>>4306865
film has the same dynamic range as digital

>>4307484
Make it easy for OP, he's just beginning to open up to reality.

>>4306881
nigger
stop it
you're using shitty lab scans, come back when you're dealing with drum scans or raw linear tiffs from a high end device without some idiot operator baking in presets to produce a JPEG

also if you're not MULTI SAMPLING a scan for a negative
you are doing it wrong and cannot speak about the true dynamic range of film
this means, if you're camera scanning, you should be exposure bracketing and doing a hdr merge to eliminate noise and produce a linear 16-bit or 32-bit floating point file to then invert/edit. Any single digital capture of a negative or slide is limited by the digital sensor used to capture it, and means no such scans can be used to actually judge the performance of film.
Grain is grain.
Noise is noise.
Combine noise and grain, and you get even worse results.

>>4306865
>underexpose the scene by like 2-3 stops or more
>expose the highlights as the midrange
>WHY IT LOOK BAD
kek

>>4306921
yeah cause if you don't overexpose fomashit by 6 stops you might not even get an image

>>4298229
Sometimes I wonder if cheap digicam photography is at all related to the gear and more related to just shooting small jpegs and never editing

File: dt_CRW_2016.jpg (1.12 MB, 1763x1321)

1.12 MB JPG

>>4307964
Hey! That's appreciably bigger than on most digicams.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon DIGITAL IXUS 960 IS
Camera Software	darktable 4.6.1
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.9
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	36 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2024:04:27 09:49:01
Exposure Time	2947/1000000 sec
F-Number	f/2.9
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	74
Lens Aperture	f/2.9
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Subject Distance	4.04 m
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	7.70 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1763
Image Height	1321

>>4307993
What is big jpeg

>>4307993
Shush

>>4308005
8256x5504

>>4307722
Define unexplainable

I cannot even explain how my color film works

>>4307756
/x/-tier

File: 1000015651.jpg (107 KB, 1500x2000)

107 KB JPG

I don't remember riding with the naked dude

File: IMG_20240427_180155_624.jpg (242 KB, 1280x853)

242 KB JPG

Yea this unexplainably bad photo

>>4308044
Posts like this are why fe2fucker is awesome, kek. Made my morning.

File: DSC07227.jpg (4.78 MB, 1600x2400)

4.78 MB JPG

>>4307932
Not sure how good it is for video since I don't do much of that but I loved the zeiss 55 on my a6400 for photos. I actually really miss it, been tempted to get another one even though I can't really justify it since I replaced it with a sigma 56.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-6400
Camera Software	Capture One 23 Macintosh
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	82 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Exposure Time	1/320 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Shutter Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Brightness	8.7 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Daylight
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	55.00 mm
Image Width	1600
Image Height	2400
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>4307932
Another vote for the Zeiss 55mm. It's a little expensive for a #50mm f/1.8 but the performance is far above many of the cheaper alternatives, it's up there with the f/1.4s and in return you get a more compact and lighter lens. I also don't shoot video but others say it's good for that, it focuses quickly and silently in AF and in MF there's no lag.

>>4306753
their recent releases are just overpriced models of what already came out, barely any changes, that's all

>>4306790
What's wrong with their TVs?

>>4306805
>I wanted to do macro from the start because I am autistic
Post macro autism shots.

>>4307715
this, bang on this.

>>4307715
And this is why men complain about women going after chads and such. Have some sense of style. Have some dignity in dressing well.

>>4307937
When I go for a hike, and I go out with my 600mm lens and camera, I don't go out looking to impress anyone. I go out to protect my gear, protect my skin from elements, and no care what other people think because I do what's going to be comfortable for me.

I'm telling you this as someone who works in a trade that also requires such level of comfort and above normal than average safety or else I suffer or die if I simply put surface level looks or appeal over practicality.

>>4307980
lmao it's just a hobby mate. I'm just going for a walk in the woods.

I have a conceal and carry denim jacket that i carry my cameras in

>>4306549
not in my experience, the baby photographer dresses and handles the baby besides the diaper stuff. You also gotta be willing to put up with young kids which is a rarity especially amongst this board and its endless wall of social inepts.

>>4307561
Thinking some ugly demon that smells like spoiled milk and ketchup is tolerable doesn't mean you have good social skills, it just means you're probably a woman or just have no taste. Dealing with other peoples children has prevented many people from starting their own families and realizing it's only other peoples kids that suck.

>>4307355
if you want to slave away for 12 hours a day and then some more on your PC when you get some, all for $900 - $1300 a month, then sure, go ahead, be a photojournalist

>>4306672
Being a wedding photog sounds kind of based since it pays so much but idk the anxiety of potentially missing a shot fucks me up. I guess that's why they get paid though.

>>4307022
If Spider-Man can do it, so can you!

bump thread of photos

>>4279965
comfy/10

>>4275675
super cute

>>4296093
so many

>>4239795
Very cute bird, OP, thanks.

>>4254822
when you see it...

