Archived threads in /p/ - Photography - 119. page

Portra 160 or Ektar 100 for landscapes? I mean I'll try both and see what I prefer, just wanting to know what you fgt's like better.

>>3080636
Superia 200 (24/36 exp) and Superia 400 (24 exp) are being discontinued while Superia 800/1600 are already discontinued. So Superia 400 36 exp will be the only one available

>>3080647
For landscapes:
Positieve > Negative
P = Velvia 50/100 > Kodak E100G(RIP)
N = Ektar 100 > Portra 160

File: _P2M0034.jpg (2MB, 2352x1568px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2352x1568px

>>3080354

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SIGMA
Camera Model	SIGMA DP2 Merrill
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	45 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4704
Image Height	3136
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	180 dpi
Vertical Resolution	180 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2017:05:22 04:27:38
Exposure Time	1/80 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	30.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2352
Image Height	1568
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Unique Image ID	303034313639303568EB215934443335

File: 0G3A0020-Edit.jpg (475KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

475KB, 1000x667px

>>3080354
Shot this earlier today whaddaya guys think

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 5D Mark III
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.5 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:05:21 22:49:19
Exposure Time	1/80 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
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
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: 153.jpg (324KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

324KB, 1024x683px

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB

They are extraordinary

The color conveys a sensual mood to the motions and postures. Although I enjoyed the photos, for the second view I feel like the two are staged too much

File: 1492514960425.jpg (236KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

236KB, 1280x720px

Where are the rest of them? also resize ur shit

>>3078935
Here's a link to 20 of my most recent.
https://imgur.com/gallery/p77hd

>>3078935
post them here, little faggit.

Fuck off with this low effort bullshit.

Why would Astro be low tier when landscape photography is god tier?

>>3077878
nah you fuck off

File: file.png (850KB, 1000x800px) Image search: [Google]

850KB, 1000x800px

Just bought this, 15$ off an elderly lady. Wondernig what I'm in for. It's in good condition and just needs a new battery.

Stupid question: When I read lens reviews there's often someone talking about how some lens has excellent (or poor) color rendition. Why? I get that different lenses and coatings have different transmittance values at different frequencies, so one lens can make different-looking colors straight out of the camera. But isn't this pretty irrelevant in the digital age where you can just tweak the saturation and curves and a gorillion other color settings in post easily? If you're Ken Rockwell and don't shoot raw, can't you just pick one of the two dozen jpeg profiles every camera has to get something that's satisfying for you?

I get that this'd be important on film, but lots of people who aren't using film praise/complain about the colors produced by various lenses.

File: Asuka.jpg (59KB, 627x596px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 627x596px

Do IS modules typically burn out or get stuck?
Are they prone to failure?

And why aren't there any large high power diopters?

I think /p/ needs less Jason Lanier

Still funny but the specific photos need to be mixed up. This is one of the less horrible ones I've seen.

>>3077273
better people skills than 90% of this board and his photos are much more original

as said, event photographers are literal bottom of the barrel tier. you shouldnt pay him, hes shit and delivered shit.

That grotesque font they used in their watermark should have been the first clue that they were worthless. It's your fault for even hiring them.

What I have to ask is.
Was this a Craigslist shooter, that you wanted to do the gig for cheap?
Did you look at their portfolio if they had one?

>>3081544
Yeah, Minolta lenses are yummy.
Where do you get your batteries ?

>Daily reminder
No.

>>3081544
>tfw you can buy a vivitar macro lens for 15$
Stop letting people know how good Minolta is, I don't want any hipster tax on my shit

File: infra time2.jpg (404KB, 1280x722px) Image search: [Google]

404KB, 1280x722px

>>3081544
mah nigga

File: Untitled (3)00000.jpg (327KB, 673x1008px) Image search: [Google]

327KB, 673x1008px

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	400 dpi
Vertical Resolution	400 dpi

>plebfisheye
>50mm
pullin my leg, brah?

File: Untitled (14)0000.jpg (436KB, 647x984px) Image search: [Google]

436KB, 647x984px

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	400 dpi
Vertical Resolution	400 dpi

no but sony is a meme

fuji all day my niggas

>>3081084
Mirrorless isnt, but Sony sure as fuck is. They're the ultimate muh bleeding edge consumerism cameras.

Go to a camera store and try a Fuji xt2 or a Panasonic/Olympus and the experience is just wonderful. All three have their pros and cons and are behind Sony in terms of raw specs, but all get the job done better and with a much more pleasant user experience and build quality.

File: b4a.jpg (38KB, 619x619px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 619x619px

>>3081091
I guess the zillions of photos I've taken with my A7II over the past two years don't exist, then. And I suppose it's also a cheap piece of plastic rather than the heavy lump of metal it is when I'm carrying it around.

Sony hate is the real meme. Just use whatever works.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	619
Image Height	619

>>3080997
Depends on what you're doing.

>>3080999
>>3080997

90% being in the right place at the right time with good light, a decent rig and a basic understanding of composition

everything else is marketing, processing, gearfaggotry and whatever doesn't fall into the aforementioned 90%

photography is whatever you want it to

>>3079577
You must be ugly as shit

I'm an amateur but I usually ask. I'm still working on getting confidence to be honest, and I do greatly worry that I'll offend someone if I take a photo of them to their face.

I live in a big city half the week (LA) so I think people are used to photographers and a general lack of space.

Maybe dress nicer to be honest and tell people its for school.

Shave the fucking pedostache and wear normal clothes you fucking creep. Find a batch of excuses (school, art project, whatever) and don't sperg out and throw your spaghetti around when confronted.

As interesting as the subject might be, the background and context is important. Don't shoot people in your fucking residential suburbs where nothing ever happens (except your local creep aka you).

Also don't take pics of kids, it's rude and suspicious as hell.

>>3077269
none of those

The Panasonic LX100 or Canon G1Xii

inb4
>you can't put them in your pocket
only a twat would put a camera in their pocket with all that fluff, keys, coins and condoms etc If I wanted to put it in my pocket I'd use a telephone

>>3077277
Yeah but those have tiny sensors which really don't justify using them instead of your iphone which is gonna be with you anyway

The Ricoh is pocketable AND has an apsc sized sensor

What's even the point of point-and-shoot cameras nowadays with cellphones everywhere.

Habe you tried google my friend, or the gear thread perhaps?

If it works, it's fine. Do you have a battery for it?

>>3076610
No.