Archived threads in /p/ - Photography - 550. page

I really do not like the sony 16-55, but it's probably worth $150.

>>2726028
Op here. I'm pretty much just thinking about getting it so I have a lens for just running around and shit. What do you not like about it?

>>2726032
There's no bad modern lens from any non chink company (like those Bowers 6000000000mm lenses).

They go from good to great to excellent...don't let gearfags convince you otherwise. Photographers throughout history would kill to shoot with the shittiest of kit lenses that we have available today.

File: 4L_m5Q57Y4I.jpg (236KB, 819x1024px) Image search: [Google]

236KB, 819x1024px

My editing skills.

>>2724578
sweet vaporwave cover

File: DSC00306_edited_1.jpg (4MB, 4896x3672px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 4896x3672px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	DSC-WX350
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Express 9.0 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2015:08:14 14:59:50
Exposure Time	1/1250 sec
F-Number	f/3.5
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	80
Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Brightness	10.1 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	4.30 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

You'll need a way to scan the results to get anything useful from that camera.

But it looks sweet-ass

I have the ae1 program. It's a sweet little camera, used lenses are cheap and still widely available

I also have the ae-1p, solid camera and pretty cheap. Buy one!

I mostly do now. But don't be too strict on it. Shoot RAW. keep the default as b&w but when you're in Lr, always give colour a go too. Some of my shots are better in colour than b&w and vice versa. You don't have to make the colours pictures your mains but its always nice to keep a colour copy on the side.

>>2721893

if I could, I would for professional work. for personal, it's only BW. ilford 400 represeeeent.

I do, both for my own and for work. But I've been thinking on getting back on taking color portraits. Occasionally I still buy some reversal color film.

>>2722705
Get a used em5. They are like $200 used rn, weather proof and the lenses are small and light. It's only slightly worse at high iso than the newer cameras

>>2722705
Hi OP, maybe you could consider the Olympus TG-4 (25-100mm lens but you can add to it an optional tele/fisheye/waterproof wide angle)...about 350$ (275$ used)

>>2722724
Seconded. em5 user here (got it when it came out for like $1,100. ugh)

It's a fantastic camera. It's small, solidly built, takes great pictures, weatherproof (make sure you use weatherproof lenses too), and you can customize it to pretty much any shooting style. Sometimes I use it as a light, quick, automatic beast. Sometimes I flip the screen, add the grip, and go full manual to use it like a slow paced waist level MF camera (I really wish it let you flip the image along the vertical axis like a real waist level vf). IQ is great up through 1600, or 3200 if you don't mind a little noise that you can easily remove anyway.

If you can actually get one for $200 I wouldn't hesitate. It's beyond worth that.

>>2722457

theres an old joel peter witkin docu, and a new one. i recommend both; older one is grittier and nastier, both very interesting on his creative process.

the araki docu is amazing too, it has snippets from bjork, daido and takeshi kitano talking about the guy.

Just watched one on Netflix called Everybody Street that was pretty good. It didn't have the same impact on me as Salt of the Earth but it certainly had some great photography, and some interesting personalities.

Last Days of the Arctic

camera good stabilized

hands

File: Samyang spicy flavor ramen.png (697KB, 650x536px) Image search: [Google]

697KB, 650x536px

>Does a lens with image stabilisation work on a camera that doesn't have it?
Yes. That's the point of having it in the first place.

>Does the camera stabilisation refer to the sensor's stability?
Yes. It's easier to shift the sensor that, say, the whole body.

File: beech.png (681KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

681KB, 1000x667px

>>2719494
You can also manually stabilize a camera by holding it steady.

Not intentionally, I just like drugs and also photography so they often coincide

>>2713117
I've never once done coke, I imagine the last thing I would want to do though is go out and take photos.

I smoke weed all the time. I go about my day after smoking weed. Doing the things I would on any day that i hadnt smoked weed. I dint consider it doing drugs and I don't believe it improves my photography.
And I'm utter shit if I try and take photos when I'm drunk.
Just gtfo kid

>>2725496
Nah it's probably shit. You shouldn't really skimp on lenses. Depending on what you're doing, a tripod might be a better solution.
I guess that's not that helpful though.
You could try old manual-focus film lenses with an adapter perhaps. Can't say I have experience with it myself, but the short flange-to-sensor distance should in theory make mirrorless a good system for adapting lenses cheaply (i.e. without lensed adapters).

