something on them though.
>>
How long on average does it take to get film back from a lab? Is it a same day thing or more like a week?
>>
>shoot at 1/800
>Still motion blur
Am i getting early alzheimers?
>>
>>4019149
check their website or ask them. for most i would assume its a week, but some labs do offer rushed service (e.g. within 24 hours) for an additional cost. recently my lab was really backed up and they had to do all black and white by hand, it took me like 2-2.5 weeks to get mine back
>>
>>4019199
Oof, that's much longer than I ever expected.

Well when it comes to scanning film, can I take it straight out of the camera and scan it or is there a developing process I'd have to do to it before I can scan it?
>>
File: 1632120832690.png (96 KB, 602x282)
96 KB
96 KB PNG
i bought a flash so that i can shoot photos reliably indoors. COOL. but the color of the flash is "daylight" and the color of a fucking lightbulb indoors is more likely to be "daylight fluorescent", which is a very different color.

WHAT THE FUCK do i do about this garbage nonsense crap
>>
>>4019149
Depends on the lab, and depends on the film. The actual dev + scan process of a roll of C-41 only takes 30-60min (most of that time depends on scanning, machine dev takes under 10min). I have two labs in my city, one is higher end, and gets a lot sent in from pretty much everywhere, and runs 3-7 days for most everything, with limited rush options. The other is entirely local customers, takes 1-3 days for C-41, up to 10 days for B+W (literally ships it to the other lab and back), used to have 1hr, but now only does same day rush. There is definitely a difference in quality between scans from each place too.

>>4019200
The film has to be developed first after shooting it, but you can just get dev only, so you get the negatives back, and then scan it yourself (flatbed, film scanner, camera scanning).

>>4019269
Gel the flash to match, get lightbulbs with different color temperature.
>>
>>4019272
>Gel the flash to match, get lightbulbs with different color temperature.
sounds like shit
>>
File: 1650151437478.jpg (113 KB, 1356x1441)
113 KB
113 KB JPG
>>4019272
>get lightbulbs with different color temperature
>>
>>4019275
If you have two light sources with different color temperatures, and want them to be the same, that just requires you alter one of them, literally one of the reasons gels exist. You could also switch to an LED panel with variable color temps, or turn off lights and rely solely on the flash. I'm not aware of any speedlights with variable color temperature, even A10's have gel kits for this exact purpose.
>>
File: mpv-shot0001.jpg (245 KB, 1920x800)
245 KB
245 KB JPG
What is this effect called?
Is it even real?
Was it just some effect in post?
It's a still from the movie Transcendence, before you say anything, yes it was a terrible movie.
>>
>>4019283
What "effect" are you talking about? The green and red spots? It's a "ghosting flare". Almost certainly real, but can certainly be digitally added for effect. Just depends on the lens / filters / light source.

Used to work at a camera shop, and it was crazy how many people would come in with optical aberrations like that and honestly think it was a ghost or spirit.
>>
>>4019269
get a few CTO gels
1/8, 1/4, 1/2
>>
My wife has me chaperone for her birthday party business and wants me to take pictures for her. Where can I learn some basic event photography that doesn't make me look like an absolute creep with a room full of children?
>>
Olympus Infinity Stylus Epic for $210. Should I do it?
>>
Is there some course/program online that I can take to help me land a photography gig?
My local post-secondary schools don't offer photography programs.
>>
>>4019547
>help me land a photography gig
photographers are typically freelancers. build a portfolio.
>post-secondary schools don't offer photography
sounds like a waste of money to me.
>>
>>4019552
How can I build a portfolio?
Sorry I'm retarded
>>
>>4019561
use adobe indesign for a cold portfolio (static file, can email to people or whatever) and squarespace or something for an online portfolio (can link this wherever and find it online)
>>
>>4019272
>The film has to be developed first after shooting it, but you can just get dev only, so you get the negatives back, and then scan it yourself (flatbed, film scanner, camera scanning).
Damn, I assumed I could just take the film out of the camera and put it straight into a scanner. I'm assuming that would fuck the film up or something then right? In my understanding I just figured that if film has been shot/exposed, then no harm would come from it seeing light again.
>>
>>4019316
Wide angle lenses and when you're ready to shoot things, always shoot high, and say "Smile, cheese, Fuzzy Pickles" etc...

Zooms make you look sus, shooting low angles make you look like a pedo and taking shots without a fore is just plain rude.
>>
>>4019597
The film only knows to "stop exposing" once it's been developed, that's why it stays in a light sealed canister, or in a camera that is light sealed, and then back into the canister. That's how multiple exposures work, and why light leaks happen. If you can see the negatives before developed, it's just gonna be blank because of the exposure.
>>
>>4019561
>How can I build a portfolio?
shoot photos that are inline with what you want to do with photography. put them on a website or an instagram or something.
>>
My autism kicked in guys..
Using yellow filter on iso100 film.
Requires 1,5 stops. What iso do i meter ?
@40 ???
>>
>one kid started swimming
>another kid started baseball

The furthest reach I have is 200mm and on a 20mp sensor I don't have much room to crop. Do you think 400mm (as in a 100-400) or 600mm (as in a 150-600) is better reach for these kind of situations? I've never used either so I can't tell how much reach I need.
>>
Is there such a thing as a non-chinkshit rechargeable CR-V3 and if so how do I recognise it
every single one I've seen looks like shoddy knockoff of knockoff tier crap mere seconds from detonation, but my camera is an ancient monster with a CCD so it consumes AAs like your mom consumes dicks so I need an alternative
>>
How come my camera isn't picking up my SD card? The SD card is a sandisk extreme pro 32GB SHDC, which is supposed to be compatible with my TG-6 camera.
>>
>>4017415
If you just want something cheap to replace your phone and don't mind fully auto then get any shitty point and shoot. If you want something manual with interchangeable lenses, get an a6xxx from Sony, X-E from Fuji or some MFT camera.
>>4017818
Had limited experience but there is a noticeable improvement in detail. Caveat is that you cannot use it at low shutter speeds or where anything is moving if I'm correct otherwise you risk ghosting.
>>4018992
Another thing I haven't seen mentioned is the 'range'. A 24-85 f2.8 MIGHT sound great for your APS-C camera until you realise that 24mm isn't 'wide-enough' for your tastes. It's why they make 'equivalent' 'pro' APS-C zooms like a 17-50 2.8.
>>4019197
This depends on a number of factors. What lens are you shooting on? If it is a 400mm that MIGHT not be enough if you are moving too much. What you are seeing might not even be motion blur, it could be missed focus or simply using a potato lens.
>>4019269
5600k bulbs are cheap. Either that or use an aperture/ISO/shutter combo that lets you eliminate ambient light and THEN add flash in. You'll eat up more batteries but if you don't want to gel or replace the lights then your only other option is hand painting in the mids and highs.
>>4019547
Shoot pictures. Get better. No school can teach you that.
>>4019597
Lol. Out of curiosity how old are you? Pretty lolzy to see someone so confused about film. Don't feel silly though as its obsolete technology but it reminds me of that youtube clip where they give little kids an early Gameboy and they try and swipe at it.
>>4019940
I could be wrong but that sounds about right. The filter is absorbing light, so you want your camera to thing your film is LESS sensitive. One stop less is ISO 50 and half a stop less is ~40. You could also use exposure comp or just manually adjust shutter by about a stop too.
>>4020091
Might be retarded but aren't they the same form factor as two AA batteries?
>>
>>4020339
>5600k bulbs are cheap. Either that or use an aperture/ISO/shutter combo that lets you eliminate ambient light and THEN add flash in. You'll eat up more batteries but if you don't want to gel or replace the lights then your only other option is hand painting in the mids and highs.
why wouldn't i use a strip of plastic and a rubber band that costs $25? seems kinda crazy to me to replace bulbs in my flash, or to crank the flash to 9000
>>
>>4020352
Lol I wasn't talking about changing the bulb in the flash, I thought you had a home studio and wanted your location lights to match the flash. Maybe you want the lights as practical illumination and can't easily gel them (say in a lamp shade in frame). And besides if the lights aren't practicals and out of frame then its tough to imagine why you wouldn't just switch them off and shoot entirely with flash + modelling lamps and AF assist.

As for gelling your flash which I realise is what you meant, you could do that too. Note that you aren't always fighting against blue/orange temps but also the green cast some fluorescents put out. If your desired look (and the space) allows for it, you can eliminate headache by trying to exclude ambient light. Obviously this won't always be appropriate, but having options in photography is never a bad thing.
>>
File: IMG_4821.jpg (1.7 MB, 3600x2100)
1.7 MB
1.7 MB JPG
I'm having trouble getting this sort of ''action shot'' in proper focus. I know I have better odds going for a deeper depth of field, but I really want a shallow depth of field, high shutter speed capture, and I can't count on continuous focus on my camera because it's either too slow to be reliable or it might focus on something else along the way (like this post in my pic). Is the best solution to have the camera stationary in my desired composition and set to manual focus (with focus peaking aid) into the open space where the action is expected to take place? Or am I retarded and there is a better way?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS M50m2
Camera SoftwareAdobe Lightroom 5.3 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.4
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2022:04:20 19:13:23
Exposure Time1/1000 sec
F-Numberf/2.0
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/2.0
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length30.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
File: 1650630240945.jpg (22 KB, 657x467)
22 KB
22 KB JPG
>>4020403
https://www.photopills.com/calculators/dof
or learn how to zone focus
>>
>>4020410
>To zone focus, your aperture needs to be at f/8 or above. Anything more shallow than f/8 will not give you a wide enough focal plane to make this technique useful.

