Archived threads in /p/ - Photography - 100. page
- Home
- Board: /p/ - Photography
- Reading: Archived threads in /p/ - Photography - 100. page
Gear Thread
If you have questions about a new camera, what lenses to buy and anything related to gear or wondering about getting into photography, post it in this thread.
Do not attempt to make a new thread for your new Rabal, broken glass and being new.
No pointless (brand) arguments and dickwaving allowed! You have been warned!
I repeat, ANYTHING GEAR RELATED goes in here!
And don't forget, be polite!
Previous thread: >>2784263
>>2785993
Sorry for the late response, I was asleep.
So the S95 is a good choice then? Because I can get one like new for 150 after shipping with all the stuff included.
Is this the way to go for someone who just wants a really high quality point and shoot that can still do pretty crisp/less grainy pictures? Because I'll grab it when I'm back from work if it is.
>>2785649
>>2785600
>>2785585
>>2785589
Also to you guys, I didn't ignore what you said and I'm still gonna save up for 500-700 dollar-ish one because yeah I do have disposable income, I just want something that I can carry around in my pocket at the moment that isn't completely garbage-tier like you warned me about.
Would saving for the starter kit of the canon D3300 or the EOS Rebel be a good place to start, or should I really consider the ones you already suggested?
>>2786122
Nikon D3300. Yes, that's one option.
I personally do not like the Canon Rebels. High-end Canon (e.g. 5D III and above) are fine, but the Rebels and older/low-end Canon cameras are lacking in sensor performance & software features in comparison to the other brands.
I don't see why you wouldn't get a Pentax, Sony, Olympus or whatever else instead...
this is so amazing and makes me cry, but is it possible to achieve this effect with a medium or small format camera? I want to take circular photos but a fish eye filter is out of question because of distortion. applying tape would be a solution, but pic related has this particular effect, the flares at the top - the picture looks like a bubble or a big glass button, which is lovely. are there any lens filters or overlays which would help to achieve this effect? ofc the border will be inevitably black, but that's not a problem
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3.6 (Macintosh) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:01:06 19:39:24
>>2786078
the "flares"are from uneven pressure and unevenly spread developer. this is only possible in instant film. if you want a circular image with negatives just shoot square and use a matte when printing, or crop circular in post if you use a digital workflow
I took this picture
I like this picture
Tell me why I shouldn't, /p/
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 60D Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.4 (Macintosh) Maximum Lens Aperture f/5.7 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:02:21 12:46:19 Exposure Time 1/100 sec F-Number f/5.6 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 160 Lens Aperture f/5.6 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 135.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1080 Image Height 720 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
vignette
>>2786071
sailboat is too distracting, shoop out.
what to do when your output is decent, but has been done before?
Not worry about it, because originality is overrated.
>>2785911
it doesn't matter who did it first, it matters who did it best
>>2785917
i started as a faggot contemporary photog, aping the germans and stuff like that. then i became tired of the shallowness and went back to a more classical aproach, which i feel more genuine. but colleages around are still doing the nth deadpan portrait in pale tones, bringing "current issues" to the table.
and i just want to make good photos.
pic unrelated
I'm having trouble getting a lot of different objects in focus on my 5d , is this because of full frame? Is there anything I can do? I just don't want a shallow depth of field EVERY single shot.
Going up to F/22 with a decent shutter speed requires like 3 suns to be able to see anything unless I'm on ISO 3200.
I would like to be able to take sharp pics of people and backgrounds with at least a decent iso of 600.
Even f/8 blurs the hell out of a background thats 2 feet away from the subject
look up "circle of confusion"
>>2785897
I see. So on my camera according to some COC chart it says I need 0.030 to achieve hyperfocal distance? For 35mm at whatever distance that site uses..
Is there any way to estimate this beyond using a calculator or chart every time?
>>2785912
experience. like metering by eye it's something you learn over time without thinking about it.
The answer to your question is either a wider lens or a smaller aperture. f2.8 on a 28mm has far more in focus than f2.8 on a 75mm, for example. During daytime I shoot my 28mm @ f8 and it's pretty much foolproof
Hey guys.
About 1 year ago my laptop's hdd broke down and with it went years of my work. About 60gb of raw photos and some jpegs were lost. Tried recovering them with no success. I looked at the hdd and it seems to have some burned out pins. Is there any way to recover them all? Ever since this happened I basically quit photography because I feel to depressed. I tried to reproduce some of the shots, but its not the same.
