>>684946406
Do you use Active D-Lighting?

Do you take dick pics?

File: DSC_8068_2.jpg (938 KB, 1200x800) Image search: [Google]

938 KB, 1200x800

>>684946406
Okay, so I've been trying to perfect my landscape photos and especially during night I have some trouble calculating the correct exposure, because light meters don't work well. How would you start calculating the exposure in a pitch black forest for example?

>>684947163
No. Never got good enough results. If your gonna use it without postprocessing, increase in camera contrast

Where do you purchase your gear and why?

>>684947244
Experience, trial/error. Also if you have trees in the foreground you can try painting with light. If sky only, f8 30 secs should do, given no light pollution.

>>684947244
Not OP, but:

Rule of 500 (copied from a site i googled)

500 Divided By the Focal Length of Your Lens = The Longest Exposure (in Seconds) Before Stars Start to “Trail”

>>684946406
Buy cannon.

>>684947406
For cameras/lenses i follow sales and buy from stores, to have a piece of mind with warranty. If I'm buying remote control/grip/flash then online/ebay

>>684946406
I have a cheap-o Nikon D3200 with 35mm 1.8 prime & a 18-55mm lenses

How do I get better at night photography?

I know I definitely need a tripod for landscape sort of shit but still some things turn out an off colour.

Should I be using the exposure settings a bit more to compensate?

>>684947669
Thetes nothing you can do with canon that you can't with nikon, just preference. Always been a nikon user.

How long is your dick?

>>684948154
Expisure wont compensate for the colour balance. You can use custom white balance or use camera default but change the temperature a bit -/+. Post processing in RAW will work wonders for balance thou

>>684948214
Ask your mom

>>684948436
Okay, so it's mainly more about shutter speed/exposure TIME, right?

how do you get better at judging what settings to use? is it just a matter of doing it and taking loads of pictures and fiddling around a lot?

>>684946406
That's an expensive looking camera. You must take really pretty picture.

>>684948157
Nikon can't physically fit an 85mm 1.2, the mount can't do it,
I miss mine so much, but I had to part with it.

Both have their odd lenses anyways, MPE etc..

>>684948824
Its only white balance that will change the colour, not exposure. You need to take tons and tons of photos, after a while it becomes 2nd nature, when you see a scene you adjust the setting and get right. Start with P, take a lot of photos, then move to S and then manual

>>684949122
Yeah, there's always an alternative. Did you get rid of nikon to get a canon? For the 85 mm?

File: DSC_0843.jpg (630 KB, 800x1200) Image search: [Google]

630 KB, 800x1200

>>684947464
So no systematic way of doing it besides trial and error?

Two more questions:
-Have you found a way to get rid of the red tint in long exposure night photos before post-processing? I suspect it might be caused by IR light, so could an extra filter solve the problem? I don't think it's artificial light or amp glow, because the tint is only visible in low ISO photos with long exposure.
-Have you any personal experience with 100mm polarizing filters? I have a Cokin Z-Pro holder and my father has the Lee system, so I'm mainly looking for Cokin, Lee or Singh-Ray. Doesn't matter if it's linear of circular.

>>684947533
I'm familiar with that but (fortunately) stars can't be seen here often.

>>684948544

She just giggled and said she likes it more when I fuck her.

>>684946406

just out of interest how much do you measure say lighting whitebalance etc vs "eyeballing it"

>>684950095
>no systematic way
Not really, too many variables. Time of night/light pllution/clouds etc. Sometimes you'll get a 30 sec exposure photo and after 30 seconds you have to change settings again cos the conditions change in 30 secs.
For polarizer it's always good to use screw in circular filters, moya is good. Use the holders for ND filters.

>>684946406
>nikon

you faggot

>>684949415
I've used Nikon gear when shooting with other people, but all of the gear that I actually own is canon, had to ditch the 85 because of some financial stuff that happened.

>>684950936
That doesn't sound very convincing.
And you do realize that screw-in filters and holders don't mix well?

>>684951188
It gets getting used to but I always use screw on for polariser and a holder at the same time for ND filters. Screw in polariser gives more control over polarizer and holder guves more control with ND filters. Coloured filters as well, ie 6ND filter together with half blue filter.