It's not exactly what I had in mind, since I wanted shallow DoF, and using an app to calculate the DoF distance and window is also not terribly practical outside of controlled environments, but I guess there is no free lunch, I either increase my DoF or rely on auto focus and hope for the best. Thanks for the answer, though.
>>
>>4020465
I'm terrible at estimating distance by sight but I'll make an effort and try to practice this. Thanks.
>>
>>4020339
>Might be retarded but aren't they the same form factor as two AA batteries?
They are, but rechargeable AAs lose capacity pretty quick
>>
>>4020215
Did you format it in the camera?
>>
>>4020403
That kind of shot shouldn't be hard for an M50II, just got to learn the AF system better.
You could also look into back-button focusing for more control. Really though, that kind of shot should be easy for any modern camera, provided you learn how to use the AF system efficiently.
>>
>>4020493
You're right. I used tracking AF (with eye tracking set to ON on top of that) but I would probably get better results with zone AF (the big square). That should allow me to give the camera less leeway to decide where to focus and avoid dumb mistakes like that.
>>
File: IMG_20220422_121335626~2.jpg (293 KB, 1772x1532)
293 KB
293 KB JPG
>>4020468
Different anon, zone focus p&s cameras make it easy. .8m, 1.5m, 3m, inf. Portrait, group, big group with legs, buildings. There's even little pictographs.

But in the real world with an slr or tlr, I just zone infinity to f/8 or whatever stop hits the speed I need and that covers everything past 5 meters.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Makemotorola
Camera ModelMoto G (5) Plus
Camera Softwarepotter-user 8.1.0 OPSS28.85-17-6 21457 release-keys
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.7
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width1772
Image Height1532
Image Created2022:04:22 12:14:04
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
ISO Speed Rating500
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
F-Numberf/1.7
Exposure Time1/20 sec
SharpnessSoft
Focal Length4.28 mm
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
SaturationLow
ContrastNormal
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Exposure Bias0 EV
Image Height4032
White BalanceAuto
BrightnessUnknown
Image Width3024
Exposure ModeAuto
Lens Aperturef/1.7
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Geodetic Survey DataWGS-84
>>
File: SMC_Pentax_135mm.jpg (91 KB, 800x533)
91 KB
91 KB JPG
Which subject(s) would you photograph with a 135mm lens on 35mm film? I've one but most of the time it's just collecting dust. Most example pics taken with this FL seem to suggest that this focal length is exclusively for portrait photos. Is it any use for nature or landscape shots?
>>
>>4020508
Yeah sure it can be used for that.
Just go out and try using it to shoot your usual subjects, see what you can come up with, changing your perspective is the best way to learn.
>>
>>4020503
I've been reading a bit about zone focus and the problem is that the only prime lens I have for now is the 30mm sigma f1.4, which is close to a 50mm EFL. From what I've read that's not a great focal distance for this technique since the zone in focus is much reduced compared to a wider lens. I would have to use something like f18 to get a comfortable margin of action, and at this point diffraction should soften my image considerably. Do you think this technique is worth it for a 50mm EFL?
>>
File: IMG_20220422_131839297~2.jpg (962 KB, 2864x2350)
962 KB
962 KB JPG
>>4020513
That chart seems wrong, the computer on my 38mm half frame (so roughly apsc) is giving me 2m to infinity at f/8, full frame 50mm Pentax is reading 5m to inf, medium format 50mm equivalent is 7 meters to inf.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Makemotorola
Camera ModelMoto G (5) Plus
Camera Softwarepotter-user 8.1.0 OPSS28.85-17-6 21457 release-keys
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.7
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width2864
Image Height2350
Image Created2022:04:22 13:18:59
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
ISO Speed Rating640
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
F-Numberf/1.7
Exposure Time1/15 sec
SharpnessSoft
Focal Length4.28 mm
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
SaturationLow
ContrastNormal
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Exposure Bias0 EV
Image Height4032
White BalanceAuto
BrightnessUnknown
Image Width3024
Exposure ModeAuto
Lens Aperturef/1.7
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Geodetic Survey DataWGS-84
>>
>>4020526
Well, that makes things even more confusing now. I wasn't able to find a DoF calculator with data from my exact camera and lens, oh well... I think I'll take a step back and simplify things for the time being: try to make better use of my auto focus settings while also using a smaller aperture when the situation asks for caution. When I buy a wider lens I'll try to make use of zone focus, since it's much easier that way.
>>
>>4020529
The difference in depth of field between a standard and a wide lens at f/8 isn't all that much. Try this calculator. https://dofsimulator.net/en/ Differences between lenses is slight.
>>
Truly a stupid question, please humor my naivete.

Should I be taking portraits in a portrait orientation? You can't crop a portrait orientation photo like you can a landscape orientation photo. I feel like shooting headshots in landscape gives the person more flexibility in cropping. Am I just dumb?
>>
is there any book/diagram with general recomendations for the distances you should use when taking photos of couples/people?
usually, how far should you stay from a couple to take a photo of them
>>
>>4020547
just shoot in 1:1
>>
>>4020549

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeFUJIFILM
Camera ModelGFX50S II
Camera SoftwareDigital Camera GFX50S II Ver1.10
Maximum Lens Aperturef/4.0
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)95 mm
Maker Note Version0130
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2022:04:22 19:39:08
Exposure Time1/60 sec
F-Numberf/11.0
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating200
Lens Aperturef/10.9
Brightness-0.7 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashFlash
Focal Length120.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2992
Image Height2992
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
SharpnessNormal
White BalanceAuto
Chroma SaturationNormal
Flash ModeUnknown
Focus ModeAuto
Slow Synchro ModeOff
Picture ModeAperture Prior AE
Continuous/Bracketing ModeOff
Blur StatusOK
Focus StatusOK
Auto Exposure StatusOK
>>
>>4020339
>f you want something manual with interchangeable lenses, get an a6xxx from Sony, X-E from Fuji or some MFT camera.
are you fucking retarded? i asked for suggestions on FILM cameras, looking for something CHEAP and you suggest thousand-dollar digital cameras? I genuinely hope you just had an aneurysm when responding to me cause you replied to a lot of other people and I hope for their sake you sobered up and gave proper advice. KYS
>>
>>4020548
Take the focal length and convert it to inches. eg. at 135mm you should be 135in or almost 14 feet away.
>>
Does the fujifilm xt1 use sd cards?
>>
>>4020553
Cute Albedo.

>>4020547
Not really, it's preferable to use landscape if you're doing large group portraits, but you have to be cautious about filling your frame. This is a more legitimate question than most in this thread honestly.
>>
>>4020564
yes, but you should at least get xt2
>>
>>4020562
what about the height?
>>
>>4020547
Taking a portrait, be it headshot or some body crop, works best in portrait because you lose the least amount of pixels. Just back off a little and leave room to crop to 8x10, finding the sweet spot with the right headroom is different depending on the situation.
>>
>>4020569
Thanks. Why do you like xt2 more ? I saw that xt1 1has better color. But desu i wanna shoot only black and white
>>
>>4020587
many things are improved on xt2
it’s simply better camera
>>
>>4020533
Interesting, so the proportion of area in focus in front and behind the subject changes depending on the distance from the subject to the camera? I was lead to believe that it was always 2/3 in background and 1/3 in foreground in relation to the point of focus.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
>>
File: 1585174905331.gif (1.35 MB, 675x380)
1.35 MB
1.35 MB GIF
>>4020601
There's a formula for it, it doesn't matter. Look at your nearest lens computer and it's obvious. Back focus is a thing you have to compensate for that isn't part of most computers, but the reduction in focal depth as you focus closer is babbys first slr territory. Shit, there's a cheat button to eyeball the results on most cameras worth a fuck. >>4020526
doesnt lie, medium format can fuck you wide open with a focal depth of fucking nothing and heavy back focus but otherwise you're good, pic related shooting half frame.
>>
File: img137.jpg (1.39 MB, 2500x2515)
1.39 MB
1.39 MB JPG
>>4020623
MF wide open with a close focus lens will absolutely ruin your day. There's no meaningful visual and you have to compensate for a 4 inch focal field blind with your eyes and the fucking knob. I tried one time. You can judge the results yourself given a tripod and what's in focus and where.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Softwarepaint.net 4.3.2
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution2400 dpi
Vertical Resolution2400 dpi
>>
>>4020629
I think I tried to zone his furry ass into zone 3 and found out I didn't get full film speed with my dev routine. Now I do 25 mil of rodinal for 16 minutes regardless of water temperature.
>>
>>4020623
>Shit, there's a cheat button to eyeball the results on most cameras worth a fuck.

Fuck, that's right. In my camera you can only find it inside the custom button configuration settings. If you pair it with MF peaking, you get an even better assist for what's inside the range of focus. Things are really easy nowadays huh?
>>
>>4020663
Mine is built into the lens on a camera from the early 60s. Things are fucking worse all around nowadays. I'll take a fucking fresnel over all that predator shit most days.
>>
What's the difference between special macro modes/lenses and just going max zoom on something?
>>
I just got a Canon RP and trying to set it up with the RF 24-105 lens and it just won't focus. There's no autofocus option in the menu, just manual. Even on manual when I turn the rings nothing comes into focus. Is my lens just fucked?
>>
>>4020339
>Lol. Out of curiosity how old are you? Pretty lolzy to see someone so confused about film. Don't feel silly though as its obsolete technology but it reminds me of that youtube clip where they give little kids an early Gameboy and they try and swipe at it.
I'm in my late 20s. I had disposable cameras when I was a kid but when digital really took off and was affordable, my folks got digital cameras and that was it. I have some basic knowledge of film such as scanning it but I always somewhat figured film that had been exposed could not be damaged by being exposed again, which was very wrong apparently. So I'm glad I didn't destroy my first roll since deciding to try out film.

