>>4493120
Just do it for free so there are no expectations.

does anyone know if I can put a link to one of my instagram highlights on my home screen on android? I'd love a super quick shortcut so I can show strangers on the street my projects

>>4493120
Do it the price of a good lunch and maybe $50 to cover "insurance" or fuel and stuff. If they're asking you last minute you likely know them in some capacity.
Or do it completely free as a favour depending on the kind of relationship you have with them.
Don't charge them a real amount of money because the odds of you doing poorly is non-zero and if they pay you decently for a shit job they'll be pissy.

>>4493120
use a flash
>>4493125
why do you need to show strangers on the street your projects, are you some sort of freak?!

I'm used to shoot on 15, 25 and 30mm. I wanted to try something new.
Should I go balls deep and try an 85mm next, or 50/55? I'm curious about why people dislike 85mm for things like street photography.

>>4493140
For street an 85 is basically just a portrait lens. You're normally too close to things for actual "street ""photography"" with anything more than a 50. Could still net you some nice photos, it'd just be fundementally different than your normal wide angle scene.
I personally dont know why you'd get primes of every signficant focal length from 24 to 120 because the individual steps aren't majorly different to the last; get a 120 or 135 and do something truly different.

File: Lauren de Graaf-65515892_150143882828252_3492967311034655159_n.jpg (148.1 KB)

148.1 KB JPG

>>4493120
Why in almost 99% portraits the ears are out of focus?
I think ear is also important part of portrait?

File: The_Art_of_Childrens_Portrait_Photography.pdf 129 Depth of field.jpg (132.8 KB)

132.8 KB JPG

>>4493146
It's just too shallow depth of field

File: Jeanne Goursaud 2108093-org.jpg (3.4 MB)

3.4 MB JPG

Is there an unwritten rule or something that tells you must blur the ears when you shoot portrait?

New year's resolution is to take at least one picture every day. Does anyone have any ideas the best app/free service to categorise this?

I was unironically thinking about tumblr or Instagram

File: 1766625384146939.gif (48.2 KB)

48.2 KB GIF

>>4493146
>>4493148
Most portrait shooters are bokeh fags because they're not in studio conditions, but want as much seperation between the subject and the background as possible (which is fair).
So at the apertures needed to get a blurry AF background you only get a few milimeters of DoF, and the eyes are where you focus. Ears are 4-5cm behind your eyes and are too far away from the focus point.
You can absolutely shoot at narrower apertures and get the whole head in focus but then your background will be more recognisable and perhaps distracting.
In studio conditions it's just a choice. You have a controlled background and strong lighting which should allow a deep DoF with low ISO. If the ears or nose are out of focus at that point it's just a deliberate decision.

>>4493153
Just create a standard filesystem on your PC and sort by date. Unless you mean on your phone which in that case go fuck yourself obviously. pic rel.

>>4493146
No one wants to pixel peep ears.

>>4493146
>>4493148
>>4493154
Not an expert in any sense, but I guess one reason one might choose to do this (if it is a deliberate choice) would be to give the head more shape/depth? Eyes in focus + ears out of focus gives a clear visual cue as to the ears being further back.
You're probably right though, that in most cases this is not a deliberate choice, but just what happens when an amateur portraitfag minimizes aperture and focuses on eyes, becaues that's what he remembered from a youtube video.

Is Canon EOS R100 a good camera for beginners?

>>4493298
No its super fucking shit. Canon fucks their low end models out of basic features and controls. Get a canon r10 at least if you want a tiny sensor but try and score an canon RP instead

>>4493302
whats a good thing to get around that price range (from any manufacturer)?

basically i wanna go for stuff below 1000 bucks.

>>4493302
what basic features is it missing?

>>4493303
Used canon r10 off ebay. $400-500 just like a new r100. Wait for a deal.

Or maybe any sony a6*** model newer than an a6000. More lenses, better autofocus and interface.

>>4493306
no rear dial, nada for buttons and customization, fixed screen, face detect af only, basically the $500 mirrorless version of a $150 canon rebel dslr

The interface is bad beyond description
The jpegs are very low quality
Everything on it is slow and feels like 2012
I’d rather use a DSLR or a phone

>>4493314
would sony alpha a6100 be good?

>>4493314
For those clueless, what makes the interface better?
>More lenses
Do you mean sony has a wider selection of compatible lenses? or just more that come with the camera

>canon interface is bad
>recommends snoy
is this a fucking joke?

>>4493345
what would you recommend instead?

>>4493298
Avoid the R100. It is a dressed up rebel DSLR just as some other anon mentioned with tech from 2015. The R50 is like a whopping extra $100 and at least uses current gen AF, JPEG engine, controls etc.

