/p/ - Photography

Resources & discussion regarding the heliographic practice

SAVE THIS FILE: Anon.cafe Fallback File v1.0 (updated 2021-01-10)

Want your event posted here? Requests accepted in this /meta/ thread.

Max message length: 5120

Drag files to upload or
click here to select them

Maximum 5 files / Maximum size: 20.00 MB

Board Rules
More

(used to delete files and postings)


Enter the Darkroom


Open file (4.81 MB 4000x3000 P1230777.JPG)
Open file (4.92 MB 4000x3000 P1230217.JPG)
Open file (4.99 MB 4000x3000 P1230299.JPG)
Open file (4.87 MB 4000x3000 P1230300.JPG)
Open file (4.86 MB 4000x3000 P1230305.JPG)
Your Pictures Thread Photog 05/02/2020 (Sat) 06:02:51 No.3
Post pictures that you've taken to share them with other anons. Talk about the things you like to take pics of and what camera you use. I'll start. I use a Lumix FZ48, and I like to take pictures of nature, and I want to get into more Urbex pictures.
Open file (715.65 KB 1335x1000 DSC00106-Resize.jpg)
Open file (628.50 KB 1335x1000 SAM_3168-Resize.jpg)
Open file (1.22 MB 1500x1000 1088-Pichon-Resize.jpg)
Open file (1.21 MB 1000x1550 IMG_3204-Resize.jpg)
Right now i'm a complete scrub trying to study photog in my free mental time, which isn't much due to college anxiety but we are trying. Have a sizeable backlog but i want to polish the post-processing skills enough to start fixing all of them, still here's some i took years ago. First one is with a Sony Cybershot DSCW120, second one is a Samsung WB150 and the other two are early edits from a Canon 1300D. I was a deutsch angle junkie but mainly because i wanted to leave out things from the frame, didn't really understand the concept of the technique. I like most genres but landscape, cityscape/architecture and most things with crooked perspective/the Deutsch are my main attractions. Also night time stuff but i don't have technique for it.
>>9 >Right now i'm a complete scrub trying to study photog in my free mental time same here man, most of my photography time comes when I'm out of town and have some time in nature. Your pictures look great man, my favorites have to be the 2nd and 4th ones.
Open file (327.82 KB 1164x1164 zz.jpg)
I've been out of the photography game for years but am looking to get an enlarger for some old 120 film negatives I have. What should I look for in an enlarger? I'd like one where I can adjust the color balance of the picture to warm up cold-looking photos and that can make big prints but don't remember much about this stuff anymore (if I ever knew it). Any suggestions?
Open file (643.70 KB 1433x1470 6.jpg)
Open file (210.25 KB 739x554 old4.jpg)
>>72 Hey i think i remember you. These are yours? 5 years ago it seems, welcome in any case. >I'd like one where I can adjust the color balance of the picture to warm up cold-looking photos Last time i saw an enlarger was a decade ago, the only thing i remember that kinda does that are colour filter slide compartment, but honestly i don't remember very well. They are quite big and if you are buying used double check it works for colour film as many cheeky fellas like to use "general use" for some of them due to their lenses but omit they are just B&W. In terms of film stuff (which is quite rare in my town) i've found talking with portrait shop owners (the places you take a picture for official documents) usually have equipment gathering dust, if you show coin or strike a conversation you might get some info or even service for cheap. Wish i could help more but i am honestly a DigiBabby
Open file (10.15 MB 3648x2736 ath.jpg)
Open file (10.18 MB 3648x2736 fu90a.jpg)
>>73 Yup, those are mine all right! The second one was from when I was still taking digital pictures and editing the crap out of them. Here are a couple more that I don't think I ever posted. I've been sitting on my thumbs all these years, and it's been bothering me that I've done nothing with my negatives yet. There is a photography place in my town. I think they even work with film, so it might be worth a try to call them up and see if they can help.
Open file (182.10 KB 730x547 old.jpg)
Open file (136.93 KB 730x432 old2.jpg)
Open file (201.82 KB 1152x1000 Throwaway_shot.jpg)
Open file (146.29 KB 800x800 a3468453462_10.jpg)
Open file (71.45 KB 700x700 a3640315490_5.jpg)
>>74 Really like the style, mid-to-late 00's electronica. It has its charm although i would say it even predates those years. I remember your work because i did a backup of everything i liked from the old /p/ board after it went kaput and wanted to make a PDF showcasing it as some kind of time capsule, but never really went for it, perhaps one day. Also i didn't know we could upload a bit more than 20MBs seeing that you uploaded 20.3, those are just as cool. Yeah try moving those film dudes, sometimes if they are old ones they might be enthusiastic but from my part they are always bitter and busy so i just stop after the first small chat.
Open file (1.09 MB 861x853 jcsdklcs.jpg)
Open file (10.69 MB 3648x2736 dcsjklfsdlk.jpg)
Open file (9.67 MB 3648x2736 hsjkchk.jpg)
>>75 >Really like the style, mid-to-late 00's electronica. It has its charm although i would say it even predates those years. I've always leaned toward heavily edited images when it comes to color digital photography, but I ended up finding a tutorial that showed how to use gradients to make images that look like chillwave album covers. From there I just played with things like RGB noise, VHS filters, and color curves. The third picture here is the second oldest color edit I have, and the .tiff file only dates back to 2012. Nostalgic musical aesthetics were a big influence on me both then and now (even if I kind of gave up on photography). >I remember your work because i did a backup of everything i liked from the old /p/ board after it went kaput and wanted to make a PDF showcasing it as some kind of time capsule, but never really went for it, perhaps one day. Also i didn't know we could upload a bit more than 20MBs seeing that you uploaded 20.3, those are just as cool. It's hard to believe that those film pictures I posted are like five years old already. >Yeah try moving those film dudes, sometimes if they are old ones they might be enthusiastic but from my part they are always bitter and busy so i just stop after the first small chat. You'd think they'd be friendlier seeing as how that kind of stuff is much more niche than it used to be and so their business would be more limited when it comes to film.