File: Sony tears.jpg (218 KB, 300x450) Image search: [Google]

218 KB, 300x450

Pentax is the way to go, faggots!

Leica and hasselblad film shooter here

Enjoy your digital gas

>>684951550
Eh, you can rotate the drop-in polarizer much better than the screw-in one and it should also reduce vignetting.

Post your camera with a timestamp.

>>684952070
>Post your camera with a timestamp.
this faggot right here

File: image.jpg (1 MB, 3264x2448) Image search: [Google]

1 MB, 3264x2448

I'll bite. Why aren't my images sharp throughout, I'm taking shots of my dog and all his face will be sharp and his nose blurred, or some shit like that. Also I can't focus on the little fucker whilst he's sprinting for shit. I have the attached lens/ kit lens and 35mm prime lens

File: 71Zn+a7NP9L._SL1500_.jpg (89 KB, 894x1500) Image search: [Google]

89 KB, 894x1500

poorfags

>>684952070
>you can rotate the drop-in polarizer
Not when you have a half ND and half colour filter at the same time, they will all rotate together

>>684952318
>Why aren't my images sharp
because you are using inferior nikon camera faggot

>>684952318
>his face will be sharp and his nose blurre
Instead of using say f1.8 use f8 to get more in focus. For moving action use a high shutter with C auto focus

>>684952318
>>684952318
>his face will be sharp and his nose blurred
Learn how to use AP mode for DOF.
ISO/4.5 lens is too slow for action

>>684952713
My prime is 1.8 35mm will that be better for action?

File: d2x.jpg (135 KB, 1280x960) Image search: [Google]

135 KB, 1280x960

>>684952522
Maximum kek.

>>684952713
I'm a total noob what AP setting would you use for this? is higher number more or less DOF

ITT /p/ trolling /b/

>>684952861
High number = more DOF but that will also mean less light coming in so you'll need to use slower shutter/higher iso

>>684953004
I've never even changed the ISO.. what would you reccommend for daily use, indoor photography of dogs/people -

>>684952803
It'll be faster, but learn how to manually set the ISO, this will allow you to use the zoom, although you will still be limited by the motor in the lens, it's a better option.

>people buying cameras because hey i'm and epic photographer :D
>can't even the basics of aperture, shutterspeed and iso

Kill
You are selfses

>>684953167
Search this online you really need a basic course.

>>684953194
The prime has no zoom nor motor in it.

>>684952413
So you have never even seen those holders. The Cokin holder has a special slot at the back just for the polarizer and the Lee has it at the front. The polarizers aren't rectangular like the ND filters but circular, just like the screw-in filters.

>>684952318
The first issue is either caused by too shallow depth of field or you have taken the photo too close i.e. exceeded the minimum focusing distance of the lens. Try setting the aperture smaller or taking the photo further away. For moving subjects, set your focusing mode to AF-C (continuous autofocus) or try pre-emptive focusing.

>>684952713
>ISO/4.5
>too slow for action
No and no. First of all, ISO and aperture are not related and the slow maximum aperture can be overcome by either incresing exposure time, ISO or light.

>>684953215
This so much.

>>684953167
Use S or A mode and auto iso

>>684953484
Which model, s or d?

File: IMG_5033.jpg (2 MB, 6000x4000) Image search: [Google]

2 MB, 6000x4000

Semi pro here too!

I do clubs, events, parties, that type of thing. Here's a shot I took not long ago in a nightclub, kinda liked it. I use a Sigma 18-35mm F1.8w lens

>>684953614
In S or A mode the ISO seems to be stuck on 100.

>>684953699
http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/76070/Show.html?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=PLA&utm_term=AF-S%2035mm%20f1.8%20G%20DX%20Lens&gclid=CjwKEAjwpfC5BRCT1sKW2qzwqE0SJABkKFKRlro6kY4Co36lMXmlEWpyrnNYZHe6MPrfavr_CkESFhoC1tPw_wcB

>>684946406
What is the size of your penis?

