Oompa Loompa doopity doe Let's start the moopco marketing

new sticky pls

shit thread

I've been called a fag many times in my life; they say my mom regretted have me and should've aborted; that my father left home after he recognize I would be a total failure. But nothing in my life was so embarrassing, and nothing in my life could've offended me more than when someone tagged me as 'moop' back in some other thread.

You hit me hard, anon.

>>3072675
pft, anyone can tell you're a yank

>>3072651
How did he hurt you anon, do you need someone to talk to?

This is cringey af.
Kys anon.

>>3072651

10/10 well done

>>3072651
sticky pls
also old choco factory >>>>>> new choco factory

>>3072657
>>3072773
fugg off moopco i will fuggin saturate you

>>3072863
Thank you Sugar. I like your photos by the way they help make /p/ somewhat less shitty.

>>3072651
>that orange skin
Is this a Lanier?

>>3072949
>not knowing about Oompa Loompas

File: 20170509_164540.jpg (3MB, 4656x2620px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4656x2620px

>Implying Canon and Nikon offer anything remotely competitive to an EVF and chimp-less shooting with AF that never lets go

So much denial in this forum, you'd swear some still shot on film :3

>>3072949
They were supposed to be black.

But then they decided hard working blacks was too unrealistic.

>>3073035
>chimp-less shooting

You know you just develop your skills, right?

>>3073035

>chimp-less

It's called Continuous Auto-Chimp, actually.

>>3073040
>you know you just arbitrarily make things more difficult, right.

Does Sony still have completely unacceptable rolling shutter? I haven't kept up.

File: DSC_2571.jpg (567KB, 1280x854px) Image search: [Google]

567KB, 1280x854px

Sony is the brand for those with finer taste in the arts.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D750
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.9 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	814
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	102 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2017:05:09 19:16:37
Exposure Time	1/80 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	1600
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	102.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: DSC02343.jpg (5MB, 7776x5187px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 7776x5187px

>>3073086
Canon and Nikon:

"Oh wait my photo is blown out now because of real life, lemme just hope this extra dab of shutter speed will be enough"

versus

Sony: "Oh look, my EVF says I'm already over exposed, lemme just adjust this until it's not aaaaand *click*"

Every single 1DX photographer I come across goes fucking dumb quiet the moment I explain no megapixel, CF card, bufferless shooting overcomes 14FPS RAW at 42MP and never needing to wonder about your settings ever again.

Oh, did I mention focus peaking IN the viewfinder meaning I am faster manually focusing with Rokinon lenses than anyone with a Canon/Nikon lens and dim lighting?

Feels good to be masterrace.

>inb4 "hurrr use Aperture Priority"

>>3073088
http://www.sony.com/electronics/interchangeable-lens-cameras/ilca-99m2

Sony a99II and other high end mirrorless models from them are being stated on forums from quick searching that there is no rolling shutter on these models, and Sony specifically, on the A99 II product page has a section discussing this using a golfer's swing.

>>3073197
>goes fucking dumb quiet
They probably realized that you were an idiot and bit their lip.

>>3073197
My camera already tells me the exposure level, light metering isn't anything new. It's been around for a while. Also, at least Nikons, pretty sure canons too, you get to see a histogram and which parts of the photo are overexposed and blown out. Thirdly, (you) actually need a meter to tell what settings to use on a camera? get in line newb, I feel sorry. Why the hell would you use aperture priority, jfc, figure out the shutter speed on a typical setting you shoot at, it isn't hard.

>>3073203

Okay sonyshill, it has gotten better (not gone completely though. But that's true to an extent for all non global shutter cameras). However just for funsies, for substantially less why not go gh5 + speedbooster or for around the same price blackmagic?

File: DSC07854.jpg (3MB, 3936x2188px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3936x2188px

>>3073228
>>3073218

>inb4 focus peaking, zebra lines and implying the entire point of live view means
i'd need a meter XD

That pentaprism shooting blind life must be real nice, feels good getting the shot than excusing archaic technology because Canon and Nikon innovated absolutely nothing until based SONY stole the mirrorless market.

Ebin :>)

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	SLT-A99V
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.4 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	20 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:02:10 10:51:38
Exposure Time	1/10 sec
F-Number	f/9.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/9.0
Brightness	-2.6 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Other
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	20.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Soft
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Hard

A fine example of True Poetry

File: 16700213_832954216853828_4473215470524770515_o.jpg (482KB, 1366x2048px) Image search: [Google]

482KB, 1366x2048px

>>3073232
You can, but give up EVF, lenses (Minolta and 3rd party) and at that point should look at dedicated video cameras since <30m record limit

>>3073228
Start shooting at high MP and quality glass and come back when you can absolutely nail every shot without micro-blur and never need a histogram logically placed in the viewfinder to let you know you can push your shutter speed and not risk losing too much to being blown out because you can edit in post.

Boy, you can't even fathom how much I know. Try again and stop denying the rectal hurt Sony put on the entire market and the preconceived notions of photographers still stuck on flapping mirrors.

>>3073197
>>3073233
>>3073237

I can't stop laughing about you! hahah what the fuck your watermark

geez, /p/ is reaching another level!

>>3073197
They went silent because they realized they are dealing with a complete talentless newfag moron that needs a camera to do the work for them.

I never ever had any trouble nailing the exposure with any of my dslrs. However, with all of the evfs I've ever used from pretty much all major brands (yes, sony included), they all get ass blasted in high contrast sunlight by ovf's. You barely see a damn thing with sunglasses on. In dark though, I can see really well and with technique ovf is usable, whereas an evf only shows noise and lag.

