No.48748
>>48726see
>>35083Next time check for preexisting threads on the same subject please.
No.49519
>>49505Cute joke, but overruled.
No.49590
>>49545Those are not crappy, they are quite nice. The third one is especially gorgeous!
No.49616
>>49614Neat idea for a collection, wiz! Please post more. Is there any particular reason why you like bus stops?
No.49618
>>49616>Is there any particular reason why you like bus stops?Went on a trip across the Czech Republic after I dropped out of university seven years ago. Noticed a great amount of variety among the bus stops there, took pictures of the more interesting ones. It's become a proper hobby of mine since; I take a photo of pretty much any bus stop I come across.
Pic 1: Bus stop in Sárhát, Hungary
Pic 2: Bus stop in Anchar, Bulgaria
Pic 3: Bus stop in San Dorligo della Valle, Italy
No.49623
>>49618Thanks for all these. My favorites are the Estonian and Danish bus stops. That Italian one is interesting. Is that a fountain in the middle, or maybe some sort of drainage?
No.49632
I live in a shitty country where +90% is desert , no natural scenes to take photos
Honestly it looks like pre-historic village mixed with 1900s technology
It looks like utter shit
No.49637
>>49632I think the desert is beautiful.
No.49757
>>49736stupid phone gyro
>>49617I like these types of images. They're reminiscent of how old video game / cg textures were extracted from photos.
No.50218
>>50217That sigh was clearly made by a wise-ass
No.50540
>>50531I love these, something about the combination of autumn leaves, the overcast sky and slightly dull colors, and the expression and posture of the chimp make it so beautiful but sad
No.50885
>>50884I swear these were posted here years back
No.51195
>>51192
There's so much more crimes in sweden these days… where in sweden was this?
No.51204
Do you guys have tips for getting into photography? Equipment to start? Guides? Or should I just check the norman chan?
No.51214
>>51204A camera is a must of course. An entry-level DSLR will let you cover all focal ranges with extra lenses and offer full manual controls. Canon EOS, Nikon D3nnn, and some Sony A series fall under $350 WITH a standard zoom lens (even one with image stabilization). A great point and shoot can still be found for less though, and while usually offering really good zoom, you won't always have manual focus, shutter, or aperture adjustments. Modern cellphones come with great cameras that can automatically choose the best settings, and some even have both wide and standard focal lengths to switch between.
The real question though is what kind of photography are you interested in. Which kind of photographs do you see and like so much that you wish to reproduce the style? What irks you to taking up photography as a hobby? This effects greatly the kind of gear you need. Someone wanting to shoot insects will need macro equipment, someone wanting to shoot architecture should invest in wide lenses with tilt, run-and-gun street photography would work best with a quick automatic lens and stabilization handles, etc etc.
Are there any photographs in this or the previous thread that strike your fancy?
You'd fare well to look at general beginner guides on Youtube as these will give you some examples of possible styles and run you over the basics of getting the most out of any camera. Beware of Youtube photographer personalities though, they can be pretty annoying and even elitist. 4Chan is a good place for all levels of skill but /p/ sometimes fills up with bullies and meme information so be alert.
No.51217
>>51216That depth of field effect or whatever it is is very distracting. I think the pics would be better without it.
No.51709
>>51705Are these closeups of cheese or something?
>>51708You mean like edgy moonman shit or stuff they sing at KKK rallies or something?
No.51716
>>51709Apparently it is a mini-raid by some shitposter on /b/ for some unknown reason.
No.52089
Its almost weird now getting used to wandering around with an actual camera
No.52125
>>51700Some of these are absolutely stunning
No.52199
For the longest time I've wished to get into photography. I have a cheap old DSLR. Can any kind anon direct me to a book/video guide on how to learn to use it effectively?
No.52607
>>52605You should try making bismuth crystals or go to quarries to find really interesting specimens.
