What's the biggest meme in photography? [EXIF data available.

S O N Y

i will also accept

D I G I T A L

Gear

>>3097873

F I L M

>>3097874
>>3097875
>>3097876
Cameras and lenses apparently

>>3097878
>Not shooting imaginary pictures with your mind and physically manifesting them with your psychokinesis

you're doing it wrong

>>3097873
BOKEH!

In movie photography, thinking rolling shutter is acceptable

>>3097873
High ISO performance.

I can trade high ISO for better dynamic range all day long.

File: socrates-statue.jpg (112KB, 999x1351px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 999x1351px

>>3097873
> composition

Not even joking...

Sharpness and being in focus.
composition and subject matter will always trump those two

>>3097897
I agree that I wish more cameras focused on stronger dynamic range, especially in lower ISO's. It should be competitive throughout, but basically no cameras outside the D810 which has a base ISO of 64 and a lo-1 setting of 32, offer serious DR on the low end.

>>3097897
I agree that I wish more cameras focused on stronger dynamic range, especially in lower ISO's. It should be competitive throughout, but basically no cameras outside the D810 which has a base ISO of 64 and a lo-1 setting of 32, offer serious DR on the low end.

>>3097966
Sharpness, I agree if you mean splitting hairs over lens performance. For focus, I'm gonna say it's important to focus properly. Yes composition and subject matter is important but so is the way the visual information is presented, and the presentation usually suffers if the right thing isn't in focus.

>>3097934
>composition is overrated
This seems like a popular one on /p/ lately. I can say it's up to what you're trying to do, but ultimately you compose every time you shoot. Whatever degree of effort you put into it can be negotiable, and it doesn't have to be a high priority task every time. So no your photo won't automatically suck if it doesn't utilize rule of thirds or leading lines or golden spiral or group of 3's etc. But, you probably also want to communicate well to the viewer, and this is what makes composition so critical.

Composition isn't just about finding the most optimal angle from the most optimal distance using the most optimal focal length. It literally involves what is in the frame, and what isn't. Saying composition doesn't matter is kind of like saying breathing is overrated. Just saying.

>>3097934
but thats retarded. even when you take pictures where you literally dont think about composition at all, when youre editing, guess which ones are you going to pick? the ones with better composition ofc.

double exposure

or in general just any kind of post-processing or manipulation that only adds to the surface level factor

am I making sense? I shoot concerts and shit and people are doing photoshop shit that just looks dumb and it's insanely memey and it dissipates within months until the next idea is destroyed

also, light prisms

File: 91eb33b99d29f0fc3ac302d48e52d923.jpg (162KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 640x640px

>>3097986
Double exposure is a little different, less of a passing meme in that it's been used effectively for a while. Plus it has the ability to enhance a story, like pic related

>>3097875

>>3097995
Pro tip: stop using the word story in regards to photography. It's a term that's too vague to convey any real thought. I'm not saying abandon the concept, but actually address what it is you see as the "story" pictured. Otherwise, you could have said "improves the composition" or "serves the piece" and conveyed the exact same information.

It's lazy. It's shallow. It's pretentious. Unless you want to be those things, avoid that word.

This board in its entirety

>>3097873
Bokeh
Muh iso 12600

Bokeh, definitely. But it's the perfect way to sell extremely overpriced lenses to unsuspecting customers and dads with more money than sense (think the audiophile equivalent for photography) so unfortunately it's here to stay.

>>3098102
Not the same guy, but I am guessing he is relating the the fact that you can see head movement by double exposure.

Bokeh isn't a meme you dumbfucks, fast lenses are expensive so suck it up.

>>3098197
When you reach a point with memelicious apertures where the only thing in focus in a portrait are the eyes, lips and with some luck the eyebrows and cheekbones as well while the rest of the face is melting into flesh-coloured vomit, with reviews analyzing the shape and look of the fucking ARTIFACTS in the out-of-focus area you know bokeh has reached absolute meme tier status.

sony

>>3098102
>It's a term that's too vague to convey any real thought.

Not only that, but the vast majority of images have a potential story. The very nature of any existing object, animal or human inside of a photograph is enough to "tell a story". And the photograph could be about that subject and it's surroundings - that is the story.

>>3098209
> the eyebrows and cheekbones as well while the rest of the face is melting into flesh-coloured vomit
But that's why people spend the money in the first place.