Even then I wouldn't get the R50 unless you really wanted to keep things as small as possible. I'd get the R10.
Even then I wouldn't get the R10 unless you really wanted to stay using APS-C. I'd get a used RP for $400-500 as >>4493302 said.
Even then... I wouldn't get the RP unless you were dead set on mirrorless. Which you might be. Mirrorless is nice. My R6 is like 60% of the weight and bulk of my older 5D MkIII, and focus peaking is TOP MINT.

I'd get a full frame DSLR instead since the RP has the same sensor as a 6DII but you could just buy a 6D MkII if money is tight (or a 6D MkI or 5D MkII/MkII) and now look: you've saved a couple hundred dollars and can now buy a better lens because used EF lenses are cheap and cheerful. RF Lenses are ungodly expensive. Mirrorless cameras are nice for a slueth of reasons but if you're pinching pennies on the body I would recommend against it.

OR, get a used APS-C DSLR for $50-150 if you're on the fence and if you think photography isnt for you, you sell it for 80% of what you bought it and for what is basically a rental fee you get to know what you're in for. I don't necessarily recommend this if you can afford better but it's a decent route.

>t. Tried R100. Owned R50. Owns R6II

>>4493347
Buy a CANON FIVE DEE MARK THREE or SIX DEE MARK TWO and a CANON EF FIFTY MILLY METRE F1.8 STM

If you are having fun already them buy a CANON EF TWENNY FOH DASH ONE O FIVE F-4 EYE ESS ELL YOU ESSEM

When you are good at using that you can grow the fuck up and start shooting film with a 6x6 TLR and eventually a 4x5 view camera. There is no good reason to own a so called nice digital camera unless you are a soulless pro snapshitter.

>>4493347
Nikon D200 for vibes or d300 for ease of use
Nikon 35mm f1.8 DX
Nikon DX 16-80 f2.8-4

Dont waste your time with a cannot pos 5dicks. Nikon is better and cheaper. A nikon apsc and canon full frame have the same quality.

>>4493347
I really like my rp actually its not gonna shoot at 200 fps for a minute 100 times a day or make a 60 fps film but who actually needs that and I think you would appreciate specifically the small size and minimal weight (with the 50mm prime on a strap it feels like it's barely there)
Also I think it's extremely easy to use with the touch screen even though it has less buttons than your older dslr types
>It's le gimped
Well obviously the lower end model won't be as good as the stuff that retails for double or triple the cost

File: twiddle.gif (134.5 KB)

134.5 KB GIF

>>4493389
>Nikon is better and cheaper
No trolling outside of /b/ please anon

>>4493139
thanks for the help, retard.

>>4493417
The lack of animal eye AF is dogshit. Cant take a cat photo without it trying to find human faces.

>>4493445
what would you say instead?

File: rf24.jpg (57.5 KB)

57.5 KB JPG

>>4493457
Nikon and Canon have been pretty much on par with each other for decades. Different individual qualities overtaking each other at different points or different product values giving rise to individual models' popularity. Pretty much any Nikon or Canon DSLR for a given price-point is roughly similar, except Canon's AF is magic, and Nikon's ergos and functionality win out over lower-tier Canons. At mid-level price bracket they're all about the same, and at the high end I'd give Canon the edge for value but that's likely my bias speaking. SLRs and MILCs are different.

In the SLR category I'd go Canon every. single. time. just thanks to the fact that EF lenses are interchangable between SLRs and DSLRs with 100% functionality. Nikon still has attractive SLRs but I believe the value of one lens working between a DSLR and an SLR (and a MILC because canon EF lenses adapt flawlessly to RF) is an unbeatable proposition. If I was buying a pre-electronic SLR I'd go Nikon.

MILCs are a bit all over the fucking place and I'd unironically say Nikon might be better because they don't cripplehammer their low-mid stuff as much. Early mirrorless sucks all over the board for different reasons between the brands, but we're now at a point where MILCs have matured enough to be pretty even once more like the DSLR days.

Keep in mind I'm a massive Canon shill, so despite trying to keep things fair I'd rather a Nikon shill anon to appear and counter-argument me so you get a more balanced comparison.

>>4493457
“He’s right, but canon had dem colors doe”

>>4493459
>using any canon older than the 5div and 90d be like
>recovers more than 1.5 stops of shadows
>dies

>>4493463
>"recovers" shadows.
That's called not having enough light nigga. Coping like that is a fucking dreadful way to treat photography. ETTR

>>4493451
You can turn the eye tracking off if your being serious

>>4493464
>bro just flash everything and use gnds and tripods bro its tradishun
Fuck off unc. This cope is a sad excuse for not just… not using ancient cannot ewaste. Nikon doesnt have this problem.