I'm not exactly ignorant of it all like with that Gameboy or VHS stuff, it's more that I've just used it all but never really done anything more advanced with it (like repairing a Gameboy or developing film). I even remember being completely blown away when DVD happened kek, and now even that's obsolete to blu ray.
>>
Cameras are forwards compatible right? If I buy an old body but a new lens it'll fit?
>>
>>4020744
your a fucking retard
>>
>>4020750
it is better to ask something and be considered a fool for a moment than to say nothing and be considered a fool forever or something
>>
The only big difference between the fuji x-t30 and x-e4 is the design right? Do i need to know anything about those cameras? Are there any other options that'd be significantly better/cheaper as an overall system?
>>
>>4020744
Not necessarily. A lot of old Nikon and Canon lenses work on newer models but it won't be all of them.
>>
>>4020744
Case by case basis. I.e Nikon lenses from the 50s and onwards will generally mount on F Mount SLRs but will have varying degrees of gimping: I.e no AF, metering or EXIF. Canon FD lenses (from pre 80) won't mount on their digital but EF lenses will. Mirrorless is a whole new kettle of fish.
>>4020683
Macro specifically denotes close focus and most importantly 1:1 reproduction. Google for more info. Intact, zooming in typically REDUCES close focus distance.
>>4020601
There is a formulae but really just know DoF thins as you focus closer. Conversely widens as you focus to infinity.
>>4020555
"Cheap" is a relative term. Spending $100-200 on a "cheap" film camera, $200-300 on chems, $20-30 a roll adds up. You can bulk load film but then you're paying for a loader. You could skip the chems but then exorbitant dev and scanning costs would eat up savings. A used A6xxx with lens can be had for that price. Stop whinging. Film isn't cheap, esp when run through shitty cameras. Makes no sense.
>>
>>4020786
>Nikon lenses from the 50s and onwards will generally mount on F Mount SLRs
Yeah sure, buy that Nikkor S mount lens and put it in a Nikon F5.
They need to be F mount and with AI coupling, which means 1974-75 and onwards.
>>
Let's say I'm shooting on a sunny day and I'm worried about blowing the highlights. What's the best, most practical approach: use the AEL button to expose for the sky or use exposure compensation to set it down 1 or 1,5 stops and then keep shooting normally? I'm shooting raw and editing later, of course.
>>
>>4020872
Use the exposure compensation, or spot meter the sky and ground and take an average. You may have to bracket as the sky can be much brighter than the ground, your meter is going try to peg sky as a midtone. I either watch the histogram or spot meter and average.
>>
>>4020872
use flash
>>
File: dirt.jpg (1.75 MB, 2927x6559)
1.75 MB
1.75 MB JPG
How do i know if these spots are caused by a dirty sensor, lens or filter? Whats the best way to clean?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS M6 Mark II
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2022:04:19 14:19:51
Exposure Time1/800 sec
F-Numberf/16.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/16.0
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length32.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width6960
Image Height4640
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>4020884
I forgot to mention I mostly shoot people, not pure landscape. So I guess exposure compensation is quicker and more practical, and it doesn't have to be perfect, I just want to avoid glowing white skies. But next time I'll shoot landscape on a tripod I'll try to take the average and use exposure bracket with +1,5 and -1,5 my exposure, that should be enough to make it bulletproof even for a retard like myself. Thanks!
>>
File: tfinom.jpg (41 KB, 500x500)
41 KB
41 KB JPG
>>4020680
Get with the times, grandpa.
>>
>>4020786
>A6xxx
Thanks for coming out that you are a pathetic piece of shit who does not know what they are talking about. Sonyfags should seriously stay in their lane, period. Fuck Sony users.
>>
File: 1649976921076.jpg (65 KB, 540x304)
65 KB
65 KB JPG
Beginner here with a very stupid question-- should colors really be a factor in deciding what camera to get? Can't you just edit the colors to whatever you want in post?
>>
>>4017415
>basically i want a reusable disposable.
Those exist. Lomography has some
>>
does increasing iso actually add any detail or is it just like increasing the brightness in post processing?
>>
according to this chart
i can develop these 2 films in the same tank using B Dilution and 5:30 min dev time right ?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2017 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2022:04:23 20:01:48
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width1420
Image Height184
>>
>>4020786
>"Cheap" is a relative term.
you gorrila retard. first, the question is about film cameras. the question was not about chems, nor film, not photo paper, nor developing materials, the question, let me make this as clear as possible, the quesion was about CAMERAS THAT SHOOT FILM so which of the cameras that you recommended shoot fiom? none of them. none. which factor of chems and film rolls has to do with film cameras? none of them. so you coping and saying "oh youll spend 200 on the camera, plus 200 on chems plus like 200 on film, thats a used digital right there!" when the quesion is "film camera recommendation" make s you a triple dipshit. maybe i dotn mind the cost of materials and want to get into film? maybe i want some 1960s SLR that has never even heard of lithium ion batteries because the reason i am even investigating this is for the analogue world. maybe, this might sound strange to y ou, but maybe i am seeking experiences that have nothing to do with screens because i already spend enough time looking at them. jesus fucking christ you are genuinely a terrible person. answer this anons question >>4020849 what the FUCK is wrong with you?
>>
File: IMG_20211016_195358919~2.jpg (1.33 MB, 3024x2069)
1.33 MB
1.33 MB JPG
>>4020992
>maybe i want some 1960s SLR that has never even heard of lithium ion batteries
Pentax MX is still cheap and has great lenses. It runs on normal batteries and doesn't have a meter that kills itself being exposed to light, if the batteries are dead, the camera still works. I had to buy a replacement because one body shit the bed and I was only out 60 bucks. You have a number of systems to choose from within that general period before electric shutters and auto exposure on SLRs became the norm. If you aren't afraid of electronics, 90s SLRs are dirt cheap and almost modern as far as AF and features go. I was afraid and the MX met my needs for the right price.

There are other options but they either aren't cheap or don't work out the ebay box and need hundreds for a refurb. Most TLRs, for example. Also, 60s cameras were already using meters and electrics for all but the cheapest or most professional kit.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Makemotorola
Camera ModelMoto G (5) Plus
Camera Softwarepotter-user 8.1.0 OPSS28.85-17-6 21457 release-keys
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.7
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width3024
Image Height2069
Image Created2021:10:16 19:54:19
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
ISO Speed Rating2500
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
F-Numberf/1.7
Exposure Time1/15 sec
SharpnessSoft
Focal Length4.28 mm
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
SaturationLow
ContrastNormal
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Exposure Bias0 EV
Image Height4032
White BalanceAuto
BrightnessUnknown
Image Width3024
Exposure ModeAuto
Lens Aperturef/1.7
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Geodetic Survey DataWGS-84
>>
>>4020998
The downsides are that it's really small and may cramp your hand, the shutter dial is difficult to actuate because of it, and like all cameras with a clockwork self timer, they're prone to explode and brick the camera if you use it. It does have one of the largest viewfinders of all time at like 97%, on par with I think the Nikon F and one other. And you can see your shutter speed and aperture setting through the viewfinder.

As we're talking pure clockwork, it's easy to hand over. Set a shutter speed and all they have to do is focus and adjust f/stop with the stoplight. It's not retard proof but it is simple enough to be a conversation starter.
>>
File: IMG_20220423_150841974~2.jpg (552 KB, 2272x1757)
552 KB
552 KB JPG
>>4021002
Passive TTL metering means you don't have to compensare for filters and because the ISO meter goes to 1600, you can manually compensate to 6400 using the meter. Others crap out long before that.

But once again, Canikon and Minolta also have similar offerings across model ranges and feature sets, Olympus was already doing electric shitters on the OM1 and Asahi's response was to miniaturize a k1000 and stick a passive meter in it. Other than a shutter shitting itself above 1/60 on a rough looking camera that was probably never serviced since it was built, they're pretty robust.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Makemotorola
Camera ModelMoto G (5) Plus
Camera Softwarepotter-user 8.1.0 OPSS28.85-17-6 21457 release-keys
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.7
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width2272
Image Height1757
Image Created2022:04:23 15:09:08
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
ISO Speed Rating80
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
F-Numberf/1.7
Exposure Time1/40 sec
SharpnessSoft
Focal Length4.28 mm
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
SaturationLow
ContrastNormal
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Exposure Bias0 EV
Image Height4032
White BalanceAuto
BrightnessUnknown
Image Width3024
Exposure ModeAuto
Lens Aperturef/1.7
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Geodetic Survey DataWGS-84
>>
>>4021009
>>4020998
Based actual repliers. I appreciate the recommendation :)
>>
>>4021021
I just shilled what I have while I'm catching a buzz and waiting for dough to rise. YMMV. You didn't come off as retarded and that reply to a roach was dank so I passed armchair knowledge and firsthand experience on. The pain and expense making scans/prints is what kills you. A decent cheap camera is an easy rec, shopping with your brain instead of your dick is something few do, ask me about my RB.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Makemotorola
Camera ModelMoto G (5) Plus
Camera Softwarepotter-user 8.1.0 OPSS28.85-17-6 21457 release-keys
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.7
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width1986
Image Height2210
Image Created2022:04:23 14:58:28
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
ISO Speed Rating100
Exposure ProgramManual
F-Numberf/1.7
Exposure Time1/60 sec
SharpnessSoft
Focal Length4.28 mm
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
SaturationLow
ContrastNormal
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Exposure Bias0 EV
Image Height3024
White BalanceAuto
BrightnessUnknown
Image Width4032
Exposure ModeAuto Bracket
Lens Aperturef/1.7
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingCustom
Geodetic Survey DataWGS-84
>>
Brainlet here

