>IQ does not matter
>photographic verisimilitude is an ontological relationship
>photography is art
>the concept of "art" is an operative and useful definition
>>2832220
>my phone has a cam with seven ultrapixels
>>2832255
That's how HTC managed to con everyone into accepting a 4mp camera phone in 2013.
>I bet I could take photos just as good as yours if I had your camera anon
>>2832266
Yeah, because he could take photos just as good as most /p/ ones if he had ANY camera
>Photography is a competition
>>2832227
Is it not? Explain please.
>Kevin Durant is not a good photographer
>when people try to give me advice during a shoot
I got this bitch
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Windows Photo Editor 6.3.9600.17418 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Image Created 2015:08:27 00:29:10 Color Space Information sRGB
>/p/ isn't THAT bad
>>2832263
I'd rather have that than a 16mp phone that takes trash pictures. What's the deal with packing pixels onto phones when it makes the quality worse?
>>2832266
This is especially annoying when they later on use your camera and can't figure the damn thing out. The menus and shit I understand, but focusing? Come on b
>>2832442
Backed, he ain't half bad. I'm also hella biased
My personal (least?) favorites are:
>Why don't you go to school for photography
There's a bunch of reasons
>Locals rappers wanting me to do free things for them
If you can rap about money, you can spread it around
>Film is dead
I'm a digifag and I cringe when I hear that
>>2832458
name a better place
>>2832461
they know 99% of iphone users will take nothing but trash selfies uploaded at small jpeg format on facebook and a bigger megapixel number is the fastest way to impress people who know nothing at all about digital cameras. This makes the company more profit.
They can also explain this away as, the extra unneeded pixels won't reduce image quality for these same facebook snapshit users... since they don't require much.
They can also say the pro photographers will already own a DSLR and should, so it's fine if the phone camera isn't able to compete for large print RAW images.
It's not hard to understand their thinking.
>>2832624
It's not a bad camera for what it is anon. No one is expecting miracles out of their phone
>how many times optical zoom you have there?
>why do you charge money for doing your hobby?
>hey can you recommend me a camera? I want better photos than what my cellphone takes
>oh wow that is so expensive, can you name something for around $100?
>you'll get exposure!
>I see you're using X, it's cool and all but you should consider my pet camera brand Y, you see the thing is...
>>2832220
>The "every photographer is an artist/every photographer is in it to make art" meme
There's so many reasons to want to use a camera to record something, that have nothing to do with trying to express something and be an "artist".
>image quality and expensive cameras don't matter because nobody can tell what you shot with when you post it online or print it out
The camera I'm using, and it's utility to me, matter greatly to me because I'm the one using it. It's well within my right to spend a lot of money on an expensive camera or lens because it does better in low light or gives sharper images because I'm the one using it. Even if nobody else can see the difference it's something I, the photographer, can greatly appreciate.
>the only thing that matters is the subject, and the subject shouldn't be "boring"
Ugh. Queue anyone on what an "exciting" subject is. I guarantee you it's something to do with pretty girls, or portraits of people in "dramatic" lighting with the clarity slider set to +60.
>>2833116
>I take absolutely shit photos of nothing in bad light because I have no creativity, drive, or bravery.
>To try to fix that, I spent way too much on better camera gear.
>I post the photos here, and get shit on, because everyone thinks they suck
>I do some gymnastics and find a way to tell myself that my entire audience is just stupid, and they don't understand.
-Translated by Bing!
>>2833120
Everything you think you know about me here is wrong.
>I take absolutely shit photos of nothing in bad light
You're confused. Using light, composition etc. are not exclusive to being "artistic", that's just photography fundamentals. Hell, most artistic photographers will eschew things like perfect light or color balancing specifically for their own artistic reasons.
>I spend way too much money
Nope, I have only what I need, I just don't arbitrarily limit myself to cheaper gear if it doesn't do what I want.
>I post the photos here, and get shit on
Wrong again. Not that it matters because even good photographers here get detractors.
>I do some gymnastics
Kind of like what you're doing right now? Projecting something fierce onto the post you're responding to when you have no idea what you're talking about?
>2016
>being triggered
grow the fuck up nancy boys stop caring about what strangers think. bunch of fucking crybabies, go to your safe spaces if you're so fucking offended.
>>2833130
Wow, that's endurance! Most gymnasts need a break between big routines! This is impressive Jack, let's see if she can stick this landing!
