/p/ - Photography

386KiB, 1000x750, P1120437.jpg

looking for a new (used) camera

Anonymous Thu 22 Jan 2026 00:47:20 No.4494811 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By:

i'm pretty inexperienced and mostly use my phone camera and a cheap DLSR that works fine but the lens is limiting
i got about $200 i'd like to spend on something a little better if any of you got good suggestions

the only things i'm dead set on is it being digital and having an F mount because i already got a couple lenses and i'd like to use those

4MiB, 8191x5463, HORSE.jpg

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO

HORSE

Anonymous Wed 21 Jan 2026 22:28:38 No.4494795 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>4494807 >>4494808

HORSE!

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO E1B518B6.jpg, 4MiB, 4992x6668

Anonymous Thu 22 Jan 2026 00:20:02 No.4494807 Report

Quoted By: >>4494808

>>4494795
Wow. Cute!

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 22 Jan 2026 00:38:51 No.4494808 Report

Quoted By:

>>4494795
>>4494807
The focus box goes over the contrasting edge of the eyeball that is closest to you because DOF extends back more than it extends forward and autofocus locks on to contrast edges. If you want the nose in focus you have to shoot at f8 to f11 and focus on the midface. Practice this and check focus to fine tune your work.

Both photos are underexposed and have shitty white balance as well. Shoot raw so you can adjust exposure and wb on the kind of screen people will see photos on instead of relying on the camera.

Welcome to using your very first dslr btw

336KiB, 1320x1200, sony a7v.jpg

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO

/gear/ general

Anonymous Sat 27 Dec 2025 07:19:35 No.4490470 View View Reply Last 50 Original Report

Quoted By:

no open gate edition

Previously: >>4487054

335 posts and 33 images omitted

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Jan 2026 15:05:02 No.4492336 Report

Quoted By:

>>4492302
I know exactly what you mean, but for me it was the inverse path to yours.
I started on APS-C as my first ILC and used it happily for, I kid you not, close to ten years. My dad has been running FF with an MF prime that whole time and every time I would look at his photos, I could see that the images would just come out differently. Eventually, I ended up buying a FF camera last summer and my images they have that same something that my dad's did, even though I'm running a superzoom.
Hard not to be excited about FF with compact bodies like A7C2 and Zf.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Jan 2026 00:07:14 No.4492390 Report

Quoted By: >>4492435

>>4492240
>DSLRs are the opiate of the masses
Lmao we're posting cringe in /p/ now? New low for this board

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Jan 2026 05:45:21 No.4492435 Report

Quoted By:

>>4492390
DLSRs == Christianity is a pretty great self-own tho.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 17 Jan 2026 08:30:08 No.4494133 Report

Quoted By:

>>4492291
sold it with €250 profit lol

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 21 Jan 2026 15:37:51 No.4494771 Report

Quoted By:

have a pentax kp came with a 35mm f/2.4 autofocus, and cause it was cheap and old and looks cool a 200mm 1979 manual focus lens. I'm gonna be taking wilderness pictures and right now I find everything I take with the 35mm doesn't look good and everything on the 200mm looks awesome its just impossible to actually get anything in frame have to be shooting across water or at an individual bird etc. I'm just wondering what would be the best slightly shorter then the 200mm option and what do you think the best option for shooting in a dense forest almost feels like I need something more pulled back and wider to really capture what is feels like to be surrounded etc

3MiB, 3839x1766, Screenshot 2026-01-16 154252.png

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO

Photos with Sunsets

Anonymous Fri 16 Jan 2026 23:53:44 No.4494090 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By:

Took this in berkeley, california at Caesar Chavez Park last year of the golden gate bridge looking 8 miles from the west.

>>67x optical astral zoom
>>Minolta bridge camera (pun intended)

I had to tweak the iso speed to get the proper lighting. yes, it was a blood red sunset.
August-October is the best months to take photos in California due to the golden-light effect is strongest.