deleted some photos off my SD card cause it was full, but the sd card is still full as if the photos were still there

how do I actually delete those photos?
I just sent to the trash on my computer
>>
>>4021085
empty the trash bin
if it's still full for some reason format the card instead of deleting
>>
>>4021027
tell me about the Root Beer
for me it's bang's
>>
>>4021094
it worked, but thats so fucking dumb

what if I swap computers, am I stuck with no memory until i plug it back in the other computer and empty the trash? so dumb
>>
>>4021096
Cracking open a cold Bang's, while driving to work in my KN.
>>
>>4021108
>>4021096
its barq's can yall really not read cursive?, or am i missing a meme?
>>
File: pasted image.png (474 KB, 1024x1021)
474 KB
474 KB PNG
>>4021143
this reads barq's root beer.
>>
File: 20220424_140750.jpg (2.39 MB, 4000x2250)
2.39 MB
2.39 MB JPG
/o/tist here, did I do good /p/?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Makesamsung
Camera ModelSM-A515F
Camera Softwarepaint.net 4.0.9
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.2
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)13 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width4000
Image Height2250
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2022:04:24 14:07:50
Exposure Time1/784 sec
F-Numberf/2.2
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating40
Lens Aperturef/2.2
Brightness19.3 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length1.74 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width4000
Image Height2250
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Unique Image IDB12LFMG00AM
>>
Why aren't there pancake lenses for more/all focal lengths?
What physics govern making a viable pancake lens?
>>
I'm trying to better understand the focus modes on my Canon R6. This is my first real camera after a T3i, there's a lot of new options that weren't on that one.

- One Point
For focusing on an object which doesn't move.

- AI Servo
For focusing on an object in motion.

Is there a way to track subject, like if in AI Servo, I want to keep continuously focusing, but if the subject moves around the frame, follow it?
>>
Prepare for a stupid question.

How much "reverence" should I consider with skin tone? I shot an ethnic Indian man and I've never shot non-whites before. For a white person, I might change how their skin looks if it makes the shot look better, but for non-whites? Will he be offended if I lighten up his skin a touch? Should I leave his skin tone alone?
>>
>>4021387
based racist. your anglo normative mind has poisoned you into believing that lighter skin is better. edit it however you want. there is ways to make darker skin look good but you kinda gotta shoot for it. most racial features arent skin tone anyway, so unless your edit makes him white-passing you aren't being disrespectful. other than the aesthetic differences, you should treat portraits the same. its simply a different human being. thinka bout shooting a ginger, you wouldnt think twice about making them more pallid, theyre soulless anyway, and they wont care as long as it comes out looking good.
>>
>>4021107
You can empty the trash on any computer and be rid of them, doesn't have to be the same one. You can also hold shift when deleting to delete them without sending it to the trash to begin with. Be careful to only delete what you actually want with this method though, since it will be a hassle to get it back otherwise.
>>
File: IMG_20220424_223908.jpg (2.48 MB, 2977x1807)
2.48 MB
2.48 MB JPG
>>4021301
Don't try to "get it all in", get closer.
https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/how-to-use-ultra-wide-lenses.htm
In most cases try to place the subject not in the dead center, and think of what you are actually wanting the viewer to focus on. Look at how much grass is along the bottom of the pic, and how far away and small the car looks.
For the wide angle I might suggest something like this, even though I would say it too "busy" with all the other parked cars.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera ModelSM-A515F
Camera Softwarepaint.net 4.0.9
Equipment Makesamsung
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)13 mm
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.2
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Image Created2022:04:24 14:07:50
Image Width2977
Image Height1807
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
F-Numberf/2.2
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
Focal Length1.74 mm
White BalanceAuto
Lens Aperturef/2.2
Image Width4000
Unique Image IDB12LFMG00AM
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
Exposure ModeAuto
Image Height2250
FlashNo Flash
Exposure Bias0 EV
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Brightness19.3 EV
ISO Speed Rating40
Exposure Time1/784 sec
>>
File: IMG_20220424_224021.jpg (1.94 MB, 2332x1801)
1.94 MB
1.94 MB JPG
>>4021301
>>4021409
>even though I would say it too "busy" with all the other parked cars
And might have done something like this.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera ModelSM-A515F
Camera Softwarepaint.net 4.0.9
Equipment Makesamsung
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)13 mm
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.2
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Image Created2022:04:24 14:07:50
Image Width2332
Image Height1801
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
F-Numberf/2.2
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
Focal Length1.74 mm
White BalanceAuto
Lens Aperturef/2.2
Image Width4000
Unique Image IDB12LFMG00AM
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
Exposure ModeAuto
Image Height2250
FlashNo Flash
Exposure Bias0 EV
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Brightness19.3 EV
ISO Speed Rating40
Exposure Time1/784 sec
>>
>>4021409
>>4021410
I especially like that second one, thanks for the tips anon
>>
>>4021411
Yeah, you can try cropping it around yourself a bit too. That was something I just did fast on my phone so there's likely room for some improvement.
As for the tips try to implement them when you shoot something next time, look up some article about rules of thirds and such perhap. I found it to probably be the easiest and quicky way to improve your photos when I started getting into it a bit more. Basically think before you shoot "could this be framed nicer in some different way".
What car is that btw? Looks nice, is it RWD? Gonna be looking for some smaller, ideally RWD, pre 1993 car myself soon.
>>
>>4021392
>your anglo normative mind has poisoned you into believing that lighter skin is better
Sorry mate, but the entire world believes this.
>>
>>4021387
every non-white thinks lighter skin is more attractive
in ch*nese "you got a tan" is basically an insult and "you're pale" is a compliment
>>
File: 20211118_115106.jpg (2.69 MB, 4000x2250)
2.69 MB
2.69 MB JPG
>>4021415
Thanks! It's an '89 Toyota Starlet. Not rear wheel drive but it does have 4 carburetors from a sportbike, pic related. But if you want a small rear wheel drive car you could look into an '84 or older Toyota Starlet (often called "KP60") though. Not sure how expensive those are in your part of the world.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Makesamsung
Camera ModelSM-A515F
Camera SoftwareA515FXXS5EUI4
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)25 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width4000
Image Height2250
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2021:11:18 11:51:06
Exposure Time1/50 sec
F-Numberf/2.0
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating125
Lens Aperturef/2.0
Brightness3.7 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length4.60 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width4000
Image Height2250
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Unique Image IDB48LSMG00AM
>>
>>4021431
Have you changed it up yourself? Also very nice and clean engine compartment.
Dunno the price or even availability here. I'm in Northern Sweden, so probably not likely to find something like that.
I just want something decently cheap, small idealy (partly for fuel and partly because I honestly like the look), older than 93 for no taxes and only biyearly checkups, and RWD or AWD for winter drifting. So if you know if anything like that on the top of your head I'm happy for suggestions.
Otherwise I might just get a Volvo 240 or 740 or something. Or skip the drifting fun (or try to learn how to Scandinavia flick) and try to get some Golf Mk 2 or something.
>>
File: file.png (704 KB, 970x646)
704 KB
704 KB PNG
Is there a point to using a decade+ old point and shoot over a mid range phone if you don't know anything about photography and are just going to let it sit on auto? Picrel, just found a canon s95 in my closet
>>
>>4020890
>>
>>4021657
They work and you get better pictures most of the time. The CCD sensors have a unique look.
>>
File: 91f(2).jpg (60 KB, 550x366)
60 KB
60 KB JPG
>>4021657
>see new looking point and shoot
>decade+ old
I want off Mr Time's wild ride...
Seriously it's not okay that 2012 was a decade ago! It's not okay that 2030 is closer than fucking 2014! Fuck this gay Earth!

As for the question. It likely has better optical zoom, more comfortable usage, better flash, bigger sensor (I think). Also since it's a dedicated device you are probably less likely to just snap shit with it, but this is of course a thing that's possible on the phone too.
Your phone likely has more "magic" helping you with the pictures.
>>
>>4021657
Why not use it to learn the fundamentals? Look into exposure triangle and start using Av and Tv modes.
>>
What are some good (preferably cheap) EF zoom lenses to put on an old film camera?
>>
>>4021657
i got an s95 because of this board and I cannot explain how much I love it. I've taken so many great shots with it its. the ccd sensor has such an unique look as well. my iphone can't even come close in terms of how much soul the photos have
>>
>>4021351
Maybe tap the object you want to focus on on the screen?
>>
File: image.png (9 KB, 557x750)
9 KB
9 KB PNG
a thing
>>
>>4021351
There's two different controls in general for how autofocus works. One is for deciding what in the frame gets focused on, and the other is for the autofocus behavior (stop or continuous).

For AF operation, you have One shot and AI Servo. One shot means once focus is achieved, the camera stops focusing. AI Servo will continuously focus even once achieved. Your T3i also had a mode, AI Focus, that would switch between the two for you.