Oh right. Sonyggers don't go outside or actually talk to people, besides screeching autistically. Silly me.

File: 17631999_861596897322893_5081875181754300887_o.jpg (515KB, 2048x2048px) Image search: [Google]

515KB, 2048x2048px

>>3073238
I leave it on my shots to trigger all of /p/ since this place is just like Tumblr with a lot more shilling.

This made my date night, told my girl I could set fire to this forum and be remembered.

That means my watermark worked :>)

>>3073203
>and Sony specifically, on the A99 II product page has a section discussing this using a golfer's swing.
Ever since Sony changed their bit on the A7's weather sealing to "moisture and dust resistant", I've been hesitant to believe anything they list on their website.

File: stoptrying.jpg (614KB, 768x768px) Image search: [Google]

614KB, 768x768px

>>3073240
yeah, it's working.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2017 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2048
Image Height	2048
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:05:10 00:37:48
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	768
Image Height	768

File: 17855586_10212113217042312_3501256098560353152_o.jpg (290KB, 1365x2048px) Image search: [Google]

290KB, 1365x2048px

>>3073242
That's called bad editing, not the camera. If you're going to attack me, try to come at me by showing you actually can even look at a photo and differentiate what the fuck went wrong.

File: 17761026_10212113223602476_2425343145876307883_o.jpg (199KB, 2048x2048px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 2048x2048px

>>3073241
I totally get that, but then again, Canon did it:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/30001236

Nikon tried to blow off the D800 range's oil problem with the sensor.

To nitpick any company on the occasional times they messed up like this is to ignore the overall trend:

Sony is the only one pushing cameras to a new space of form factor versus capability, while Canon and Nikon were willing to fleece loyal customers into a neverending pit of incremental upgrades and locking off advanced features behind huge price jumps.

>>3073246
its both
good lenses dont do that, even overedited
look at an isi thread

>>3073241

They changed the rating before the a7 was released.

They haven't really gone back on anything so far.

File: WIN_20170509_23_50_36_Pro.jpg (1MB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2560x1440px

Welp, we got a shoot in the morning. Leave your excuses here, she's been feeling Sony lately since using my camera instead of her Canon and she'll need to see how moronic the logic is to become invested in stagnant brands.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Intel Corporation
Camera Model	OV5693
Camera Software	Exif Software Version 2.2
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2560
Image Height	1440
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:05:09 23:50:36
Exposure Time	4181/125000 sec
F-Number	f/2.0
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	2164
Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Brightness	0 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	2.71 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2560
Image Height	1440
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3073250

It is a shit hdr merge it looks like.

The leaves were moving so the merge shit itself.

>>3073250
It was LR's auto-select under the brush; I should have deselected that and rounded out the edges with a softer brush to prevent that hard edge pop but hey. I was drunk and heading back from Cancun when I did it :>)

>>3073252
watch out brother - i think you're girl OD'd, better break out the narcan

File: vncZ8J3.gif (2MB, 443x185px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 443x185px

>>3073254
>>3073250
Either way, whatever it was, it based tf out of some self-proclaimed expert with no photos to prove and a ton of time to obsess about showing us a problem they didn't understand.

10/10 that's why I come here over DPReview.

>>3073254
No, you should have gotten the photo right in the first place so it didn't require extensive editing to save it.
You've convinced yourself you're an artist for the fact that you know how to cover up mistakes. Embarassing.

>>3073256
What? Why do you come here over DPReview forums? Because there are self-proclaimed experts with no photos on here, while over there everyone is actually a photographer?

>>3073260
believe it or not, /p/ is he least gearfagging place on the internet

File: Captured-Society-4414.jpg (5MB, 5057x7581px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 5057x7581px

>>3073257
>Got the photo right in the first place

That ebin moment when you know you did and screwed up the editing, and someone can't accept they're too noob to spot an obvious LR editing error from brush auto-select.

>>3073260
/4/chan is just funnier since the weaboos post here but are too pussy to go on DPReview to get judged.

Meh, I'll leave one of my newer photos shot with my new setup since this place is too noob to differentiate between pre/post problems.

It's fun pretending to be this cocky :>)

>>3073269
welcome back capsoc, make more threads, they're a good laugh

>>3073252
Richard Persaud? Is that you? You live in Queens right?
My boy knows your girl. Says she likes his thick arab scepter. Says you should take your brothers advice.

Peace out little man.

>>3073269
>inb4 "muh CA" implying this isn't wide open @1.4 on a sunny day 40 degrees off sun axis

>>3073269
missed your focus faggot

File: reddit top voted picture.jpg (886KB, 2368x2368px) Image search: [Google]

886KB, 2368x2368px

>>3073264
www.reddit.com/r/itookapicture is the best photo community on the web

is it a supportive and constructive community? yes.
is it focused on sharing and discussing actual photographs? yes.
does the reddit voting system mean that good content gets recognized and bad content gets shitcanned quickly? yes...
do they have mandatory usernames so that everyone is associated automatically with all the previous content they've posted? yes....!
do they ban anyone who uses curse words or other "abusive language," so you don't need to worry about people bullying you? yes!!!
is this boring entry level instagram picture the current top voted photo on there? HELL YEA BOI!!!

File: well+thats+just+like+your+opinion+man+_6df49c641acb94497090d282f2cc853d.gif (125KB, 294x199px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 294x199px

>>3073273
>thick Arab scepter

I'm literally dying that you think that could even phase me, implying one Google search can't bring up who I am or that I don't want to be found.

