Archived threads in /p/ - Photography - 494. page

>>2761088
>Do I have to be not proud of my work because I followed an entire tutorial to make it ?
of course not
>Is it a good thing to do as a beginner ?
yes
>Is it consider to have no creativity ?
no. You're still learning


its natural to follow tutorials and even imitate other photographers when you're starting. don't worry about it senpai.

This tutorial is worthless

>>2761088
well, if you could've wasted months getting there on your own then it was a smart decision...

>>2754711
http://petapixel.com/2016/01/27/this-photo-of-the-nyc-blizzard-looks-like-a-painting/

File: 1441148435592.jpg (80KB, 758x759px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 758x759px

>teal snow

into the garbage it goes.

So, is it a good first camera for beginners?

File: P2020981.jpg (2MB, 1632x1224px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1632x1224px

(2/5)

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.
Camera Model	E-PL6
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.3 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Color Filter Array Pattern	800
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	32 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:02:06 06:58:00
Exposure Time	1/400 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	16.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	High
Sharpness	Hard

File: P1160212.jpg (2MB, 1632x1224px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1632x1224px

(3/5)

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.
Camera Model	E-PL6
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.3 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	30 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:02:06 06:56:49
Exposure Time	1.6 sec
F-Number	f/22.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/22.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	15.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

File: P2041117.jpg (811KB, 1632x1224px) Image search: [Google]

811KB, 1632x1224px

(4/5)
This was shot with a 50mm Canon FD lens held off the body. The tilt effect is genuine, not an Instagram effect.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.
Camera Model	E-PL6
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.3 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Color Filter Array Pattern	692
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:02:06 06:58:09
Exposure Time	1/160 sec
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	800
Exposure Bias	-0.3 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	High
Sharpness	Hard

It could be the lab using a dirty machine to process your photos. Tell them to clean their equipment and see if they'll give you a refund/newfilm/process etc.

>>2759912
>digitalizar
>fotography
>kodak gold 200
you BR senpai? I suggest quitting film unless you're loaded
it's a niche market in a severely under-demanding market
that means no fair price on new products i.e. film and paraphernalia, due to no production and little to no importation
also no maintenance on equipment since they're getting discontinued and not being replaced due to no demand whatsoever, which is what you're seeing that's happened to your picture

>>2759912
Looks like a bad scan to me. I'd try to get a better scan of this picture if possible

and ignore this faggot>>2761587

File: 1435103377292.jpg (141KB, 543x405px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 543x405px

>>2755096
Really like that but I feel like some of the lines are not quite straight and it sorta fucks with me but then I realize I like that more than if they were all actually straight

>mfw all my most recent are literally snapshits I took on the way to the drug store to test a camera I bought at a thrift store and I just got the scans back

I'm the worst

File: IMG_0314.jpg (464KB, 1012x996px) Image search: [Google]

464KB, 1012x996px

Anyone reckon it would be worth using the built-in digital camera unit on some of the petrographic microscopes I use in the lab to get nicer pictures of rock thin sections? Not entirely sure how good the camera actually is, but it's good enough to project an image on a board and still look decent. Would anyone find that interesting enough to warrant me bothering to post it? Maybe I'm just being overly enthusiastic, but what you can see with microscopy is fascinating to me

Pic related is snapshit taken today looking down the eyepiece with the crosshair to give an idea of what you usually see of a rock thin section (this section specifically is shap granite under crossed polars with biotite intergrown into chlorite, titanite and significantly altered pagioclase visible)

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Apple
Camera Model	iPhone 5s
Camera Software	9.2.1
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	29 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Right-Hand, Top
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:01:28 11:48:33
Exposure Time	1/100 sec
F-Number	f/2.2
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	64
Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Brightness	4.6 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Auto
Focal Length	4.15 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3264
Image Height	2448
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2755124
This looks very interesting

File: PenFbody11[1].jpg (256KB, 1200x736px) Image search: [Google]

256KB, 1200x736px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 40D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7.1 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:01:26 12:19:44
Exposure Time	1/200 sec
F-Number	f/11.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/11.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	100.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2754393
>and sleek rangefinder-style looks (reminiscent of Fujifilm’s X100 series cameras)

it looks exactly like the old Pen FT, NOT like le x100 memecamera. im gonna gut that faggot with a dessert spoon, fucking hell.

eh.