>>684953595
>you have never even seen those holders.
Actually I haven't. I got used to having the polariser as screw on and ND on the filter so didnt look for an alternative. Sounds good thou, I'll look into it. Thanks anon.

>>684953789
It has a motor in the lens all "S" models do.

>>684953758
Blurry and washed out. Go back there and take it again but this time do it right!

>>684953595
>SO and aperture are not related and the
He asked two different questions.
>slow maximum aperture can be overcome by either incresing exposure time
Wrong, he wants faster speed, increasing exposure = more blur.

>>684953789
>S or A mode the ISO seems to be stuck on 100
Cant be right. Check the manual

>>684953843

Average length, above average girth.

I watch too much porn to truly be satisfied with my own size, but I've also never had any complaints.

>>684954274
That's not OP. I'm OP, its bigger than my 70-300 mm

>>684954263
OK i found that I can change it with the Fn button - seems to have worked, upped it to 1000, much clearer shot.

>>684954212
>increasing exposure = more blur.
this. Other faggots full of it

File: DSC_0096-2.jpg (2 MB, 2048x1365) Image search: [Google]

2 MB, 2048x1365

>>684954209
It's not blurry at all, it's just a shallow depth of field because I shot at 1.8 aperture.. And its not washed out either, where are you even getting that from? I reduced the warm and skins tones in post to get a blue monochrome type look.

Here's one I did for restaurant food promotion

>>684954540
Your welcome faggot. Now change it to auto iso so you dont use 1000 iso when 200 is enough. Let the camera manage it

>>684954666
Is that chef's dick lower left corner?

>>684954414

Your camera has almost a 12inch dick. I'm impressed.

I have a full-frame D750 with the "Holy Trinity" zoom collection. My problem is lighting - I feel like I just can't get shots taken with my SB-700 to look right. Any resources that might help?

>>684954819
It is indeed, it's on their secret menu

>>684954666
How much do you sell them for anon?

>>684954897
>to look right
as in?

>>684954923
For that day, I went in for 1.5 hours, took 40 ish photos are got £60.. It was local so suited me well.. Not thought about selling anything individually before. I'm at uni so it's just quick cash in hand for me which is nice

File: image.jpg (1 MB, 3264x2448) Image search: [Google]

1 MB, 3264x2448

>>684954722
Holy fuck it's been turned off this whole time. Stupid fucking camera (or stupid fucking me)

>>684955046
It just looks shitty and uneven like I'm shining a flashlight on it, even when I use my umbrella. I dunno.

I've plateaued until I can figure out how to fix this.

>>684955175
I'd personally just use manual and do it yourself. It's better trusting you to get the shots you want than the camera. If you want a picture to be very dark with one small part light, the camera wont know that, it'll bump up the ISO and it'll look like shit.. You know what you want, not the camera.

>>684955175
You. IIts not supposed to be on by default. It sounds like you better leave that on and read the manual front to back.

>>684955413
You're right that it should be off but this anon will leave it off, forget to change it shot to shot, get frustrated that all shots come out too dark only to notice after 50 shots that he left it 100

>>684955083
Holy shit anon, charge more. I do four hour shoots for realtors and charge $500 per gig.

>>684955346
Learn how to use a white balance card.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/909206-REG/vello_wb_cm_white_balance_card_set.html

>>684955688
How do you get the gigs?

>>684955346
Post a sample with what settings you used

>>684955413

Yup. The auto settings are just trying to keep your shots consistent. If you are experimenting with light to get the desired result, use manual settings.

>>684955688
Yeah it's just they're my weekly work, I do Saturday nights there so I get £60 a night haha. It's not bad considering a lot of nightclub photographers in larger cities get literally fuck all since there is such little demand for photographers. I charge more for outside jobs

>>684955767
Thanks, but I don't think that's my problem. It's like my light is too "directional" if that makes sense, even in an umbrella.

>>684946406
Do you ever use automatic settings??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3chqHe14eY

Dislike this video and leave a comment about hitler. One of their names is Adam.

>>684955687
Best that happened to then learn and change them constantly, really good way to get to know the settings and improve

>>684955769
I go to open houses and tell the realtors their photos suck. Most take them with point-and-shoot or cell phones.

