Thread replies: 17
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2
File: DSC00681.jpg (2MB, 6000x3376px) Image search:
[Google]
2MB, 6000x3376px
A picture I took with my Sony a6000 shortly after a rain storm hit. Perhaps any other close-up/macro shots?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SONY Camera Model ILCE-6000 Camera Software Windows Photo Editor 10.0.10011.16384 Maximum Lens Aperture f/5.6 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 190 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 350 dpi Vertical Resolution 350 dpi Image Created 2016:05:13 06:52:21 Exposure Time 1/250 sec F-Number f/5.6 Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 100 Brightness 8.1 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 127.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 6000 Image Height 3376 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal
>>
>>2880054
RESIZE
E
S
I
Z
E
>>
>>2880055
quality contribution, buddy. i'm sure that 1.77 megs are just killing your internet.
>>
>>
Whoops. Posted the original, and not the resized. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
>>
>>2880059
K friend. Next time don't be a lil' bitch about it, and I just MIGHT take your advice seriously. ;)
>>
>>2880058
No, but nobody wants to see 20,000,000 pixels of snapshit garbage.
>>
>>2880054
i must admit its kind of impressive how sony seems to have managed to fashion optics out of feces though.
>5.6
>dat sharpness
>>
I wouldn't mind the resolution if there was ANY DETAIL AT ALL in this picture. Honestly if you're this bad at shooting you might as well be using a 6mp pentax
>>
>>2880266
BUT MUH SONY MASTERRACE ALL OTHER MANUFACTURERS ARE KEKS
KEK KEK KEK
also holy shit that hideously ugly bokeh
>>
>>2880054
crappy bokeh balls.
>>
>>2880054
set your image quality to 3:2.
>>
>>2880151
browser resize nigga do you even speak it
>>
>>2880494
I never recall me ever saying, "BUT MUH SONY MASTERRACE ALL OTHER MANUFACTURERS ARE KEKS." Is it a problem that I state the camera I used, so people can know what camera they are judging? If it is a problem for you, so-be-it; I don't really care.
>>
File: 1452292709281.gif (1MB, 499x341px) Image search:
[Google]
1MB, 499x341px
>>2882546
It's not you, but this board has a history of many extremely volatile Sony fanboy shitposters who would accuse all the other manufacturers and their users of cuckoldry any time somebody brought up anything other than Sony cameras since they used Sony-fabbed sensors. And then they kept trying to perpetrate the unfounded myth that Sony was going to cease selling those sensors to third parties and the world as ending and the sky was falling and soon the Sony overlords would take their rightful place at the head of the universe.
I think because of those things people here have kind of a knee-jerk reaction to Sonyposting...There's a long history of threads being ruined by Sony shitposters and now there's a lot of counter-shitposting as evidenced by this thread.
>>
>>2880054
Resize your cliche macro flower snapshit. Read the sticky. Try harder next time.
>>
>>2882546
>so people can know what camera they are judging?
We're not here to judge your camera, we're here to judge your photography.
It just happens that both are shit.
Thread posts: 17
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2