For AF method, that dictates what you want the camera to focus on. You can do single point, or face priority, 1 point with adjacent areas, and various zones.

So for tracking a moving subject, you should use AI Servo and and whatever method you want. For tracking a subject and keeping them on the point, single point + area is probably best. For keeping the framing the same, and just tracking the subject across the frame, one of the zones would be better. If it's a person, face detect works too.

Those same settings were mostly available on the T3i as well (you may have been limited to just single point, with only a few AF points available). You probably have more options (more af points, af acceleration, focus/release priority, etc) that can further fine tune your settings, but the fundamentals are the same (for all cameras/brands). These are all also well explained in the manual and on Canon's website.
>>
Is it a good idea to buy lenses from China in sites like ganggood and aliexpress? Someone here has experience with that? Some lenses are HALF the prince compared to my country, very tempting. And the seller has good ratings.
>>
>>4017390
Landscapes are hard. It's quite easy to take a 'landscape' which looks like a beautiful background for a subject which is not there.
>>
File: 1550802412037.png (21 KB, 788x699)
21 KB
21 KB PNG
anyone got an adobe mega?
>>
File: P4260130.jpg (2.76 MB, 4608x3456)
2.76 MB
2.76 MB JPG
Is there anything else I could have done with this?
Feel like if I went any slower on the shutter I'd lose ALL of the details of the workers.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeOLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.
Camera ModelE-M5MarkII
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/4.0
Color Filter Array Pattern806
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)200 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution640 dpi
Vertical Resolution640 dpi
Image Created2022:04:26 22:49:18
Exposure Time1/160 sec
F-Numberf/4.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating5000
Lens Aperturef/4.0
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length100.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlHigh Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>4021706
>>4021756
Thanks anons, I'm excited to use this now
>>4021719
People think time is linear, but it feels exponential. 2012 feels like it was last year, I remember being a neet and bumming a ride to the store to buy this thing
>>4021737
That's the plan, but I felt like I should learn how to frame a shot first, which could be done with a phone. I wasn't sure if I wanted to carry another device with me.
>>
>>4022032
Brighten it more in post? Isn't there more details in the dark assuming you shoot raw?
>>
>>4022062
>which could be done with a phone
If you are comfortable with it sure. Personally I don't like using my phone for much, since everything is basically a hassle without dedicated buttons for anything.
I actually dug out my old PowerShot A590 to use as "the one that's with you". Just need to buy some new batteries. I basically always have a backpack though.
>>
>>4022072
>Why the fuck do people take shots at night and then change them so that they don't look like they were taken at night?
Don't ask me, I was just trying to help anon out.
Although I must say it might be a little too dark as of now, at least for viewing in daylight.
>>
>>4021442
Yup, did all the work myself. Thanks! In northern Sweden a Volvo might be your best bet. If it's from before the mid 80s it's extremely likely to be rwd, as well as instantly cool as fuck. A friend of mine from Sweden has a Toyota Celica Supra but it cost him like 50k SEK.
>>
>>4021756
post one man, come on
>>
>>4022178
>Volvo might be your best bet. If it's from before the mid 80s it's extremely likely to be rwd
Yeah, all 740:s are and they were made up to -92.
>>
I'm trying to get my first camera, something that can shoot 1080p and at bring decent photograph results, is it really possible to find with the the budget around 150$-350$? Hopefully something that last too. No battery issues or anything.
>>
I only shoot landscapes, particularly panoramas using the Brenizer method.

I've been handholding for the most part since I started 6 months ago. My hit rate is almost 100% but I want to start using automation to do it for me.

I see some stabilized gimbals have joysticks you can use to pan or program panning motions. I know they're mostly for video, but these are what I should be looking into, right?
>>
>>4023561
If you want to cash out with them, then absolutely. If you still like the idea of manually doing it, getting a tripod with a panoramic ballhead on it does the trick just as easily.
>>
>>4023577
Do you have experience with them? I wonder if there's something not quite $1000 and more like $300 to start.
>>
File: a7 weather sealing.png (127 KB, 680x973)
127 KB
127 KB PNG
>>4017296
Please excuse the unusual level of stupidity in this question, but...
Can you 'even out' reflections in choppy water with a long exposure? My thinking is that waves are like random 'noise' but the static subject in the reflection is a constant 'signal' and with enough time, the random variations will even out and you'll end up with a defined, if slightly fuzzy reflection that would otherwise be too broken up.
>>
>>4023738
Perhaps if the waves are much darker than the reflection, but otherwise they would add too much light themselves I feel. You could probably do something called stacking instead, feels like what you want to achieve.
https://photoshoptrainingchannel.com/remove-tourists-stack-mode/
>>
>>4023738
Yes and no. Look up long exposures of streams and waterfalls with an ND filter. It has some very characteristic effects depending on the amount of reflections and length of the exposure. You can also use a polarizer which will cut reflections.

Be warned, it can go into overcooked boomer landscape territory real fast.
>>
File: 30 sec exposure.jpg (94 KB, 1000x667)
94 KB
94 KB JPG
>>4023738
>4023738
Pretty sure that is not possible. If it were, the lighthouse light and street light in this 30 second exposure would be only round spots of light on the water, as though reflected from a mirror.

But maybe not ruling out some kind of advanced camera and computational magic. You would have to ask NASA.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-7M2
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Elements 2021 Editor 19.0 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)55 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width6000
Image Height4000
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution350 dpi
Vertical Resolution350 dpi
Image Created2022:05:01 08:50:13
Exposure Time30 sec
F-Numberf/4.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/4.0
Brightness-7.5 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length55.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1000
Image Height667
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>4023787
Sorry. I'm still waking up. It occurred to me that the washed out reflections in the previous pic could obscure central bright points if what you were thinking was possible. Alas, no evidence of that in this pic.
>>
File: 25 sec exposure.jpg (95 KB, 1000x667)
95 KB
95 KB JPG
>>4023789
forgot pic.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-7M2
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Elements 2021 Editor 19.0 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.4
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)85 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width6000
Image Height4000
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution350 dpi
Vertical Resolution350 dpi
Image Created2022:05:01 09:20:37
Exposure Time25 sec
F-Numberf/11.0
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/11.0
Brightness-3.2 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length85.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1000
Image Height667
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
>Minolta 300mm f/2.8
>with 1.4x converter
>700€
Is this a good deal? They seems pretty rare, it would go on my A-mount sony
>>
Does every photographer need a prime lens as part of their kit?
>>
>>4023820
I think so, there's no reason not to have something that's cheap compared to a decent zoom, better in all metrics than a kit zoom, and sub f/2. Standard/wide/portrait is the only real debate.
>>
>>4017296
Did I mention I own a Leica?
>>
>>4023948
Since this is the SQT, what's so special about Leica really? Is it just branding these days?
>>
>>4023966
Used to own film M's, now just digital M's (and lots of other cameras). Photography is my major hobby, but if I didn't have a lot of disposable income, I wouldn't ever consider owning Leica again. I think the M and Q models are really their best / unique offering, and for most everything else, you're better off with other brands. They certainly have limitations, but there isn't anything else that can give me such good IQ, in such a small size, and give me the same tactile experience.

Some people like the brand because of the luxury / premium aspect. They are well made, and do feel like a premium product, but issues are common on leica forums, and repair / service times are terrible compared to other brands. The film M's are built like tanks, but service/CLA on them is extremely common.

Rangefinder focusing is neat, and my favorite way to manual focus, but it does have it's own flaws, At the end of the day too, it's just a focusing method. If I could have a digital M that was the exact same, except it could autofocus, I'd 100% be on board. I love shooting with an OVF, and that's really what sets the M series apart for me. The X-Pro3 comes close enough in practice and has more useful / modern tech (histogram, ERF, don't always have to focus + recompose), that I actually prefer it from an operational standpoint (X-Pro2 ovf is too small/tunnel vision). If you want something simple and unobtrusive, the M is the clear winner.

The new M11 does have a really solid sensor, that can trade resolution for DR, and the Monochrom's are also pretty unique. Outside of that, there really isn't anything special on the tech side. The lenses are typically good-great, but I think they are generally overpriced given how well alternatives (Zeiss, Voigtlander) perform at a fraction of the price.
>>
>>4023979
I’d like the brand a lot better if they weren’t doing hermes editions. On one hand I appreciate them leaning into being a luxury accessory but on the other hand I don’t want the majority of the cost being associated with marketing.
>>
>>4023820
no, but you'll know when you need one
>>
>>4023979
>Rangefinder focusing is neat
Oh, I just read up on this now. Didn't know that it was basically a split prism, that's great. I thought it was just a window like on the cheap point and shoot cameras.
>>
How do you easily achieve the basic results of JPG processing on RAW images when there's not any real work you need to do to them?
>>
>>4024247
By shooting RAW+JPG.
For real though, doesn't the programs usually have some batch editing option?
>>
>>4024321
>By shooting RAW+JPG.
I do.
>For real though, doesn't the programs usually have some batch editing option?
They do. But you would still have to create a preset of your own to mimic that processing. Basically, I want the extra sharpness the RAW provides while retaining the JPG processing. Every time I try edit my photos, once I compare it to the JPG and even the flat RAW image, I'm disgusted by my ineptitude.
>>
Yesterday I noticed something like this on my (bought used) telephoto lens - some sort of moisture inside (?), visible on this shot on the bottom part. What could that be? Is it fixable?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeMicrosoft
Camera ModelLumia 640 Dual SIM
Camera SoftwareWindows Photo Editor
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)30 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2022:05:03 14:51:09
Exposure Time3/100 sec
F-Numberf/2.2
ISO Speed Rating200
Lens Aperturef/2.2
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeAverage
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length2.95 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width3264
Image Height1840
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
A 100mm focal length covers a quarter of the image circle of 50mm. Does that mean a 100mm lens at 2 meters looks the same as a 50mm at 1 meter?
>>
>>4024323
You are not editing the correct parameters (which SOOC JPG's do) such as sharpness, clarity, noise reduction, blackpoint, contrast, curves. As you may have guessed already the extra RAW sharpness is just your in camera JPG picture style being soft. My RAW editing software (affinity photo) has two sharpness increasing settings, clarity and detail enhancement, the latter has two more sliders of its own. After developing I can even use filters such as frequency separation in order to manually alter the details in any shape I need.

