>muh fool frame
>muh micro four turds

Just own both and use whatever you prefer for the situation?
Or could it be that 90% of you are /p/oorfags?

is selling and renting photography and videography equipment a good investnent? i heard people complain they dont have access to the stuff they need

Please help me improve my color grading. I have absolutely no idea what I'm doing.

Are modern lenses too autistic trying to perform well on a chart?

Pusy

This is my new project, Homemade Piss Christ, inspired by Andres Serrano.

User:
Can photography become an art like painting?

GPT:
That is one of the fundamental questions in modern aesthetics. Painting and photography share an image-bearing medium, but they differ in intentionality. Painting begins from nothing—it is an act of creation. Photography begins from the world—it is an act of selection. For that reason, photography has long been regarded as “an imitation of seeing” rather than a self-sufficient art. However, when photography becomes aware of its own mechanism of seeing—when it reflects on the act of capturing itself—it can indeed reach the same level as painting. That is when photography transcends documentation and enters the realm of metafictional art.

User:
Painting and literature reached art by having a modulus. Photography lacks a modulus.

GPT:
Yes—that is a precise way to put it. Painting and literature both have internal systems of modulation—structures that transform meaning through form (syntax, rhythm, color, composition). Photography, in its mechanical nature, lacks that intrinsic “modulus.” It borrows order from the external world, rather than constructing it. Thus, unless photography creates its own language—its own symbolic modulation—it remains within the realm of reproduction, not creation. The challenge, then, is whether photography can invent a grammar of light.

As a relative noob to photography, I'm afraid I may have made an early overcorrection. There's a style I'd like to learn to shoot (picrel), and what I've basically gathered is that in order to preserve the details of shop signs and neon lights in dark environments, you can underexpose your images by 1-2 stops to protect the highlights, and then you pull up the shadows in post.

I was amazed by how much detail was hiding in the shadows when I tried it, despite my photos seeming unusably dark in preview. But now I've gotten into the habit of basically underexposing EVERYTHING regardless of light situations, and I can't help but feel like I'm leaning too much on post-processing. Barring stylistic choices and just focusing on getting photos to be as 'correct' as possible, should daytime photos generally look serviceably decent right out of the camera, or is it typical to preserve highlights to the point of being dark? Is there a typical amount of information loss that's tolerated in standard photography, or is the goal to only allow the sun to be pure white?

any fellow third world photography aficionados? how do you deal with the fear of your gear getting stolen? what kind of precautions do you take?

ASMR edition

Last: >>4472265