>>2833132
>Sugar !egyYvoBZV2
>mfw this post will get a dozen angry replies by the end of the day
You have a point though. But it's fun to vent sometimes.
>>2833134
0/10
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 1364 Image Height 768 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2012:06:15 14:28:54 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1364 Image Height 768
>>2833137
Someone needs to make an updated version of this with our Lord Terry instead of the histogram
>>2832461
Except the camera was absolute trash, I had one, it's the worst camera I've ever had in a smartphone.
>>2833161
Who do you think is holding the gun in the foreground?
>instead of hiring a photographer we just bought a professional D3200
>>2833136
This. Don't go on gear threads and complain about gear lust. Don't go on architecture threads and complain about the lack of people.
Of course a tripfaggot would write the most dumbest post so far.
>>2833326
>Cognitive Dissonance and Ad Hominem: The Post
>>2833400
>large cameras without handgrips
If the thin R I C O H G R can have one, there's no excuse for a larger one to be without.
>>2833400
Why are you posting in this thread if you don't like its premise? Just click the minus icon it's not that hard
>>2832224
Go home Bazin, 4chan is no place for u
>how do you achieve this look?
>crafting images
>developed in [software name]
>DigitalRev
>Leica rebadges
>HDR
>Can you shoot our wedding for free anon?
>VSCO
>clarity
>isoless workflow
>it's blurry because of shutter shock
>dSLR gimbals and video contraptions
>boring picture? convert to black and white, high contrast curve, grain, vignetting will fix it
>>2832503
Nice try, refugee.
>>2833120
What kind of photographer must you be that you approach it with an attitude like this?
I don't really consider my work "art" at all, but it pays my bills and certainly involves a lot of skill. I have good gear because the kind of work I do for a living requires that I shoot in demanding conditions where I have to take compelling and interesting photos on the subject's terms, not my own.
>>2833116
>There's so many reasons to want to use a camera to record something, that have nothing to do with trying to express something and be an "artist".
This is very true. It's like saying that everyone who uses a pencil is an artist.
>>2833120
>I am poor and can't afford not-shit gear
-Translated by your mom
>>2833132
>stop caring about what strangers think
>says a tripfag on a fucking forum
>>2833484
>>boring picture? convert to black and white, high contrast curve, grain, vignetting will fix it
Problem? :^)
>>2832227
Why do you think it's not?
>camera eco system
You mean lens series right?
When people dont use the camera strap
>>2834043
When someone uses Nikon strap on Canon body or Canon lenscap on Nikon lenses.
>>2834043
Straps are for tourists. Why would that trigger you?
>How to achieve this look?
Asked when the image clearly took a lot of effort to pull off, and the post processing is the least of what makes the picture great.
>>2834051
>People who dont wont to break there cameras are tourists
>>2834052
I doubt they are interested in the composition of the image, anon. It's a very specific question.
>>2834050
You must hate digitalrev
>>2833484
>>dSLR gimbals and video contraptions
They're becoming memey among the younger crowd of people making videos but IS can't help you out in every situation
>People taking pictures
Especially if they look like they are enjoying themselves. Makes me want to go apeshit.
>>2834213
I like their shenanigans but seeing that shit just fires up my OCD.
>>2834141
*their
and I've been shooting 90% strapless for like 18 years and have yet to break a camera. in fact, i would wager my cameras have taken more damage from swinging around out of control on a strap than they ever will held secure in my capable hands.
>>2834050
how does this make u feel?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD. Camera Model GR Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Macintosh) Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 28 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 1936 Image Height 2912 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:05:08 22:54:50 Exposure Time 1/125 sec F-Number f/5.0 Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 800 Lens Aperture f/4.9 Brightness 2.6 EV Exposure Bias -1 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 18.30 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 665 Image Height 1000 Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Sharpness Normal
>>2834050
I have Nikon lenscaps on my Canon lenses because I prefer them and when I bought them on ebay, the pictures didn't show any branding, was actually dissapointed when I got them
Sorry, but my friend/sister/aunt/pet parrot agreed to shoot me for free. And he have professional camera too!
i dislike like 75% of people and 95% of """photographers""" but the 5% i respect i respect a good deal
>I shoot Canon/Nikon because Canon/Nikon colours, man!
>I want a superzoom on my DSLR so I can be a lazy fuck and have a dim as hell mediocre lens. Yes I understand a compact would be better, but I just like being bad.