TL;DR Learn to edit RAW
>>
File: 50mm100mm.jpg (165 KB, 1000x340)
165 KB
165 KB JPG
>>4024649
The subject will framed similarly in the frame, but there will be a lot of differences between the pictures.
You'll see a difference in the background, both in terms of field of view and in terms of blur.
You'll see a difference of the subject due to perspective distortion. If doing portraits, it can change the look of someone's face quite a bit.
>>
>>4024653
I assume the right is 100mm due to background compression, thanks for reminding me dof simulator exists.
>>
>>4024651
And what can be done about it?
>>
>>4017408
Rebel G
>>
request doesn't really deserve it's own thread so I'm hoping someone here can help.

anon posted a photo a while back of a small, potted cherry blossom tree in a white room under a skylight. it had some really nice tones and a comfy, liminal vibe.

does anyone have the photo saved? It's become inspiration for an artwork and I'd like to have it handy as reference.
>>
What is P* mode
>>
>>4024848
Professional mode.
>>
This seems like a question you can only know the answer to with experience, so can someone with more experience than I chime in?

Is there any "expectations" you should have with a lens? For example, every 135mm lens I've used has been incredibly sharp. There must be something about this focal length that makes the optics easier to nail for pin sharpness than other focal lengths, right?

Are there any others like this where just going off of the focal length you understand how sharp it'll be before trying?
>>
File: file.png (2.52 MB, 1000x1000)
2.52 MB
2.52 MB PNG
do you know of any free program where you feed a bunch of photos in and one main photo and it arranges the photos in a way to look like the main photo?
see pic related as an example
>>
>>4024750
Check the archives?
>>
>>4025177
try Andrea Mosaic. i got a portable version. did the job for me.
>>
>>4025223
thanks fren
is this it? http://www.andreaplanet.com/andreamosaic/ because it looks like a generic pajeet virus website
>>
>>4025230
I agree the website is not exactly cutting edge but I didn't have any trouble.
>>
How do these photographers get away with this? Her instagram has hundreds of sessions. This price is insane for the area.
>>
>>4025289
wait is she paying for the access or are the people paying her for photos?
>>
>>4025296
She is offering her services for $400 per session.
>>
>>4024881
yeah but there is P mode and P* mode
>>
>tfw haven't been using other types of metering until recently (spot, centered)
I feel like a fucking idiot. spot is exactly what I needed when my subject is dark but the background is super bright. Now to dig into other features of my d3400.
>>
File: Beecherlulz_400x400.png (194 KB, 400x400)
194 KB
194 KB PNG
>>4025289
>georgetown, texas
>pretty much austin
lmfao. I'm sure there's hundreds of better photographers all over austin that would do it better. What kind of goof pays for this.
>>
What software should I use if I want to make a simple photo slideshow? And by that I mean:

>background texture
>simple animation of photo slowly growing larger towards the camera (or smaller)
>simple white frame around the photos
>synced music
>>
>>4025353
here photos literally look like they were taken with a phone
>>
how much more light does f/1.9 let in vs f/1.7
like in terms of %, I know f/2.8 is 50% of f/2.0
>>
>>4026217
Without pulling up the formula, around a third to half of a stop. It's one stop from 2 to 1.4 and I don't shoot slide film or make movies so I overexpose to the nearest stop.
>>
>>4026220
cheers
>>
File: transmission.png (83 KB, 1231x531)
83 KB
83 KB PNG
>>4026217
Ballpark is half-stop, or a difference of 25% transmission.

Super overkill answer is that there's a few factors that make it impossible to say without finding the actual light transmission of the specific lenses.
t/stops measure actual light transmission. f/stops are just math.
There's also the possibility of rounding (is that f1.7 closer to f1.70 or f1.74, etc).
In some cases, like with STF / APD lenses, the light transmission is significantly less. The Fuji 56 f/1.2 APD wide open is closer to t/1.7.
>>
>>4026229
damn thanks anon, didnt know all f stops werent functionally identical
>>
>>4026250
Cameras lie, film isos lie, t stops are more honest but everything else lies.
>>
>>4017357
I regularly shoot portraits at 500mm. I wouldn't recomend everyone do it, but it works for me.
>>
What's the best aspect ratio for instagram?
Does 4:5 get cropped on the feed?
>>
>>4026865
They crop your pictures in your profile grid only. Your picture will be shown in somebody else's feed in the original ratio but at a smaller size compared to 1:1 or 5:4.
>>
How practical is it to manually focus on a gimbal? Never used one before but I wanna try making a short movie with my Sigma fp. Also would have an SSD connected to capture 12-bit raw footage, dunno if that has much of an impact on balance
>>
Is there a program or a way to show the thumbnails of RAW files to also show a preview instead of the icon of the program that can open them? Like windows does with jpg and other common filetypes.
>>
File: 61oXEMSKYiL._AC_SL1500_.jpg (70 KB, 1396x765)
70 KB
70 KB JPG
>>4017415
>Instax film is retardedly expensive
Film might not be for you if less than a dollar per picture already makes you balk, because guess what, 35mm also costs money plus development and prints. What about a Polaroid Snap
>digital camera
>with printer
>paper is cheaper than Polaroid film (50 cents per sheet)
If it HAS to be film, then get a point-and-shoot, or look at one of Lomography's offerings
>>
>>4027617
You can do it with a plugin but it has to be for your type of raw.
>>
File: 1652144639138.jpg (362 KB, 1080x1440)
362 KB
362 KB JPG
>>4027638
>windows wants me to log in just to download a raw file extension
whack
>>4027639
I didn't know I could browse folders within Irfanview which would show thumbnails. Fuck. Just cut my storage by 35gb deleting all of the jpg copies and kept the raw. Thanks
>>
>>4026250
Technically the f stops are all identical, a f2 on one lens will have the same opening size as f2 on another lens, it's the quality of the glass that further determines light transmission, as you can have losses through the elements that lead to lower light hitting the sensor
>>
Without using any Adobe stuff how do I profile my gear and process RAW photos accurately?

I have a bunch of RAW photos from my phone that I want to get the most out of. They all have heavy vignetting due to the lens and the colors aren't quite right, but they're not that far from being good either. I know a lot of the technical reasons for what causes these flaws and I know very well that both of these issues are things that software can correct for pretty well but I don't know how to do it the right way. Everything I find online seemingly requires Adobe products to do but surely there's gotta be an alternative?

Does Adobe really have the entire photography world by the balls? Up until now, I kind of thought that was all a meme.
>>
>>4027730
>Does Adobe really have the entire photography world by the balls?
Well yes. There are free alternatives and you can probably make do with them. Darktable is pretty popular.
>>
>>4027730
There are dozens of other RAW processors, I don't know how you could miss them if you searched at all. Darktable, GIMP, Luminar, DxO PhotoLab, RawTherapee, Affinity Photo are probably the more common alternatives. If you mean mobile editing specifically, Adobe is arguably the best, but Snapseed, VSCO, and Darkroom are also worth checking out.

Adobe Lightroom is by far the most widely used overall though, so most tutorials / guides are going to reference that. CaptureOne is the most serious alternative, and has been the standard for higher end / studio work for many years.
>>
>>4027777
I'm not just looking for an editor but a way to create and use custom profiles.
DarkTable uses an external lens database which offers support for most modern camera equipment but when I looked up how to create my own it basically requires a bunch of steps but led to using Adobe's lens profile creator. A few others do the same.

I know I can half ass the fixes using GIMP in post but that's time consuming and doesn't quite work as well as it could if the solutions were applied during the raw conversion.
>>
File: Mamiya_M645_1000S.jpg (98 KB, 800x600)
98 KB
98 KB JPG
>>4017296
Only a real photo geek will be able to answer my question.

Other than the Mamiya 35mm f3.5, Pentax 25mm f4, and Pentax 28-45 f4.5 ED what are other super wide angle lenses that can be used on 645 format film cameras?
>>
>>4017357
If you see yourself needed to shoot something that is like a mile away then that's your reason to use a super telephoto. And at the prices to buy a super telephoto you are probably best to just rent one.
>>
>>4017408
Your answer is the Ricoh GR1v or if you want something cheaper then the Nikon L35 AF. I would have put the Olympus XA on the list but I have one and although it is great that you can manual focus it, the viewfinder is small and the focusing patch is super small / dim and a pain in the ass to use.

