File: wim-van-den-heever-8102536-2.png (405.7 KB)

405.7 KB PNG

>>4502821
Following up for >>4502625
This was taken on a D810 with a 17-35mm f2.8. 12 year old body with a lens that came out +25 years ago, and you can have both for under $1k. There are dozens of bodies and lenses that would perform just same or better for that kind of shot, so neither of those really matter that much. Any FF with a 17mm lens will give you the same perspective (or APSC with like 11mm). What would matter a bit more for this shot gear-wise is the lighting. The photog would've had the camera set up, with 2-3 off camera flashes, all connected by wireless trigger (like a PocketWizard). You can gel flashes to give different color, Benoit Paille is a good example of this and used to be the subject of many threads here, but I don't think that's what's actually going on.
https://gbuffer.myportfolio.com/off-season

I'm unsure for the lighting of the building, the area as of 2023 on street view had no lighting infrastructure, and its possible it was the moon, but could be another light source like car lights. The exposure was 10 seconds, so you're getting all that ambient on the building, while only exposing the foreground with the flash. Different lighting sources explain the difference in color and softness vs hardness of the light. Most of the color look probably just comes from long exposure at night + flash. If you wanted to recreate the color shifting aesthetic, something like
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYVvChotk1o
using radial and linear gradients in Photoshop is an easy way, and a technique used by our own 5hoe

The location is about 8 miles off the coast, so you're seeing dense costal fog. This helps with the "atmosphere" of the photo, and contributes to how the light glows (just like "foggy streetlights"). Picrel is the same scene, but with less fog.

So basically, got out on a foggy night, use long exposure for soft ambient glow, with flash for for a harsher different color lighting in the foreground.

File: Shin-Godzilla-ORTHO-2545339500.png (649.6 KB)

649.6 KB PNG

What do I need to get set up for developing orthochromatic film at home?

>>4503062
A darkroom and redlight if you want to do it by inspection. Otherwise the standard paterson daylight tank will do you fine. Ortho is developed with exact same process as pan films.

I'm an amatuer photographer, I have an 800D, an 18-55mm f/4-5.6 kit lens, a ~20 year old ultrasonic 55-200mm f/4.5-5.6 lens, and a super cheap 420-800mm vivita f/8.3-16 lens I use for the moon.

Should I replace my camera with a full frame, or get a better macro/zoom lens(replacing the 55-200mm)

Is it safe to go jogging/running with prosumer full frames and lenses? Anyone do it?

>>4503546
Your camera is good if you don't shoot video, anything that demands high burst rates or fast subject detection autofocus. The jump to full frame might help if you shoot portraits or in dark. If you crop your photos all the time then having more megapixels will have its benefits.

I made the jump from 200D to R8 and in hindsight I shouldn't have. The marginal benefits in fringe cases do not justify spending some 2000 eurobucks on RF-mount lenses and the camera.

Your lenses are slow and prioritize covering all focal lengths, I'd get something faster like 50mm f/1.4, 50 mm f/1.8, 40 mm f/2.8, 135mm f/2, 70-200mm f2.8 or 70-200mm f4

What are you supposed to photograph on overcast cloudy days when there's no interesting light? Does using black&white or a digishit help?

>>4503546
>800D
That thing is junk. Buying a proper camera like a nikon dslr or 90s would go almost as far as getting a proper ff.

t. Sufferer with a 5dii just to experience how bad low DR cameras are. Yeah, they’re shit. Might as well use a phone. I have no idea how canon got away with selling this trash. Corporate contracts?

Aw man, I made a cool banner for the next sqt and instead I decided to suck ass and go outside to take photos today.
The lesson is, stay inside.

>>4503546
Can you explain in your own words what makes you want to "upgrade"? Asking a bunch of gearfags on /p/ will result in wildly different responses. Macro is actually better served by APS-C than Full Frame. The EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM would be the best telephoto for your DSLR and can be had for like $150; would be a good upgrade over the 55-200mm by a fair margin.
As for macro I'd just rip the bandaid off and get the EF 100mm f/2.8 IS USM Macro as it is THE best macro lens for Canon except the 3x the price RF version, and can stay with you if you do change to Full Frame anyway.

If you actually want to go full frame then just get a 5DIV or 6DII. There's no big reason to jump to mirrorless unless money is no object.