File: 23fdsf3we3rsdxfhhjsfd.jpg (83.1 KB)

83.1 KB JPG

>>4493146

>>4493467
>no I won't use the correct tools for the job
Good self report bro

How do I make my camera prefer increasing my flash's power rather than cranking up ISO? I still want a range of auto-ISO in case full power doesn't cover it, but I don't want ISO 1600 if 400 and more flash would get the same exposure.

>>4493815
IIRC if you change the ETTL-II settings (for Canon but check your camera regardless) there's one called flash priority instead of eval or face eval or whatever that should prioritise sending a bigger flash. The other two try and strike a balance between background light and subject but flash priority should do what you're asking for.
Could also set up a C mode with the auto ISO settings to be a narrower band if you'd still rather a balanced background exposure

Is there a worse camera than the d-lux 8 to spend that much money on? what are better options if you want something compact, impossible to fuck up, easy to use, convenient to travel with?

>>4493970
>Leica
>4/3rds
>$1800 used
Leciafags are mental.
Get a Ricoh GR.
Literally any edition. I and II have a pop up flash but no IBIS, III and IV have IBIS, no flash. The older the cheaper. All are good.
>compact
The only literally pocketable good camera.
>impossible to fuck up
Good ergonomics, nice menus, etc. Just don't take it out in the rain or in the middle of a dust storm.
>easy to use
Yes.
>convenient to travel with
Yes.

>>4493815
If you're using flash, that's one of the best reasons to be shooting in M

>>4494009
>can't read
Nigga he's using auto ISO. It doesn't matter what mode he uses if that's the case, the ISO is going too high instead of favoring increasing power.

>>4494013
Which is why he should set his ISO directly
You don't need automated exposure settings when using flash

File: highres-Sony-RX10-Mark-IV-1_1506697917-3153835721.jpg (1.9 MB)

1.9 MB JPG

I've been looking at bridge cameras, specifically the Sony RX10 iv. I want something for hiking/wildlife photography, as making my own calendars sounds like fun. My wife also wants to shoot some photography as we travel, and fucking with lenses im the field sounds like even more of a bummer to her than it does to me. We have an older Canon Rebel that I rarely bother taking along.
Anyway, the RX10 iv is discontinued and hard to find for less than $2k -- more than it's asking price the 7+ years ago when it came out -- and I figure there's gotta be a better way to go for image quality with a similar ease of use at that price point.

>>4493146
>>4493148
If you were standing close enough for those examples to be your point of view, your eyes wouldn't have clear focus on their ears either. Assuming you were looking them in the eye.

Where can I sell some used camera gear? I checked with my local/city camera gear store and they are offering me half of what it sells for online.

I know ebay is an option, but the shipping + fees is not optimal.

File: camera set up.jpg (137.6 KB)

137.6 KB JPG

Would this be good for a home and travel video camera?

>>4493389

sir this is not year 2005 anymore

>>4494407
Why in gods name would you go through the effort to buy a compact aps-c video camera and slap a bazooka L prime on it? Get the body sure, but just grab the PZ lens it pairs with or at most the RF 35mm f/1.8 STM for like half the price and weight.

>>4494415
I read this was the best for cinematic shots, captures low light which this camera is bad at, and I want it as a video camera

would canon eos 200d (aka Canon EOS Rebel SL2 ) be good for beginners?

>>4494436
Yes

is it possible to adapt mirrorless lenses to DSLR?

>>4494553
Not that I'm aware of. All mirrorless mounts have a shorter flange distance than their DSLR counterparts.

The reason this is important is to get a correct image projection onto your sensor, the distance between the sensor and rear element needs to be a precise value (say Canon EF: 44mm). Since DSLRs had a huge gap to facilitate the mirror box, adapters simply add the missing distance that the mirrorless bodies could do away with (and add electronic connectors sometimes).
The reverse is impossible since mirrorless lenses are designed with the shorter distance between the lens element and sensor (Canon RF: 20mm). Even if you custom swapped an RF mount to an EF body for a direct mount, the mirrorless lens would still be too far away from the sensor.

>>4494555
>The reverse is impossible since mirrorless lenses are designed with the shorter distance between the lens element and sensor (Canon RF: 20mm). Even if you custom swapped an RF mount to an EF body for a direct mount, the mirrorless lens would still be too far away from the sensor.
Would a custom RF-to-EF mount just look like one of those rear mount macro adaptors or something?

Is it actually impossible to make it look (kinda) similar to the original? Would some kinda teleconverter style thing with a very mild zoom work?

i havent been on /p/ in a while, when did they remove the exif stuff from the board?

>>4494570
Idk it never came back after 4chan was down for a while

Once you shoot pornography, you become "blacklisted" in the community? A friend wants to shoot boudoir/fetish photos and I don't know if I should accept if there's a stigma around that stuff. She wants stuff like macro shots of her twat and asshole, for example.

