Archived threads in /p/ - Photography - 459. page

>>2799295
Gear thread, film thread, stupid questions thread...take your pick.

>>2799295
ZOMG NOOB ANY 35MM MADE SINCE 1960 CAN SHOOT B&W!!!

>>2799295
The Nikon is only a good choice if you already have a selection of Nikon lenses. Otherwise it's no better than any other SLR body. The body is much less important in film photography than it is in Digital. As long as it can mount the lenses you want and has an operational shutter (and optionally, meter) you're good to go. Lenses and film are where you should be discerning.

Film wise you'd be hard pressed to find a 'bad' b&w film these days. Only the good stuff remains on the market. T-Max, Tri-X, Across, HP5, Pan are all good choices. Most people find one they like and stick with it

Technique wise: expose for the shadows

>>2799276
Sponsorship

Leica give him the cameras, he promotes Leica in his at his workshops. Leica use his pictures in their promotional literature as examples of good photography.

People look at that stuff and say to themselves "if Leica think it is good it must be good". They then pay large sums of money to attend his workshops. While they are at his workshops they buy signed copies of his books and 'limited edition' prints. Afterwards they go on forums and talk abut him.

The clubs and galleries etc that host his workshops pay his travel expenses

>>2799276
trustfund babbies

>>2799276
Kinda unrelated but I kinda like him now, his blog isn't amazing or anything but you can find some pretty good references and links there, and his photography has improved over the past few years his good photos are hard to find (because he likes to flaunt the same 6 images in every blog post he writes) but he has some pretty good shots


Still awkward and weird though

>>2799263
>outside in broad daylight
Av mode, f/16

>inside
f/3.5 - f/8 depending on the light and desired depth of field

ISO 800, 1/1600, f/8

>>2799263
Also, get a better lens. You can't expect good quality across a range that wide. Get maybe a 18-55ish lens for now, you don't need anything wider or longer. A 50mm prime would also be a good idea.

P.S. 18-270 on a DX (1.5x) crop body is equivalent 27-405 on a 35mm sensor/film, pretty fucking insane if you ask me.

"I hung out with homeless people once." is his whole shtick. Hack.

>>2800092

"I'm going to cry about it now" (old man crying)

I like his videos and personality, but the only samples of his work are decades old film scans that haven't been updated.

Without seeing any of his modern photos, I'm not about to give him any money.

>>2798915
>Can anyone who uses an iPhone chime in.
>Hey guys I'm thinking of drinking water as a replacement for drinking diet coke. Can anyone who drinks water chime in?

Every comment you could possibly hope to read is completely obvious. It's smaller. It does more stuff. The image quality is more or less the same. you don't get a zoom lens. You can post to social media instantly. You can process the images more easily and more quickly. You will always have it with you. You might lose some ergonomics and controls.

What the fuck else do you want.

>>2798917
>you don't get a zoom lens
Yes you do ya dingus

>>2798923
Which iPhone offers a zoom lens?

>>2798880
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=what+is+the+aperture+of+the+human+eye

F/2.1-8.5. They're pretty fast lenses, but no manual control kind of sucks.

>>2798882

>he cannot into manual focus and aperture priority

It's like you only use your eyes for looking, fucking pleb.

DUDE WEED LMAO

>>2798849
oh come on pal that'd be another one of these shitty vice 'reports'

'jai suivi des fumeurs de weed pendant trois mois et c'était la plus belle experience de ma vie'

it's a shit subject

>>2798849
Who wants to see an overwhelmingly biased project? Even though you'd most likely try present your material as positive (since you've already defined your narrative of trying to portray stoners as normal people), I think you'd come across a lot of the bad sides of smoking the plant every day. That would make for an interesting story - showing how everyday potsmokers get by, and how the pros probably just barely outweigh the cons of NOT smoking daily. But unfortunately OP, all i picture is you trying to steer the whole series toward your boring theme

you don't need a proper camera to take snapshots of your cats

stop being such a sperglord

Your friend is right

You are wrong and most likely have autism

Next

iphone 6 is better than some 'proper cameras'

stop being a elitist

>>2797955
It's nice. But like anything else, it's a tool, not a magic wand.

Google Nik Collection

waste of money, waste of bandwidth to even torrent

bunch of shit you can already do in photoshop wrapped up in a that web 2.0 glass interface

>>2797256
Do you like is work?
Can you find someone who can do what he does in the style you like for cheaper?
Can you do it yourself for cheaper?

If you answered the first question yes, then the next two no, then pay the man.

>>2797259
I don't know shit about photography but I got a Nikon D600 with a Tamron 18-270mm lens and a tripod. Could I acheive similar or better results?

Also, link to the guy's portfolio
http://www.vadimdaniel.com/portraits-headshots/

>>2797270
>Could I acheive similar or better results?
Yes, but it'll take work and study, along with possibly spending money on different gear.

>>2796976
They're beautiful, well-made cameras that are fun to shoot with. Film ones are nice, digital ones are decent but expensive so some poor/p/hags are sour grapes about it.

They almost feel like a part of you if you can get good with it.

Use the gear thread next time. Read the sticky before posting.

>>2796976
The film Leicas are lovely cameras. Holding one and operating one you can feel that it's worth the money. It's the same sort of mechanical, tactile feel as a firearm. My one gripe with them is their weirdass film loading system. Why couldn't they do a swing-door back like literally every other film camera in existence.

The digital Leica's on the other hand really don't fire my rockets. Impractically expensive and really offer nothing more than being the only digital rangefinder on the market. Having operated a Fuji X Pro 1 and a Leica M9 back to back, I can say there's a difference between the two, but it isn't $6000 of difference. I'd really rather spend the money on an X Pro, some great M mount glass and a film Leica than buy a digital Leica that will be outdated in 2 or 3 years

not really versatile but shines at a really particular type of shooting

think streety travely snaps and some casual portraiture

also prices for digital are nothing but ridiculous, think of digital leica like a sports car that has the function to drive stick but you're not going to use it 95% of the time

>>2795680
>4.14 MB, 1885x1253
>not able to follow the one simple rule we have
>still expecting to get help

>>2795698
lol ur kidding right, unless ur living in a third world country & using a dell from 2003 I fail to see the issue. Continue to obey rules of a 4chan board bro, see where that gets u.

Its a shitty photo of a decent building.
You didn't build that.

>>2794507
http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html#rating

>>2794507
I can hardly say my knowledge is exhaustive, but my 105mm f/2.5 is bloody good.

>>2794507
i don't know about best but i like my nikkor 50mm f/1.4 which is a bit older than the one you've posted. sharp at f/2.8, comfortable, pretty.

>>2793316
germany and cameras dont mix
>f a m

google up on that shit so you dont fuck yourself over.

>>2793316
>where to go, how to travel, any places to eat, ...
>>>/trv/

>>2793322
You didn't care much for geography class in school, did you?

Moo

Do stuff

>>2791037
you don't