>>4503644
It should be illegal to recommend the 6dII. That camera is ACTUAL shit. The RP is the same shitty 5dii-tier ewaste sensor and yet better just because the 6D2’s OVF autofocus is so dogshit even low end mirrorless is an upgrade. Its also nearly the same price as a used 5div from a non-delusional seller.

Fun fact: the 6d2 was named the worst camera of the year repeatedly

If you are considering any canon that isnt a 5div, 90d, or dirt cheap 5ds you somehow need, get a nikon DSLR instead. Canons sensors are just bad and they derived most of their sales from pre-internet consumer cluelessness, product placement, and having the only good tech support service for professionals. Not from the actual cameras being bangers.

>>4503660
first to market with widespread and useful lens stabilization too. first to market with quite a few lenses nikon got second.

it mattered then. it doesnt matter now.

File: 1straps.jpg (80.7 KB)

80.7 KB JPG

Which strap would be best for carrying a 4lb setup around for long periods? I've been using the straps that come with the camera and they're uncomfortable after a short period. I also like to wrap a portion of the strap around my wrist as insurance when the strap isn't on my neck, which may be harder with the thicker strap. The first strap seems like a different experience all together.

>>4503628
I was thinking of doing an upgrade to a full frame DSLR like a 5D mark III or mark IV. So the price id pay wouldn't be much when I sell the camera.

For lenses should I stick with namebrans canon lenses or are 3rd party lenses better bang for buck?

I mostly take pictures of landscapes, nature, and things of that sort.

>>4503644
Upgrading the lens because it's 20 years old and I wanted photos that were more crisp, however my current lens can't be sold for much,

My camera can be sold and would cover a lot (hopefully) of the cost of upgrading to a full frame. I was thinking 5D mark III or IV.
I wanted to upgrade to a full frame because of poor low light performance. But I felt it was a non issue I was making a big deal of so I thought I'd ask.

Money is an object so I was wondering which one I should do first because I do plan to do both.

>>4503643
Its just a camera, stop acting like a nigger and calm down

>>4503744
>Money is an object so I was wondering which one I should do first because I do plan to do both.
The lens makes the photo, and the camera turns it into a file. Mostly. Sensor size, quality, and pixel density are also factors that are important for end image quality.
All that is to say, going full frame is king if you can justify the price, size, weight, and lens prices (aps-c lenses typically cost less). The shittiest, smeariest FF lens on a FF camera is going to btfo everything except the best crop lenses on a crop camera, H O W E V E R, the ceiling for IQ on a crop camera isn't too bad for most users.

>I wanted to upgrade to a full frame because of poor low light performance. But I felt it was a non issue I was making a big deal of so I thought I'd ask.
Full frame absolutely is the ticket for this kind of shooting. Like I said, get the cheapest lens and a FF body and it'll be better (and perhaps cheaper) for this.
The other route is getting super bright aperture crop lenses which are A) niche and expensive, and B) still cap out around 15mm aperture diameter such as on a 24mm f/2(12mm). It's total aperture diameter that improves low-light gathering ability, not f/ratio, and if you slap a FF lens on crop you discard the outer 40% of light anyway (thus putting your "effective" f/stop 1+1/3rd slower). All this math is to say even a cheap 50mm f/2 prime gives you 25mm aperture diameter on FF, combined with the bigger pixels (because 24MP spread over a larger sensor means the pixels have to be larger compared to crop) means Full Frame all the way baybee.

>>4502821
What is the cheapest, but still reasonably functional video monitor I can get for my Nikon Z6?
I just want a preview window that is a bit larger and can be positioned on a simple rig. If it could take Nikki n batteries that would be great, but not at all necessary.

>>4503782
>Nikki n
Nikon
Fucking touchscreen

>>4503761
I'm convinced

But what camera?
Is the 5D mark IV my only option?

>>4503867
D600 (cheapest weather-sealed fullframe)
D610
D800 (cheapest "pro" fullframe)
D810
or D750, D780 or D850 if you like wasting money

>>4503867
Canon 5D lineup, with the Mk I being the "muh film experience" version, the Mk II for best price:value, Mk III you avoid, and Mk IV being the most modern.
6D Mk I is a valid 5D Mk III alternative. 6D Mk II I wouldn't spring the money for and the sensor ain't amazing.
You could also go uber-chad and get a 1DS Mk III but they're pretty fucking big and will cost extra. No practical point but it's based.