I have no idea about photography. Is it a good idea to get my phone pictures printed if I choose a small size? Will the quality be t least as good as the old disposable cameras? I really want to age a collection again like the good olden days :(

>>4494597
If you're comparing 28mm focal length picture small printouts from a modern phone with even high grade mirrorless cameras, you will barely be able to tell the difference.

I regularly print for small frames to hang in my home or for friends who want to do the same, and I've lost count of how many times people have complimented the pictures taken with a phone while completely ignoring those that were taken with a $3k mirror less camera.

>like to shoot landscapes
>like to shoot portraits

I have a 15-35 f2.8 and am debating a 135 f1.8. Do you think I'll miss much of the inbetween range just having the two lenses?

I had a 70-200 and pretty much always kept it locked at 200mm. I also had a 50 and after a year of no use, I sold it.

File: Focal-Length-gif.gif (1 MB)

1 MB GIF

>>4494605
Having to cover every milimeter of focal range is not necessary. Anything between 35-80mm is relatively "normal" and I chose to skip it. Doing landscapes and portraits I think you would do well to skip it as well. The only thing I could think that middle focal distance might come in handy for is group portraiture, but I'd go 70mm with your 70-200 for that when you can step back, and 35mm on your UWA when you can't.
>I had a 70-200
Why'd you sell it? And why go for a 135mm lens if you admitted you had that pinned to 200mm the whole time? Zooms are always going to be easier to compose with for their versatility, but I understand for maximum bokbokbokeh the prime makes more sense. 135mm lenses are normally the creme da la creme for portraits.

I also do a lot of landscape and enough portraits that I'm probably pretty similar to you in regards to gear needs.
75% of my photography is made with either my 16-35mm f/4 or 70-200mm f/4. A godly pair.
Fwiw, the remaining 15% are my travel snapshits with my 24-105mm which I don't particularly like using but is far smaller than my main gear. 10% is my macro with my 100mm prime, and the last 5% is my sportstography using a 100-400mm. If you don't do any of that extra shit then you're golden.

>>4494608
The 70-200 was f4 and I felt it restricted me to a certain time of day and difficult to use indoors unless I had a light setup. Big and cumbersome, a 135 (or a 200 prime) is smaller, lighter, and will give me more light.

I would say 80% of my time is with the 15-35, it covers group shots, architecture, landscapes. I have an 85 f1.4 and I use it for portraits but extra reach would be great.

How do you focus on clouds?
Is there a way to stitch panoramas with low contrast subjects? Specifically soft clouds against a pale sunset sky.

>>4494616
With all that taken into account I'd get the 135mm.
You didn't say what mount it's for but if applicable I'd get the 135mm and a 1.4x converter so you basically have a 190mm f/2.8 as well. It won't be as strong optically as a true 200mm f/2.8 but that way you've got both options available.

File: 1755734050775936.jpg (3.5 MB)

3.5 MB JPG

>>4494408

If you can't make good images on that hardware you have no need for anything better.

I did this on an IR-converted D200. git gud scrub

>>4494603
Wow that's got to hurt a bit haha. Why use your phone if you have such a camera anyway. How small are we talking, smaller than the standard size you'd get developed from a shop?
Also should I go with regular or the classic shiny finish?

By the way I have the Nothing phone 2a

Is there any gear I should get or techniques I should learn to make videos taken at night look less shitty? (I use a DSLR, 18mm-250mm lens)

>>4494605
I would miss the in-between range, 90% of my shooting is 24mm to 75mm, and I only go beyond when I can't get close enough or actually need wider
Just depends how you like to shoot, I find going too wide or too telephoto extremely boring

>>4494621
Try to find an edge of a cloud and make that as in focus as possible
You can make panoramas with anything, why do you think clouds would be an issue?
>>4494570
whole site was down for a few weeks last year, exif and stuff was omitted probably as a safety concern going forward
>>4494628
>I should learn to make videos taken at night look less shitty
If you can identify what "look less shitty" means, then there are obvious areas for improvement. Is it too noisy? Colors too bad? Too dark? etc. It's like saying this car drives bad, but not elaborating with any actual point of substance.

>>4494630
>why do you think clouds would be an issue?
I mostly use automatic stitching in Lightroom or manual control points in AutoPano and I've had issues with softer objects throwing things off and resulting in unfixable ghosting. I guess manual stitching in Photoshop would let me do this by myself, but it also seems like having some general principles to follow would be helpful.

>>4494626
5″x7″ or 8"x10″ max. At those dimensions everything is so compressed that it's very hard for anyone to notice any differences. Anything larger than that however and you will in fact start to notice some differences in my experience.

But over the years I've actually come to the realization that shooting with my phone gives me a greater sense of confidence and I get closer to the action, which I think leads to more engaging pictures.

