Domain changed to archive.palanq.win . Feb 14-25 still awaits import.
Threads by latest replies - Page 4
Anonymous
was this image taken on film or digital?
https://files.catbox.moe/9jjcnu.jpg
Anonymous
>>4488728 obvious film
>multicolored grain >missed focus >no shadow density Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4488735 How can you tell the difference between multicolored grain and multicolored noise?
film !!FrI8UA1Ug38
Quoted By:
>>4488728 dynamic range feels low but i cant really tell tho
what the fuck is this captcha? oh i get it now
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4488735 >missed focus Where?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
Insta thread Will follow anyone>horgen_foto Had anyone got tips on how to find less popular content? The algorithm is just feeding me terrible tiktok reels with millions of views all day long.
Anonymous
Can anyone guide or help me to recovering my account? I noticed that my account's email got mysteriously changed but I was in the middle of a trip to be able to do anything about it. And now I can't access it at all because the faggot who took it changed the passwords.
Anonymous
What is the best export setting for this piece of trash website? It burled the fuck out of my photos. I uploaded them from website and they were fine but phone they look like they were taken on a fucking potato FUUUUCCCK
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4488603 Zuck will ask you to send him videos of your butthole.
Contact the insta team asap
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4488784 That's not due to any export setting.
Instagram often just likes to not show the full (Instagram) resolution of images when you view them. Sometimes it "pops in" after a short while, but it has nothing to do with your local connection. It is insta deciding not to give your images bandwidth.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4488784 I had the same problem. Instagram seems to be optimized for phones (as it was originally designed to be a platform for phone pictures) So if you use high format pictures those appear bigger and in higher resolution on the phone. Anything else will get compressed to shit and only be shown very small naturally.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
Some photos I took for a friend in Oregon a while back - any good?
Anonymous
>>4486347 That just sounds like post-hoc cope now
But it was worth the effort to defend low effort comments though?
Anonymous
>>4486349 Not really but I was bored desu so I don't mind
Hope you enjoyed what came out of your b8
Anonymous
>>4486350 I did, I made some effort posts and will continue to putting effort into making this board better
Looking at photos and figuring out what was done poorly and what could be done better is a great exercise I would encourage everyone to do
Hopefully you come around and would like to see the board be better too one day
Anonymous
>>4486350 Oh and I'll keep trying to call out low effort useless feedback too, hope you can do the same
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4486353 >>4486354 All you ended up doing was randomly posting in other threads with the "lel that's old" seethe routine and start more fights. You are a loser.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
I just got an old digicam and the previous owners didn't delete all the photos. I took a peek and some of the pics are actually kino.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
If the original owner cared about others looking at the photos, they probably would've been deleted.
Anonymous
I'm gonna attend a wedding on saturday and i want to shoot some film. It's an african wedding, so there will be loads of bright colors and warm hues. I shoot with a Point and shoot camera (pentax iqzoom), but i own a SLR (Nikon fg 20). I have never shot with an slr camera, and i have no clue how they work. But i reckon the pictures look better on an slr. I have two dilemmas at hand>I don't know which film stock is good for capturing warm hues >I don't know if i should try out the slr camera (or if i should play it safe) i want to capture something reminiscent of picrel
Anonymous
>>4488924 >I think it will be pretty well lit inside, NTA. Don't be fooled. Even pretty heavy indoor lighting is nowhere near the LV of the outdoors.
Indoors with film I'm normally pushing HP5 to 800 at minimum and realistically to 1600 (but I think it looks kind shit pushed two stops).
At 800 ISO I'm only just in a "safe" shutter speed range to avoid camera shake and I need to ask people to stay still for photos indoors.
400 ISO film is absolute minimum for indoors and I'd be pushing that one stop anyway. If you're using colour film then fagghedaboudit
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4488946 Portra and Lomo 800 work fine indoors, if a bit grainy. But pushing hp5 will make the grain apparent too.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4488846 get old gold 100 (2006-2005)
Anonymous
>>4488846 it is possible to mount 28mm (if you have one) to fg-20 set aperture to 5.6 and 3.3m focus and shoot day with kodak 100 proimage
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4488946 Didnt understand half of that but what I got is
>get 400 iso I dont really like the look of kodak ultramax 400 though. It doesn't look warm, and it doesnt have that "film" look
>>4488953 I have decided to use the point anf shoot so i dont think i can make adjustments like that.