>>3097995
>>3098102
story is a somewhat valid term when analyzing a photo. it alludes to the implied interaction of its elements. but that garbage multi exposure anon posted has no story at all.

File: IMG_3335.jpg (503KB, 890x1112px) Image search: [Google]

503KB, 890x1112px

>>3098148
I prefer shooting at 12800 lol.

>>3098232
That's why your pics are shit.

>>3098243
this.

>>3098232
UNLIMITED GRAIN

>>3097878
>lenses
This. If you don't use a pinhole camera then you're a gearfag.

>>3097934
what?
composition is literally what a photo is composed of. just because people on /p/ vilify any rhetoric that they don't understand doesn't mean you don't need words that actually talk about why a photo is good or not

File: IMG_3325.jpg (53KB, 490x350px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 490x350px

>>3098243
Ahahahahah stay mad.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	490
Image Height	350
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3098279
You should see how many posters are trying to act edgy and "I'm not like the other photographers tee-hee" by saying "composition is not important LOL come fight me nerds"

This thread is quickly turning into "everything I don't like or don't care about is a meme"

File: BnaLJIm9.jpg (35KB, 408x408px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 408x408px

>>3098273
>If you don't use a pinhole camera then you're a gearfag
If you don't build your own camara obscura and mix your own chemicals to make a collodion plate, you're a gearwhore.

>>3098316

>went through all the effort of doing all that shit
>didn't give the box a paint job or something

this makes me laugh for some reason

>>3097873
portraits of homeless people, black and white, high local contrast.. kids think they're the first photographer to "tell it like it is" and do portraits of "real people"

File: 03c3d9fc4dd75673d16457d736cdda36.jpg (51KB, 640x431px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 640x431px

>>3098316
>not just building your hueg format wetplate camera into a van
mate

>>3098323
that's awesome

>>3098324
check out the 'silver and light' documentary about that dude
it's awesome, but completely retarded at the same time

>>3097873
Lens sharpness.

Full Frame
>doing something for the sake of doing it
It's either a meme or a Nicomachian Virtue

>>3098323
Is that shit real? How big are the negatives?

>>3098395
I think the one guy is holding one in his hand

>>3098395
I think the image circle is almost the size of the truck
they made some plates that need to be carried by two men and did half the process outside because the 'darkroom' inside the truck was too smal

I'm going with primes. When I bought my camera I bought a prime lens.

2 years later I use my 2 kit zooms and a 10-18mm My moms facebook friends don't know the difference, but I still get invited to everything to take pics.

File: 300413_0412.jpg (137KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 800x533px

>>3097897
>I can trade high ISO for better dynamic range all day long.

That's because you don't make a living out of reportage and event photography in low-light conditions, and that's a huge market.
It's not a meme, there's actually a demand for it.
Extreme iso's like 125600 or shit like that are a meme, of course, but I'm ready to pay a good buck for a camera that performs well in the 6400-12800 iso range without a plastic effect or digital artifacts

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi

File: new shoes gerard waller.jpg (725KB, 1280x1774px) Image search: [Google]

725KB, 1280x1774px

>>3097972
>>3097976

You all right, or at least I fully agree with both of you.

There are two things meme-y about composition, though none of which is composition per se, taking as a definition of composition the visual arrangement in a work of art, and, especially in photography, in relation to the role of its subjects.

1st: composition is based on memes: what is regarded as good composition is usually a) a picture of new elements and subjects though through a recognizable arrangement; and b) a new image strong enough (that is, with a composition remarkable enough) that incites new pictures that are subtly or clearly influenced by it. That would be the noble meme-y aspect of composition, through which big photographers are able to renew the art of photography, be it by making portraits young guys like Paul Strand did, or the a landscape picture of the everglades like Clyde Butcher does, or a third-world street scenario as seen on Alex Webb pics. Each of it was able to derive a new style through their pics, that are beautiful in a manner unknown before. Therefore, creating memes.

The 2nd aspect of meme-y-ness of composition, a more low grade one, refers to the "rules of composition" which are usually derived from inspired works to make a more materialist (and uninspired) approach of interpretation feasible by thumb's guide as "rule of thirds", "rules of odds", and even a few seen as more refined ones, such as "asymmetrical diagonals" linked to "baroque" aesthetics and shit. Even though those rules are generally taught to beginners, most photographers will reckon that those "rules" are by no means actual good rules and much more simplistic than the real deal; therefore, a meme.

>>3098464
Just buy a fucking fast glass with IS/VR.