About the finishes, I prefer more mat appearances.

>>4494634
I'm assuming 5x7 is the best then, I'll go with that.
Why do you feel more confident with your phone? I'd feel much better in public with a camera. I actually feel dumb pointing my phone at stuff like some social media addict

>>4494630
My fault for being vague, I meant I wanted to find a way to make low-light videos less grainy and dark. I searched around a bit and it seems simply lowering video frame rate improves my low-light videos.

>>4494623
That's a good idea, thanks. Hadn't crossed my mind there are teleconverters. I shoot Canon RF and I was debating either the RF135 1.8 IS or Sigma 135 f1.8.

>>4494637
A large camera, even something on the small side like a point and shoot can make you stand out, and at least for me, it makes me feel like I need to rush. Also subjects often notice it right away and change their behavior which sucks.

Phones are far more discrete and easier to handle.

>>4494627
Yo same phone. Didnt think it was even remotely popular. A shame the 3a got a much better camera setup with the telephoto lens.
>>4494651
That RF lens is killer if a bit expensive. It doesn't take extenders but it's so hyper sharp that you could just crop a high res image and it'd be just as good.
Most people go with the EF 135mm f/2 because of how cheap and effective it is, but doesn't have IS.

>>4494709
Ever since I started shooting, an f1.8 135 was my dream lens. The RF is so incredibly tack sharp, I haven't looked at many lenses recently but it seemed to be the sharpest consumer lens available.

>>4494709
It's definitely not common, I've never seen it heard of anyone who owns one. I'm seeing adverts around London for the new one though which was crazy to see, it may be popular soon. I haven't even looked at it at all, I never look at better versions of anything I have, nothing good can come if it. Ignorance is bliss hah. Telephoto lense, sounds. Nice and fancy, I guess powerful zoom or something.
What are your experiences with printing? If any

>>4494719
Printing straight from the phone camera? I only use my 3x2 printer for that. Have printed a few 6x4s as a test but I was unimpressed. I don't print anything between 3x2 and 8x12 normally.

>>4494572
>>4494630
>4chan being down
ahh yea that makes sense

File: 9036 jannie soy.jpg (179.5 KB)

179.5 KB JPG

apparently nigger jannies are out in full force today, so i'll ask here instead
what are some good digital camera options for less than $250?
i already have some f mount lenses so i'd very much prefer to be able to use those

>>4494820
newest nikon dslr you can afford

probably gonna be something like a d5300 or d7200 maybe a d610

>>4494639
try a fast prime like a 50mm f1.4 or similar. your 18-250 is probably f4.5 aperture at best, the larger aperture = more light hitting the sensor = less iso and grain

also a led video light

What is the essence of a snapshit? Where does a snapshit end and art begin? Apples and oranges?

I know the saying is that you can shoot 1/lens size as a shutter speed but does that keep going the whole way down? Ie can I expect ok shots handheld at 1/30 using a 28mm?

I just got a 28mm for my film camera so it will take me a couple weeks to test it

>>4494884
A singular snapshit is never art. That's just like saying the sunset is art because it's often pretty. Maybe they are raw material for someone's art, but art pieces are made with intention, context, message and technique.

>>4495104
>art pieces are made with intention, context, message and technique.
Can't you apply all of those and come out with the same exact result of a snapshit?

>>4495105
Probably everyone here has had a situation where the natural light was good and you pretty much by accident take a good photo where the subject happens to make an attractive pose, and the camera's settings were suitable for the occasion.
Yes, I'd argue the final result can be the same. You can even lie that the photo was good because you're a good photographer.

>>4494884
cant you just take photos for fun?

>>4495141
I’m just trying to understand the culture

File: 1745141661151997.jpg (854.4 KB)

854.4 KB JPG

>>4494625

I followed a anons advice and found a company that does print my photos. They're almost £4 for small prints! I'm sure we used to get them don't for probably £5 a pack, I'm not too sure because my parents obviously paid every time, but I'm pretty sure we weren't paying £80 for holiday snaps. I don't know what is going on

>>4495235
FOUR POUNDS FOR A FUCKING 6X4 KEKEKEKEK.
Holy shit even in my backwards New Delhi (formerly Melborune) you get 6x4s for like 0.15c/ea.
Oh god it just dawned on me you might even mean 4 pounds each which I sure as hell hope not but also could be interpreted that way.
>>4495141
Not allowed on /p/
If you're not being paid for consistent bangers on a daily basis you will fail to meet acceptable criteria for the roaming retard brigade.

