Threads by latest replies - Page 12
Hey /p/ I'm kind of new to photography and this Board. I wanna know your opinions on this shot.
>>3520927 >focusing on the knee instead of the face >shitty grain everywhere due to high ISO instead of tripodding
very weak shoot over all.
Looks to me like you focused on his knee. Portraits focus on the eyes
How high is the ISO? You don't need to go above 400 outside
Well thats the issue. He probably underexposed it like hell then cranked up the exposure in post. Doing that introduces way more noise than ISO.
>>3522088 >shitty grain >tripodding
It's actually ISO 100 and 1/640s.
You know shit and your snapshot is a typical creep shot. You lack the balls to shoot proper street, better try some flowers.
Good job doing such a boring photo
Oof nigger pretending to be a slav with a heinous background, and boring foreground. Just awesome anon
Pentax K-S2 to pass edition
Approved by Brooklyn Beckham
All discussion and questions related to gear should take place in this exact thread.
Redirection and answering questions in this thread is encouraged.
Lost the actual image
just make the new thread man
No, this thread is still good, just cut off the moldy parts, anon
Thread limit hit.
Last one is auto saging, post some animals:
Wild fox kit, Washington, USA
really a "kit lens" ha ha ha *dabs*
>>3514613 >>3517155 >>3517277 >>3517895 >>3521970 >>3521972
Really like this kind of shot, when animal is firmly place in the environment. What's always on my mind is how rare it's to find a good ones involving birbs. Wondering if rareness is caused by environment often not allowing anything but blown out background, or demand and taste on photographers side for as close as possible pixelpeeping sharpness?
Why hasn't Sony made an FE 300mm f/2.8 lens yet? Why would they make a 600mm before a 300mm? I ask because I'd love to use my Sony to shoot football this season instead of my Canon rig.
Because the auto focus doesn't work that way
It's not worth it, anon. I'm a full-time photog also, but these drips don't give a shit. They're all just here to argue.
It depends on the trip - some of them are on assignment for various publications, sometimes it's hired out by the DMO or a tour operator, and occasionally they're workshops I teach. I'd like to say you're invited, but it'll be a cold day in hell before I post any of my personal contact info on 4Chan.
Nobody cares about your pesos faggot snoycuck
Also, as we said, it's a significantly more useful lens which will result in higher sales numbers also.
They're going to produce the lenses that people want the most of, first, and then move into the weird specialty lenses later. I know that everyone on this website has serious autism so concepts like this don't necessarily make sense, but this is a very common business practice, and it's extremely unsurprising that Sony is taking this approach.
>>3522358 >I'm a full-time photog
>I'm getting into photography again Im trying to decide between: Nikon F65, Minolta Maxxum XTsi, or Yashica TL. All three are film based - which camera has the most used parts available, and lastly which camera offers the best user experience? pics are the cameras
For that Nikon consult this chart:
The N65 doesn't look particularly great.
There is a lot of good manual focus Nikon glass out there and this thing won't meter with any of it.
Don't know shit about the other two.
>update I managed to find a Pentax K 1000 for $100! Comes with the following: 1. Vivitar 80-200 zoom lens with cover 2. Pentax 28-80 zoom lens with cover 3. Strap
Came here to comment this.
OP go on eBay and buy a cheap F100 for like $150 (which isn’t expensive in any sense of the word). Don’t even bother with Nikon’s cheap shit, it was bad then & its bad now.
Second this. The F80 is also pretty decent as long as you don't want to use old manual lenses.
What cameras achieve this look? I think this is the most aesthetic, nostalgic, and dream-like appearance photos can have and I want to base my style with it. Do disposable film cameras give this aesthetic in the most authentic way? Or are there vintage (90s) point and shoot cameras that can do it? Maybe even 90s SLR cameras?
Also post 90s Grainy LoFi photos if you got 'em.
