/p/ - Photography

>>1356

>most uncalibrated monitors which I have met are yellowish.

... and have exaggerated contrast as well which leads to bigger saturation.

>>1314

Won't unsticky yet, have updated the OP.

IIRC both of those cameras have bad dynamic range and colour separation, so nothing of value was lost.

>>1322

I haven't been able to post for the last few weeks sadly,

>>1332

>People are really okay with their Sony cameras having a fucking cash shop?

Too expensive or what? I cannot understand you.

>Fuji, for their X-Pro line

>rangefinder system.

Pick one.

>Anyone else in similar shoes? Moving to Fuji?

I heard about people moving to Fuji from FF Canon several times. They did not regret it.

You will get more dynamic range than any Canon offers.

You just should know that you will have less bokeh for more money: 56mm F1,2 is equivalent to only 85mm F1,8 on "FULLFRAEM" but costs more.

>>1334

What kind of problems do you have? Does web page give some kind of error?

>>1338

I usually just timed out, the standard "8ch probably posted this" message

Fuji X-E2S released.

You can get the X-E2 for as little as $499 right now.

Literally holy shit deal at 699 for X-E2 with XF 18-55mm http://www.adorama.com/IFJXE2BKG.html

That's basically a 500 dollar lens for free.

How about a new "challenge"?

>>1339

Perhaps a spooky challenge. Shouldn't be too hard in these dire winter months.

>>1342

Yeah, need a new thread.

>>1335

>The technical quality on these is absolute garbage. Can you export them at a better setting? Nobody can use a 1001px image anyways, so there's no point in them looking like shit.

wat

>The first image from >>1327 is obvious that you're imitating that picture that was sold for shitloads of money a long while ago

r u srs

>swan could have been neat without the tree reflections and if it were centered. And if the light weren't shit.

no u cant b srs

>but I can't tell because the film has such a low contrast.

yeah sure it is always sunny on the earth

of course image can have low contrast only because of film

that must be it

>For this image you really needed a huge dynamic range with lots of contrast in a sharp image

ok i lost it

I just hope that I won't need to publish my photos in the magazine which you edit.

nb4 accusations of samefriending

bump

>>1232

I am merely proclaiming such masturbatory work as refuse, or in your commoner tongue "trash".

>>1228

>I am not THE author though.

>>1287

>>1288

Nice colour, good contrast but tight framing and #3 and #5 are underexposed.

>>1099

Use >>677 to look at meta data of image.

Flickr

>>1100

This looks neat! thanks for the suggestion

https://pixelpeeper.com/

Have fun.

>>1078

Got any more of delicious model?

>>1156

No clear focal point

Use

>composition

>leading lines

>organise colour

>think why before you take that shot

If you do all of that properly, then your work would not be shit. Now go my young Jedi, may the force be with you.

>>1156

Please resize to something reasonable before posting

>>1252

>>ISO 3200

>>30s exposure

>drop that ISO say 6 stops to 100 and open your aperture up 6 stops and or shutter speed 6 stops

>don't forget rules of composition and blend 2 pictures together, one stars and the other the ground.

Troll much? or just retarded

>>1269

I think these are just instructions for how to shoot HDR

>>1270

I think it is more of a way to shoot with a low ISO in the places that are need. Expose the night sky at maybe higher ISO then you may want, like if you want to freeze the stars you can't really have an exposure longer than say 10 seconds. So having a little bit of grain, or noise for some can look some what natural and you can have a clean landscape exposure with a very low ISO and a long ass shutter time.

>>1273

Anon has the right settings for the lens he/she used...30 seconds is right for a 14mm. Opening up the aperture from 2.8 makes no sense as that is wide open.

>>1234

You are trying harder than I do.

P.S. I have nothing related to post in this thread.

>>1272

Nice is this a scan of a hand print?

>>1276

Scanned with a Plustek 7200.

Too lazy to find the notes on it but I'm 95% sure it's HP5 in a Mju2.

>>1152

Before you posted all those fecal stained images, we were discussing the finer points of images stained with feces. You are correct that your images belong in this thread.

Regarding the r9k filter, I concur; it should be disabled in the board settings.

>>1153

>>I myself alter the images from my digital camera in a way which I have never seen to be used to get the specific look which I like but that isn't lomography for sure.

>Show us some shots of your 'specific look'. Im curious

>>It is not anything superspecial but those few viewers which I have recognize the colour scheme and appreciate it.

And then suddenly...

> these shots are mundane with no subject and no story.

>If an 'artist' refuses to exert effort into basic composition, then why should anybody strain to tolerate such ineptitude?

>I guess lomographys marketing, "shoot, dont think" has been thoroughly absorbed by your psyche.

>All things aside, you should definitely post more shots because criticism will only improve your work.

>Before you posted all those fecal stained images, we were discussing the finer points of images stained with feces. You are correct that your images belong in this thread.

>>1102

hipster cancer

Ugh. Worst form of photography out there.

>>1191

Maybe because it's a good camera.

>falling for the MUH FULL FRAME™ meme

This thread tomorrow will be deleted tommorrow unless some non-trivial dicussion is started.

Why would you care about what exactly people photograph with?

>>1196

>Why would you care about what exactly people photograph with?

I don't know, maybe he wants to know what's the best camera with out going to le gear thread. Or maybe he has past perceptions that m43 is shit and stumbling apon half,full chan his prior conclusion has shattered.

>Why does this board mostly shoot with EM10

I'm 99% sure this board is not filled m34, but Canikon Dominates if not Fuji.