>>4494884
For me, snapshots any shooting that isn't "deliberately planned". Not just planned by bringing a camera and expecting to take pictures, but planned by having specific shots I am trying to get. Kind of goes back to the "taking" vs "making" of a photography.
If I bring my camera, and tripod to the beach to take some sunset or astro shots for an hour, I'm not snapshotting. If I just bring a camera for a walk on a beach, and shooting when relevant, that's snapshot.
If I bring my lighting kit, and set up for studio type shooting, I'm not snapshotting. If I'm in a studio and sneaking some candid bts shots, those are snaps.
If I I'm shooting a wedding, there's probably some mix of snapshots and non-snapshots.
If I bring my camera with me while walking the dog, those are snapshots.
If I bring my camera with me for a night out with friends, those are snapshots.
If I bring my camera with me to walk around downtown and take some street photos, those are snapshots. If I camp in the right area for long enough, waiting for just the right time, it might no longer be a simple snapshot.

Snapshots and art are totally independent. Snapshots can be artistic, and you should generally at least try to be artistic with all the shooting you do, but snapshots are often more about documenting / capturing what is happening, often giving way to more artistic options.

Posted here as well >>4495648

If you wanted to buy two (2) GF lenses for a Fuji GFX camera, which would you pick?

The 55mm 1.7 GF lens looks remarkable in terms of quality.

>>4494884
It ranges from “i dont like this” to “it doesnt do well on my objective measures of art scorecard”

Essentially, it's meaningless. Ignore anyone who uses the term. Photos look good and mean something or they don’t and what matters is if you give a shit about to whom they do. Art is not objective. Neuroaesthetics are and are another area of study that has more to do with manipulating people and modulating brain development. The art world, its art education and all art study these days is completely worthless and bears more resemblance to a completely made up esoteric tradition than anything. It’s full of people who aren’t very smart but have their verbal IQ 0.5SD ahead of their other metrics. How can you study, know, about something that is personal? It’s an esoteric tradition that inducts new members, not an academic institution of true knowledge. Ignore anyone who defines or rates “art” like you would ignore anyone talking about karmic ripples, vibrational states, saints, and church fathers.

How do you go out and photograph when you're way too fucking depressed and anxious?

>>4495678
Don’t go out. Make a series about your descent. Self-portraits in the bathroom mirror, still-lifes of struggle meals, landscapes of the mountains of dirty laundry. Exalt your suffering. Learn to worship at the altar of your own misery. That’s art, baby.

I actually have a Canon 500D and someone here told me to buy a 5D-MarkII to go next level. What's the max capacity of the SD card with this one ? Canon's site doesn't indicate it.
I bought a 128gb SD Card without checking and my D500 doesn't take it. What kind of device takes it ? A camera ?
And finally, is there a way to automatically choose the best picture between two taken in serie ? Like two similar pictures, one is more blurry, will the wheight indicate which one is defined (you moved less) ? I have the feeling the heavier it is the better it is, but I'm not sure.

>>4495750
The 5DMkII takes CF cards not SD. You will need an adapter for $10 to use your SD card.
IIRC it takes SDHC which caps out at 32GB.

File: 1764701184728899.jpg (586.6 KB)

586.6 KB JPG

What the fuck is that clownshow that is the moderation on this board? Picrelated

https://archived.moe/p/thread/4495575/

>>4496043
What's your problem with this? Nothing wrong has been done here

File: switzerland.jpg (1.1 MB)

1.1 MB JPG

I'm a complete beginner with a hand-me-down nikon D40, i bought a nikkor 50mm f1.8G for cheap but i wanted to get another lens when i'm out riding my motorcycle and want to capture a lot of the nice scenic views i find traveling and stop having to switch back to the kit-lens.
Is there any good "wider" lens that is easy to find for cheap (100/150€) i should be looking for? i was thinking another prime because i need very bright ones to compensate for the bad iso of such an old body but i wouldn't mind something that can has a bit of range as sometimes i'm just sitting at the side of the road and might not be able to move to frame it better.

>>4496043
i tried making a thread asking for help buying a new camera, using (what i believe to be) a pretty good picture that i took myself
i figured with all the other shit low effort and inherently non conversational threads already in the catalog that it would be fine, but some tranny deleted it within seconds

>>4496087
I can only imagine what kind of unwashed social rejects with a chip on their shoulder mod this board.

>>4496091
mossad
did you know huskyfag left a goodbye note on /an/, explicitly admitting he was mossad/jidf?
did you know /an/ suspected him of targeting individual right wing users, falseflagging as alt right caricatures, and using prolific trolling, and even bots, to control the narrative and make the growing right wing shitposting on /an/ look ridiculous?
did you know he only came to /p/ to troll the nazis away, and left when cinefag, ambush, and cANON were bullied into being significantly less active?
did you ever wonder why he seemed to have a new camera every week? they were all loaners from his job
with the jidf

>>4496092
>huskyfag: bye!
>/m43/: *deleted*
oh my fucking god they made him the mod

>>4496091
literally just reddit mods
they've been infiltrating for years now, for some reason, and somehow being allowed in

>the jew fears the g9ii

>>4495102
>can I expect ok shots handheld at 1/30 using a 28mm
Depends on how steady you are. I can take 1/15th @28mm pretty easily free standing and slower if I'm crouching or leaning against something. If you have an older camera with a lot of mirror vibration like a Nikon F or FM or something it might limit this. Stick to 1/30 as your slowest 'safe' speed for now but mess around with it and see what you can get away with.

