Domain changed to archive.palanq.win . Feb 14-25 still awaits import.
Threads by latest replies - Page 174
Anonymous
My almost-two year old threw my R6 Mark II in the toilet, lens first. I was away that day so who knows how long it marinated there. I took it out when I found it, took the battery and cards out and let it dry.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
If I for some inexplicable reason should find myself having kids I know from being an uncle that I would have to secure anything breakable and expensive. My cobalt blue mid-century Scandinavian design cylindrical glass lamp for instance.. forget about it. The collection of vintage lenses I have placed on a shelf? no way Jose.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4400960 >kid put shit in the toilet Sounds like his toilet training is working too well OP.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4400960 Is infanticide legal in your country?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4400960 At least it still turns on. If it was a Sony it wouldnt even do that.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4400960 sell the child and replace the camera
Anonymous
2.8 and 4 are common f stops for zoom lenses
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4401039 Did you mean to reply to someone in the stupid questions thread???
Anonymous
Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4401039 It's powers of the square root of two, which is approximately 1.4, generally starting at 1. So it's 1, 1.4, and then every other number is a doubling.
>>4401056 From 11 onwards they're rounded down (technically 22 would be 23 if you were doing the calculation, but because it's double 11 it's not). I've wondered who first decided it would be done from that point and if there were any exceptions but not really looked into it. At those higher values the decimal doesn't really matter, especially given the inaccuracy of f/ stops in the real world.
MurMur :3
Hi everyone, I'm trying to find a place taken a few years ago, but I can't. Please help me find this place . All I remember is - This photo was taken in Russia, St. Petersburg. I hope you can help (to confirm that you found it, take a photo with this door, having a piece of paper with you "MurMur :3" )
MurMur :3
Quoted By:
Here are some more photos to help
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4400877 I have to be honest Anon, nobody is going to find this shit. This could be any commie block .
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4400877 You should provide a reward/incentive aside from kidnapping for finding it.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
nigga you want me to go to St Petersburg to find a door?
Anonymous
Anons I'm having an issue where I want to do everything. I want to do nature photography, architecture, wildlife, night sky, stormy rainy weather, everything except street, portrait and product. How do you focus?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4399324 just try the things you like and find out of if you like them in theory or you actually like them. learn by doing.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4399324 Why should you focus? Just do everything, find out what you actually really like doing, and continue with that. Don't overthink it.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4399324 >How do you focus? usually I twist the ring at the front of the lens
Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4399324 Why focus? Do whatever you want when there's the opportunity.
Anonymous
Ok so I have a 120 film camera that I can only shoot negatives in (shutter only does full stops, exposure comp is only full stops and I don't think it even has a bracketing mode).
Anonymous
>>4400801 >I'm going to scan it, but want it to have the film look still You see that thing on the table? Yeah, I think you know what I'm going to tell you to do with it
Anonymous
>>4400801 >What slide films and 135 only films The only fresh slide film available is Ektachrome, both in 135 and 120.
>Any film that looks better in 135 than in 120? Not really, a bigger negative is always going to look better.
In general 135 has more variety of BW stocks.
Cinestill 800t is only available on 135 afaik, so if that is your think you can try it.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4400805 >Cinestill 800t is only available on 135 afaik I picked up a 120 roll of 800T just the other day actually, so they do make it
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4400805 I have a box of 120 cinestill in my freezer
>>4400803 mega seetheola
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4400801 Don't know shit about film, but based henry brass enjoyer. I love my golden boy in 30-30(except trying to fucking feed it with how expensive 30-30 is now for some fucking reason).
Anonymous
Quoted By:
Post cats
Anonymous
i know this creatur.....boa contrictor
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4400059 >>4400058 crossposted from the pentax thread
not bad for a $30 telelens
Anonymous
Quoted By:
Can't believe I've only taken one cat photo, that's surprising. Should take some photos of my buddy's cat at some point.
>pic rel, this fat fuck on a walk from like july >>4369522 this is very cool, love the expression of the top cat
Anonymous
It was either here or in the home photography thread but seems more relevant here.
>>4400072 Maine coon?
Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>see a vid of some fag sucking off a contax 2t he paid like a grand for >his main points were that it has an f/2.8 lens (that you can't set to f/2.8) and that it has half stop exposure compensation for over exposing images, and the smell >mfw when my canon sureshot I overpaid $40 for also has an f/2.8 lens and a manual ISO dial in 1/3rd stops from 50-400 (and 1,000 off on its own for some reason), meaning it literally does all the same shit for $40.
Anonymous
>>4400895 I'm glad that works for you Anon.
