File: kekked.jpg (251 KB, 574x601)

251 KB JPG

>>3195673

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2015:02:07 11:04:32
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	574
Image Height	601

>>3195672
>>3195673
>>3195675
But Bentax and Sony have pixel shift modes too

>>3188464
>the a7r is sharper than 5d4 at iso100

>>3196066
Everyone other than Sony has shit unsharp lenses (other than a few super expensive Canon teleprimes, and some Zeiss/Sigmas) since most were developed at a time when MP count was far lower. DXO doesn't test with the same lens across systems.

>>3196073
>DXO
DXO is fucking bullshit voodo. You can't even replicate their tests because of custom """testing""" equipment.

>>3198688
you forgot to mention that a lot of girls are on instagram too and a big follower count is now the 1999 equivalent of a 9 inch dick. it will get girls wet if you have like 30k followers.

who cares about being famous.

i agree with the more accurate critique the more people you have. my current goal is 30,000 followers

>>3198731
No :(

>>3198734
Stop spamming, kid.

>>3198578
I'm not a photographer, I'm just on here because I want to gain an online presence on IG and there's some good advice in here. However, I think photography is really cool and I would probably get into it if I had a DSLR camera.

Overall, I really want engagement with my followers. I study physics and I love interacting with other students in STEM and hearing about their research. I am also somewhat into fitness and eventually want to bring that on to my ig. So I guess you could say I want to be a lifestyle profile, however I won't be selling anything.

what is the point of trying to get big on insta/500px?

can it lead to an opportunity to exhibit work in a gallery?

I started letting my photography instagram account die because it feels too much like pointless hard work.

I was posting one picture a day of my film work but now I just can't summon the energy.

should I reinstate it? why do you guys do it?

Do a better scan?

I like it though

>>3198974
nice

If anyone else has any shots to post post em

Lurk more delet dis
>>3197852
>>3197852
>>3197852

>>3198974
fucking yawn

>>3193756
Yeah, but add quality lenses in and you're quickly at 1k. Point and shoot are good for beginners. All in one, usually great magnification, bad only at extreme closeups. Full controls to toy with, only major problem is lowly battery life.

>>3191855
SONY A6000 WITH KIT LENS

>>3193844
I will second this.

Check amazon for refurb Canon's. You can get a T6 with a kit lens for less than 400 bucks.

>>3193277
No, fuck you.

is craigslist a thing in europe? look for used handicams on there for that much

>>3196819
Depends on what film you want. There's 35mm at the student co-op shop called Zone, downtown St-Roch and at the main University site. Mainly Ilford stuff. There's also cheap stuff at drug stores etc. Regarding cameras... just buy used. Lespacs or Kijiji.

>2 gear threads and this

File: weight_by_senzor.png (103 KB, 668x271)

103 KB PNG

this is yet another simple distribution plot for cameras, this time showing the weight (measured in grams, sorry freedomunit users)

again, nothing immensely surprising here, seems that the larger the sensor the heavier the cameras tend to get
obviously it's not to do with the actual weight of the sensor, but the various features around it, as well as what kind of camera that sensor is typically used in

>>3196477
I made this exactly because I tried to have something concrete to discuss around and not just throw "LEL SONY FAGS BTFO'D"/"MFT CAMERAS BIGGER THAN FULLFRAMELETTES" etc
thought it would be of some use, at least I found it interesting so I decided to share

I've shitposted about gearfags too much and thought I could finally be of use instead, to somehow better this declining board (personal opinion); obviously I was mistaken

>>3196466
very polite way to phrase it anon, congrats
if I can be arsed tomorrow to show you what I mean, I will, but the issue is that in my case the python lib that I've used would output fairly shit histograms, so I stuck with these
maybe I'll try a diff library at some point, who knows

Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>3194445
this is just plain wrong

This thread is proof that statistical results are bullshit

>>3198627
No, stats are fine, it is the interpretation of what they mean that is always the problem. Try not to project too many conclusions from any statistics. Most are merely correlative. However, stats are often selected specifically from the statistician's own psychological projections, which can bring with them a host of pointed problems. Simply deciding on what needs to be a stat and how it is counted poses the first half of the problem. Interpretation is the second half of the problem.

I like statistics, they are interesting. So long as you take the above paragraph into account when reading stats, it can help you see into the mental or political state the statistician and/or analyst was in at the time of their creations. Overlay that on what is being stated and you may come to better conclusions on your own.

>>3198214
Probably, "incomplete," more than outright, "wrong". Knowing the sources for the numbers would help.

>>3198055
Doing photos for websites I made for local specialty stores. Basically, I took my experience from making online point and click adventure games and applied them to the stores. You basically "walked" around the store via photos and clicking on things in the photos. I used a Nikon Coolpix L100 and made like $10k.

>i’m still fantasizing a lot about living a calm and relaxed lonely life being a professional photographer.

Perhaps art prints then.

>>3198059
dang, those storeowners must have been fucking charmed man

>>3198261
It was like 20 years ago.

Bumperino oregaliano

>>3198055
ehh, this thread deserves a bump

>>3198202
So how can one avoid that overly sharp fake look when shooting digital B&W?
VSCO filters?

>>3198538
what do you mean? I used no VSCO on this one. It's SOOC from my old D700 with a red filter on the lens. (kenko R1)

>>3198527
yeah, exactly what I found the most awkward when I tried mirrorless. But they still great, I think Fuji is still the better choice for SOOC photography, while sony is more focused on the post editing

>>3198587
>I used no VSCO on this one
Yes I know. Your pic has that typical b&w digital look and I don't know why this happens with digital . Film b&w always gives a warmer more comfy result.