11 posts and 3 images omitted

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 21 Jan 2026 01:19:26 No.4494688 Report

Quoted By: >>4494690

>>4494684
you are a retard my friend

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 21 Jan 2026 01:19:51 No.4494689 Report

Quoted By:

>>4494685
Fort Point and Golden Gate good shot.
Im guessing late afternoon since the sun is on the western side of the bridge.
also I stated in my last post about opposite sunrises when I meant NYC or East Coast Sunrise over the Atlantic vs Sunsets over the Pacific have different lighting due to daily pollution. I'v seen amazing sunrises in NY but nothing like sunsets in San Francisco or LA.
So again, its not a over saturated filtration by the camera that often happen. it was natural.
also look up 9/9/2020 over San Francisco.
looked like Blade Runner the entire day. freaked everyone out. it was like a red beam outside my shades when I woke up

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 21 Jan 2026 01:21:50 No.4494690 Report

Quoted By:

>>4494688
just corrected my statement of sunrises. I meant East Coast Sunrise vs West Coast Sunset
yours is an oversaturated red filter
nuff said

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMG_8765.jpg, 4MiB, 3433x5150

Anonymous Wed 21 Jan 2026 04:48:36 No.4494712 Report

Quoted By:

/\nonymous

/\nonymous Wed 21 Jan 2026 08:06:32 No.4494729 Report

Quoted By:

>>4494684
Nice schizo post. It's the Angus L. MacDonald bridge shot from the Dartmouth side, facing West at sunset. Only one of the towers (the Dartmouth side) is in the water, which you can clearly see here. I took that snapshit like 15 years ago, it has a new deck now.

I don't even believe you're legitimately defending your OP snapshit anymore, it likely belongs to someone you have a problem with and want to see people shit on it. If you have to resort to this your snapshits must be even worse.

4MiB, 5214x6962, 1759426136734610.jpg

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Mon 20 Oct 2025 19:38:32 No.4476309 View View Reply Last 50 Original Report

Quoted By:

photos of my cat Rupert that i took on my phone which at least trace amounts of thoughtful composition, as per the board rules

I like this shot because it really focuses on his face, which is cute

77 posts and 36 images omitted

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO milo.jpg, 981KiB, 3240x1080

Anonymous Wed 31 Dec 2025 21:54:48 No.4491503 Report

Quoted By:

middle child of another cat and the corgi

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Jan 2026 10:49:30 No.4492774 Report

Quoted By: >>4494693

>>4476475
You fucking nigger chud kill yourself

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO folder.jpg, 971KiB, 3000x2000

Anonymous Thu 08 Jan 2026 20:51:45 No.4492849 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Screenshot 2026-01-20 172844.png, 91KiB, 304x365

Anonymous Wed 21 Jan 2026 01:29:30 No.4494692 Report

Quoted By:

>>4476312
in the thumbnail his eyes are closed. WTF
creepy anomaly , bro

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 21 Jan 2026 01:49:07 No.4494693 Report

Quoted By:

>>4492774
lol

5MiB, 6000x4000, IMG_7485.jpg

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO

redscale snapsharts

Anonymous Mon 19 Jan 2026 02:58:41 No.4494387 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By:

Random photos from my DSLR taken with a redscale filter on it. not true film redscale, but one day i might do that.

7 posts and 7 images omitted

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 19 Jan 2026 09:05:32 No.4494438 Report

Quoted By: >>4494649

Y'know what? It's neat. What do you set the white balance to for this? Or are you just leaving it on auto?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 19 Jan 2026 17:55:21 No.4494464 Report

Quoted By:

This reminds me that I bought a set of glass color filters with a front lens mount that will let you use up to three at a time. Maybe it's time to bring it out.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 20 Jan 2026 00:19:15 No.4494519 Report

Quoted By: >>4494650

>>4477765
4chan scrubs metadata, including rotation info, so your images need to have their pixels rearranged to upload in the correct orientation

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 20 Jan 2026 20:52:26 No.4494649 Report

Quoted By:

>>4494438
I normally scuff my white balance to be greenscale, so that when the filter is applied, the highlights turn yellow instead of pink. Not sure how to retrieve the exact number, but if you have a canon, set the WB custom to the most overblown highlight photo you have