People have been shooting 1600 iso film in the night for years and years.

>>3098492
I think the main reason beginners are taught rules like that is because it's one of the few ways to make their photos stand out, as they photograph pretty predictable things.

Having said this, there is something IMO to all the "rules" and what they're getting at. It's incredibly subtle stuff relating to balance, angle, subject distance, and the way your eyes travel around the frame as you view a photograph. Classical painters were very good at using these sorts of things to their advantage, and I'd argue they are more important than simply not centering a subject. Huge differences can be made with a subtle angle shift, a few steps to the side, or the inclusion or omission of particular things. Some people really value these things and put a serious effort into considering them while they work. They want their photographs to be visually engaging, if nothing else.

Who am I to tell them that it doesn't matter, and they should focus on something else like "sending a message" or "telling a story"? That's basically just replacing one "meme" with another, if you ask me.

>>3098541
people also died at the age of 40 on an average, your argument style is redundant.

you get 2 stops difference in speed from iso 1600 to 6400, @ same aperture.

decreasing from f2.8 to 1.8 is a lot more risky.

>>3098547
>Classical painters were very good at using these sorts of things to their advantage
This. If you want to study composition, look through painting resources, they're much more in depth and less gear faggy than photography.

>>3098550
What do you mean by risky?

>>3098694
>Not OP but you'll shrink your dof and in event photography that means you risk getting important things out of focus

>>3098708
Ignore the greentext

>>3098708
Unless he is taking close portraits a fast aperture like 1.4 or even a 1.2 isn't a big deal.

>f1.2 50mm
>6 meters away
>1.03 meters of DOF

>f1.2 85mm
>10 meters away
>0.98 meters of DOF

>>3098232
kek, thats my chink phone at iso 200

File: 170916_0395.jpg (263KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

263KB, 1200x800px

>>3098725
god, you are retarded and/or inexperienced in the field
low light conditions most likely also means tight space - like bars, restaurants, crowded rooms etc.
You almost never have 6-10 meters between you and your subject in this line of work. Also flash is forbidden most of the time. And the subjects are moving.
Comfortable aperture in those conditions starts with 2.8, but of course you have to shoot on 1.2-1.8 all the time because it's that dark, but you literally spray and pray to get _anything_ in focus and this is a literal nightmare.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi

>>3098797
git gud.

Buy a wider lens like a sigma 35mm or 20mm 1.4.

>>3098797
>>3098805
I'm a fast primefag and bokehwhore btw, you can discard my opinion.

>>3098806
>I shoot everything with a kit lens

>>3097893
fucking this

camera straps

>>3098827
Are you serious? The first thing you should do after buying an entry level DSLR is discard the kit lens.

>>3098547

>Classical painters

Painters have always and will always be good a composition even through modernist to contemporaries. The idea of classical painters being better than everything is a big meme.

>>3098690
>less gear faggy
This just conjures up images of italian renaissance painters spazzing out at eachother over using outdated brushes and out-of-fashion paints.

>>3098985
I didn't say they were better at everything. Just that there was something to the art of composition that was established back then. Something that made you curious about the image as a whole and not just the subject. It was nice when you had balance, things all related well to one another. It makes me sad when people think you should never care about this when taking pictures, like it's somehow a bad thing....but it seems more and more like maybe those people don't like being gold their composition is just plain bad, or mediocre at best. I could be wrong.

>>3098492
>when the sopa de macaco was too strong

dude lay down the memery, u getting too memey for your own good.

>>3098985
ALL classical painters HAD to know how to pull up a decent painting, even if they were super mediocre or uncreative, they could pull up a decent painting, it was the base knowledge. current art kiddies dont know how to paint for SHIT, thats why they end up doing installations of concrete+plastic tubes+wire.

>>3098942

why?

>>3099007
top kek

>>3098690
>This. If you want to study composition, look through painting resources, they're much more in depth and less gear faggy than photography.
I did study composition through paintings but mostly through architecture (late medieval to baroque, mostly). It was a great ride, especially Borromini. Did it improve my photography? Not sure but I would like to believe so, kek.

>>3099018
Because they are shit and slooooow.

>>3097873
canon rebel

>>3099031
t. unskilled mongoloid.

>>3098830
Please validate my irrational hate towards people who kneel down before taking every picture with some (You)s.

>>3098987
Well - colour mixing would probably be the equivalent. I watched a neat documentary on colours in painting, and until Lapis was brought west, blue was not a common colour to use.