I think at this point you really should just be taking pictures of anything. Play around with composition. Pick a subject and see how many different ways you can capture it.

Pretend you're shooting for a tour book for your town or some shit.

>>2761592
I think your ready to develop a watermark, put an ad on Craigslist and take pictures of halfnaked girls so they can post the pictures on Facebook and pretend they are models.

This seems like to be the way things work nowadays.

>>2760943
>>>/p/

Photography sites or blogs selling gear?

>>2760977
photography sites

>>2760975
should've clarified with professional

>>2755806
You realize for all the money you spent on filters, which you could re-create in PS or LR yourself, that you could've bought a new lens instead?

File: tumblr_nx4r5ow4Gu1uyx50so1_500.gif (2MB, 448x432px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 448x432px

its fucking nothing

>>2755806
no I shoot actual film, which is a tenth of the cost you've spent on some digital effects that I could of made myself

Optical viewfinders sometimes don't cover the entire frame that the sensor sees. That camera has a 95% coverage viewfinder, so about 5% of your photo isn't visible in the finder. I guess it's also not perfectly centered which is why you get extra on just the right and bottom instead of a little extra all the way around.

Best way you can ensure complete frame coverage with the 510 is to use the live view, although AF will be shit (had a 410, still have a 520).

I was recently given some FT lenses with no body. What is a FT body that is still relevant today?

>>2760582

I don't know if you're a fucking psycho or not.

I have a Glidecam HD4000 and I fucking hate it.

>>2760582
I'm on the other side of the planet so obviously can't help, But you might want to offer up some info about the shot.

What camera do you hope to put on it?
What kind of shot? Is there running involved. Is it just following people while they walk. is it an action sequence, etc.

>>2760604
running, walking, i have a sony a7 mk ii

>>2757837

Looks better than the D5, those 3 front function buttons piss me off everytime I look at the piece of shit.

If you need more than 2 do it like Canon has done it.

>wew GPS
>wew dual pixel AF
>same FPS limits
>same AF sensor
>reworked algorithms
>muh touchscreen AF for video
Fucking dead on arrival m8, literally brings nothing new for 1Dx users.

>>2757843
>14 fps / 16 fps in liveview
>touchscreen
>4k video
>"nothing new"

>>2759007
It will work, It is powered from the film pack which holds power for the film delivery and the flash. Trust me unless it has been underwater it will work. The Impossible project does Polaroid film.
Alternatively
You could just use a 5 megapixel cheap digital, crop it into a square with a double border on the bottom edge, print it out on an old HP Deskjet using non branded ink cqrtridges, and on ordinary photocopy paper scan the print and turn it into a jpeg then have it printed at Asda/Boots as a square glossy print etc. Result a Polaroid looking photo for a 20th of the price.l
Have fun.

>>2759007
Nothing will work on it without a film pack in it as the batteries are in the film pack. Yes you are a hipster. If u want instant camera then look at what fuji instaxes do. Polaroid is just a brand name now used by various manufacturers to sell tvs and cameras generic shit.

>>2759013
That might be worth trying out!

>>2759018
In what way are they better?

>>2760394
Sony BTFO everyone today and forever. You fuji canikon shills are even worse than m43 owners.

File: _DSF0048.jpg (442KB, 833x1250px) Image search: [Google]

442KB, 833x1250px

>>2760414
>everyone who doesn't share my exact taste is a paid liar who is only here to be fight me.
They're nice lenses, and the a7 series is nice. Now go take photos with them.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi

File: hqdefault.jpg (19KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 480x360px

Gearfags
Gearfags

>>2759917

Just get a dry cabinet

>>2759917
take out of storage box
take photos
win
no need to look at lens in box
get lens to look at world
show us
win?

>>2759917
A ziploc bag will keep your lens dry without massively bloating its size.