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 20 Jan 2026 20:53:32 No.4494650 Report

Quoted By:

>>4494519
that's good info. first time posting on the site, so wasn't sure of standard practice. good to know the metadata scrubs though

114KiB, 1071x533, file.png

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Mon 03 Mar 2025 21:02:01 No.4411869 View View Reply Last 50 Original Report

Quoted By:

>it now cost $20 to develop film only with no prints or scans
AHHHHHHHHH

65 posts and 9 images omitted

Zach !ozOtJW9BFA

Zach !ozOtJW9BFA Tue 23 Dec 2025 02:55:35 No.4489845 Report

Quoted By: >>4489852 >>4489862

Why the fuck is it more expensive to develop black and white film as opposed to color film? That's fucking insane.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Dec 2025 03:30:29 No.4489852 Report

Quoted By: >>4489887

>>4489845
C41 is a standardized process that is uniform regardless of film speed (pushing/pulling aside), while b&w can be done different ways to achieve different outcomes and also requires different timing for different film speeds (unless your lab is doing rodinal stand dev I guess). More complexity = more expensive, while every lab has a machine that basically does c41 for them.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Dec 2025 05:17:34 No.4489862 Report

Quoted By:

>>4489845
B&W dev is done by hand, and C41 film is done by machine automation.
I've seen a moderate rise of C41 B&W film being sold locally this past year or so. Local shop has sold a lot more XP2 Super than even HP5 according to the owner. The film is like an extra two bucks per roll but costs 2/3rd the dev cost at the same store so it's actually more economical.

Besides, think of how much time it takes you to dev a single roll at home. Even if you've done it a hundred times and have all the chems ready to go, it still takes you a good 20-30 minutes to go through everything all the way to drying. I'm not surprised shops are charging $20 USD a roll to have an intern spend a solid half an hour on a single job.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Dec 2025 07:14:54 No.4489887 Report

Quoted By:

>>4489852
also that's the reason you never give your BW film to a lab because they don't know what look you want and they just use $something. if you shoot BW film you have to develop yourself to keep full control of the process. otherwise you could just get a digicam and shoot the monochrome JPG profile. same amount of control - just less cost.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 20 Jan 2026 18:37:49 No.4494638 Report

Quoted By:

>>4415069
I miss the days of $3 film and $5 developing

5MiB, 6656x4314, 000071800023_corrected_01.jpg

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO

/fgt/ - Film Photography Thread

Anonymous Mon 22 Dec 2025 07:51:38 No.4489677 View View Reply Last 50 Original Report

Quoted By:

Planes, Trains, and Automobiles Edition

Please post film photos, talk about film photography, film gear like cameras, film stocks, news, and tips/tricks in this thread.

Also talk about darkroom practices, enlargers, photo paper, techniques like dodging/burning, tools, and equipment related to enlarging, developing, and printing.

Thread Question: Do you develop yourself or let a lab do it for you?

Previous thread: >>4482671

379 posts and 129 images omitted

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 20 Jan 2026 06:47:20 No.4494567 Report

Quoted By: >>4494577

>>4494561
How would you have added a sense of weight? Is an entire structure being held up by a cracking egg not enough?
Im also curious why you mentioned the cable in the background and still thought it was laying on the ground. How does that even make sense?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 20 Jan 2026 07:46:51 No.4494577 Report

Quoted By: >>4494581

>>4494567
>How would you have added a sense of weight? Is an entire structure being held up by a cracking egg not enough?
It just doesn't feel like it is held up by the egg. The top brick just looks like it's resting on the right-most brick, making a safe shelter for the egg, rather than putting it in danger.
Also the composition feels very static, being framed on top and bottom with horizontal bricks, and left corner, adding a right angle. Even with the two slanted bricks, it exudes stability, rather than peril and impending doom.
>Im also curious why you mentioned the cable in the background and still thought it was laying on the ground. How does that even make sense?
I think my initial impression of it being top-down was so strong that I just didn't connect the two facts. Want thinking much about desu, the cable didn't seem too out of place in a pile of rubble.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 20 Jan 2026 08:23:49 No.4494581 Report

Quoted By: >>4494585

>>4494577
There's really no point when you continue to demonstrate your inability to even look at a picture and ignore important and fairly obvious details in that image.
The egg is getting visibly crushed and cracked and your feelings are telling you it is safe lol. cmon bro...