>>/g/
>>2785819
I thought maybe some of you had this problem before. also /g/ has no clue what a raw file is
>>2785821
It doesn't matter what kind of file you're recovering. The principles are the same.
So story goes I got into college for NC Photography (I'm just starting professionally) and one of the key requirements obviously is to get a DSLR of your choice. Now iv been looking around and came to the conclusion of a choice between a Sony A58 and a Nikon D3300. I like the Sony due to the video functions and that it will turn any full manual lens into a full auto. Also the built in anti shock helps. And since I'm beginning a EVF would help me precomposed my shots as a beginner since I will see every change. But then again should I get a D3300 and get used to the expensive gear and use it to be used to higher end cameras like the D4 or something? Also first 4Chan post. I know what your like though ;)
>>2785722
i dont know what you want to do or what kind of shooting you want to do, etc. but i'd recommend the K-3 or K-3 ii. you might not want to get into the pentax system (idk why since they have the new full frame k-1 releasing soon) but you can pick up a k-3 for 650 USD and their 35mm 2.4 and 50mm 1.8 are dirt cheap. plus weather sealing in the camera and lots of their lenses, even some of the cheap ones. plus the viewfinder is great 100% coverage, 95% magnification. more limited lense selection compared to canikon tho
>>2785722
move this to the gear thread nigger
also I very much doubt the A58 has the ability to fully automate manual lenses with aperture rings and manual focus
How do I move the thread? Also yeah it does go search it up :)
Hey /p/ does anyone has that book or well the pictures? and would like to share them?
Was an overhead flash used here?
I doubt it. It looks like good natural light to me, with judicious use of a polarizer and solid post-processing. There might be a single flash placed to the photographer's right, other than that I don't see much sign of lighting.
>>2785669
you'd probably be able to see it in the windshield
>>2785682
Not true. You can still remove it in post. Especially if it was more than one exposure.
But to the OP there doesn't look like any, but probably a fill flash for the front bumper.
I need some advice, /p/
Next week I'm shooting a girl, it'll be a nude session
what do you guys recommend for light equipment and lenses?
>Equipment
I'll shoot digital and probably film, too, to experiment a little (for my portfolio and sideprojects)
I'll have a Nikon 3200 with kit lenses (18-55 and 50-200)
For film cameras, I'll use a Pentax K1000 with a 50mm prime, a Nikon N90 with 70-220 and a 18-200 (I can use these lenses on the digital Nikon, too), and a medium format Yashica-D
>Context
It'll be a nude session, but not a regular one
The girl is a prostitute and wants the photos to use them as advertisement in one of those vip escort sites
We'll probably shoot in my friend's appartment, and she wants some hot poses, so ideas on poses are welcome too
thanks in advance, /p/
>pic unrelated
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 1171 Image Height 773 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 2015:06:16 20:23:23 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1171 Image Height 773
Is renting lighting an option? A pair of studio lights with big softboxes would be the easiest way to light this, and would pretty much take the camera out of the equation. Even a cheap consumer point and shoot will look good if it's shooting a nude lit by a pair of Profoto heads with 60" boxes.
>>2785677
I'm trying to borrow a couple of external flashes and softboxes from a friend of mine, because it would be ideal for me, and would give me more control over the light
I don't want the light to be too hard, neither too cold
My idea is to make the scene in warm tones and soft light, using bouncers and sofboxes
the problem is I'm very short on money, and I'll do it for free (she's a friend of one of my best friends, so I'll shoot her for free for her purposes, and in return I can have her as a model for my portfolio in future sessions), so renting equipment is not on my plans, as it's way too expensive
Is there anything I could do with a couple of flashes like these?
>pic related (I have a Nikon SB 22 or something close to it)
>>2785690
Given your lighting, it's gonna be a bit tricky but should still be doable. If your friend is a photog, see if you can borrow a fast prime for your digital as well, a 50 is actually a pretty good length on crop for this kind of thing.
Go devour strobist's site if you haven't already, he's got the best resources out there on doing big shoots with little lights.
A few other things I'll recommend. First of all, make sure your friend's apartment is ready to shoot, and that it has room to set up lighting and for you to get far enough from your subject to use a long-ish lens. Make sure it's clean, that nothing glaring will be in the background, and that the light bulbs match so you don't have weird zones of white balance if you have background lights on.