Most decent compact film cameras have skyrocketed in value on the used market and are at $1000.00 or more today...
>>
>>4017459
This may be out of the question for you. But get a waterproof camera or a waterproof camera bag and jump in the water to get those awesome underwater shots.
>>
>>4017818
It's a gimmick just to sell more cameras. I know about the sensor shift technology that you are talking about and have a friend that is working on a camera system that actually does it properly.
>>
>>4028046
>Only a real photo geek will be able to answer my question.
Have you checked if Ken Rockwell have anything on it?
>>
>>4018494
-You would gain access to better and a larger range of lenses when shooting with ff vs crop.

-Shallower depth of field.

-Full frame sensors are cleaner and higher resolution then crop sensors.

-In general you will gain access to better "professional" features that are usually released with full frame cameras before crop cameras.
>>
File: Image_Circle.jpg (50 KB, 610x402)
50 KB
50 KB JPG
>>4018992
See photo above. In short you are basically cropping out a ff lens's image circle when used on a crop body. You are essentially throwing away part of a full frame lens's larger image capture circle and as a result your ff lens now has a smaller field of view than what it would natively have on ff.
>>
Stick a close up filter on your 135 and use it to shoot macro shots.
>>
>>4027730
Just torrent Lightroom. There are other free image editing softwares but I find that they just aren't as good.
>>
>>4027087
Manual focusing mid shot won't work. You will in the short run destabilise your gimbal requiring you to potentially recalibrate it. In the long run you risk damaging your gimbal motors by putting extra force onto them.

Get a wireless follow focus system, or an autofocus lens, or put on a wide angle lens and use hyperfocal distance to preset the focus.
>>
>>4028063
not really a downside, just the nature of a crop sensor
im pretty sure he knows that it's not going to be a full frame image
>>
>>4025563
Any video editing software should allow you to do this. Use whatever is built into your os.
>>
If you had to guesstimate what focal length was used for this photo, what would you say? 35mm?
>>
>>4018992
>But is there any real downside in using full frame glass on a crop body?
The only real "problem" is the lenses usually being bigger and more expensive compared to crop ones.
>>
>>4018992
Your sensor is a sensor. Your lens is a lens.
"full frame" and "crop" are simply recommendations designed with a system in mind. Regardless of whatever you use, assuming there's any cross-compatibility, you will always still have an image projected onto the sensor that is in focus.

The only differences you'll be left with are related to the image circle and framing. With FF glass on a crop sensor, you're basically zooming in. With crop glass on a FF sensor, the image circle is too small to fill the sensor so you'll have to manually crop in post.
Neither are objectively bad things.

For example if you frame accordingly crop glass on FF sensor lets you basically choose your aspect ratio. FF on FF is set with a 3:2 ratio and cropping results in losses but that's only because it's designed as a crop from the image circle already. If you capture more of the image circle, you'll need a crop, and when you decide how to crop from the image circle you basically get lossless cropping as far as framing is concerned. You get to pick between 4:3, 16:9, 1:1, whatever if you capture enough of the image circle.
>>
>>4028074
Thanks, I'll do more research
>>
>ALIGNMENT TO SUBJECT - When composition and camera viewpoint permit, one standard method of maximizing the shallow depth of field at full aperture is to shoot perpendicular to the main axis of the subject. In the case of this mantis, the length of the insect obviously makes this worthwhile.

I don't understand this. If the DoF if like a 3D ''box'' of sharpness through the whole frame that start at an X distance and end in a Y distance, why does it matter if you shoot parallel or perpendicular to your subject?
>>
Seems really idiosyncratic but where can I find a clear acrylic hotshoe cover?
>>
Does metering mode even matter when you're shooting in manual ? I've just started going between spot and matrix but maybe I really should try manual sometime and just dial in the settings if my light isn't changing.
>>
>>4028902
The meter will continue to work regardless of your shooting mode. Matrix meters the whole scene and spot just a specific point, they will yield different results but serve as a guide only in Manual mode. Use Manual mode in very controlled situations like a studio, otherwise just use P (professional) or Av and apply exposure compensation in order to preserve the lights or reveal more shadows.

It's very stupid to meter and then manually apply shutter speed, aperture and ISO for every other shot while the camera can do it for you, just monitor your pictures and use exposure compensation. I personally use P or AV at a -1.5 exposure compensation in sunny days (I hate blown up highlights), during nightime I use a -3 compensation (makes it look somewhat dark, just like real life). I always use matrix metering, can't be bothered to meter a specific point then focus then recompose and finaly take the damn picture.
>>
>>4028722
Think of the plane of focus as a sheet of paper in front of your camera, parallel to your sensor. Where it intersects the subject, will be in focus.
If you're shooting the mantis right on, that sheet will intersect it all the way, and it will all be in focus.
If you're shooting top down, that sheet would only intersect the head, and the rest would fall out of focus.
If you're shooting the mantis at an angle, that sheet would intersect partially, so it would partially be in focus.
Stopping down the aperture will increase the thickness of the sheet, so it's possible to the mantis in focus either way.
There are other implications of this though, like if you shot at an angle, the top and bottom of the foreground and background would have different levels of focus.
Consider also for a group photo you want to shoot with a fast aperture. People have a tendency to group together and form a slight curve, however that puts the people on the edges at a different plane then the people in the center. So if you want everyone to be equally in focus, they need to all be on the same plane (or you stop down).

>>4028902
If you are shooting manual and just constantly "chasing the needle", you are better off in a priority mode. The AE Lock function is made to lock in exposure for consistent shots in a priority mode. If you're in studio, working with lighting, or just shooting in very consistent / static lighting, manual mode can definitely be beneficial. I'm probably 90% aperture priority w/ auto ISO, and 10% full manual.
>>
What's a good website to publish my pictures?
>>
File: 1651712378486.jpg (41 KB, 1212x608)
41 KB
41 KB JPG
>>4017296
does anyone here a aerial photography?
these drones are fucking fantastic
>>
>>4029055
I have the chink knock off made in the same factory I imagine just with a worse camera. It's pretty neat desu maybe should spring for the name brand drone.
>>
Retard from /out/ here. I'm interested in a camera aside from the one built into my phone but I have no idea how to evaluate cameras or if a dedicated camera will even outperform my phone. My requirements are durability and some amount of water resistance since I spend a lot of time fishing and hiking where there is often heavy mist, fog and condensation. I'm currently using my phone camera for pretty much everything (Samsung S21) but I wanted to conserve phone battery and get better images. Will I get a noticeable increase in image quality moving from a flagship phone camera to a durability focused camera like the Tough TG-6? Additionally does the TG-6 allow for room for me to grow as a photographer in terms of changing photo settings and parameters? All the photos I've ever taken have been point and shoot stuff but I have a strong interest in improving though I can't afford to destroy some high end camera in my sporting activities.
>>
>>4029109
Anon, the S21 is decent if you shoot RAW. The JPEGs suck but it's otherwise a totally viable camera for 99% of uses.
>>
>>4028912
I see, I think I'm starting to get it. No matter the aperture and where I focus, does the plane of focus always cover the entirety of the X axis on the sensor/screen in an uniform manner? The position of my focus point in the X axis as any impact at all?
>>
File: auto.jpg (51 KB, 1024x682)
51 KB
51 KB JPG
Any famous non-landscape photographers who used mostly a 24mm?
>>
How do you search for a specific camera using EXIF data in the archive
>>
>>4029109
TG-6 owner here, shits awesome. No full manual which is the biggest drawback, but otherwise excellent and far above its competition.
>>
Tourist here, just out of curiosity...is digital processing of film photos a thing? Do they scan the photos and edit like digital? If so, I imagine the range of information and possibility is much smaller.
>>
>>4029302
>I imagine the range of information and possibility is much smaller.
Good scans have a lot of information in them and a .tiff is a raw file of sorts. There is a lot of data in highlights and some in the shadows that you can pull which you can't get using an enlarger. Estimates of equivalent megapixels are hard to make but given a 100 iso film, ~20mp for 35mm and ~50mp for medium format is about average. Some would say 12 or 16mp is the max of 35mm but film has no sensor interpolation and noise is less apparent in areas of detail instead of uniform. Some films still outperform digital in dynamic range and tonality, although the gap has narrowed considerably with current flagships.

Generally, any current or last gen midrange digital camera is going to be better in most aspects, but scanned film is still on par in many instances.
>>
>>4029328
I see. Thank you for the detailed answer.
>>
File: aus olympus.png (365 KB, 1172x507)
365 KB
365 KB PNG
>>4029109
>TG-6 allow for room for me to grow as a photographer
No. And I wouldnt recommend it if you want to learn. Olympus and Panasonic are the kings of /out/, but their micro four thirds offerings are where the real cameras begin. Really tough, weather sealed and rugged units but there are drawbacks to using smaller m43 sensors, like low light performance if youre hoping to capture nightscapes, but judging by the fact you're considering a TG6, an M43 is a big step up in performance compared to that.

Im in australia, so my prices might be a little different, but you can find an EM10 MKIV bundled with the 14-150mm for 1300 here all day long, which is about $1k usd or so. That would be great for getting out because that zoom is super versatile, super wide for landscapes and telephoto for some wildlife. Great lens to learn on because you will be able to experiment with lots of different genres. One big caveat. It's not a weather sealed camera. But the thing about that is, the lensi s weathersealed which is the most comment point of entry into a camera. It should be fine so long as you dont take it out into rain or drop it in puddles. Olympus weathersealing is like military grade shit. Its not just a marketing thing. If you need it, its worth it. You can take a weathersealed olympus out in a literal hurricane. If that appeals to you, it's about 300 bucks more for the same combo with the completely weather sealed EM5. That lens is weathersealed too so youre good to go.

