Do you ever use the formula for depth of field when you need to take a photo?

Should I get into film photography?

>yes this fuji does make you look gay edition
And remember, the only stupid question is the one you made a thread for.

>Cheeto Dust Covered Bee Edition

1. Macro is based
2. Anything lower than f/16 is useless, anything over f/8 causes diffraction (we don't care)
3. Get a flash of some kind if you're doing handheld macro, get a softbox if your lighting is too harsh (it is)
4. 1x magnification can be overkill. Nobody cares if you hit 1x or greater, if it's framed like shit
5. 200mm for bugs, 100mm for all-purpose, lower focal lengths are memes
6. Extension tubes are cheap enough to dabble. Stick them on something between 50-200mm and go to town
7. Gear posts are allowed but keep it on topic
8. Any macro is encouraged. Bugs, plants, textures, minis etc. all welcome

Previous Thread >>4342854

Genuinely, is it an excuse to “be cognizant of the world” or something? It’s got the shell of an “art hobby” but it’s not so different from saying promoting is an art.

This thread is dedicated to close-range photographic capture utilising macro-optical imaging configurations to achieve greater reproduction ratios. Got that? Good, now upload some shit.

Last thread:
>>4376661

in around 2004-2011 there was this awkward period between film cameras and smartphones, how well is you life documented from that era?

sony cyber shot dsc-h9

Quillambands

Photos I got back
I fucked up a roll shooting Kodak Gold with bad light so that sucks
Starting with 3 from Paris where I tried to not sperg out too much and ask random people in the streets if I could take a picture of them
All shot with a RB67 and Portra 800 & Kodak Gold 90mm & 180mm