Also Nikon exists I guess.

>>4503920
Why avoid mark III?

Does stabilization actually allow you to capture more detail when taking photos, or is it "guessing" and filling in detail based on an algorithim?

>>4503927
ai mindbroke you. you just got paranoiamaxxed by a computer programmed to shitpost. you are so chopped. you dont just have negative rizz – you’re getting cortisol spiked by a piece of software that generates goon material for furries.

Anyways, yes, you are wrong. Stabilization moves the sensor to track the image. It does not just not involve AI – it is based on gyroscope data.

>>4503927
If we're talking about cameras, it's neither. Your hands are shaky and the camera sensor (or the lens elements) shake to compensate for your shaky hands. The resulted photo has less motion blur, just like when using a tripod.

If we're talking about phones, it's probably cropping your photos with digital stabilization, then combines a bunch of photos using only the good parts of each photo and then finally applies the guessing work.

>>4502821
>something light and small?
paper towels

>>4503927
What do you think stabilized binoculars or gimbals do? With IBIS and other physical stabilizing, it's just movement to compensate for movement.
There is digital stabilization, both in-camera or in post, but those rely on cropping in, and essentially losing information as a result.
At no point in either case is new or false information filling in.

I'm looking to buy my first camera. Other then IBIS, Crop vs Full frame, Megapixel/Max Resolution, ISO noise level, and the specs of the on body display screen, what should I be looking for in a camera?

Is the level of noise at a given ISO level something that's quantified? If so how

>>4504027
You can look it up on either DXO or photons to photos. If you're getting an interchangeable lens camera then you'll also want to look at what's available and the cost, for example Canon's RF mount you don't get the cheaper third party offerings that you do on the other mounts but at the same time they have some unique offerings (as do the others) that might appeal to you.

>>4504027
It says Canon, 5D, and Mark IV on the body

>>4504042
>dslr
yikes

>>4504027
The price, weight and form factor, the quality of EVF/OVF or just a display screen. Shutter count that's preferably less than 30 000 if you're buying used cameras...

I don't quite understand the other question, but there are camera models where ISO3200 is very much usable and others where ISO3200 is unusable because of noise. Having higher or lower base ISO (the lowest sensitivity = maximum detail) has more implications than just going to very high ISOs you're never going to use.

>>4504080
>yikes
yikes

>>4504080
>AI in the EVF
big yikes

>>4504102
>Having higher or lower base ISO (the lowest sensitivity = maximum detail) has more implications
Lmao, no
There is no meaningful difference between 50 and 200 ISO.

File: French_People_Tasting_Coca-Cola_2.jpg (79.5 KB)

79.5 KB JPG

>>4502821
Bough a camera for cheap because it has a scratched OLPF (I assume it has one, it's a Fuji X-T2.)
It's 24MP, so can I just take it off and shoot with no worries? I assume it won't suffer much from moiré patterns because of the MP count.

I've read some OLPFs have IR-cuts and such integrated and without the OLPF it can damage the sensor. Is that true? Will I have to put some protector filter on my lens to compensate or what?

What's a reasonable quote for the following gig? It's not hypothetical, I just did it. It was my first job. I had no frame of reference but having completed it, I feel like I severely under-quoted. I got paid $3000.

>Corporate gig at a luxury resort
>3 days (10 hour day, 13 hour day, 5 hour day)
>Described as a typical "corporate event" and became every type of photography imaginable (candid, posed, individual, groups, conference halls, literally on a boat, live events, an "award show," a "fashion show") - I did not do an adequate job getting specific job requirements
>Paid my own hotel and travel (driving 300 miles total)
>Mainly photo with some video
>Was promised food but worked through my meal multiple times ("I know you just got your food (which we ordered for you last because you were taking photos of everyone else being seated and eating) but the awards are starting, you'll have to eat after" -> my food sits for 2 hours -> my food was thrown away -> I'm a pussy who didn't stand up for myself)

So ignore where I have no spine, let's say I am fully prepared to take on the hours and the workload. What would the quote be? Honestly I'm glad I had a difficult experience to learn from.