>>3198605
oh I see

yes! that ilford hp5 400 look is amazing!

I just finished to fix an old Canon PRIMA 135, I'm using a Kodak gold as a test roll, if it works properly, I'm going to give it a try to the ilford lol

File: IMG_4543.jpg (499 KB, 1280x720)

499 KB JPG

>>3198538

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 5D Mark II
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Photographer	Johan Robertsson
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:12:03 19:30:16
Exposure Time	1/180 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	1 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	35.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1280
Image Height	720
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3195343
expert tea leaf shooter here

you can only shoot them with lenses wider than 24 or more telephoto than 105

sorry, but you can't do anything with your current gear

I think tea leaves have to be swirled at least 3x in the tea cup and then upended onto the saucer. With proper technique you won't have to worry about the sides of the cup and any good closeup lens can handle the DOF of a saucer.

>>3195300
While the Tom Foolery of socially intuitable things such as "readings" are a moot point, you should really be using actual tea leaves, not grounds. That helps lend more legitimacy to the project.

>>3195410
>I see a strong female lady with sunglasses in a black dress shaking hands with a fragmenting male companion in a suit.


Look more closely, that strong female is not shaking hands with the male, she is ripping his heart out - typical female

>>3195410
>>3198615
Looks like one is dicking the other as well.

>>3198541
An ND filter will just drop your entire exposure by a constant amount. They're useful if you want to do really long exposures in bright light. They will not increase your dynamic range or bring out more details.

For pictures of the moon, you will achieve the same effect (and, actually, better quality) by just setting your exposure compensation or manual exposure settings down a few stops.

>>3178477
>>3178477
>>3178477

>>3198541
see: >>3198573

You're definitely in that "Walk around and find interesting" state of mind of new photographers.
My recommendation isn't just to look at the 'feelings' of the shot and the composition but also to take note of how you could've optimized your settings and such or maybe improved it just a little bit.
Like for this shot: It doesn't seem particularly sharp anywhere. Maybe if you had dropped the shutter speed to 1/60th (likely acceptable limit of hand holding a shot like this) you could have increased your f-stop and perhaps it would have helped it seem sharper.
Also, this shot would really benefit from being taken at a more interesting time of day. You were shooting at 12:56pm? You can see the sky coming through in that little part there and it looks bright as hell. Consider shooting at golden hour, sunset, or sunrise. You'll have less extreme division between bright and dark and will probably be able to do more creatively.
Not bad... Take more pictures!

>>3198453
There is nothing great about it.

>>3198494
Don't discourage the feels he gets from seeing a scene irl. OP, if you can capture the feels and communicate them with your pic then you have succeeded. Your pic isn't there yet.
Maybe with a different framing/composition it could have worked. Did you want to emphasize the light coming through the arches?

>>3196440
How do I do this

File: hmmmm.jpg (250 KB, 636x721)

250 KB JPG

>>3196440
>there I say

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72
Vertical Resolution	72
Image Created	2016:11:22 10:45:23
Image Width	636
Image Height	721

>>3196440
>there i say
you fucking prismo autismo
gtfo off /p/

>>3198401
open lightroom, take your laptop into the bathroom, lock the door and turn out the lights, look in the mirror and say "jason lanier" 3 times

>>3198028
>I'm tempted to print it full size, jpeg and size defects included, add that description and send it to gallery.
Still a hell of a lot more artistic merit than the work Richard Prince has gotten into galleries.

HOLD YOUR CAMERA HIGH
AND CLICK

>>3194312
Leica M5 my favorite

>>3196044
There hasn't been any announcements for the GRiii. Post source of be branded a lying faggot for the rest of your life

File: 140313202401.jpg (221 KB, 1200x795)

221 KB JPG

>>3195992
>>3195992
Thankyou anon, this is absolutely correct.
Although in reality, the point is moot, because the only thing that would make me actually purchase one would be "the world literally ran out of film", so they can make it whatever the fuck they like, I guess.
I had the GR in this photo >>3195967 back when I was still a digipleb, but these days I use film for all of my "photography", and digital only for scanning.
What these morans don't understand is that the GR is about a design philosophy, not a feature set. Sleek, black, literally fits in your pocket, amazing wide angle prime and only the tools you need to make the most of it.
Less is more. If anything, I would use the prevalence of smartphones and good wifi to justify removing the screen entirely. When I was shooting one, once I had it set up the only controls I ever used were the AF ON button, the shutter button and the exposure +/- button.
If they brought back the film GR though, with a modern lense and exposure/focus controls, I would re-mortgage my house for a pallet of them if necessary.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>3194623
>>3194619
>>3194582
Anyone have the pic of that Brit photog who shopped his eye into the viewfinder? Anon posted it here about 2 years ago. Iirc the photog mentioned was downloading others work and applying edits to it before passing off the absolute dogshit results as his own. Many laughs were had in those threads.

File: 20171002-DSC05099.jpg (1.15 MB, 2322x1129)

1.15 MB JPG

Woops, forgot I posted this thread

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-5000
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.5.1 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.5
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	42 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2017:10:12 13:57:07
Exposure Time	1/250 sec
F-Number	f/9.0
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/9.0
Brightness	9.6 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	28.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>3198446
Oh fuck, an actually good photo of the Edinburgh skyline. You don't see those often, congrats.

>>3197364
Why is it disgusting to love your own country and culture?

File: please.jpg (1.18 MB, 2322x1129)

1.18 MB JPG

>>3198446
how about this

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-5000
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.5.1 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.5
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	42 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2017:10:12 13:57:07
Exposure Time	1/250 sec
F-Number	f/9.0
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/9.0
Brightness	9.6 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	28.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>3198477
Ruined