So mad I should an hero like my brother? Do you have a girlfriend? How about this place who knows my ex, who I ditched for a true woman like who I have now?

Git gud faget, 2/10 to make me respond but still giggle like the girl I'm going to bed with rn. How's that hand working for ya?

>>3073272
Thanks, this place is too boring and honestly, I'm back to shooting now that I've realized chasing money and supercars can't replace having quality relationships and love.

>>3073279
>How about this place who knows my ex, who I ditched for a true woman like who I have now?
You mean the trannies you used to date? Yeah, I know about that too.

You just deleted your twitter account, but no you're not phased. Not one bit.

>>3073279
welcome back <3

File: 17854655_10212113216482298_9164273542415252457_o.jpg (287KB, 1366x2048px) Image search: [Google]

287KB, 1366x2048px

>>3073276
Now I missed my focus -.-

Download, loupe, and cry.

>>3073278
Exactly, /4/chan is the only place no one wants to circle jerk and be PC about people's technique.

At least here I can be attacked personally because you can't beat me on technicality. At this point I'm ignoring my woman to respond, so I hope some of these idiots make it good XD

Gotta pull photos from my FB since I'm not home to get my originals for most of them.

>>3073279
Tell Natty that Daddy Abdula is ready whenever you're not ;)))

>>3073284
>trannies I used to "date"
">points out deleted twitter from last month
>obviously stalking

You're cute, can I fuck you in the ass too? Sorry I'm so alpha I can get raped, talk about it, and now help others who were and felt similarly confused, you're a big man for resorting to personal attacks because you're going to bed alone tonight :>)

Keep stalking me, it's people like you who watched me come from nothing to living your dreams faggot. Guess who's going to bed smiling tonight ;)

>>3073286
Thank you <3

>>3073288
still looks soft as fuck. maybe its your lens and not the focus lol.

>>3073292
Wait, did you actually get raped by a tranny? I was just throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks.
Didn't realize you were not only a rape victim, but the most emasculated type of rape victim.

Wanna talk about it? Did you know she was a tranny before it happened?

File: 13094166_652826001533318_7770032928368322243_n.jpg (50KB, 960x640px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 960x640px

>>3073294
>implying you haven't just scraped my history to know my twitter was gone and now wanna cover up your faggotry

Keep stalking me sweetheart, the only shit you're throwing is your own inability to love where you are in life <3

>>3073293
Just checked it in LR, if it's rendered properly on what you view you can see arm hair and pore detail.

>>3073296
Is that the transgender woman who raped you? Is she serving time for it?

File: Captured-Society-4377.jpg (2MB, 5304x5304px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 5304x5304px

>>3073301
>still trying this hard

Do you realize you're only providing laughs for my gf and I (really me since she laughed you off and went back to bed saying I'm still getting laid tonight so thank you for that :3) while I waste your time obsessing about how this little brown guy is doing shit you obviously only dream of since you can't show us who you are yet? You show off why you're stuck being salty on /4/chan while some of us can actually leave and come back to laugh at you.

You're so adorable <3

>>3073304
Not that guy, but this is an anonymous board for a reason, faget. Expect anything from a massive load of pizzas to the fbi knocking on your door.

>getting raped by a tranny
Ahahahaha oh lord don't tell me you didn't want that D :D jfc you're the most pathetic shitskin I've seen in a while and your pics are fucking trash :D

Should also get checked for std's, I hear over 60% of nig.. african americans have herpes.

Thanks for the laffs!

>>3073304
how exactly do you get raped by a tranny? most of them can't even get erections without taking viagra can they?
sounds like you planned on it then felt insecure.

It's still not proper for you to refer to your girlfriend as a "real woman" and not the woman who had a bigger cock than you.

>>3073304
listen up dumbass, I know you're trying to sound dismissive and nonchalant and cool. but instead you sound super defensive and insecure, and now there's blood in the water. just disengage from this conversation or else you're going to look like an even bigger dumbass.

>>3073035
>>3073197
>>3073237
>>3073233
>>3073240
>>3073246
>>3073248
>>3073252
>>3073256
>>3073269
>>3073274
>>3073279
>>3073288
>>3073292
>>3073296
>>3073300
>>3073304
holy shit fucking kill yourself you cancerous newcunt, and I mean that wholeheartedly

File: 1490105794027.gif (964KB, 397x658px) Image search: [Google]

964KB, 397x658px

>>3073197
>>3073233
>>3073237
>>3073240
>claims to be full of knowledge and experience
>can't take a single decent photo to save his delusional, fucking bleak existence of a life
>has to constantly mention his imaginary "girl" to cover his insecurities
wew you sure showed us!

>>3073250
Isi doesn't use bokeh,
Because fuji bokeh is nervous and crunchy as hell.

>>3073304
Don't worry about it, you're in a thread that's spawned from jealousy of a dude with mental and physical disabilities. No life, incel faggots will go to great lengths to try and prove that their "better" than other people.

>>3073345
>>3073333
>>3073313
>>3073311
>>3073309
Just look at this no-life samefag.
Who is this obsessed over transexuals, apart from losers and ultra virgins?

>>3073366
Hey moopco

>>3073376
No, but hi no-friend aspie-tard, how's it going?