>>4504302
>28 hours of labor
>Hotel + travel time / expenses
>Got Treated Like Shit Tax

I would work out to be something like
>$40/h x 28 for labor (gear costs, skillset, variation of job)
>+$400-750 for hotel expenses
>+$0.5/m = $150 for driving
>+$20 x 2 (meals) x 3 (days) = $120 for meal allownace (they didn't let you eat, but I imagine you had dinner or breakfast outside the venue)
>+10% because they were dickheads (just list this as a job fee because you missed other work)

I'd put it to just under $2k with my math, but I don't know how expensive your hotel was, your meals were, what you paid for gas, or how important your time is.
Personally, I'd still be pissed at them for being such wankers and not explaining expectations better, and for expecting me to work through breaks and slap them with some dumb +25% surcharge.

Now the golden question is... Why the fuck didn't you work this out upfront and have a contract of services? Even a basic one written in Word would have been a good idea. Set some basic rates and expectations for this kind of contract work.

>>4504302
$3-5k + lodging + travel fee is reasonable on the low end
It's good to have food included in your contract (depending on what you're doing), but the cost of a missed meal isn't really something you should be considering in compensation, thats cringe
$100-150/hr is more in line for quick ballpark of low end stuff.

>>4504318
Oh, obviously super depends on deliverables and ownership / licensing too
But that's assuming just standard xxx amount of pictures from 3 days of shooting, for use for a certain period of time, retaining ownership and raws, etc

>>4504318
$1000 a day for a first-time photographer? Pulling standard-ish hours?
USD not pesos right?
Idk mang seems a bit much. Established with a portfolio and semi-regular work patterns? Yeah, of course.

Why does a tripod collar have to cost $125?

>>4504325
For a full day shooting, with travel, $1k a day is very reasonable
Entry level wedding togs start at like $1.5k now, and you can charge $3-5k with minimal experience

When I started paid stuff, I started at like $150ish for 90min senior sessions, or $250 for 2-3hr concert, and that was 15 years ago with a D60/D90, now my 1hr sessions usually start at $400

Why does every mirrorless, dslr and film fanboy have their panties in such a big bunch about the other two types being inferior?

File: alarm.gif (477.8 KB)

477.8 KB GIF

>>4504370
Because these people don't take photos.
Or if they do take photos (of a cat or something at most), they have to feel like they made the right choice and [saved money | improved their gear]
Ignore the faggots. You don't see people sucking themselves off over what hammer they used to build a bench.

File: PICT0002.jpg (4.6 MB)

4.6 MB JPG

I recently bought a Konica/Minolta 7D sold as "will only take black pictures".
I knew about the camera for a long time and was aware of the common FFB (firsat frame black) fault in which the curtain wouldn't open on shutter release.
Turns out it works just fine mechanically, which is both good and bad.
Upon closer inspection, I noticed a faint blue stripe in one of the images and amplified it, resulting in pic related.

Anyone here knowledgeable in CCD sensors who could tell me what causes such images?

File: 3342.jpg (347.3 KB)

347.3 KB JPG

Hey /p/ I'm doing a personal project where I'm going to self develop black and white 35mm film to make microdots, an old stenographic technique that allows for shrinking down pieces of text to microscopic size.

The problems I'm encountering is I'm generally unsure of what kind of film camera to buy for this kind of shooting, as most resources online are aimed at photographic shooting, rather than archival and experimentation.

My budget is around 500AUD, if you have any recommendations or general advice, I would appreciate it.

File: 4444444444.jpg (1 MB)

1 MB JPG

Which one looks better?

>>4504424
Whatever modern camera has the features you need, something like F90 or other stuff from that era. They're cheaper than the fully mechanical ones and have all the fancy stuff like AF, metering or PASM. Some may have some limitations with older MF lenses, so if you want e.g. the 55mm AI macro with it, make sure your specific combination will work for you.

>>4504473
Everything between -3 and +2 is acceptable. It kinda depends on the mood of the scene and the use case. -3 is dead wife flashback in movie tier and +2 is pharmaceutical ad kinda stuff.

File: reesecover.jpg (139.2 KB)

139.2 KB JPG

>>4504531
Should I keep it at -2 for street and portaits?