I only shoot properties that are higher-end at this point. Some poor dipshit selling a townhouse doesn't want $500 worth of photography for his 1400 sqft shithole.

>>684956046
Your exposure is off number one, the white/gray cards fix that.

>>684956046
You know you can change the light angle yeah? On 900 you can anyway, not sure about 700. I mean it will flash narraw angle l9ng distance or wide angle light short distance

How do you keep focus whilst doing run and gun, say for a wedding or birthday?

I'm constantly refocusing and missing shots.

>>684955973
Have you considered branching out to other industries to make additional money? Sixty pounds is shit-tier dough for a creative, anon.

>>684956260
Continuous focus mode, do you niggers even read the manual?

>>684956195
Another anon here. I'm interested in this as well. What kind of shots so you do? I need to make more money this summer.

>>684956259
Yeah, I've played with it, but in an umbrella that sort of becomes less of an issue.

I think I need to take a lighting workshop or something. Just talking about it doesn't seem to be helping.

>>684946406
What advice would you give to a total photography noob that needs to take clear photos of individuals wearing outfits for their online clothing webshop? Should I stay away from using a DSLR for now? I'll admit all the features and control over settings are somewhat intimidating and I'd like to minimize the learning curve as much as possible.

>>684956195
How many photos do you deliver for $500? You agree on quantity? I'll give you 10 photos for $500 kinda deal?

>>684956310
Yeah I've started to.. What do you recommend I try and branch to / charge? I was thinking about sports next.. I'm not confident enough for weddings haha.

>>684956504
Post a sample of your work your not happy with

>>684954212
If you used / to replace "or", that makes more sense and I should have put "and/or" at the end of my sentence.

>>684956442
Most of it is just shooting rooms on a tripod. They have an interior designer come in and fix it up nice and then I shoot it. I primarily use a 14-24 f/2.8 for these shots. I bracket most shots so the windows aren't blown out and the inside doesn't look like a dreary dungeon.

There will then be detail work if they have custom cabinetry or kitchen bullshit. I use a 28-70 f/2.8 for this.

Five shots of the outside, again with 14-24.

>>684956511
What is "p"
Use an entry level DSLR, and use the Program mode. Your photos will look a lot better than a P&S
And read the damn manual, most of this thread is in there.

>>684956511
You mean it's your store/your product? If you're a noob pay someone. You'll make the cost from more sales vs shit photos you take with a point shoot and less sales

>>684956775
Very nice. I'm in Austin where there's a lot of expensive houses. I need to invest in a tripod. Been meaning to get one.

>>684956532
As many as they want, but they have to tell me what rooms/shots they want beforehand - if it's a 60 room mansion I'm not doing that shit for $500. I give them unwatermarked files after I touch them up and they are free to duplicate as much as they want. Ain't nobody got time for copyright bullshit.

>>684956574
Avoid weddings. Sports might work, but I think that's also kinda shit-tier and hard to break into. Boudoir is popular right now if you can make ugly chicks look attractive via soft filters and weird positions.

>>684956976
Nice. Its your full time job or weekend work?

>>684956966
If you're in Austin, consider taking a class from Nino Batista. He's a glamour photographer that I took a workshop from and it was worth every penny.

>>684956421

I use it for video, does the same apply? AF just seems to be hit or miss.

>>684957281
Evenings/weekends. My full time job allows me to work from home and flex my hours so as long as I make my telecon meetings, they don't even know.

>>684956676
I'm on mobile. Any good places for photo critique that you use? I've tried reddit but not many good people tend to bother critiquing photos there.

File: Captura222222.png (776 KB, 1528x318) Image search: [Google]

776 KB, 1528x318

OP can you give me advice? I took these 3 still life vanitas pictures, they've gone through post processing, does it look decent? It's my first year at the uni, and this is my final photography project.

>>684957499
Well done mate, good work.

>>684946406
If the holocaust was real then why are there nomphotoaphs

>>684957608
Not OP, but I'd consider bumping up the exposure on that middle one a half stop or so.

