How did film directors/cinematographers control their color palette during filming? How much of it was done in post/printing? I've just started with film photography and am fascinated by how differently colors are rendered on film compared to digital Did they shoot stills with the film stock during pre production to check the color rendering? Are there any good books on the subject?
If anyone who knows an Apple employee, or knows someone who knows an Apple employee, sees this, could you convince them to pitch the idea of adding the golden ratio to the camera settings? There is already a grid option for the rule of thirds, and I'm sure many people including myself would appreciate it. The golden ratio is mathematically complex and beautiful in its own right, an this makes it appear more attractive to the eyes.
Thank you very much, kind soul. Make this world a more appealing place, little by little.
Hi boys. I want to ask a question about adapting M mount lenses to my X-T4 and noticed there was no /fag/ thread. Does anyone use the Leica M to FX adaptor? I'm also planning on using a 28mm and want the best yet most compact lense I can find.
Yeah stop taking photos you fucking faggot. Just taking photos is meaningless. Any grandmother can press the shutter button and take a photo. It's no big deal.
You need to start thinking in terms of projects and photoboks. Yeah that's right. That's where the art is. To conceive an idea and then construct a coherent union of form and content around it and then putting all of this within start and end covers of a photobook so it means something. This is real photography. Days of single photos are long gone. In digital age if you're not thinking in terms of projects then I am sorry but you're not really a photographer. You're a thoughtless snapshitter throwing shit at the wall in the hopes that one day it will make sense. If you have no greater stylistic vision or don't have things to say or conceive then you'll always stay an entry level retard with a camera.
I consider myself as a "forever beginner" because I had a photography phase when I dig myself a bit into it but not tooo much and finally gave up because I didn't like all that "seriousness" around the photography scene.
AND there was also the $$gear$$ issue
I've got a friend who works in a photo lab and invited me for a « gallery opening » in his lab, first time I attempted to such event. People were in awe in front of the photos but it irked me everytime I thought I could see how much money has been put behind the best pictures. Like they were SO clean, so perfect, so sharp... when I was in my enthusiast hobbyist phase I put all of my efforts on composition, good light and stuff. But I've got modest equipment and it saddens me to think that I will never be able to make a perfect picture even if I've got the perfect composition, subject and light, if I don't have the required gear for it.
Hence the redpill I'm looking for : without wanting to reach for a Hasselblad, how much money do we need to spend on gear to reach that acceptable level of "intrinsic" quality required to make a good to great picture ?
I hope you're getting my point, I only talk about digital photo btw BUT am open to discover film I think, though I don't want to fall into the gear rabbit hole because I know it's real and it's that kind of boring/serious things that discouraged to pursue my hobby. I don't want to make good snapshots, I want to take good pictures if I ever try it again.