I aim at 90's film and 00's fashion look

>>4504473
+1 for sure

https://www.tjlvn.com/blog/automotive/all-analog-classic-cars-and-film

How do I make this kind of pictures with just a digital cemara? Can it be done in camera settomgs or post-processing only?

>>4504569
Doable with many camera and lens options, with at least a little bit of editing.
For the physical aspect of the look
>use a fast normal lens with good bokeh on ff or apsc, like between 35mm and 65mm and f1.4ish
>use a tele lens and brenizer method
>use ai generative fill
>use 1/8 mist filter to ease the highlights
For the colors and tones
>find a preset you like that looks close
>learn how to edit colors yourself
>make your own preset with current match look or ai tools
>use one of the many online tutorials for how to make a portra 400 preset

Good luck, I believe in you

Can you do macro without a macro lens?

File: 5b9fc3631dd92.jpg (143.9 KB)

143.9 KB JPG

>>4504594
yes, with extension tubes

What is the best looking preset here?
https://nikonpc.com/

I think I like the Rose Curve and Fuji Velvia.

And where can I find more presets for NIKON?

How do I find free RAW and NEF files online?
When I'm trying to find woman portraits in raw format Google gives me porn and in JPEG

>>4504594
>>4504610
You can also handhold your lens backwards to get macro with some lenses

>>4504618
make your own with their program
or switch to a raw program and use the hundreds of tutorials online to make presents that will work for any camera you get, not just nikon
>>4504640
more snapshot portraits, but DPReview sample galleries for bodies or lenses (not studio tool), usually have a few pics of people with link for the raw

File: Screenshot_20260412_160010_Tradera.jpg (567.3 KB)

567.3 KB JPG

I have an old Canon EOS 1000D from back in the day that I really never use. Mainly because it's so bulky I can't be arsed to carry it around.

My question is, could you get decent photos from cheap cameras such as this? This currently sits at 20€ in a local auction. I'm looking for something dirt cheap that can fit it my pocket. I haven't taken a photo for many years unless you count phone pics.

>>4504660
If you want a separate camera and by decent you mean okay, sure
The retail market for these old compacts died for a reason

>>4504661
Cool, thanks. I'll see if I can win any auctions then. For once, I'd much rather start with something cheap and see if I enjoy it before opening up my wallet.

>The retail market for these old compacts died for a reason
Did they never progress beyond "meh" or is there another reason?

>>4504662
>Did they never progress beyond "meh" or is there another reason?
The reason is in your pocket. Sure there's Ricoh GR and Sony RX100 that shoot RAW probably outperform most phones.

>>4504594
>>4504610
Extension tubes are fine unless you need a flat focus plane (i.e. digitizing film). In that case, better buy an actual macro.

>>4504662
Phones
Those existed when there weren't other options for a digital compact camera
There is no like cheap new compact market now, you have options for extreme weather sealing / kid proof, or expensive but better than phone

>>4504658
>DPReview sample galleries
Thanks! Got any more websites like this every photographer should know?

If your camera weighs 700g and your lens 1,180g, how do you attach your strap? One on the camera and one on the tripod foot? How do you attach the strap to the lens if the collar has no anchor spots? Both ends attached to an anchor plate attached to the bottom of the foot seems like it would be incredibly awkward to balance.

Are the cheapest UV filters going to affect image quality if I just want to protect my front element from salty/wet beach air? Is there going to be a real difference between the $10 and the $32 filters?

Is it ok to remove objects in Photoshop to achieve better composition? Let's say I don't like 1/10 of my photo.

I'm not associated with Magnum Photos

>>4504860
Regularly do this with just a basic neck strap on both camera lugs. Just sling it underarm style instead of off your neck, so your shoulder carries the weight and your arm protects the gear from being whacked.
>>4504949
Yes. Avoid the cheapest shit or you'll end up with a smeary layer over the top of your photo. I pay about $20 for the most basic filters I'm happy with

>>4504860
I use the Peak plate. I anchor one end of the strap to the left side of the camera body. I anchor the other end to the left side of the plate. I wear the strap cross body over my left shoulder with the camera resting on my right hip. The trick is, you need to wear the camera "upside down", in that the left side of the camera body is touching your body, with the lens side facing the ground. Then it's simple to grab the camera grip and raise it to your face. I was doing this with a 2kg total 70-200 setup for days with no problem.