>"how many megapixels does it have?" as the first question on any camera gear ever
>"your camera takes good pictures" on seeing a nice photo
>"I DON'T PHOTOSHOP" as a statement of quality
>people that use wide angles for portraits to adjust composition instead of walking back, without realizing what they're doing
>people that clean their rear lens element all the time
>people that leave their lenses with their rear cap off
>people that leave their cameras uncapped to hang around and breathe in some fresh dust
>>2834971
>compact better than superzoom
didn't know they made pancake lenses that cover big focal lengths, when did the laws of physics get broken?
>>2834974
You misunderstood the issue. Most people getting superzoom lenses aren't really using their zooming capacity to get good shots, they just want the bigger numbers, they don't understand the mechanics at work and are just lazy fucks with a lot of zoom and a dim lens. Now, I'm particularly sensitive to the issue because I run around with a 24-35 f/2 and I think it cover everything that I'd ever need in daily use, but the issue is in that particular crowd of people that don't understand that if they want a serious tele, then they should get a tele, a "one size does it all" lens doesn't work well. There are a couple of (expensive) exceptions but any time of the day, for an uneducated tourist, a brighter lens will let him get the shots he wants more than a lens with enormous zoom ranges. He just has to use his feet a little more.
Many of those people get progressively worse composition habits because they keep zooming all the time.
An RX100 has a much brighter lens and all the focal lenghts they'd ever need, they'd take better pictures with it.
>>2834985
why the fuck are you calling them "bright" and "dim"
they're called "fast" and "slow"
>>2834985
I respect your opinion -- i think.
Tell me what you think of this gear setup
>crop body - considering buying FF soon, renting one on next excursion
>10-18mm f/4.5-5.6
>kit 18-55 f/3.5-5.6
>50mm f/1.8
>100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 (ii)
next upgrade would be a replacement to the kit, so leaning towards the 24-70mm ii or equivalent or better (if offbrands like sigma / tamron really can compete)
>>2834985
I started out with a 18-135mm lens, I think that is a superzoom, correct?
I agree the zoom kind of encourages laziness, as well as increases the amount of variables that must be decided on when taking a photograph. I have also had a 38.4mm pancake lens for a while now and I have been using it a lot more than my superzoom to be more active in the process of taking photos, also it feels much better to use when doing street photos
That being said, I disagree that a "one size does it all" lens doesn't work well. It works very well for more functional photography, such as photojournalism photography or events/concerts/performances/weddings etc. when you want to capture all the stuff that's going on during those situations, and I think for a casual tourist or whatever it works fine as well
>>2834051
>>2834422
What kind of stuff do you guys shoot where you don't need a strap?
I've always found that with the stuff I do, it's invaluable just so I can free up both hands to do stuff like adjusting lights or taking notes.
Oh, but what IS tourist shit is wearing a strap around your neck. It's awkward, stupid, and actually bad for you. Straps should go over the shoulder.
>>2835021
5/10 but ill bite
straps over the shoulder can make the camera swing around and hit stuff. With the camera in the front around your neck it makes it more stable.
Also a camera around your neck is harder to steal than a shouldered camera.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 5D Maximum Lens Aperture f/3.5 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2014:09:03 02:29:07 Exposure Time 1/125 sec F-Number f/7.1 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 200 Lens Aperture f/7.1 Exposure Bias -0.7 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 28.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard
>poors mad because they can't afford to git gud
>>2833484
>isoless workflow
what does this mean
>>2835030
It's pretty easy to stabilize a shouldered camera, though, and the strap is really more for throwing onto your shoulder when you need your hands for a minute rather than for continuous use. When I need mine to be really secure for a minute, I pull my strap over my head and wear it across my body like a rifle sling.
Wearing cameras around the neck can actually be dangerous, because the back of your neck isn't meant to support the weight of a modern SLR and you can do pretty serious nerve damage that way. I've met some old photojournalists who've fucked themselves up with years of doing it.
Neck use might work with a "flat" camera like a mirrorless, but with an SLR and big lens you end up having a foot of glass sticking straight out in front of you, too.
A trick I like to use, and one that for some reason I never see anybody else do, is to shoulder my camera "upside down," with the prism facing my body, which makes it hang neatly with the lens pointing straight down. This works especially well with gripped/pro bodies and larger zoom lenses. If you do that around the neck the strap gets in the way of the controls and viewfinder when you go to shoot, but that doesn't happen when shouldered.