Check out pic related and do some research on prices where you are. There's also the Lumix G9 to consider and of course used options.

Stop by the /mft/ thread whenever we get around to making it again and say hello.
>>
I'm playing back recorded video from my BMPCC4K and it looks like every so often it's lacking a few seconds of video. is this just my computer not keeping up with the large file or is the video actually busted and if so how can I make the video/future videos not busted?
>>
>>4029349
Thanks for the detailed writeup, appreciate it.
>>
I want to take the Fuji-pill but I frankly don't understand their camera line up. Need recommendations. A good viewfinder is important to me.

I primarily do deep inna-woods forestry photography. I then get super artsy-fartsy with GIMP and/or Krita and my photos end up looking like digital watercolors or 'oil' paintings. Also like making digital cyanotypes and metal toned photos. I do not do professional photography; I just like the hobby.

I have been using an a5000 but the rear screen is so fucked up that I have to do a lot of bracketed photos to get something I like, and I think there is a sensor problem as there is a consistent lens independent dark spot in the upper right corner of every photo (easy to fix, but annoying). I think it is just time for a new camera.
>>
Besides low light and iso performance, is there a particular ''look'' to different sensor sizes like micro 4/3, full frame and aps-c? I mean, when people look at a daylight shot, can they identify which sensor it came from?
>>
>>4029782
Have you ever looked at a women's magazine? The portraits are almost exclusively full frame and medium format. Even if you were to post said photo at Instagram or whatever social media that rapes your image quality you would still retain the look as that is quantified in dynamic range.
>>
>>4029783
I see. Is the difference that great even with modern sensors? I did a quick google search for the dynamic range of some different canon cameras:

>canon m50: 13.4 f-stops
>canon R: 14.1 f-stops
>canon 1D: 14.5 f-stops

That small numerical differences brings such a huge difference in look?
>>
>>4029787
I'm not so sure that you can correlate this into numbers and not even in such a linear fashion, guide yourself by the physical size of sensors as that seems to be the factor that defines how much in dynamic range they differ. Pic related, a little more highlight and shadow detail makes an image way more volumetric (less flat).

Also take into consideration that some full frame cameras have 50MP or more, some medium format cameras about 100MP. Your megapixel count has to double each time you would like to see a noticeable difference in your image quality. It may sound very banal but that "magazine look" can only be achieved with the proper tools.
>>
>>4029791
I see. I guess there is now way around that. I'll try not to invest too much money into crop lenses then, so maybe I'll upgrade to full frame in some years. Thanks.
>>
File: OLY4296.jpg (193 KB, 1024x768)
193 KB
193 KB JPG
>>4029780
I don't know dick about Fuji but I believe their lineup is pretty simple and stratified by price. I either use the EVF on my camera or make use of the tilting back screen innawoods for shooting mushrooms and shit in what I call TLR mode. I'm too old to kneel or squat too much. I turn on histogram readouts and tilt sensors and make use of a fast prime and 6 stops of stabilization because it gets really dark innawoods. I believe Fuji has some of that. Otherwise, I like making dippy old cookbook photos in app because I'm lazy.

>>4029782
Differences are mostly negligible other than a slight depth of field increase which is usually an advantage and the aspect ratios which use more vertical lens real estate.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeOLYMPUS CORPORATION
Camera ModelE-M10MarkII
Camera SoftwareVersion 1.3
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution350 dpi
Vertical Resolution350 dpi
Image Created2022:05:07 14:54:49
White Point Chromaticity0.3
Exposure Time1/80 sec
F-Numberf/2.2
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating1600
Exposure Bias0.7 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length25.00 mm
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width1024
Image Height768
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlHigh Gain Up
ContrastSoft
SaturationLow
SharpnessSoft
>>
>>4029802
My suggestion? If you are not being paid full time then go for Canon crop with EF glass so you can eventually upgrade to full frame and keep the lenses.
>>
>>4029804
Differences are mostly negligible

For an unemployed hobbyist? Sure. For a working professional? Nope.
>>
>>4029806
Won't I get better performance by using native lenses? Also, isn't EF, EF-S (and soon EF-M) already discontinued? If I'll bite the bullet for an expensive body camera, might as well buy into the new fancy RF lenses, no?
>>
>>4029815
EF is native for both full frame and crop and they are plentiful because Canon still makes crop DSLR's. If you like DSLR and are not rich then do as I suggest.
>>
>>4029822
I have a canon M50 mkii, an apsc mirrorless. I would need an adapter and I don't know how badly that will mess with the AF, contrast and sharpness. I just need a couple more prime lenses anyway, and I'll probably stay 5+ years with this system. But I'll take your suggestion if the official announcement of EF-M being discontinued by canon doesn't bring down the prices of their native lenses.
>>
>>4029825
use canon´s adapter
>>
File: photos.jpg (2 MB, 2068x3352)
2 MB
2 MB JPG
How would I go about creating photos like pic rel? Should I go digital or analog?
>>
File: 12432423.png (929 KB, 810x862)
929 KB
929 KB PNG
Found this lens at a Goodwill for $3.50. Can anyone identify it and is it worth anything?
>>
>>4017296
Quick one for you..

Say im shooting in daylight sun with f1.8 and iso between 100-400 at around 200-250/s

How many stops should my ND filter have to bring it to the correct exposure?
>>
>>4029980
7 or so if I didn't lose count on my fingers.
>>
>>4029949
It's exactly what it says on the tin - Canon FD 28mm 2.8
It's worth a fair amount more than you bought it for, assuming it's not damaged.
Still a very cheap and common <$100 lens.
>>
File: funsaver.jpg (38 KB, 800x800)
38 KB
38 KB JPG
>>4029877
Disposable Kodak with built-in flash.
>>
bros is the canon eos 550d still a good camera? ive had it for about 11 years now..
>>
>>4029109
>Will I get a noticeable increase in image quality moving from a flagship phone camera to a durability focused camera like the Tough TG-6?
Honestly don't know since phones are so good these days. What you will however get with basically any dedicated camera is a much nicer experience. Since most things will be easier done on it compared to a phone. But that will of course depend on how much you are liking using the phone atm, personally I never really liked it.
A great thing about the small types of basic cameras you posted are that they are just that, small. Even a small DSLR or even mirrorless will have a quite big lens poking out, which makes them a bit hard to carry in a normal pocket.
>>
>>4030098
If it still works then I don't see why not. The 550d has decent specs. If it was good for you when you bought it, then it will still be good now. Just because a camera is old doesn't mean that it all of a sudden has become bad.
>>
>>4029980
You would have to stop down by roughly 5-7 stops depending on your iso and lighting. You would probably be best to get a variable ND filter such as the one I posted above.
>>
>>4029949
It is a Canon FD mount lens made for Canon's film SLRs. According to the current Ebay rates, it is worth anywhere from 50 to 100 USD.

It only really works on old Canon film cameras and cannot be used with an adapter on modern digital cameras. The lens is quite slow at f2.8. These two factors reflect the low price.
>>
>>4029877
These photos are all most likely shot on film with a flash. You can either shoot on digital w/flash and add film grain and a film look or you can buy a cheap point and shoot film camera.
>>
>>4029302
95% of film photos shot today are scanned, digitised and to some extent digitally edited (either by the lab or by the end photographer).

A very small minority of people use old analog technics such as dodging and burning when making prints. Think Ansel Adams style.

The range of information of film can be high or low depending on what film has been shot and how the film is scanned. Medium format film still rivals digital in price, image quality and image resolution even to this day. Most 35mm film stocks don't have as much information as digital but a few professional film stocks shot with excellent lenses can create images the surpass your average digital camera.
>>
>>4029230
Bump.
>>
>>4030216
How does that work?
>>
File: 69_Polarizer_theory.jpg (61 KB, 690x594)
61 KB
61 KB JPG
>>4030738
quantum mechanics

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
PhotographerAnn Hanks
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
>>4030223
But how does it work for color grading? I mean, a raw file has a range of information for each pixel, right? afaik a scanned photo only has one one value for each pixel.
>>
>>4029302
>Do they scan the photos and edit like digital?
Yes.
>If so, I imagine the range of information and possibility is much smaller.
Good scanners offer linear raw RGB data for every pixel. More information than you get from a camera raw with no need to demosaic/interpolate. You have tons of room for editing, easily on par with good digital raws and often even better.

>>4030810
Camera raws are usually 42-bit super green biased bayer shit with quite a bit of noise that also must be heavily corrected digitally.
God raw scans are usually 48-bit linear RGB information per pixel with low noise that may or may not require heavy corrections in post.

For color negatives you need editing to turn the ugly brown negative into a pleasant looking image with edits.
For slide film that's usually ready to go with little to no editing, since it's already a pleasing image when simply viewed on a light table.
>>
what is a good program for viewing exif data ? my camera is leaving its serial number and god knows what else on photos
>>
What is a good setup for shooting straight down? I have manfrotto befree tripod and up till now i would just try to tilt that as much as possible but you can never get straight down. Preferably pretty cheap and ideally portable
>>
What is a good site to check out user photos of a particular lens? I know of this one, but it has nothing on the lenses I'm after: https://explorecams.com/
>>
>>4031731
Flickr
>>
Do any of you buy the same lens multiple times?
>>
Are there any good photoshop editing and retouching tutorials vids books or courses you would recommend me
>>
Are mirrorless cameras basically the same as phone cameras? But more powerful



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.