>>4496094
>>4496092
Dang he was always based, but I never realized he was THAT based.

>>4496092
>mossad hired a guy specifically to troll cinefag and cANON off /p/
Jews do love photography after all :')

File: mike1.png (312.3 KB)

312.3 KB PNG

>>4496140
>mossad
>the jews
>cANON
I need MORE

>>4496141
Epstein preferred Sony and Nikon cameras.
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%208/EFTA00018586.pdf

>>4495751
Thanks for your answer. I heard a microSD with an adapter can fuck up during a video recording (I experienced that) so I will directly buy a CF card then. It seems adapters are just not reliable.
Someone, for my other questions ?
>I bought a 128gb SD Card without checking and my D500 doesn't take it. What kind of device takes it ? A movie camera ?
>And finally, is there a way to automatically choose the best picture between two taken in busrts? I have the feeling the heavier it is the better it is, but I'm not sure.

I have small a red dot, always at the same place. It comes from the lens, right? Is it dust? Can I remove it? The lens is a 50mm Sigma EX.
On my part I would advise to never buy this piece of shit, but I could be wrong, I'm a novice. 2 days ago I tried to put the autofocus on the clouds, beautiful red/orange colors, amazed, I took the photos just to check later that everything was blurry and fucked up. Shit is not even able to autofocus on the fucking clouds. Shows you the red square to confirm it's on the spot but it isn't. So now I just go manually like I always did before. Maybe my lens is old and damaged and that's why it's total garbage and it was fine when it was brand mew, but in the actual state, I will never trust its autofocus again.

>>4496167
green square

>>4496167
It's probably a pixel on your sensor. Try your cameras hot pixel remapping feature it available.

Clouds can be tricky, because most AF systems are looking for some contrast in the scene and clouds can be quite uniform. Trying using single point AF and put that point on a cloud edge instead.

Most camera AF points are red, then green when focus is confirmed.

Learn how to use your camera and stop blaming the gear. If you have AF issues, that's almost entirely on the camera side of things, not lens.

>>4496167
Since you're probably using a DSLR, you might also have to AF fine tune to calibrate your lens and camera. If out of alignment, you can have front or back focusing, which is easy to test for.

>>4496166
>I bought a 128gb SD Card without checking and my D500 doesn't take it. What kind of device takes it ? A movie camera ?
D500 takes CFExpress cards. SD cards go into any modern camera since about 2008 except some select (read: random) models or high end cameras that needed the extra transfer speed. There are also cameras which are usually your point and shoots that take microSD but adapting that to SD is painless.
>And finally, is there a way to automatically choose the best picture between two taken in busrts? I have the feeling the heavier it is the better it is, but I'm not sure.
Nope. You're basically asking the camera to choose what's "best" which is arbitrary. Best could be what has the most in focus, or it might be the least motion blurred, or maybe you intentionally wanted everything slightly out of focus (lots of bokeh lights at night for example). Maybe in a few years when AI in injected into everything.

>>4496167
>small red dot
Sounds like a stuck/hot pixel on the sensor. Normal for basically every camera but the NR usually cleans them up. You can do a few tests to work out what it is. No reason for dust to appear as red, and certainly not as an obvious speck. Dust on lenses are normally invisible to the sensor unless it's on a rear element and you're focused at MFD. More likely to be dust on the sensor than the lens.
>Stuck Pixel
Can be red, purple, green, whatever. Normally you can map them out with a camera function or "Sensor Cleaning". Will always be present no matter what.
>Hot Pixel
Only shows up after the sensor gets warm. If you leave the camera for a few hours and your first photo after powering it on has it, then it isn't a hot pixel. If you take a long exposure it should show up.
>Lens Defect
To completely rule it out you should swap to a different lens.
Honestly though, just post a photo with it in it and we can tell you

File: 1761467940894362.jpg (21.2 KB)

21.2 KB JPG

Guys, I have a Canon R50 that uses the new .cr3 RAW format, but Windows Explorer can't make thumbnail of them. The RAW extension by Microsoft didn't help a bit. Is there any codec pack that can preview thumbnails under Explorer? It used to work with something back then, but I had to reinstall my PC and I'm suffering with it.