No.54607
>>54604>>54603>>54414>>54602I just thought how truly lonely i am as a person, ive no one to share my thoughts, my interest or passion, everything has always been bottle inside of myself. I never truly realized it. Seeing these pictures, memories of past, summer days we all wish we had, but the day i see these is the day i leave my marks on that train rails. I like them, very melancholy and sad for a beautiful summer night. Soon summers over, oh how i wish it too stay..
No.54664
>>54658I really like the first one with the trees and expanse of sky. It exudes a quiet melancholy and resembles both many landscapes I've seen and remember in my life, but also reminds me of a photograph that might have been taken during a lull in one of the great wars, for some reason. Don't know why I get that impression.
Nice stuff anon.
No.54688
>>54658What camera do you use?
No.55240
>>55233Very nice. What camera model if you dont mind me asking?
No.55258
>>55240Yeah thanks, i appericate it.
im not a richfag or anything, but leica m6 with 35mm voitländer, shoot on cinestill 800T.
No.55261
>>55233>>55258how did you convert it to digital?
No.55297
>>55261a photo studio developed the negative pictures then scanned them to digital.
No.55331
>>55261You can just scan negatives with a regular old scanner, then invert the colors to get a positive image. Home scanners with a function for this come with a kind of tray that holds the negatives in place. Though to get high-quality high-resolution images from 35mm you need a really powerful state of the art scanner, so it's better to pay a business that specializes in doing this. Medium format negatives are much larger so you can get good results even with a home scanner.
No.55338
>>55261They sell specialized scanners for this sort of thing but I think lab offers the best quality at an affordable price.
No.55443
>>55440It almost looks more like it's a strap hanging immediately in front of the lens.
No.55516
>>55515Smoke look like cloud you mean
No.55517
>>55516I'm officially retarded, goodnight
No.55518
>>55440I can't explain why this picture is so good, but it is, could see it on an album cover
Maybe the proportions, anybody know?
No.55520
>>55518Look up the "rule of thirds".
No.56732
>>55440>>55518it looks a little surreal and almost plastic
the plant is very out of place and the shapes on the wall are interesting
I tried cropping and enhancing it to bring it out more
No.56737
>>50217another wizcrop
I cut out the boring-looking back of the car and applied rule of thirds to make it more picturesque, and cut down on the blue and saturation
No.56742
>>55572these look like cgi textures, i like how they look flat
No.56747
>>56743this one works well enough, I think
I aligned it horizontally to the white line of that edge, fit the subject (the shapes and cracks) in the middle third and made the colors a little colder
No.56859
>>56858>>56857I like these a lot, thanks.
No.57038
>>56978I'd appreciate some feedback on any of the crops/edits I've made. Do you see what I'm going for with them? Just trying to show some fellow wizphotographers how to make the most out of your photos. Tell me if it's shit and I should stop though.
The second one here has a big gradient in the middle, vertically. The subject is really the person walking in the distance, so I made them more central and interestingly positioned; the wire or whatever it is on the ground kind of looks like a long, winding path leading to them along some much greater journey. I made it more claustrophobic with the crop and the 1:1 ratio, to accommodate for the imagery of a narrow alley. I think there are some nice proportions going on this way.
No.57040
>>57038Also: if you look closely, there's a triangle in the top 2/3rds. The top of it is a shining golden square – the golden capstone of the pyramid, the eye of Horus, the all-seeing eye, etc. The glowing lights cutting off at the top are also suggestive. A man walking into the shining eye of truth, towards union with God.
No.57041
>>57040I just noticed too that you can see a yellow eye, and the man is like a slitted snake pupil inside it.
No.57053
Any wizzies into macro photography? I want to film insects when the summer comes and need a new camera for it. What type of camera would be suited for filming and taking macro photos in the wild?
Smart phones aren't suitable.
No.57071
>>57053I played around with macro a lot in the past. It's pretty fun and hunting for new bugs to film is a good way to pass an entire day.
>What type of camera would be suited for filming and taking macro photos in the wild?Any DSLR with interchangeable lenses. This will allow you to add a telephoto lens then reverse it.