I need to finalize what kind of film I'll be using because im going to buy it later today. Ektar100 or kodak gold is what i am considering right now
Anonymous
Quoted By:
lemme see your shots for the moon! this is mine btw captured with canon 2000d 55mm i can not remember my camera settings i gave it some edit with lightroom this is first time with DSLR
Anonymous
Anonymous
Mars (left), waning crescent Moon (over Lumen Field, Seattle), Venus (up, right of Moon) rising Sept. 11, 2015. Nikon D5200, kit 18-55mm at 55mm, f/8, 2sec, ISO-1000
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4488213 Oops. Sept. 10, 2015.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
ZV-E10 + SEL55210 taken last week iirc, obviously cropped
Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
Spent two hours at the local book market today. Reached the place a little while before sunset, pushed through my anxiety and tried my hand at taking some photographs. Feel free to post any pictures you /p/ros took at any book fair or local market in your area.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4486949 Nope, nice to see were still just lying here
Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4486706 >sickly skin colors must be wormji or SNOY
Anonymous
>>4486709 It's a beautiful thing to watch someone turn board schizo over your throwaway thoughts. Have fun.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4488969 >I enjoy ruining the board Pls go
Anonymous
Continuous LED lights are terrible for photography. This is an approximate $2400 600watt continuous LED light. At a distance of 2 meters, it can manage 1/60 iso400 f8 at full power. That converts to f4.8 iso400 1/200 if you wanted to get up to a barely usable photography shutter speed. And if you want to go down to iso 100, you are now around f2.8 So $2500 gets you something barely usable on your lowest settings at approx 2 meters, any further distance and it wont work. And if you want to use any modifier at all its all over and you wont even be able to have enough light for a photo. In before just shoot at iso 1600, no thanks, im not spending $2400 just to have to use iso1600.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
I have a 3-light Rotolight Neo II kit on the way that I plan to use for bounce-lighting a tiny indoor product photography setup. Sub $200 used.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4488585 No it depends on the light, ive got the amaran 100xs 2nd gen which is great
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4488580 Yes, they're made for video. Of course there's going to be better options for photography
Anonymous
Bought it because it was more or less it30 but without the need to buy a riser Thought the off camera shooting was going to be a gimmick - a fun one, but a gimmick nonetheless It's not. It's THAT good even with a rather small range of 18m. Just by holding it in your second hand you can get so much creative control. A cheap selfie stick with a tripod and maybe an offbrand diffuser will genuinely let you have studio quality light for incredibly cheap and rather small package.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4488982 Why the hell would think off camera flash would be a gimmick?
Anonymous
New color film!!! lucky 200 has finally dropped. Anybody shot it yet? waiting for my order to arrive.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4488583 yeah its alright, shot a roll so far
Anonymous
to think lomography sold literal garbage rolls (some even marked with letters and codes on top of the image) for $20, and still do
Anonymous
Damn I expected chinaslop to cost less than Kodak Gold
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4488601 >>4488638 >>4488641 its cheaper if you are from a third hole shithole, a roll of Gold cost 15 usd for me. And Lucky its just 9 USD so yeah.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4488583 I've shot with the BW 400. I just finished my roll of Lucky 200, but I haven't developed it yet.
Anonymous
I shoot black and whit 'art' photos. I print a lot. So i spend a lot of time looking at the details of each photo. especially if they're hanging on my wall. that being said, i have a conundrum which, surprisingly, isn't well covered on the internet:>would you say a leica monochrom, or a medium format (with more bits and more sensor real estate) would produce better black and white images?
Anonymous
>>4487912 Did you forget to attach your photo again?
Anonymous
>>4487913 Yep, silly me. I totally forgot. Somday I'll stop being such fucking scum. Alas, today is not that day.
Anonymous
>>4487910 I like my nikon zr with its huge ass screen
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4487915 Dope choice, I'd love to get one
>>4487914 Still sad
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4482924 The Monochrom is cool and I'd like to try it sometime. But it's just way too expensive to justify. You can buy a Pentacon Six with a Carl Zeiss lens for $200 and 200 rolls of bw film including development and scanning ($20/roll) for the same price as the Leica without no lens. Double that if you develop yourself, which is half the fun with bw anyway.