>>3073379
>>3073376
>the greatest trick the devil played, was convincing the world he doesn't exist.

moop i miss you mang

>>3073366
>incel faggots will go to great lengths to try and prove that their "better" than other people
You mean just like what capturedsociety has done constantly in this thread, and like what you do in every thread/deiscord? LMAO holy shit kill yourself moopco, fucking please. How can you be this much of a hypocritical, cancerous retard while still believing you're some special snowflake?

>>3073197
>knocks dslr users for overexposing.
>posts this
The sky man. You're not Ken Rockwell.

>>3073381
>done constantly in this thread
You mean someone googled him, dug up the worst they could of his past and tried to make him feel bad about it? And capsoc owned it like a fucking boss.
Also, I'm not moopco.

Who are you?

>>3072651
keked

>>3073381
Yeh, but why are you so obsessed with tranny rape?

>>3073386
Owned what? Black tranny cock?
You're supposed to aim for the boipussy

>>3073386
>You mean someone googled him, dug up the worst they could of his past and tried to make him feel bad about it?
Gee I wonder why, it's almost as if the faggot came here with a cancer attitude, just like all you sonyggers, acted like a cunt and then cries when people bite back.
>b-but what they said were mean and personal
Where do you stupid cunts think you are?

>Also, I'm not moopco.
Stop assuming we're as braindead as yourself, you stupid fuck
>defending moopco
>constantly claims people are jealous of him
>actually believes this
It so hilariously obvious, who other than yourself would actually believe other people are jealous of a literal retard who leeches off welfare and contributes absolutely nothing to this world lol

>>3073393
Man, you don't sound salty at all.
I guess you were right all along.

>>3073393
Dis cringe, kek

>>3073400
>>3073401
>samefagging
wew, classic rebuttal

>>3072651
>wahhh anon has gear
>wahhh anon has better gear than me
>wahhh anon talks about gear to those that ask
>wahhh anon said mean things about my gear
>wahhh I need anon to kill themselves because I need my safe space

A wahhhhmbulance has been dispatched to your location anon, sit tight.

>>3072651
bit salty there veruca?

>>3073438
Bit samefaggy there samefag?

>>3073393
There must be some reason you're so obsessed with him anon.

Share your feelings, how did he hurt you?

>>3073433
OP has you completely outclassed my man.

>>3073462
No you haven't, you've been triggered by a 4chan user so badly you felt the need to create a thread crying about them.
What could they have done to upset you so much? Fuck your nan, kill your dog, or imply that you have inferior photography equipment?
You lost this fight the moment you posted the thread.

>>3073475
Are the walls closing in on you?

I'm just sitting in the peanut gallery enjoying the show.

Your role here is as a source of amusement. You know, like the gimp in that Tarantino flick.

>>3073478
>heh heh, this is exactly what i wanted, heh

File: WIN_20170510_12_24_49_Pro.jpg (759KB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

759KB, 2560x1440px

Sorry guys, I woke up and had... priorities ;D

BTW, I don't need to elaborate on what happened to me to know for sure that anyone who finds it funny, has deep seated issues and explains why they lurk here <3

>>3073381
Lmao no, I actually used empirical evidence and something you can learn if you'd spend less time on /4/chan and more shooting, about. You're just mad you and your "friends" can't attack me on technical and have to go to personal attacks to seem superior.

>>3073381
Still posting nothing but vapid attempts to seem superior online. Go get your fedora.

>>3073309
This anon board has a name field because one can choose not to be. I expect everything /4/chan can throw and legally can get out of it all so ask me if I care :>)

>>3073313
Yet you're the one who kept replying and got asshurt

>>3073383
>Thinking the sky is overexposed
You're right, I check LR histograms and that photo specifically only had the sun blown out. Try again :>)

Let's light this fuse again <3 My girl is up now and we need some more fun at your expenses :3

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Intel Corporation
Camera Model	OV5693
Camera Software	Exif Software Version 2.2
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2560
Image Height	1440
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:05:10 12:24:49
Exposure Time	4599/125000 sec
F-Number	f/2.0
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	398
Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Brightness	0 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	2.71 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2560
Image Height	1440
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: wdEem9n.gif (981KB, 432x324px) Image search: [Google]

981KB, 432x324px

>>3073478
Translation:

I'm sitting on /4/chan bitter that I got called out for being so jealous of people who can actually shit on your existence without nary a personal attack that you now have to defend the fact that you stayed up all night arguing with someone else because you can't handle going to bed alone.

Cash me outside, how bout dah?

>>3073475
Didn't moopco make a thread about isi last year..
:thinking:

>>3073659
Can you explain this Moopco and ISI thing to me? I haven't been on here really since last year February-ish, last I knew Rockwell was still /p/'s favorite photographer.

File: leftarm1.jpg (167KB, 1536x2048px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 1536x2048px

>>3073587
ayy scar buddies
Mine's from a dog attack. What's hers?

File: Screenshot_2017-04-26-11-06-37.png (3MB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1440x2560px

>>3073680
Being a real NYC nigga that's what rofl that's her badge of honor to me <3

She asked me to leave these weaboos with something nice so here's something for all the haters to fap to tonight <3

>>3073673
isi is a fujifag, tripfag, tranny, and all around decent to good photographer
Moopco is a sonyfag, colorblind, literally autistic guy who has been obsessed with trying to one-up isi for 2 years. There's little evidence he takes photographs at all.

Isi has a website; jamiewilliams.22slides.Com
Moopco does not afaik.

>>3073687
So ISI is basically the antichrist of /p/ being everything they hate, while her website is chock full of doing shit other than whining here.