The common macro stack is
DSLR > Reverse Ring > Telephoto Lens (50mm +) > Ring Light AND/OR articulating flashDSLRAllows full manual control, remote firing, overall nice quality, RAW image formats, HD Video, and can be decked out with accessories. Nikon D3000 series and Canon's Rebel series are priced for entry and offer all the benefits of any other DSLR.
Reverse RingJust a cheap piece of metal that goes in to the lens mount of your camera, and then allows a lens to thread on backwards via the universal filter thread on it's outward face (diamatre varies by lens). This gives the lens microscope properties.
Telephoto Lens (50mm +)Any lens should have a drastic macro effect when reversed, but the longer the zoom range the closer you'll appear.
The thing about reversing a lens is that it totally blows away any of the benefits that modern lenses have over vintage models. You will lose autofocus, image stabilization, electronic aperture control, etc etc. You'll have to learn how to do these manually. Some modern lenses are strictly incompatible though. These are the models that use an electronic focus control ring to tell the camera to adjust focus while simulating that tactility of conventional focus methods. They're still more rare than not right now. Luckily the biggest benefit to using reverse rings is that because filter threads are universal across all camera makes, you can use lenses from any manufacturer no matter who made your camera body. This opens up some big opportunities to save money as good, clean, fully manual vintage lenses can be found on eBay for wicked cheap. Aim for anything with a manual aperture ring because:
-Nikon (modern) lenses open then close the aperture once per shot; you will need to finick and fiddle with a fragile little knob on the rear (now front) elements every time you take a photo and video is near impossible without shoving things in to the lens mechanism.
+Nikon lens mount hasn't changed in a long time so vintage full manual lenses can be picked up for dirt
-Modern Canon and Sony have a shot/set system where the aperture is set once you shoot and then changed when a shot with a different aperture setting is used. So if you wanted to shoot a macro shot in F5.0, you would have to take a regular shot on F5.0, then remove and reverse the lens, which could get cumbersome if you also have ring lights and such attached.
+All lenses being made today are going to have either a Canon or Sony version
-Micro 4/3, MFT, Pentax, etc are all less common and priceyer but lean towards manual aperture control.
The only thing absolutely necessary on the lens is that it has a filter thread. Some rare older wide angles won't. The thread size is in most cases labelled on the front element as 55⌀ (for a common 55mm thread).
To summarize: If you can adjust the focus and aperture of the lens while it is OFF the camera and it has a filter thread, then it is suited to be reversed
Video Ring Light AND/OR articulating flashThe nature of mounting the lens backwards or extending it further from the sensor results in crisp macro images, but also a serious loss of light as the amplification effects of the lens are, well, reversed. Additionally the depth of field is crunched down to millimetres instead of feet so cranking the aperture open will result in the whole bug not even being in focus. This is why powerful lighting system is required to allow you to shoot with the aperture closed as much as possible. A ring light provides an artist lighting style that is a common trait of macro shots, illuminating the subject from all front angles simultaneously. Make sure if you pick one up it has variable colour temperature control and DOESN'T utilise the filter thread to mount or the camera's hot shoe to actuate (this is why a video-specific model is best). A good flash is a necessity. The flash built in to the DSLR body is good in it's own right but the form factor results in the light not hitting a subject so close to the lens. It can be diffused through some ad-hoc methods but overall it's best just to get something purpose-built that can articulate downward to the subject. Using a diffuser further helps light the bug from more angles as a direct hit from an undiffused flash will cause some harsh shadows.
Many pro macro photographers skip the light entirely though and opt to "focus stack" which involves taking multiple photos of the subject at differest focus distances then using GIMP to add together only the in-focus parts of all the images. It lets you see the bugs in natural light but of course it takes a lot of skill and isn't suited for video.A remote shutter release is also handy and cheap. It will let you keep you hand off the camera which is important for reducing shake, which is amplified when so zoomed in. A tripod is also good all around. Consider a model with interchangeable heads, and pack it with a ball head. These tend to be more stable and flexible than pan heads, which you won't be needing unless you're shooting conventional artsy videos.
