ITT We tell thruths about photography that we learned first hand

>>2887161
If you call someone an idiot a thousand times they'll eventually become an idiot.

>Film photography is an uncreative medium for photographers who can't handle full control of their photos
>Even if you shoot film, you're a joke unless you develop and scan your own film
>You're just a hobbyist unless you've made money for photography or done gallery work
>you're a fucking idiot if you shoot jpeg and can't justify it with being a sports photographer or photojournalist
>your brand/gear loyalty is idiotic
>petapixel is clickbait buzzfeed tier journalism, don't read it
>nobody cares about your Iceland photos
>flickr is literal shit and should only be used for archiving
>Leica shooters are laughing stocks
>your b&w photos suck
>you're a cuck if you ever do work for free

>>2887161
>the sunny 16 rule underexposes by a stop or so
the sunny 16 rule is arbitrary and absolutely unreliable given how fast and unnoticeably fluid eye accomodation is to changing light conditions.
The only reason it ever works is people's ignorance over what exactly a properly exposed negative constitutes (being able to salvage a workable image off a very wide range of over/underexposure with digitisation means as many as there are) and the obscenely wide exposure latitude of film emulsions that's a truly underappreciated and rarely fully realised thing to account for.

"Sunny 16" when yielding reproducible good results is an ignorant way of indicating one has acquired enough observational experience with film to properly estimate the lighting conditions based on weather, time of year, time of day etc. To a greenhorn it's completely useless and promotes very bad habits. Lightmeters have existed since the early XX century for a reason.

>>2887168
>cuck

Almost took you seriously there kiddo.

>>2887162
How is that photography related
Idiot

>>2887168
Downwoted
> :--^))

>>2887177
Kappa XD

>>2887161
Maybe your sunny 16 underexposes. You're the one who has to make the call of when to go down to f/11

>>2887168
How are you not fully in control of your photos with film?

>>2887168
Can't handle full control of photos
>Timmy, why are there nude photos of your sister on your phone
>uuhh I don't know, I wasn't in control

>>2887161

>if you cant edit well you will never make it

>>2887175
THe low qiality of contnt on /p/ isnt not surprsing given the constent name calling an shit taking

>when traveling its better to have a simple kit with a lens or two than having multiple cameras and 3+ lenses for any possible situation that could come up

>if your best pictures don't suit the project you're doing, don't include them.
>meaning>composition, but improving on the latter usually helps you understand the former
>it's good to leave the photos you've made a few days when practical to do so. You'll be able to come at them without as much emotional attachment, and you might find things in them that you missed when shooting
>it's better to take fewer, more considered shots than it is to take a lot of less considered ones. Your hit:miss ratio goes right down
>fixing it in post is a bad attitude to have BUT doing so after doing your best to get the shot you want can result in interesting shots and help you learn new things
>there is no real margin for serendipity with digital outside of spraying and praying and cracking lenses, camera tossing etc
>/p/ is a terrible place to learn about photography but a good place to learn about gear+processing
>you don't need more than 12-16 megapixels for 95-99% of work.
>photography is most rewarding when treated as a craft, rather than an empty technical process

>>2887161
>sunny 16 underexposees by a stop
>Sunny 11 is actual rule

Are you seriously this fucking dumb to believe that a rule that's been followed by photographers for decades, was actually out by a whole stop the entire time.

Fuck off you dumbass dildo.

>>2887203
>Yet here they were, stuck, as it seemed; with neither explaining their view; with neither listening to the other.

>>2887179
Do you even know what he's talking about? Do you even have a clue?
http://naturephotographyblog.squarespace.com/journal/2010/1/12/basic-exposure-theory-the-sunny-f16-rule-explained.html

>>2887203
I'm talking off my own experience. My regular sunny day settings are ISO200 f/11 1/250 and it gives me a correct reading.
THEN again,
>you should always compensate about a stop in daylight
So if you want those clouds not clipping, you bump it up to - you guessed it - f/16
But the meter says you're the clown. So you tell me.
Maybe there isn't a universal truth to this? Wow.
>telling me a one stop underexposure doesn't capture a perfect nature photograph scene
You take it too literal man

>>2887200
5/5

>>2887180
>this

Sunny 16 used to work but the sun got dimmer. Remember how everything was brighter when you were a kid? The colors around you more vibrant? The experiences more fruitful?

f/11 is the new f/16

DOF is a lie

>>2887221
nah that's just the existential misery sinking in

>>2887221
>>2887222
film is the only medium that has the dynamic range and sensitivity to truly capture and reflect the bleakness and existential despair that
permeates these modern times

>photography becomes fun when you stop trying to create art
>photography becomes fun when you stop taking it so seriously

while I'm being an opinionated fuck: sharpness doesn't matter all that much

>>2887227
lel

while I was giggling, I think it's safer to add a stop to f/16 rule. You have more real estate with highlights in film - when I use sunny 16 with digital I tend to do the opposite for the inverse reasons.