While Moopco is unfortunately relying on superior gear to bolster ego without any real representation of skill.

wew lad

www.500px.com/capturedsociety if you need a Sony shooter's portfolio.

>>3073700
Isi has no life beyond /p/ and taking snapshots

>>3073709
That explains it, although her website is actually bretty gud considering it shows a lot of footwork and actual practice versus oompa loompa songs :>)

>>3073712
isi shoots jpeg instead of raw

File: 1483392890810.jpg (58KB, 431x437px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 431x437px

>>3073713

>>3073713
if you're a good photographer, that's not a bad thing with Fuji cameras.
It's just a different workflow. Digital film.

>>3073715
Personal preference dictates that if one took the time to lug the camera and take a shot, one can easily add a small amount of workflow investment to avoid losing a glorious photo to lossy compression.

That's my take on it, I only believe photojournalists and people with absolute shite computers, or total noobs, should still shoot in JPEG. Nowadays, you can even RAW convert OTG with tablets so...

Which Fuji exactly? Curious if she's rangefinding or using a compact/mirrorless

>>3073719
>one can easily add a small amount of workflow investment to avoid losing a glorious photo to lossy compression.
What lossy compression? Jpeg fine doesn't have lossy compression.
The workflow of shooting jpegs doesn't involve not making decisions, it involves making them before you take the image. Having a specific library of image conditions to call upon for consistency's sake. Consistency of color palette, editing, and aesthetics is much more important than saying your image is 2% sharper because you sharpened the eyes of a model.

If you think jpegs are for amateurs, or that they require less thought than shooting raw (aka Recover All Wrongs format) then you merely indicate that you have never experienced the act of photographing with intent, like a film shooter would.

Your brain works very differently when operating within a set of constraints than when faced with near-infinite choices. Excess options is usually detrimental to creativity. Paralysis by analysis, thats what this concept is called.

Jpeg shooters by their very nature avoid amateur and rookie mistakes like this >>3073242
because they are constrained to reality far more, and not able to abstractly cover their mistakes outside the range of tell-tale signs.

Egoistic attachment to "the process" of shooting raw is, to most photographers, a huge detriment to their ability to think and see photographically.

I'm pretty sure she shoots an xpro2 and an x100f these days.

>>3073715
just because it has film presets doesn't make it digital film, the only aspect of film it has is that it's instantly available to use.

otherwise it has no similar traits, less latitude of post processing

>>3073724
also
>jpegfine doesn't have lossy compression
talk about something you're educated in :^)

File: DSC01069.jpg (3MB, 4000x4000px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4000x4000px

>>3073724
Doesn't jpeg basically compress files by binning pixels that are "similar" together and calling it one color?

Before you go pandering off with statements of egotism, please re-read to see "personal preference", which means I'm saying this is my opinion, not "law".

From my experience handling JPEG's, anything within the highlight/shadow regions that could be recovered would normally be clipped for file compression.

While I understand your methodology to comparing the constraints of JPEG to RAW in terms of the constraints that breed creativity, you obviously ignore the bulk of us who are photographers by trade, who will not risk losing that perfect moment that could have another photographer's flash firing right on yours, or sudden changes in your environment (since I make my bread and butter on nightclubs) means that I need to ensure I have editing latitude.

Besides, this is all art, and who are you to criticize the chef wanting the widest, finest ingredients because the Chinese chef down the block can make tasty food with just a few refrigerated ingredients?

You show your lack of age or maturity by basically taking an opinionated post despite all my defense of said photographer's work as a half assed attempt at an educated response to a zen master.

Please, try again, since JPEG or RAW, we will all be constrained by our lenses, sensors, and basic eyes for creativity, thus negating your argument that one more limiting factor somehow implies being better or worse.

Get rekt newb.

You were the one who implied JPEG's are for amateurs, which shows you ignored my mention of photojournalists, or anywhere where I actually said that.

JPEG shooters often also avoid rookie mistakes by not editing their photos and leaving artifacting from automatic brushes in LR :>)

>>3073734
t. faggot who never actually shot film, who actually believes that in the film days every photographer worked in the darkroom
a faggot with no concept of why c41 exists.

>less latitude of processing
considering that jpeg+raw shooting exists, only a retard could possibly believe this.

>>3073736
>>3073740
Jpeg is only "compressed" in relation to raw in that it has discarded excess data unrelated to the current visualization of the image.
It's had the fat trimmed off.
This is only a bad thing if you don't know what look you're aiming for, and need to twiddle your thumbs in post until it looks acceptable.

This is not the way film shooters approach photography. Shooting jpeg, like shooting film, requires intent. Jpeg shooters are much more likely to use white balance to artistic effect, like film shooters, than raw twiddlers are.

>>3073740
> by not editing their photos and leaving artifacting auto brushes

okay the guy claiming jpeg has no compression and is digital film and (You) are both retarded

seriously sage and educate yourselves first. majority of this boards users are delusional as it is

>>3073740
>you obviously ignore the bulk of us who are photographers by trade, who will not risk losing that perfect moment that could have another photographer's flash firing right on yours
jpeg+raw still exists. you can still edit them in-camera.
you are also not a "photographer by trade", you are just a guy that lives in New York City. You do not make substantial earnings from photography. Your father is also wealthy.