If you're after a softer look definitely go for a zoom like the one you posted. The Minolta zoom-date series are decent and they're all pretty cheap except for the one that Ren Hang used. Olympus zooms that aren't used by Instagram influencers aren't that bad either. Just make sure that you can live with the slow speed, a lot of these lenses have something like a max opening f/6-10 throughout their range.
i would definitely go for a scanner with a high dpi because i don't want any trace of pixelization as it ruins the aesthetic i'm looking for
i don't plan on shooting fast moving subjects. more like buildings, landscapes, and still stuff
Think about the characteristics of the kind of film cameras you're trying to emulate:
film ISO - disable auto-ISO on DSLR to 100, 200, or 400 fixed limited range of apertures - set DLSR to f/8 and leave it there fixed focus - use manual focus; use a lens that still has a focus distance scale, and set it to "hyperfocal" distance flash - no speedlights, use your DSLR's prsumably shitty built in pop up flash only; maybe even set it to 1/2 power This should get the photos sufficiently shitty enough that the rest is all lightroom
here's a photo i found that was taken with a minolta freedom zoom 125. it has an aesthetic close to what i have in mind
Should i buy Sony E 35mm f/1.8 OSS or Sigma 30mm f/1.4 DC DN Contemporary ?
thats a gay move desu
only if fucking hipster girls is gay
Fucking girls is gay. Every time you fuck her your dick is touching all the other dicks that have been inside her and getting smeared with their leftover jizz. Super fucking gay.
1) Do you still use your kit lens? For what? 2) When you bought your first camera, how many time did it pass since you bought another lens?
1. Yes. I have a micro four thirds camera (Panasonic GX85) which came with a compact 12-32mm pancake lens. That's a good focal length range for general photography.
2. About 2 months, when I got my 45-150mm lens. Got a 25mm prime a few weeks after that. Paid $70 and $150 for them respectively.
1)came with no lens
2)just the one 12-40 mft covers everything for me
Yes, the 1650 from your pic in particular, it's so small
1) yes, when want the flexibility of a normal zoom and don't require bigger apertures than f/4.5
2) i didn't evenbuy this "kit" lens with the camera, so i've actually had other lenses for longer than i've had it; but its definitely the same lens that is sometimes packaged as a kit lens
I'm not sure if 50 is actually cheaper when talking about a D5600 because you're comparing an FX 50mm lens to a DX only 35mm lens. That evens the prices out, at least on a quick google. So just get whatever you like.
I was recently gifted a DSLR camera by a photographer relative. But there is a problem where I can visibly see small dust particles, which are either inside the lens, or, more likely, between the lens and the sensor.
Now I never owned a fancy DSLR camera before, so I'm afraid I'd damage something if I just pop the lens off and wipe if off with my spit and sleeve. What exactly should I do? I tried using the built-in cleaning function in the menu but it doesn't do shit.
That's sensors. Also, that kind of amount is usually left alone. When you've whole sensor filled with them you start cleaning. It'll be invisible on most shots, easily removed when it's visible, and it won't degrade image quality at all.
thank you for the answer
and yeah, I decided not to touch it for now. I wouldn't want to risk damaging anything anyway.
Does the D90 do automatic self sensor cleaning on shutdown/startup?
Maybe give that a go if it doesn't do it automatically, there's definitely an option for it in the menus. It might just shake it off
>>3522882 >self sensor cleaning
I don't want to derail the thread but thanks for letting me know about this. Man... Humanity has sure advanced.
It's not perfect. They have fancy names for it, but it's just camera stabilization thing shaking sensor a little as it boots up. Ok, for some particles, useless for stickier smudges.
I want to be able to make out with girls at a distance of 2m or so from my Canon 6D and have it focus, take a shot, wait 3 seconds, focus again...
The EOS Wifi utility for Android sucks balls. The Wifi shit on this camera in general is absolutely fucked. Anyway, I don't need a wireless thing. I need an automatic thing. Experiences with these?
>>3521983 >a gear thread died for another gear thread
The absolute horror.
>>3521868 >magic lantern
i read about this thing blowing up so that you lose all the pics on the card. how common is this? maybe its not such a big deal if you only use the card for this set of shots
You can buy a Bluetooth one. Connects to any phone.