I have one for a m4/3 camera. Its fun to mess around with but thats about it, you'll want a better lens for sure. I used it for 2 days and havent touched it since.

Also, on an aps-c sensor, you'll have severe vignetting on any aperture. If you're willing to crop all your photos that'll help, but not much.

>>2725512
>You could try old manual-focus film lenses with an adapter perhaps. Can't say I have experience with it myself, but the short flange-to-sensor distance should in theory make mirrorless a good system for adapting lenses cheaply (i.e. without lensed adapters).

This does work, and works well.. Cheaply for Full manual, electric lens adapters are costlier

>You shouldn't really skimp on lenses. Depending on what you're doing, a tripod might be a better solution.

I Do have a tripod already. it's just like for some still imagery that i just like that fast shutter speed (Also good for video obviously) Normally i'd agree not to skimp on lenses, but usually i use that argument for choosing between two average priced lenses... Seems like a good babbys first fast lens - which is kinda what this would be for me

>>2725518
Have any example pics?

>Severe Vignetting

Is it really that bad?

>>2724479
neat

File: why does sonic attract so many autists.jpg (50KB, 500x402px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 500x402px

>>2724479
Photo composition/autism thread? LGTSS

>>2724482
Niccceee.

first for subject, light, and opportunity make for pictures, not fancy gear. it's more important to know how to make the most of what you have, than to buy a shiny toy.

also pentax a shit :^)

>>2721365

Anybody?

It's figuratively driving me insane. It's a huge annoyance having to save one place and then move them to the place you really wanted them to be.

>>2723440
This, but haven't we all fallen to this trap?

People feel the need to possess new equipment because they're not actually getting anywhere with their current equipment. They presume that upgrading equipment will improve their photography, but as we all know this isn't the case.

>>2717546

for starters he seems to cyan the fuck out of the blues

>>2717546
He may tone multiple copies of the image then stack them as layers and basically fade and adjust to get the various tones in together.
Since it's a lot of cyan and red at play there he could be doing a very red layer, a very blue layer then the standard image on top and just erasing through certain parts of the standard image to bring the colour through.

It's a rough idea but I could imagine it would replicate it to some extent.

>>2717546
I don't see were the problem is. Give me a similar shot and I will grade it for you with the exact same look, and I can give you a detailed instruction then.

File: Brother-DCP-7065DN.jpg (53KB, 531x496px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 531x496px

>>2717359
Pic related is my printer/scanner. I'm also going to community college so that also might be an option, although I haven't took a photography class or know anyone in that department. Walgreens/CVS scans photos, the results aren't very good though from what I've researched.

File: cbe9caa5_5f624078_3fa8_4e37_8103_c6f3ad21a49a.jpg (81KB, 912x684px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 912x684px

This if I'm making a large print and/or for paid work.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SAMSUNG TECHWIN
Camera Model	NV40, VLUU NV40, LANDIAO NV103, VLUU NV404
Camera Software	809011
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	34 mm
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.9
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2009:11:04 16:56:49
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown
Exposure Time	1/10 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	200
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	6.20 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	912
Image Height	684

File: canon-canoscan-8800f.jpg (36KB, 530x397px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 530x397px

>>2717381
and this the other 99% of the time.

help?????

>>2724921
Could you truly not have used google for this?

>>2724941
suppose I could. can you answer my question?

I am the Führer. I will also be a curator of this fucking book. Don't have the nerves to wait for Iggy put his shit together this time. Color & B/W. Every anon can submit three images.

Anyone against what I just wrote? No? Good. The entire thing (rules etc) will be posted tomorrow.

Who wants to be a curator?

>>2723473

No curation this year. It's antithetical to /p/ and the democratic nature of 4chins.

>>2723463
Whats ISI's instagram account? Who the fuck is isi