File: 1 (2).jpg (593 KB, 2651x5372) Image search: [Google]

593 KB, 2651x5372

op please critique my photo

>>684957599
Photosig was awesome but disappeared. Fuck reddit. You wont get feedback but you'll get an idea of what ppl think of your photos on dpchallange

>>684957101
Thanks, I'll look into itt

>>684957491
Yes, especially for video.

>>684957491
Maybe for video try switching your AF mode to single point instead of the usual multi-point.

>>684957765
Really like your style, pretty unique. Won't get you for in a commercial sense but it's artistic if it's what you were going for

>>684957389
Just checked out his site. Prices look good! I was expecting more for some reason.

>>684957608
Too small to say man, post separately. Middle one looks a bit overprocessed and like the other anin said might use bit more exp9sure

>>684957836
Thanks, mein neger. I'll check it out.

File: image.jpg (159 KB, 1440x1080) Image search: [Google]

159 KB, 1440x1080

I took this photo of Jupiter and the four Gallilean moons with my P900. What can I do to get more detail on Jupiter itself?

>>684958015
damn it. how can I get further in the commercial world? I want to be a fashion photographer

>>684958069
Have you you tried adding a magnifying lens filter?

>>684946406
buy a canon

>>684957696
>>684958033
Thanks mein neigers, I can't post bigger or separate, we're not allowed to do so before delivering the project at the end of the month. So bumping half a step and reducing the post processing should do the trick. Thanks again anons.

>>684958034
Dpchallange is pretty fun esp if you try to keep up. Will learn a lot trying and watching

>>684946406
Okay so I want to get into photography but I'm not exactly sure where to start as far as understanding the terminology and stuff like that goes. I need basics, where to start?

>>684958029
Nope, all these niggerfaggots are like "Oh shit how do I shot landscape" and guys who shoot professionally for NatGeo and magazines will often offer a multi-day workshop for less than what a good zoom lens will cost, but people are too fucking retarded to put out cash for skills instead of tech and continue to take shit photos with expensive gear.

If you fucking suck, then a new Carl Zeiss f/0.75 50mm lens isn't going to make you suck less. In fact, it will probably make you suck more but you can circlejerk about DAT DOF all day.

>>684957765
I have no clue of photography but that looks beautiful

>>684954897
Use camera raw. If you have a DSLR, then never show jpeg. With raw, you can selectively adjust whitebalance for the image, thus you can deal with a situation such as a 6000 kelvin flash used in a room with 2700 kelvn lighting. Also avoid direct lighting with it if doing a portrait. It flattens the image, and causes hard shadows. Find a way to bounce the light.

>>684957608
Way too much post process, underexposed, framing on the first one is garbage, and needs improvement on the other two. Think about the way it looked when you shot it. Still life should convey just that, still life.

>>684958341
Point the fucking big-hole end of the camera at what you want to capture for starters.

>>684958188

The P900 isn't set up for additional lenses. You think I need to buy a different camera for better planetary photography?

>>684958167
Get a degree, and intern.

>>684958402
Thanks, my goal was to make it look like an oil painting with varnish via post processing though.

>>684958167
If you're lucky enough to find the right client your work will be a really good portfolio, but more fashion clients will look for a studio setting based portfolio .. most likely anyway

>>684958532
This. You wint go from shooting streets to vanity fair without those

>>684958508
Not sure if you're trolling but you're not going to get details of Jupiter unless you're NASA. If you want to do nighttime shots, get a tripod, go to a place that has a little light pollution from the city, set up camera. Etc etc. Long exposure.

>>684946406
in obama's and clinton's america i feel like nothing is beautiful and worth taking pictures of anymore. i'm selling my gear.

>>684958069
Telescope lens mount.

Tracking telescope to counter the planet movement.

Manual exposure to ensure things are not over exposed.

5 to 10 long exposures of the same object.

Take all images into Photoshop as layers.

Make sure they are perfectly aligned.

Make all into smart objects, then combine them using mean stacking. This gets rid of them noise while bringing out detail.

Same processing done by the Hubble telescope which is why such an old sensor can get relatively clean images.