File: foto0547-001-1970931.jpg (551KB, 1800x1200px) Image search: [Google]

551KB, 1800x1200px

>>3073740
>From my experience handling JPEG's, anything within the highlight/shadow regions that could be recovered
if you need to recover your highlights or shadows you don't actually know how to shoot jpegs.

does this look like it needs highlights and shadows saved in post to you? or does it look like the photographer chose parameters to fit the scene before shooting it? Is that contrast a result of jpegs having limited latitude, or of artistic choice?

>>3073748
contrast it to this, which is clearly shot with flatter intentions.
Does this photo need shadow and highlight recovery?

It seems to me that jpeg is the only shooting medium that actually requires a digital photographer to know a thing or two about both photography and intent.

If you "need" raw files to save every shot, it's proper in my estimation to assume that you've never properly exposed a photograph.

File: foto1894-1961262.jpg (947KB, 1800x1200px) Image search: [Google]

947KB, 1800x1200px

>>3073749

>>3073748
>>3073750
dont you understand that to DSLR-babbies, all that seperates them from iphonetographers is "bro, look how far I can drag the shadows slider? this is why you need a real camera that shoots raw!"

Sliderfags don't think it be like it is, but it do

>>3073748
Are you so fucking dense that you can't realize you posting a shot that is controlled and premeditated does not in any way address the fact that this same photographer could whip around and see something cool in the shadows, take a pic, and go "damn if I shot RAW I could just hammer this about three stops up and bam" versus every JPEG I tried that with that ended with massive clipping?

You're literally trying way too hard to justify shooting in JPEG in a world where RAW would offer infinitely more positivities to outweigh the bad.

>>3073744
>Jpeg is only "compressed" in relation to raw in that it has discarded excess data unrelated to the current visualization of the image.
no, again, research jpeg files before pretending to know about it.

i primarily shoot film, albeit sheet, 5x4. if you're gonna compare it to film why just 135 c41? i assume you use Velvia sim a lot don't you?

yea sure jpeg shooters are more likely to have a more artistic approach than raw shooter, i agree, but that's an indirect effect of shooting jpeg vs raw. Direct effects is quality of image and latitude of post processing, once you learn how jpeg compression works, let me know.

>>3073752
Are you so fucking dense that you don't know that when people say Fuji shooters shoot jpegs, they don't mean that they shoot exclusively jpegs?

JPEG + RAW means your camera records a jpeg and a raw file. This is important when your series of cameras has a highly fluid in-camera raw converter that allows independent control over highlights and shadows.

A good photographer by definition, however, can adjust their settings for "something cool in the shadows" without worrying about raw.

What's revealed here is that you can't "see" stops, because you've focused all your attention on Sony cameras and post-production.

Do you even know what "darken the shadows two stops" looks like without a pictogram?

>>3073756
>Direct effects is quality of image and latitude of post processing
>quality of image
Post your website full of quality images, and lets see how they compare to the jpeg quality of a Fuji shooter.
Bet you won't.

>latitude of post processing
JPEG + RAW does not give up post processing latitude.
Almost all film users on the other hand DO give up that latitude, because they don't process the film themselves, except for B&W. They don't now, and they didn't 30 years ago.

Kodachrome was famous because you could find a Kodak shop to develop it even in rural Rhodesia, not because it was fun to work with in the darkroom.

Jpeg compression relates specifically to the latitude of raw files and dng files. It is inherently more compressed than these formats because it has had the "fat", the excess information, trimmed from it.
Once you learn how jpeg compression works, let *me* know.

How does printing those raw files work out?

>>3073758
>post website of full quality images
i don't keep full quality images on my website, and you're right, i won't post it :^) , i print and keep them with me or lend to a gallery.

i do know how to process my film, your example doesn't say film = jpeg it says most film shooters = jpeg shooters.

jpeg compression makes the near-blacks blacks and near-whites whites, hence clipping and less latitude for p-processing, there's a lot more to it but this debate is falling into /g/ topics so i'll leave that.

i don't shoot raw, this entire arguement is about how jpeg is not the equivalent of film in terms of quality and p-processing.

>>3073760
You just don't know how to shoot jpegs while preserving info. Ask Isi for an explainer on expanded DR jpegs. Your arguments are hinged on theoretical clipped blacks and whites on a graph rather than an actual photograph.

You're the one in /g/ territory and it's a coping mechanism. You're also apparently delusional about the state of film and the hipsters that use it.

Have you subscribed to Negative Feedback yet? :)

>>3073760
Shooting jpeg is the same as shooting slide film which is the only film shooting that requires understanding of exposure.
C41 and bw are too forgiving. Like raw.

>>3073760
>jpeg compression makes the near-blacks blacks and near-whites whites, hence clipping and less latitude
Wow you're actually an idiot

>>3073777
>>3073766
>>3073760
>>3073758
>>3073757
>>3073756
>>3073752
>>3073751
>>3073750
kys, youre shitposting for the sake of it

sagepls

bump photo threads instead

>>3073760
>i print and keep them with me or lend to a gallery.
your work has never been shown in a gallery and its sad that you're so insecure that you'd lie about it
my heart goes out to you

File: DSC01825.jpg (1MB, 3664x3664px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3664x3664px

How to rekt the entire thread:

1) Not every photo is a fucking fence in a field that doesn't move. For any photographer that shoots anything that doesn't stay still long enough for a noob to eventually get right, SHOOT RAW.

Everyone here implies I cannot shoot JPEG without blowing out highlights or shadows, which shows that your fallacies of logic are based on irrational hatred and not logic, as if I can take all these photos in RAW just fine, one must imply that I can shoot in JPEG. My entire premise is that if I can afford to drive a Panamera, why choose a fucking Camry?