>>2834422
you are the exact same type of shut in NEET that posts on /g/ about how phone cases / screen protectors are useless
>>2835045
That last one is what I usually do with my 5D
Anything bigger than that gets mounted on an extended tripod and carried on my shoulder like a rifle.
>>2835021
>What kind of stuff do you guys shoot where you don't need a strap?
I'm that "you guys" reporting in. I shoot pretty much everything without a strap, from portraits to snapshits to architecture to everything in between. I shoot with a big fat DSLR, D300/D800 tier, although I will say that I don't use any ridiculous 3 pound 2.8 zooms that I have to carry around all day.
I would also say that a good 40% of the time, my camera is stuck to a tripod, wherein a strap becomes an even bigger liability.
Straps just slow you down.
>>2835053
>TRIPOD user thinks STRAPS slow you down
THIS
FUCKING
BOARD
>>2835053
I was going to guess that maybe a lot of people who go strapless are heavy tripod users.
I'm essentially a photojournalist, and can't imagine working without straps on my cameras. I'd say they speed me up instead of slowing me down, because I can let go of my camera and still have it on my body, instead of having to stuff it in a bag or find somewhere safe to set it down.
>>2835075
yup, it's the constant deceit, retardation and 4chanianess that shines through
in essence - cognitive dissonance
>straps slow you down xd
>*carries a fucking TRIPOD around*
never ever ever ever E V E R give ANYONE the benefit of the doubt on this fucking cesspool of a community
we're great for shitposting and memes but serious discussion or advice?
Lights out lad. not here. This is full of retards, either intentional or unironic.
>Ohh, you can use my camera, it's a Canon EOS with 30x zoom!
>>2835087
wew lad. just let it all out. you'll feel better.
>>2835075
I was actually not a heavy tripod user until recently, as in the last two years out of the 20 or so I've been shooting. I've been shooting strapless for much longer than I've been a "heavy tripod user".
I actually especially love going strapless for quick moving reportage stuff, since the camera is already in your hand, thumb on the af-on button, finger on the shutter. there's no reaching and fumbling for it.
>>2835119
I usually take my strap off of my shoulder and just let it hang when I'm actually shooting fast-moving stuff, but I still need to have it because I so frequently have to take notes and stuff when out in the field.
Armpits.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Leica Camera AG Camera Model LEICA M (Typ 240) Camera Software Google Silver Efex Pro 2 2.2.16.323 Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.4 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2014-07-02T22:11:34+20:00 Exposure Time 1/180 sec F-Number f/4.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 200 Lens Aperture f/4.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash Focal Length 50.00 mm Image Width 1300 Image Height 974 Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Unique Image ID 00000000000000000000000001438855 Altitude 0.00 m GPS Status Measurement Interoperability
>>2835005
That post is horribly written in general because it was 2am, sorry anon-kun. Also in other countries, such as mine, lenses are referred as bright or dim, not fast or slow.
>>2835006
I think it's a nice setup anon, probably lacking in the portrait side of things.
Mine, on a 5d2, is a 24-35 f/2 Art, 50mm f/1.4 EX, 100mm f/2.8 IS L Macro. I tried superwides and they didn't really do anything for me, so the 24-35 covers all the wide I'd ever need.
Depending on your uses, it might be the perfect lens for you, too, but it's not an "easy" lens - you need to have figured out your favourite focal lenghts already. On my crop camera I ALWAYS used Sigma's 18-35 1.8 and found out that I didn't really use the longer end THAT much, but I needed some more wide angle (On Canon it's a 28-56mm lens equivalent) so I found myself right at home with the 24-35.
Whatever you do, avoid Canon's older 24-70 f/2.8 unless you find a great price on it. It's a nice lens, but it's really heavy, big, and suffers from extreme amounts of field curvature (focus is much more "spherical" than it should be)
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/528-canon2470f28ff?start=1
>>2835349
i don't really shoot people ever so I don't mind missing portrait lengths, unless there is something i overlook here.
I use the telephoto the most because I like birding
>>2835419
Well there's no good fast lens in the 50-135mm range in your kit, that's what I was getting at, but if you don't do portraits then it's fine.
>>2835436
you mean a low aperture to get a good bokeh to blur the background for portrait then?
would the 25-70mm f/2.8 ii suffice? especially on a crop?