>>684958341
Why do you want to get into photography? If you were passionate enough you'd know the terminolagy already

>>684958634
This nigger is right on. Try Meetup.com - my local area has 3-4 studios that allow you to shoot models they arrange for a reasonable rate on the weekends. I built up a decent portrait portfolio for <$700 and got to avail myself of professional Ellinchrom or Profoto lights and models who weren't too troll-like.

>>684958787
I'll buy it all for $20 and a used syringe.

File: 1b.jpg (3 MB, 6000x7647) Image search: [Google]

3 MB, 6000x7647

>>684958634
studio based like this? how do I put a portfolio together? then how do I show it to clients?

>>684958731

I'm not trolling. I bought the P900 due to the insane optical zoom it offers, but I want better zoom. I thought if cameras can do better, then I'll be happy.

If you don't think I can do better with consumer cameras then maybe i will need to look into telescopes with camera mounts.

>>684958979
That's too abstract to show clients. They don't give a shit about your double-exposure self-masturbatory art. They want stuff that is clean, well-lit, and instills confidence and positive feelings in potential customers.

>>684959099
>telescopes with camera mounts.
The only way to go.

>>684959099
> maybe i will need to look into telescopes with camera mounts.

No, you will "definitely need" if that's what you're going for, but be warned that shit gets like asymptotically pricey really fast just to capture images that aren't as good as the ones the government is making you pay for.

damn it so it needs to be brighter and happy?

File: 1406059789956.gif (2 MB, 325x244) Image search: [Google]

2 MB, 325x244

>>684959197
> mfw it's Canon trash
> mfw it's where it belongs now

File: rays_of_cold_light.jpg (136 KB, 662x1000) Image search: [Google]

136 KB, 662x1000

hey OP took this with a D70
critique?

Spray and pray. Most of the time the auto or presets nail it.

File: the_cold_sunset_by.jpg (215 KB, 662x1000) Image search: [Google]

215 KB, 662x1000

also D70

>>684959639
The horizon is tilted as fuck, it's too centered, too much black space.

post some work OP

>>684959963
do u even rotate

>>684959372
Yes. They wont buy a nobody's artistic dark photos.

>>684960048
Clarification.
tilted as fuck = pincushion effect not fixed.

>>684953614
There should be a "fn" button on your camera next to the flash, press that and use the turn dial to adjust ISO. Use 100 ISO for bright outdoor photography for the most part and I usually used about 400 indoors depending on what I want to capture.

>>684960048
>>684959963


What a fucking sheep response. You don't always have to follow the rules fagen.

What a lame thread.

>>684959639
Its good but light is too centred. Place it at 1/3rd

>>684950095
make a double exposure of that pic one for bg one for foreground, now dont make a hdr but manualen mask them together. if you do this right u get real good pics

>>684960149
rotate what dick, horizon or canvas... dumbass

>>684960284
>You don't always have to follow the rules fagen.
Asks for critique, gets bent.
Certain rules, yeah you do. And it's not a great photo.

>>684960211
ok thanks I'll work on the lighting bit. should I use a flash set up? what do you use to light studio work?

>>684959963
Add clarify or high radius sharpen

>>684960412
That's an option but I'd have to buy new software for that and I like the approach of minimal post processing, so I'll use gradient NDs at least for now.

>>684960594
uhm. I posted the pic... not that guy... I didnt reply to you...

>>684960645
I took these in 2006... don't even have the nef anymore

all the pictures I take come out blurry
I know to reduce the shutter speed but it compromises the lighting how do I get around this?

>>684960725
Sorry dude. Fix pincushion, and selective crop get you a nice pic.

File: 033729166.jpg (378 KB, 565x881) Image search: [Google]

378 KB, 565x881

this one was with d300

>>684960967
I would... this is from when I just got my D70 end 2005 begin 2006.. don't have the nef anymore nor a dslr.. got poor last few years. Divorce can be a bitch

>>684960622
>light studio work?
Your budget? You can use umbrellas if you can afford them. If not use natural light. Model next to the window etc. If theres too much sunlight coming in you'll have to diffuse it with white cloth etc. I even used white garbage bags cut out and taped to the window

>>684960951
Increase ISO a bit, bigger aperture for the diaphragm

File: 1442176716660.jpg (48 KB, 500x539) Image search: [Google]

48 KB, 500x539

>>684960951
Increase not reduce.