>>2887191
Right? Where is better?

>>2887246
Nowhere. You're damned if you do damned if you don't.

Either you get worthless praise or wothless hate.

Almost nobody you'll meet in photography world really thoroughly understands what they're doing.
If you want something done right, do it yourself.

Your camera does matter, but at the same time, if you can't work out how to take good photos with literally any camera you're given, you're probably a shitty photographer.
I don't mean "If you can't take low light action shots with a box brownie loaded with velvia you're garbage", I mean if you were given that camera and couldn't find a way to get any kind of good picture.

>natural light photographer
>digital photographer
>concert photographer

>>Autofocus should be kept to sports and wildlife guys. Otherwise, people care about it way too much

f/64 is the only aperture that should be used.

>>2887264
look everyone, it's the ghost of ansel adams

Don't even aim a camera at kids

I hate digital photography because its too easy to take a lot of pictures and fuck going through them afterwards

Too many gear threads in any photo website/board

I do it because its a fun hobby. I've seen more things in Las Vegas (my home) than if I did not pick up photography.

>>2887264
t. Ansel

>>2887263

how about street photography?

>>2887161
Sunny 16 exposes for highlights you dingus, you're supposed to just raise shadows

>>2887294
Nope

>>2887172
Ive learned that no one cares what creepy polish dudes that dont even take photos think, too

>>2887221
there was a study that explained that childhood memories are remembered with brighter color because of the penal gland. When you get older it shrivles and your brain reorganizes functions to a more logical and blander wave thus things are not as colorful and imaginative

also your eyes degrade when you get older and it isn't as sharp with focus and color interpretation

>>2887294
no, you set your focus to around 2-3 feet ahead of you and keep it at manual SP is up close not 10-20 feet away

File: jack visits anne frank.png (618KB, 810x810px) Image search: [Google]

618KB, 810x810px

>>2887347
>penal

>>2887347
>When you get older it shrivels

But please don't stop ingesting fluoride anons, it is good for you

>>2887347
wow this doesn't reek of new-age bullshit at all!
the pineal gland does nothing of note except produce melatonin, a sleep hormone

>>2887216
I know exactly what he's talking about. What I'm saying if your 'reading' of the light is underexposing at 16 then you need to compensate, either by dropping a stop of shutter speed or opening up by a stop. It's not complicated

>>2887253
>Your camera does matter, but at the same time, if you can't work out how to take good photos with literally any camera you're given, you're probably a shitty photographer.

I won't deny that there's some merit to this line of thinking, but I think people often take it too far when discussing photography, probably as an overreaction to gearfags.

I think the whole idea of a "good photo" is flawed, at least in the context of forums etc. To a lot of people, that simply means a shot worth putting on flickr or in the RPT, and yeah, pretty much any gear can do that. When you hit the point where you've got a more concrete idea of what you want to shoot before you shoot it, though, and especially when you're shooting for somebody else, gear really starts to become critical.

I'm not sure if I realized how true that last paragraph is until these last few months, even after almost two decades of serious photography. I recently switched systems and haven't rebuilt my full lens lineup yet, and it's really frustrating looking at something, knowing the shot I want to take, and not being able to do it because I don't have the right focal length for it. (This is particularly true with ultrawides, by the way. You can pretty much always get closer to a subject, but you often can't get further away.)

>>2887382
I mean apropos of this, my work with a technical camera is pretty good. I get what I want in one exposure, I get what I envisage, well composed etc

but I genuinely cannot work well with digital without a lot of shooting. I don't know why but I only come close if I treat it like a tech camera. I don't think this necessarily means the camera is better or worse or I'm a wholly bad photog - it's just finding what you're good with

it's like these digital rev camera challenges - the shots really are quite shit from them - Flickr-tier street of "quirky" subjects with a pikachu camera. Yet their normal work is much better. I don't think it's just adjusting to a new setup - it's having a setup that really is right for you, for whatever reasons

>>2887382

what is RPT?