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 20 Jan 2026 10:01:02 No.4494585 Report

Quoted By:

>>4494581
Nothing in the picture tells me that the egg is being crushed. What I see when I look at it is a static, stable structure. This is my honest opinion as a viewer, but feel free to disregard it, you do you.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 20 Jan 2026 15:54:45 No.4494622 Report

Quoted By:

>>4494610

>>4494610

>>4494610

4MiB, 1080x1920, fujifilm in the moment enjoyer.webm

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO

/Gear/ Containment

Anonymous Mon 01 Dec 2025 04:58:53 No.4485653 View View Reply Last 50 Original Report

Quoted By: >>4493596

>perfect colors right the first time edition

>>4484029

332 posts and 41 images omitted

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 20 Dec 2025 13:08:54 No.4489278 Report

Quoted By:

>>4489260
That's gonna be exciting. At that price I am not worried to yank around on it. We'll see if I can make it work.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Noni.png, 38KiB, 243x243

Anonymous Tue 13 Jan 2026 07:13:32 No.4493596 Report

Quoted By:

>>4485653
Any recommendations for a no-frills digital pocket camera? All I need is a point & shoot, maybe a cheap zoom function.

-Drifter.

-Drifter. Thu 15 Jan 2026 10:53:18 No.4493843 Report

Quoted By:

>>4486079
As a person who has used it for a month now. At 25mm yes it is OK to shoot close up even wide open.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Screenshot_20260116-215851.png, 1MiB, 1080x1786

Anonymous Sat 17 Jan 2026 04:00:58 No.4494111 Report

Quoted By:

>>4485913
Is that what you call this?
>>4485751
Have you considered relaxing?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 20 Jan 2026 13:19:06 No.4494598 Report

Quoted By:

>>4485977
>>4486193
>5D
Newfag here, been looking at either getting a 5D used or a 60D. Educate me on which model would be better for a complete beginner that just doesn't want to take phone pictures on trips anymore. I do enjoy a more vintage digital experience, as I had a Sony H50 but that was 15 years ago and I sold it

2MiB, 2016x3000, 1.jpg

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Sun 07 Dec 2025 17:05:45 No.4487003 View View Reply Last 50 Original Report

Quoted By:

Haven't posted in a couple of months but got a few rolls developed recently and I'm slowly going through scanning them.

Exif: Leica M3 + Nokton 50mm f.1.5 + Vision3 250D (for the first seven ones), then Aerocolor IV for the remaining four.

62 posts and 29 images omitted

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Jan 2026 06:54:10 No.4493472 Report

Quoted By:

>>4493288
Thanks, bro. I also really enjoy that one.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Jan 2026 12:46:11 No.4493619 Report

Quoted By:

>>4487758
>He doesn't know voigtlander lenses are optically on par if not better than lenses these days.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Jan 2026 13:07:03 No.4493620 Report

Quoted By: >>4493924

Love the colours in the 250D shots. They don't have a green tint that I see other people get from it. I hate green tints.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 15 Jan 2026 23:05:20 No.4493924 Report

Quoted By:

>>4493620
Right? I don't know how OP does it, these are bright and colorful with tasteful halation while any time I shoot vision3 it comes out with weird color cast that can't be easily fixed. Maybe he's using bona-fide ECN2 chemicals or is just better at scanning. I'll stick to gold and ultramax or the de-remjetted vision3, those come out ok.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 20 Jan 2026 13:01:18 No.4494594 Report

Quoted By:

>>4487005
Bro did you just post a pic of your mrs on a chins?

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Threads by latest replies - Page 5

On these archives

Your latest searches

looking for a new (used) camera

HORSE

/gear/ general

Photos with Sunsets

redscale snapsharts

/fgt/ - Film Photography Thread

/Gear/ Containment