Another thing I'd suggest is to ask your "model" to bring a whole bunch of nice lingerie. You'll be shooting nudes, too, but a good lingerie shot can be sexier and classier at the same time, adds some visual interest, and I think it suits a "vip escort" site better than coming straight out of the gate with a full nude.
Fuck the Sony RX1. Buy an Olympus Mju II and you’d be enjoying a 800% discount on the price of an RX1; that’s enough for a LOT of film, perhaps 1000 rolls including processing. RX1 owners will never shoot that much, and certainly won’t give as much care to each individual image. Film-shooting is different to digital, the moment people pick up anything with a screen, they become trigger happy and shoot shit.
This. An equal alternative to the MJU II is the Fuji XT1.
>>2785367
I keep missing focus with close subjects with my Mju II. Even when I use spot metering. I don't know what I am doing wrong.
You can't compare the two anyways. The RX1 isn't truly pocketable. But the RX1 has a better image quality.
Also I think the whole "with film you put more time and thought into subjects" thing is a meme. It's actually restrictive and an argument against film. Have you ever seen professional photographers work? They often used one roll of film for just one subject. Its better to take photographs from different angles and settings and pick the best later when you have time to think.
You get the optical (depth of field, etc) properties of full frame, but the entry cost is significantly lower; moreover, there’s almost zero depreciation in the price of the camera.
>been on assignment
>few photogs and video faggots
>lots of cameras (pana, sony, fuji, bm)
>only one dslr (D4)
DSLR DEAD
it's confirmed, just give up already
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2015:04:13 10:24:28 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 752 Image Height 600
This is why i invested all my money on Sony.
They deliver with oodles of quality.
reminder that sony spillover shills from /v/ are killing /p/
Hey /p/, I've tried to do something new today, but it doesn't look too great, looking for some advice/tips on making this look better.
I wanted to do a contemporary They Live kinda thing with big text on large LED TV's but it doesn't really look like that, also the brick wall is an overlay but I think that looks alright. Any advice or tips on making this look better?
Looks like shit
>>2785251
his ears look like 2 red peppers
>>2785251
Did you just add that writing in Photoshop? The real solid saturation of those ugly boxes draws attention in a bad way.
If you are going to have something draw so much focus its best you make it look immaculate. In this case, it looks contrived and uncomfortable.
The photo would have been even better without the writing in the bottom right. Fuck, axe the fucking writing maybe? Photography is oft about subtly, this is NOT graphic design. While the two fields oft overlap, I feel that graphic design is a different field that has different rules.
Don't get me wrong, your image isn't great from a photography or a graphic design point of view. It is probably more conceptual design work, but that doesn't make it a good exemplar.
Either route that you go I feel that subtlety of message is important. By presenting your focal point in blown out red you have committed the visual-art equivalent of premature ejaculation. You've given the viewer scarce little reason to look at your picture for more than 3 seconds without contemplating really anything.
I don't mean to offend you and always admire new attempts or techniques. But I thought I would try and be as clear as possible in my CC to give you more than a "looks like shit". I want to tell you white it looks like shit so that you can improve.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SONY Camera Model NEX-7 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1 (Macintosh) Maximum Lens Aperture f/3.5 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 27 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:03:03 14:42:15 Exposure Time 1/15 sec F-Number f/3.5 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 400 Lens Aperture f/3.5 Brightness 0.7 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Flash Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 18.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal
good
Bad bad not good.
I know this is not photography, but since there hasn't been a filmmaking general in /tv/ for quite some time and everyone there suggested me to ask camera-related questions on /p/ I might as well ask it here.
Is the Sony NEX-VG10 an alright camera for about 400 euros (440 USD)? There's a used one for that price for sale on a nearby store, but I heard it was already pretty outdated back when it was released in 2010, so I'm not really sure if it's totally worth it. I'm just getting into filmmaking and making shorts on a crappy Cyber-Shot ain't gonna do for much longer.
Oh, and if the NEX-VG10 isn't any good, what's a better camera for the price then?
>>2784861
i mean, it will shoot HD just fine, but yo dawg, i herd you like interlacing.
>>2784861
What kind of filmmaking do you do?
I use a Canon XA20 and love it, and you might be able to find one used for similar money. However, it's a documentary camera, not one for artistic cinematography.