Macro extension tubes are another way to achieve macro zoom but they're more a novelty than anything.
No.57072
>>57071I have a Sony nex 5 DSLR. I stopped using it for general photography since my phone was better at getting accurate color. Would that still be good enough to film in HD?
No.57074
>>57072The video samples I've seen show the NEX-5 as having a low rolling shutter effect, which is good because filming at such close range can get real jittery. Sony sensors are particularly good at maintaining low noise at higher ISO so you could get away with poorer lighting conditions. 1080i can show interlacing artifacts under intense motion but many of the entry-level DSLRs made today feature only 1080p at 30 fps. The articulating screen will help when you're shooting down low, in which case its lack of optical viewfinder wouldn't be an issue. Overall it looks viable for video, and 14mp isn't bad for photos either. If you have $15 to spare consider picking up a reverse ring and playing around.
>my phone was better at getting accurate color.Were you shooting in Raw format or using a profile for JPEG? If you shoot in Raw correcting the colour can be as easy as applying a premade grade profile in an image editor
No.57078
>>57074I was using some unique sony raw format and jpg at the same time.
No.57079
Any good photo collection books you like?
No.57266
Just found out Pixdaus went down. Damn, it was an archive of high quality photos of animals and places that had Booru-like tags.
No.57269
question for b&w shooters: do you use the cameras default monochrome setting or do you extract the colors via lightroom or some other tool?
No.57281
>>57269B&W is better on film, and it's easy to develop.
No.57282
>>57281aye less toxic chemicals involved compared to color too right?
No.57321
>>57282I'm not sure, but it would make sense. It's a simpler process.
No.57324
>>57282I started developing my own color film a few weeks ago. You need three chemicals compared to two. What makes b&w easier is that the temperature doesnt need to be so exact. While color, such as C41 has to be 38 celcius with a difference in heat of +- 0.1 celcius. Its a great hobby, shooting a roll then developing it.
No.57547
>>57546Because accumulated dirt over time ruins the paint job and the protective layer of your car which eventually leads to rusting. Even if you don't care how it looks, you should still wash it. It's basic maintenance.
Now you know.
No.57548
>>57547Maybe if you live in some humid intemperate climate. Pretty sure dirt around here won't do anything to it.
No.57550
>>57548You're wrong. It definitely will in time, but that's off-topic. Not my vehicle anyway.
No.57551
>>57550dirt is just an extra layer of paint. like plaque buildup on teeth it adds another layer of protection
No.57897
>>57890>no grafittiimpressive
No.57916
>>57897THAT'S why it looks so much more impressive than usual!
No.59980
>>59978cool little creature. I have a macrophotographic lens but I think I'll get a microscope or something so I can go smaller.
No.59981
>>59980You would have a blast with this guy. It was at that translucid stage and I could see all the organs moving in there. It didn't came out in the picture at all. It was quite a challenge to get even these done. All I have is an old smartphone and a magnifying glass. It was around half cm long.
No.60153
Is that RPGmaker? I like that cat, it would be cool if his eyes glowed in the dark
>>60152Is that a.. a ステーキケーキ??? What dark sorcery do I have to cast on my remaining living relatives for them to start cooking me these one a year?
No.60163
>>60153Yeah, I'm working on a game.
My mom made this cat. It's made of two types of clay, one for the body and one for the eyes.
No.60886
What's the point of photorealistic painting anymore if you can just take pictures?
No.60902
>>60886from afar they are no different really, but a painting has texture and if you get very close it is often messy and chaotic which is cool
No.60903
>>60886The same "points" there are in any creative or reproductive artistic endeavor. The act of painting still-life or portraits benefits the artist and end customer in ways photos can not. It's fun to paint anything, it's a fair challenge to reproduce a real thing accurately, skills learned from reproducing something can be applied to creative tasks, and the end product has a material presence that many people value.