>>3099019
I think it probably did. There's a lot to learn there.

>>3097995
wow what a story, you really got me thinking with this one. he is putting his head down, damn...

>>3098102
this. story is a meme. the only story that matters is the story that the viewer interprets which doesn't mean dogshit anyways

>>3097966
Hobbyists sweating sharpness on 24MP+ sensors is definitely a meme.

>>3097873
JPG
in-camera noise reduction
physical anti-alias filters
colors
mirrors
auto-focus
auto-aperture

>>3097967
Does D810 use the same sensor as some Sony mirrorless, and if so, which one? And if so, wouldnt it have the same DR?

>>3099681
>And if so, wouldnt it have the same DR?
HURR

>>3098148
12,800 works fine on my camera ;^)

I agree that bokeh is way too over-rated though. I mean, sure, its something to take into consideration. But Ive seen people claim entire lenses were garbage because the person didnt like its bokeh

>>3099684
>But Ive seen people claim entire lenses were garbage because the person didnt like its bokeh
and there is nothing wrong with that.

the canon nifty fifty is a capable lense that shits all over its accomplishments because of the jittery OOF area.

>>3098805
>20mm 1.4
source please

>>3099683
is there some reason youre acting like an annoying asshole? Manufacturers all the time dont take full advantage of every part of their devices. A 14-bit image sensor could be reduced to 12-bit by the image processor, to increase performance for example, or reduce over-heating.

>>3099689
>the canon nifty fifty is a capable lense that shits all over its accomplishments because of the jittery OOF area.

but that lens sucks though. I was talking about lenses that were actually good.

>>3099691
Can't you google faggot?
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1191178-REG/sigma_20mm_f_1_4_art_lens.html

>>3099031
You are obviously just bad at taking pictures.

>>3099681
It has nearly the same performance on all the cameras that use it, but the d810 makes the best use of it.

>>3097873
at this point: small format film

on this board: gear. all of it

>>3100162
You mean 135? I see no point too unless you're processing it yourself.

MF is superior in every aspect and MF cameras are cheaper than an shitty entry level DSLR.

>>3097873
>equivalency

>>3100162
>he doesnt get half frame yet
what a pleb. but as with everything, maybe youre still not prepared for pure kino.

film point and shoots

>>3100206
they are cool. but paying $250 for a plastic shit that last year was $30 at most is getting memed hard.

>>3100206
So fucking true. Wasting good film at $8 a roll on a shitty $50 point and shoot is a recipe for disaster. 35mm Film is only worth shooting on SLR .

>>3100178
Indeed Nikon P900 with 24mm-2000mm lens is just a meme.

>>3100267
You spelled rangefinder wrong.

>>3100178
>>3100270
Pls explain the meme part.

>>3100272
The combined realities of diffraction, signal to noise ratios, and manufaturing tolerances mean that there's no such thing as "equivalency".
You can combine apertures and focal lengths in a fashion that will provide similar fields of view and depth of field between formats, but the image quality is just going to be different, and for any increase in the technical quality of a smaller format that might make it approach the results from a larger one you are going to increase the price to a point that negates the primary motivation for staying with the pleb tool.

>>3100287
That's just gearfaggotry to upper level.

Megapixels

>>3100206
I do not get this at all.

Either plastic chinkshit, that has been marked up 500%.

Or some """"Rare""""" Japshit metal P&S that is so prone to electronic failure.

File: Capture d’écran 2017-06-23 à 06.32.48.png (200KB, 507x572px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 507x572px

>>3100206
>>3100381

File: image.jpg (41KB, 600x434px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 600x434px

>>3100388
Yeah those prices are haram

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	96 dpi
Vertical Resolution	96 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	600
Image Height	434
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3100589
Terry's fault. My uncle has one, it's a nice camera with a nice lens a meter but the price is just ridiculous

Sugar

>>3100388

>dat Terry Richardson tax

>>3100388
That's absolutely bollocks. You can find decent brands' film P&S from the 90s in really good condition for cheaper than the shipping costs. Anything higher than $50 for a brand new unit or a specially fancy model is highway robbery.

>>3105024
http://trip-table.kokage.cc/2/1416.php?table=1416346431

egyYvoBZV2 #maxxum

>>3098102
>Stop using word I don't like word
>It's lazy shallow and pretentious
>Only use word I approve of
>Being this lost in 31 flavors of irony
/p/ is a meme