I only limit myself further by making every photo a JPEG since the best camera on the market cannot truly encapsulate the dynamic range REAL LIFE offers.

JPEG Fine does NOT capture the extended scope of RAW, and to an artist, why should I settle for "good enough" when I want to be the best possible?

You're all a bunch of whiny faggots who think you know shit because you grew up on archaic film but I grew up on the Mavica floppy disk. Come at me. I understand digital photography way deeper than most of you film baby boomers who think your generation got shit right.

I can't actually provide an example because from the time I first learned how digital cameras worked, I realized unless I'm in the middle of a war zone with a bullshit uplink, there is no feasible reason to limit my ability to extract every detail in post by using RAW.

That's where you noobs all fail, and why no matter how much you hate me, I'm shooting Bugatti's and buying my own Porsche before 25 when you can only stick to street photos and whining about your 1:1 pixel views XD

ebin may may

>>3073795
this would make a pretty tasty pasta

>>3073795
>1) Not every photo is a fucking fence in a field that doesn't move.
Stop pretending you shoot sports or anything requiring lightning fast reflexes.
Isi shoots a greater variety of subjects than you, as jpegs.
It's a matter of skill with your camera vs skill in recovery software.
Photographer and post-processing used to be seperate jobs.

>>3073795
>best camera on the market cannot truly encapsulate the dynamic range REAL LIFE offers.
Yes it can. Do you even know how to measure dynamic range? How many stops do you think you see with your naked eye?

>>3073795
How many posts is it going to take you to learn what JPEG + RAW means?
Lol

>>3073760
>i don't shoot raw, this entire arguement is about how jpeg is not the equivalent of film in terms of quality and p-processing.

Holy shit these autists tried to compare two completely, utterly different methods of displaying photos?!

We started by a running joke that one photographer shot in JPEG and ended up with a bunch of autists wanting a second round for the asshurt I put on them last night trying now to compare a physical medium to a completely digitally bound medium?

FILM HAS MANY APPLICATIONS JPEG CANNOT FILL AND VICE VERSA

File: Captured-Society-(90-of-121).jpg (3MB, 6000x4000px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 6000x4000px

>>3073798
>Stop pretending you shoot sports or anything requiring lightning fast reflexes
>ignores my entire method of making money is shooting dark, high end nightlife environments chock full of dynamic lighting changes and instant reflexes mixed with knowledge of settings to overcome the sudden drop and burst of lasers

Yea, ok.

>>3073799
And how long does that film negative take to make a useable print versus a client who wants 150 photos next day and pays $600/weekend for your services to get drunk and party with them and take photos to show what NYC is about?

>>3073801
How many posts will it take to realize JPEG + RAW is a more file-size costly solution than shooting RAW to begin with and having a decent size card since on the A99II, I trade downsampling to control noise by allowing massive RAW file sizes that JPEG + RAW only eats into when hmm.... I could just LR + two clicks and be done..?

Noobs.

You all are pathetic, please shoot half as much as I have these last 9 years purely on digital to think your film knowledge even applies. You all need to attend a Ken Rockwell class, you're out of touch, I'm out of sight.

Pic related: I shoot Hotel Z, Highline Ballroom, Gansevoort Hotel, and a few other places where I don't move until a $5k VIP is booked :>)

Get rekt noobs.

>>3073806
Are you joking? club snaps are your example of needing a high speed?
Do you even know how to shoot in a club? Literally every setting should already be dialed in, except for focus distance. Even that can usually be standardized.

What are you doing with your life?

isi takes better photos than you shooting jpeg. Let that sink in while considering your purpose in life. Bragging about the income of a club you happened to go to with a camera does not make you look professional, it makes you look desperate for clout.

You've never taken a meaningful photograph, one that will gain rather than lose visual value over time. You take "pictures."

>>3073806
Your skintones look atrocious and oily. These people seem barely tolerant of you taking a photo of them. The blonde guy in the back is looking at you like you're maybe slow in the head.

File: Captured Society (122 of 139).jpg (3MB, 6000x4000px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 6000x4000px

>>3073813
You show how lackluster your experience is with this one statement.

In a nightclub, people are in motion. This warrants at least 1/125th or higher to ensure every person isn't a mess of blur if shooting people dancing.

That also means you either chase ISO to levels of which can soften and add noise to your photos, or believe in your histogram and keep the ISO low enough that in post, you can recover essential details, controlling noise.

>>3073815
No shit, who said your clients have taste? Yet, from your response, you're less mad about the skin tones and more mad about the fact I back everything I do up with photos, and you with hearsay.

Git gud fagets

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

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

File: You-Are-Not-a-Photographer-570x176.jpg (23KB, 570x176px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 570x176px

>>3073813
>inb4 "hurr just let the flash strobe stop motion because a low shutter speed still doesn't add a shitload of motion blur and I don't shoot a Sony in RAW because I make excuses to shoot JPEG in an environment I am too weaboo to ever shoot in

File: Captured Society (109 of 139).jpg (3MB, 4000x4000px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4000x4000px

>>3073797
Sage advice:

One must add salt to a boiling pot, to make pasta come out al dente versus overboiled like all these arguments that show more time in front a computer screen and less in the real world actually learning what real dynamic environments provide.

Here's my challenge: Prove you've shot clubs to the level I have, and show me how your ass backward methodologies somehow mean you'll get the shots I can to deliver the photos I can.