No.60905
>>60886>What's the point of photorealistic painting anymore if you can just take pictures?Namely that the human reproduction of reality and the camera's aren't the same, even when one can be substituted for another. Witness testimony is notoriously inaccurate, as the mind will fill in a gun just from the gesture of pulling a gun. All vision, to us, is filled with such gestures.
The camera simply emulates the human eye, which has little to do with perceiving reality. We know this because other animals employ different configurations of eyes, or no eyes at all.
t. micolash
No.60907
>>60886You can videotape yourself doing photorealistic paintings. That video would in itself be a very valuable piece of art, and the painting almost only being a leftover relic of it.
No.60908
>>60907>very valuable piece of artWould be more sought after as an instruction tool for other artists.
No.60920
>>60886Photorealistic painting and drawing is a tiny niche. Realism is not synonymous with photorealism.
No.60928
>>60920I was just reading a article on hyperrealism including looking at the art of the most renound artist in the style.
I definitely prefer it over standard photorealism even if I am not a fan of the politics behind many of the works.
No.60937
>>60928>I definitely prefer it over standard photorealismit's literally the same shit
No.61315
>>50531Photo was taken in Kharkiv Eko-Park. A few missiles just landed there today. Some animals were injured. The monkey place was mentioned to be broken but no news on its inhabitants. Hopefully this fella is OK.
No.61316
>>60886photography itself is art and the images depend on lens etc. Even if you see it as a type of lens it is art that cant be created any other way
No.61384
>>52123Keep the photos going my man
No.61385
>>55570Cans are dope as fuck. I need a can zone at my house
No.61436
>>61435There is a wagie in each of these windows.
No.61437
some really wonderful stuff in this thread
No.61438
>>61437Agreed, I never thought of photography as something I could get into, I'm more of a videographer but this thread makes me want to take photos
No.62393
https://www.vintag.es/2016/04/stunning-vintage-photos-of-everyday.htmlwhere do sites obtain vintage japanese photographs? is there some central archiver of this stuff? maybe japanese libraries?
No.62930
https://www.flickr.com/photos/196713437@N04/page1i uploaded all my shit from japan a few years ago to flickr. these are from the dslr. i had a smartphone i used to take photos as well, not sure where those pictures are at the moment though.
No.63667
>>51214Thanks for this post. It's something i want to get into this year and it's a lot to wrap your head around. I was looking at prices for cameras and i was blown away by how expensive these things get.
No.65439
>>63663the electric tree reminds me of japan, good shot
No.65576
Thinking of buying a Panasonic Lumix GX85. Anyone have one or thoughts on it or something better for a reasonable price?
No.65585
>>65577
Yeah it it looks solid and reasonably priced. I honestly don't know much about cameras so i thought i'd ask.
No.67453
>>61435this is really pretty
No.67870
I love photography as once in a while I riffle along the photos I take and remember the good and bad memories. Now I don't have to worry about forgetting, I just bring my camera everywhere
No.67885
Is it possible for a quadriplegic to do photography as a hobby?
No.68034
>>48726>Any photography hobbyists here?I suppose I'm a pro actually.
I went through a course, got certificate and I've went through a couple of months of practice in a studio. I did some photos during a wedding, a baptism or two, learned how to put them on mugs (like pic related), did some photo restorations, but mostly did boring photos of people for their documents like passports and driving licenses.
That being said, my photos are still fucking ugly and I don't have much to show. Somehow once taking photos became a job it also lost a lot of its appeal as a hobby and I haven't touched my SLR camera in years. Funny how that works.
No.68100
>>51191These are beautiful OP,at least compared to the other ones in this thread.
No.68101
>>51191Are these shot on film.
No.68105
>>68100>at least compared to the other ones in this thread.Rude prude
>>68101If by "film" you mean "a digital camera" then yes.
No.68200
>>68034Is it a hard field to get into/ make a living off? Seems like something i wouldn't absolutely loath like most wage cuckery
No.68207
>>68034If people paid you for your photos then I am sure they are far from ugly.