>>2887394
What's funny is I actually wrote a wall of text and then shortened it, and mentioned those DRTV challenges in the original. They're a really good example of exactly what I'm talking about.

Another good example I'm reminded of is when Jason Lanier shot football with Sony and got some nice images, and all of the fanboys immediately started crowing that the A7 was a pro DSLR killer. Yes, he got a few solid images, ones that impress the uninitiated, but from a professional's perspective, all that matters is whether he got a really good shot of whatever specific moment the editor wants to put on top of the article, and there's nothing to indicate that the system can be trusted to ensure that. That's the difference between "a good photo" and the photo you need, and where the gear difference really comes into effect.

That's not to say that experience and skill aren't huge factors too, though. You could give me a D5, a 400 2.8, and a sideline pass to an NFL game, and as I'm a quite experienced action shooter I'm sure I could fill a thread with photos that impressed /p/, but as I'm not a football shooter I'm not at all confident that I'd get the shots to satisfy an editor.

>>2887412
Recent Photo Thread, i.e. here on /p/.

>>2887172
the fuck? sunny 16 doesn't rely on your eye beyond "is it cloudy? am I in the sun? the shade under hard sun?"

>>2887412
lurk moar

>>2887342
hey

>>2887382
>I recently switched systems and haven't rebuilt my full lens lineup yet, and it's really frustrating looking at something, knowing the shot I want to take, and not being able to do it because I don't have the right focal length for it.

I understand what you mean, but you're forcing yourself into a box with this way of thinking. Sure you can't make the image that first comes to your mind, but that doesn't mean you can take a photo of the same subject using lenses you already own. That's where creativity and problem solving comes into play. If you see something, instantly know what exactly you need, then you're falling into stereotyping scenes and just going through the motions instead of critically looking at the scene objectively without any bias towards particular gear.

> no single sunset (or trope) is inherently interesting unless accompanied by many other tropes (mountains)
> you can make any photo better by adding a person, popularity points of its some ugly semi fat blonde instawhore model
> the moment you say "shoutout to film" on your page you irreversibly become a faggot
> both film and digital are fine
> anything looks good at 9pm or 5am

>>2887529
I get what you're saying, but at least in my area, there are a lot of cool shots I'd like to take that can't be done without a wide lens, simply because of space constraints. Right now my widest is a 35 equivalent, and I just can't back up far enough to get stuff in the frame.

>>2887238
if you're not making art, then what are you making?

>>2887556
Photos. I like taking photos of my friends, I don't really consider them anything more than that. Sure they're one step above the snapshits that most people take on their phones but that doesn't make them art

>>2887556
sometimes it's better to make art out of the photogrphy you "just do".

A real pitfall - especially in academic circles - seems to be this idea of making a clearly conceptalised series of photographs and once that series is made it's DONE. You can NEVER use old photographs, etc etc

When some good work has been made by literally going about life, photographing what they want to, and making the series afterwards. Sometimes they don't even have series, it's just temporary collections and arrangements.

imo that's a more honest approach to expression than arbitrary and limited groupings of one subject

Someone like Tillmans is an obvious example but Diane Arbus and Alex Strohl have basically the same process.

>>2887172
absolutely retarded, as usual

http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1.htm#EV

>Your camera doesn't matter
>Your lens doesn't matter
>Your film/sensor doesn't matter
>Your subject doesn't matter
>Your technique doesn't matter
>Sharpness, focus, blur etc. doesn't matter
>Whether, how or how much you post process/do darkroom magic doesn't matter

Nothing matters. Except emotions. And I'm not certain about even that.

I'm not talking about more journalistic types of photography obviously.

File: thumbs up.jpg (36KB, 525x481px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 525x481px

>>2887161
The greatest photography truth I know is that everyone on /p/ has a massive fucking chip on their shoulder and feels inadequate for one reason or another.

File: ken.png (51KB, 300x252px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 300x252px

>>2887921
Now onto why you should buy latest Canon high-end camera with an L-lens prime to shoot shapes of colors on your full frame sensor from a tripod to maximize sharpness and minimze blur to get your shots in focus

>>2887934
>the internet as a whole