I guess it's a matter of opinion, but for me personally I try to spend my money on things that I can plausibly still use in 30 years. I've always just tried to use things as long as possible. I've seen too many cases of people spending money they don't have to buy something that breaks a year later, and even if that chance is small, I don't want to take it.
I also think that it's a nice concept to build familiarity with the tool you use over a long period of time.
Anonymous
>>4400905 all of my cameras cost me less than yours, even if I need to replace them more than once. plus they have nice features like AE mode or bracketing or auto focus
Anonymous
>>4400907 Well I hope that your electronic cameras last long Anon, genuinely.
I don't use those features, with the exception of autofocus on my digital cameras so I don't feel the need to have those on my analog cameras.
My main argument against electronic film cameras isn't really against cheap point and shoots or late 90s/early 2000s DLSRs, but against the overpriced models like the Contax T2 or the Yashica T4, but also electronic rangefinders such as the Leica M5/M6/M7, I feel it's ridiculous to pay so much for a camera which if the electronic components fail is unlikely to be repairable.
Anonymous
>>4400920 I have a pentax 645, rebel 2000 and new sureshot so basically the cheapest of the cheap
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4400921 Honestly they look pretty nice, I hope you get many good photos with them.
Anonymous
Why the fuck does a point and shoot camera allow you to set ISOs down to 25? Who the fuck is shooting 25 iso film out of one of these? Why the hell did they set the iso dial to be 25-400 in 1/3rd ISO stops? Were boomers fucking shooting Kodachrome 64 iso through point and shoots? even weirder to me is it does like 25-400 in 1/3rd stops and then jumps straight from 400-1000. so you need you 25 iso and 1/3rd stops for your slide film but then if you shoot 800 speed CN get fucked, you need to shoot it at 400 or 1000
Anonymous
I don't shoot film but I think I remember hearing that underexposing and pushing in post was a thing? Like ettr with digital. So maybe it wasn't so much intended for using 25 film but rather 50 or 100 and underexposing by a stop or two. Just a guess, although I suppose if that was their intention maybe the manual would have mentioned it.
Anonymous
>>4400469 25 iso would be over exposing or pulling 100 speed film by 2 stops.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4400543 Oh yeah, my bad. Fuck knows then. I remember a while ago when I was looking up how low film sensitivity goes that the really low stuff was intended for like scientific use, I don't know if it was even available in 35mm. Even if it was I doubt it would be usable in many situations, handholdable with a point and shoot with a slow lens and no IS.
Anonymous
>>4400313 Uhhh people who go to beaches? People who go to ski?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4400694 they shoot 25 iso film?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
What if these people have a genetic defect and can only see in orange and teal?
Anonymous
>>4400832 Most film photographers even the ones outside of that take horribly boring and derivative, "safe" photos as they treasure each and every frame. Lots of perfectly framed building corners, cats, generic "pretty woman = good photo" slop, street signs, city scapes, and sakura tree branches. And still they fall victim to pretentious nonsense because who do they look up to? The postmodern art establishment. If you look at r/fujifilm it's the same stuff as film photographers because it's the same crowd really. That's really why fujis film sims pass. Not because of any tech or color science. On their own they dont look like film. But because film photography has been heavily associated with the "i actually went to school for photography" NPC look.
Digital photography is, in general, better looking and more creative, and does not select as severely for postmodernists AKA npcs.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4400851 let me guess, you shoot with an OM5
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4400851 They hate him because he tells the truth
Film photography is played out and artistically irrelevant. History will remember todays film photographers worse than it remembers the jazz scene of the 90s.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4400851 We see different film photographers in that case. I agree that there are a lot of film photographers who take unbearably generic photos, but at least in my opinion I see a significant amount of interesting work, more than I see coming from most digital photographers.
There are some absolutely fantastic digital photographers though I will say.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4400851 Yes, film photography is typically lower quality. It’s a pretender’s medium. Originally it was just what everyone shot because a digital camera that wasn’t worse than film was $3000 and the computer that could process a raw half as well as an enlarger can process a negative was also $3000. When $3000 was worth 1.5x more than it is today.
Anonymous
am I a talented photographer?
Anonymous
No you are not, and your shit attitude will keep you right where you belong.
Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>muh pole, muh composition, muh yada yada
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4400620 >>4400657 OP here, and if anything I am the one with the good attitude, even if my pictures have flaws, and thee are those with the craven and negative "misery loves company" finger-pointing attitude. Stop taking yourselves so seriously.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4400364 No not really.
These are all generic as fuck, and the subjects are entirely uninteresting.
Good photos could have been made with better subjects, or better/any composition but you chose to include neither.
You are actually taking photos though, so you're better than 80% of the board, and will actually become a better photographer.