>>684960951
post your iso, shutter. lens and aperture

>>684960832
High radius sharpen doesnt need the nef. Would be better with nef thou

>>684961287
It's pretty bland, I mean, it's just a river. Also a bit out of focus.

>>684960991
Pretty good

>>684961402
And overexposed

>>684961310
just noticed I saved a shitty version to my phone... its better in full size...
and yea like I said divorce can be a bitch, don't own a pc at this moment either.

>>684960991
Send them to stock photo sites, might get some money

File: 1463579766941.jpg (243 KB, 496x720) Image search: [Google]

243 KB, 496x720

>>684961131
Here you go.

>>684961287
Boring to be honest, wont get a 2nd look. Work on composition/anchor etc before buying a new camera

>>684961665
trial and error. don't just point and click and everything. read some shit on composition and light etc

>>684961287
Taking good pics only require a basic course.

>>684961543
tnx, saved it to my phone. cant see much difference on this shitty screen. .. But will use this one now to post

>>684961665
Better camera wont teach you composition. You can take the same photo with a $5000 camera, it'll still be boring/bland

File: path_to_heaven_ir.jpg (235 KB, 532x800) Image search: [Google]

235 KB, 532x800

D 300 with ir filter. long time ago also

>>684961911
I just adjusted the pincushion and cropped it nothing else.

>>684962086
Faggot file name but looks alright. I'd crop bit more from the bottom. Get ovee the divorce and get back to shooting, you have talent

>>684962270
yea, I name my photo's back then. with shitty titles. im trying but will be another couple of years before I can buy a New dslr. got to pay my debts first

>>684962436
Good luck getting squared up.

File: soothing_water_by_mightyflup.jpg (262 KB, 655x1000) Image search: [Google]

262 KB, 655x1000

again d300. long exposure and some movement because my tripod sank in the sand. 2008 somewhere

>>684962436
If you the effort in it might be easier to payy off the debt with a dslr you make money from if you know what I mean. Get a 2nd hand d300 or something

>>684947244
Use long exposures. Do a test run at 100 seconds, if it is too dark, use 200 seconds or if it is too bright go for 30 seconds
Shoot F16 to get most out of lens
ISO 100
Focus 4 meters from camera

>>684962734
You could sell these easily

>>684962788
dont use f16. use f8 to f14

>>684962897
like I said. I only have small jpegs left. lost around 10k nefs

>>684962788
>>684962897
Use f8 not f16. Whered you get 4 meters from? Look into hyperfocus distance, theres no 4 meter fir wvery scene

>>684947244
try takign HDR images, look SO much better, evenif its only in png or jpg format, taking pictures in different exposures and combinign them improves colors and lighting, especially with night images. you do need to keep the camera VERY still, like the precice spot for all exposure shots.

>>684963182
manual hdr is best though

D5 here

>>684963000
What I mean is you to9k sellable photos. Get a 2nd hand d300 or something, take more of these (takes your mind off divorce) and sell them, pay off d300 + other debts

>>684963288
yeah, no doubt. just using the cameras exposure bracketing works like a charm and then combining the pics with a free hdr software

>>684963182
>png or jpg
>hdr
Looks shit

>>684953758
total fail: nothing about that makes me want buy a drink or visit that club.

>>684963329
Ive been thinking about it for a while. finaly got some work coming my way. might be able to save 500.. would be enough to get a used d300 body, but how to sell cause stock photo dont work for me

>>684954666
>satanic trips of demonic photos

>>684963611
Get a bunch of decent prints, go to shopping centres/malls, find those shops which sell you know furniture/photos/paintings/home decoration etc etc, sell your large prints to them. They can get them framed and sell for whatever.

>>684955688
>RE photography
Canon Mark III with 17-35/2.8 L (version II) master race checking in

File: exploring.jpg (169 KB, 532x800) Image search: [Google]

169 KB, 532x800

>>684964000
cant afford print. a decent print is pricy

>>684946406
Mirrorless master race reporting in.