>>424103 pdf file alert

>>4299134
See what?

>>4254822
damn
british roses are even ugly at young age

Now post the last known photograph of a little girl

>>4301842
it has unusual depth of field and subject separation. it's probably a large sensor. the colors look kind of funky because it has weird vibrance, saturation, and looks like there is a low bit depth.

as someone else said, it does kind of look like a CCD sensor. Idk anything about tube sensors.

it's a strange effect. the grass and sky seem to have a good dynamic range, but the building and bushes seem like they have a low color depth.

>>4304637
i'ts definitely a big ass sensor with a non-zoom lens.

>>4301842
try a diffusion filter if you want to shoot digital

>>4305356
why nonzoom

>>4301842
could be MUSE, its means of encoding creates that motion and background blur

>>4307765
>mft users have girlfriends and practice proper camera technique to extract max quality per image taken
Can't argue with either of those points, darn

>>4307793
>mft users have girlfriends
had, she left for chad when he took a better pic on his fuji with DRO400 turned on and sent it to his instax printer

File: 61uhMc8Lx5L._AC_SL1500_.jpg (110 KB, 1488x1462)

110 KB JPG

>>4307794
have again, she came back for the thermal printer

>>4307765
If my phone can do it so easily why is it a pain on my camera?

>>4308295
On your camera the blur from motion/alignment errors looks obviously bad because it is mixed with real details so you go "wow, HDR sucks" because it is higher resolution
On your phone the entire photo is already smeary sharpened blotches so it's just a little ghosting sometimes, nothing stands out if everything is shit

>>4308137
nothing in life is certain my friend, but if it is one thing that makes people happy and calms them down it is money.

>>4308144
Not really anon. Give me something hard, practical, and logical.

As a hobbyist, I'm not qualified, but my guess is planning all details beforehand, making sure that everyone knows exactly what to do in advance and whatever is needed for shoot is available and ready at start would help things go smooth.

>>4308145
Fap before shooting, easy
>c: PSASST

>>4308137
Well that would depend entirely on what you decide will satisfy you. When you figure that out, do that.

>>4304802
>non-spiteful build quality.
When are they gonna bring back the metal E-M5?

>>4305151
I know right, the mark 2 will always be my fave. So weighty and the last one to keep that metal tripod mount. Worth giving up 4 megapickles for i reckon

>>4304585
yo yo yo

>>4306684
stop bumping your shitty gear threads that should've gone in sqt. there's nothing to discuss further

>>4304718
kek

>>4308100
Nice. Please proceed.

>>4308162
>virgen
nice. do i get to pick one or is it random?

Well, it's a competition.
But perhaps that is where we stand out the most.

>>4305579
>>4305480
Share with me what the ideal non/anti-gearfag setup would be? Can I still shoot large format film without being a gearfag, or is 35mm the only permissible film format?

>>4305619
gearfaggotry isn't something you can buy and sell, gearfaggotry isn't a line drawn in dollars, and gearfaggotry isn't a status you earn because you have a nicer camera than someone else. you might be financially irresponsible, rich, a scrooge, or addicted to retail therapy, but you're not over the line yet. you are not yet gearfag just because you have gear. you are definitely a fag, but not yet a gearfag.

it's a way of life, it's a way of looking at photography, from the results to the process - all through the lens of gear. making excuses based on gear. passing judgement based on gear. it doesn't stop at the camera, it doesn't stop at film vs digital, ccd vs cmos, or full frame vs mft. gearfaggotry runs deep. deeper than "i will finally take those photos once I get my leica". the tripod, the head, the flash, the modifiers, the reflectors, the scrims, the fucking STANDS, the screen, the printer, the paper, the frame, the glass. the gearfag is exacting. the gearfag is never satisfied. the gearfag has spent a lot of time thinking about all of these, arguing about the best - the gearfag sees all of these things, all this gear, as so inexorably intertwined with photography that photography is mostly just about what you used to make the photo. and it need not be expensive, the gearfag may very well decide that expensive things make photography worse. it's just about the gear. when the gearfag is presented with a photo they want a closer look at the exif before they even look at the fucking picture so they can make sure they're allowed to like it. and if you used flash, they will ask you which flash you used. so they can say "oh, doesn't the color temperature vary up to 400k? you shot on that trash? no wonder your colors are FUCKED".

that is what it means to be gearfag.

just by asking what to buy so you can not be a gearfag, as if a purchase can make you more authentic photographer, you put a toe over the gearfag line. retract it. Now!

>>4305622
That must have been fun to write, and I agree with you. It's an excuse to judge an image based on the gear rather than the content.

I like prints more than looking at images on a screen. I have fun imagining a pixel peeper/gearfag using a loupe or standing 1 inch away from a framed print on a wall exclaiming that the corners are soft from a shitty lens and declaring it a terrible picture for that reason alone. In a completely silent gallery as well.

>>4305387
valid
>>4305524
<1% is actually is like that

The Winogrand on the golden gate, but more gay