Can you? Or do you have more fences in fields to show me as examples of fine photography? KEK

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

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

>>3073806
>captured i society
What the fuck is that supposed to mean? The ones that didn't get away? A motley collection of fashion victims, cokeheads and other ne' er-do-wells desperate for any kind of attention

>I'm out of sight
You're out to lunch. Enjoy your sandwich, Big Shot

>>3073820
>>3073820
>This warrants at least 1/125th or higher to ensure every person isn't a mess of blur if shooting people dancing.
Maybe if you don't how to separate your ambient exposure from your flash exposure
Clueless twat

File: DSC09743.jpg (2MB, 6000x4000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 6000x4000px

>>3073833
>Implying that in a club, you don't have tons of lights constantly fucking with your "ambient exposure" once again explaining how you can't seem to understand that even if I nailed my flash exposure (TTL-passthrough) and get all my other settings correct, all it takes is one ill-timed light pass from a strobe to blow out that photo to where:

JPEG user:
AWWWWWW

RAW user:
Lemme just move this exposure sli-ohhhhh look at that this photo is perfect. EXPORT!

You both literally make up the population of organisms that failed to develop past the protozoan era.

Pic related: Breakfast of champions.

>>3073828
Ate you suggesting getting people to look at the camera in clubs is harder than shooting the artists on stage?

You can't possibly be that retarded.

http://jamiewilliams.22slides.com/m/people
http://jamiewilliams.22slides.com/m/music
Using light-trails with effort is much more impressive than getting your exposure right on a group of people posing for the camera.
And she did it shooting jpegs on a crop camera.

Get a grip.

>>3073837
>ill-timed light pass from a strobe
You mean an ill-timed photograph. Strobes are consistent. You're the one that pressed the button at the wrong time and didn't pay attention to timing.

>>3073250
>>3073242

it's bad editing you fucking autist

>>3073847
But i thought the point of raw was to edit good

>>3073853
Yeah well...stfu

File: 1492205987281.gif (2MB, 350x259px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 350x259px

>>3073197
>Non-sony cameras can also measure exposure with live view.
>Sony camera's are so feature packed that the newfags that pick them up never actually learn how to photography.
>Talks shit to people who do actually know basics of photography and choose to use a camera that doesn't carry their ass from a to z.

Another troll no doubt, but this is literally the thought process of a majority of Sonycucks out there who don't actually do photography. They just masturbate to the specification chart of the camera and assume that sony makes their photos superior.

>>3073806
>>3073820
>>3073828
All of your club pics are literally snapshots straight (unlike you faggot, just admit it you like it in your ass) flash to the face. None of these show any talent or understanding of technicalities, as others have already told you. You don't need a fancy camera or raw to shoot these, just a 100 dollar point&shoot with a flash.

>peoples faces blocked
Good god man, how drunk were you? I mean, good for you for finding clueless idiots to pay for this trash, but don't fucking pretend you're anything more than a good shit talker. You haven't provided a single example of your superior talent or gear.

>>3073806
>immigrant trash shooting immigrant trash
>not using a gun
you're doing it wrong

>>3073806
So do you or do you not date shemales? What does "real girl" mean?

>>3072651
When it comes to RAW vs jpeg, I just shoot RAW out of habit. You end up having to edit your RAW files because they come out looking a bit washed and low in contrast since the camera didn't apply anything to them. Higher quality lenses do deliver a better output compared to less expensive ones - I used to have to push contrast and saturation a lot more, but when I got a newer camera and better glass I've found myself having to move sliders a lot less often. Whereas with jpegs they've already been processed.

I could probably get away with shooting jpegs since it's rare I completely botch an exposure, but being able to fine tune just the way I like it - contrast, color balance, exposure, everything - is a nice feeling. Since it's just a hobby, my main concern is that I satisfy myself, and I have some high standards when it comes to technical stuff. I don't like shooting scenes unless I'm happy with the light as it is for example, and that's particularly something you'll never be able to fix with photoshop.

File: 2001-03.jpg (187KB, 800x1181px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 800x1181px

>>3072654
seconded

>>3073035
>>3073197
>>3073233
>>3073237
>>3073240
>>3073242
>>3073246
>>3073248
>>3073252
>>3073256
>>3073269
>>3073274
>>3073279
>>3073288
>>3073292
>>3073296
>>3073300
>>3073304
>>3073587
>>3073599
>>3073673
>>3073686
>>3073700
>>3073712
>>3073714
>>3073719
>>3073740
>>3073752
>>3073760
>>3073795
>>3073803
>>3073806
>>3073820
>>3073823
>>3073828
>>3073837

10/10 masterful troll

>>3075440
>mistaking trolling for severe autism and mental retardation

>>3075446
>.

File: 1468781677321.gif (1MB, 499x499px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 499x499px

>>3075446
>>3075594

All dem replies from butthurt anons doe

>you replied too

>>3073251
>They haven't really gone back on anything so far.
:D They just release it. To be all honest, Sony does a great show in presenting and releasing features. If there aren't obvious problems, the other side often can be seen by the next releases or in comparison. Although I think 4k is yet just gimmicky outside of cinemas, it is the best example since current cameras present 4k without skipping and binning. Overheating and short sequences are further topics. Regardless of that, things are still promoted.

In my opinion, Sony does no favors to themselves. Especially after successfully (but temporarily) convincing a lot of people to change their system to Sony.
The A9 still has focus problems for large focal lengths

File: 1444375601154.png (284KB, 650x581px) Image search: [Google]

284KB, 650x581px

>Moop