>>4496181
Maybe, but the real answer is to not use explorer for browsing images.
You should be browsing your RAWs in a RAW processor, or at the very least a program like Irfanview. There's 0 reason to browse individual RAW files in explorer.

>>4496182
I use Irfan as an image viewer, but its Thumbnails program is slow as heck. Also if I open an image from there, I can't rotate them and stuff, so it's just annoying.

>>4496183
>Also if I open an image from there, I can't rotate them and stuff, so it's just annoying.
Which is why you should just be browsing your RAW's in RAW program. You're creating a problem and looking for a solution.

>>4496185
It's more convenient to have one RAW file instead of having a RAW + JPEG. Back then I saw the CR3 thumbnail, so navigation and searching was super fast. Now I open Irfan Thumbnails, takes ages to build up database, can't rotate from there, total bullshit. Should have went with a non-Canon camera instead.

>>4496186
>It's more convenient to have one RAW file instead of having a RAW + JPEG
What does that have to do with anything? Doesn't change anything I've said.
If you just browse with a RAW program, you can see everything you need and make adjustments as needed.
>Should have went with a non-Canon camera instead.
Same issue can and does happen with other models from other brands. Why not fix your workflow instead of blaming the gear? Why are you adding extra steps that are causing you issues?

>>4496187
Currently I have 29k RAW images in a folder, any idea how long would it take to build up in a RAW program instead of Explorer just shows me the thumbnail? My bet on a fucking week.

>>4496189
Like overnight if you have a bad computer. Closest I've done is about half that, but it only took a few hours to build previews.
You shouldn't have that many in one folder to begin with either, or need to browse that many at one time, so fixing your workflow by being better organized will help with that too.

Where besides here can I get actual critiques of my photos?
Normally I would just post here but the problem is a lot of it is portrait work and I obviously can't let it get out that I am a 4channer.
I've tried some photography discords but I either get 0 critiques or in 1 case someone gave me good feedback and was immediately banned by the mods for being "mean".

>>4496266
Nowhere or maybe boomer groups on flickr

I need software for organizing my RAWs and JPGs to sort them by quality

To be specific, I need a program I can use to browse through the images in a folder, and then mark images as like one star, 2 two stars, three stars etc, and then move all the images with that mark to a different folder

Critically, I need it to automatically associate the RAWs and JPGs together, so I can just mark the RAW with the star and if I move it it also moves the JPG

I know for a fact software that does exactly this exists because I found it once, but then I forgot what it was called.

>>4496189
>has 29,000 RAWs in a single workflow folder
What the fuck anon. Archive that shit and use a proper working folder that you put in-progress projects in. You should be inpsecting and culling off a seperate drive anyway.
>>4496266
This place isn't even good for critisism imo. I thought that at one point but either nobody engages with constructive honesty, or you get ignored outright. You could make a thread for your own stuff and still most comments will be "this is shit" or "this is nice" and that's it. The few threads I've seen over the last few years with genuine input, they resulted in the OP being a faggot and arguing with anyone who was trying to help.
Iirc there was a few missed focus shots in a certain thread and it was literally like 40 back and forths as OP tried to defend himself. It's just one example of an endless string of shitflinging instead of useful information.

As for your actual problem, nowhere, sadly. The fact that account-based platforms are the norm and ratings and muh reddit updoots are on the line, the worst you'll get are lukewarm takes or maybe the odd harsh critisism that still doesn't talk you down as far as you should be if you fucked something up big time. That's why I came to /p/ in the first place, but it's such a small number of anons engaging that you're still not going to get the amount of impartial honesty that you want.

>>4496271
>inb4 muh loonix
Digikam. Unironically decent organisation software. Uses your system folder explorer in their own UI. Can sort by a whole range of tags or ratings (that you need to tag). Can do batch file movements, ratings, etc.
>Critically, I need it to automatically associate the RAWs and JPGs together,
I don't do it myself but I think I've seen people use group by filename or group by time to do exactly what you're asking.

>>4496271
PhotoMechanic is the industry standard for culling
For organizing, you should just do that through basic folder organization
Or you can just do everything in a LR/C1

You fucked up organization at the start and now have to deal with the consequences

File: 1769755043684975.jpg (1.5 MB)

1.5 MB JPG

>>4496282
>>4496201
Anyway, I just found out what was the problem. I'm using Win11 LTSC, so it doesn't have store, therefore no Photos app, that actually contains .cr3 codecs. I also installed the Microsoft RAW codec app, and turned off Icaros thumbnails for .cr3 files. It works now, thank you for your concern.

>>4496349
>PhotoMechanic is the industry standard for culling

Can it cull both the jpgs and RAWs at once if they share a filename?

>>4496373
You can also increase the cache size for folder thumbnails. It affects every folder on the system iirc but realistically only your photos folder will use more than a few MB