Open file (413.17 KB 1317x1200 front.jpg)
>>76 It's kind of a digital/scanline pictorial, honestly it's pretty nice. Seeing my notepads from the amateur backup, it says here under "Lo-Fi Man" you used "an old Powershot and did a ton of post-processing in GIMP", didn't know it was that useful, i just used GIMP for drawing and conversions. >hard to believe that those pictures are five years old already Film photography is ruthless in terms of time, even when it's as rewarding when pulled out. A friend of mine went for it and ended up becoming a videographer more quickly than a photographer (and that was years later), he's still a good shot but film resources and processes take their toll on anybody. It does justifies certain aesthetics popular these days with the lomography scene but it's demanding, i would fall back into a small thrift store point n shooter while trying to get them negatives enlarged, your stuff is pleasant to view and maybe a cheap compact package might get you warmed up, although it also says here film was more closer/better for the motive you wanted.
Open file (9.59 MB 3648x2736 jlksjxal.jpg)
Open file (1.76 MB 2592x1944 sdjasdls.jpg)
>>77 > you used "an old Powershot and did a ton of post-processing in GIMP", didn't know it was that useful, i just used GIMP for drawing and conversions. Yeah, I used GIMP for absolutely everything. Photoshop might be what the pros use, but I only ever used that in school. I've always stuck with GIMP just because I'm used to using it and it's free. >It does justifies certain aesthetics popular these days with the lomography scene but it's demanding, i would fall back into a small thrift store point n shooter while trying to get them negatives enlarged, your stuff is pleasant to view and maybe a cheap compact package might get you warmed up, although it also says here film was more closer/better for the motive you wanted. Film might be a lot more of a hassle, but it can also get imperfect images right out of the camera that I'm (mostly) satisfied with. With digital it was more of a matter of taking pictures and editing them until I liked them. A lot of times I'd get things like blown-out skies shooting digitally, too. While the Holga images I shot were blurry (maybe a bit more than I'd like), they also didn't have that problem. There was even a short period when I tried to compromise and shoot on a Nikon camera with a Holga lens, but then I just realized I should stop going halfway with the things I want to do and just try shooting on film. Also, judging from his first record, Ulrich Schnauss has done some great stuff. I only discovered him a few years ago. He might sound a bit clinical in production compared to something like Boards of Canada, but his compositions were nice and really capture that early 2000s feeling for me. Here are a few second-tier images I shot. I'm actually pretty happy with the way the second one turned out after editing, even if it's more of a textural piece than anything.
Open file (3.54 MB 3648x2736 dks;fksf;.jpg)
Open file (5.51 MB 3648x2736 fjscsdcl.jpg)
Open file (4.09 MB 3648x2736 ohuui.jpg)
>>78 >Here are a few second-tier images I shot. I'm actually pretty happy with the way the second one turned out after editing, even if it's more of a textural piece than anything. I mean the first one Might as well add a few higher-resolution versions of those images you posted while I'm at it.
>>78 >>79 If you liked Schnauss i recommend Manual's efforts, they are mostly guitar-based but does use cold drum machines once in a while along with echoing synths. Dude has an excellent Psychedelic Rock outfit on the side too. Thanks for the pictures, they are nice references and eye candy. Right now i'm watching some compositional stuff from mainstream jewtubers, then i will likely jump on a book or two then i will organize my backlog of pictures to start editing, and i will definitely try my luck with your mojo in some of my pictures. Would've used Holga lenses (very especially that colored turret one) but for some reason they are expensive in my country, oh well.
Open file (9.08 MB 3648x2736 kl;k;k;l.jpg)
>>80 >If you liked Schnauss i recommend Manual's efforts, they are mostly guitar-based but does use cold drum machines once in a while along with echoing synths. I'll have to give one of Manual's albums a listen. >Thanks for the pictures, they are nice references and eye candy. Right now i'm watching some compositional stuff from mainstream jewtubers, then i will likely jump on a book or two then i will organize my backlog of pictures to start editing, and i will definitely try my luck with your mojo in some of my pictures. Would've used Holga lenses (very especially that colored turret one) but for some reason they are expensive in my country, oh well. Good luck. Once you get a grasp of the basic tricks, it can become really easy as long as the base image is good enough (in regard to composition, I personally am no pro and just rely on the rule of thirds and not much more). The editing process for me is the most enjoyable part of photography. It also helps to do several different edits of an image and compare which one you prefer (pic related was an alternate I had and spiced up a bit just now). What software are you using? If you're going to try GIMP, then I can give you a few pointers.
Open file (5.10 MB 2400x1600 Blumenkraft 01.jpg)
Open file (4.07 MB 1600x2000 Ewige Blumenkraft 02.jpg)
>>81 After playing around for many hours i found your style to be very tricky, the images are processed over the top yet i suspect there's a very specific set of moves you created that is tough to replicate and give a delicate edge. I tried with some old JPEGs i had and some Photoshop + Luminar, honestly i don't know much about processing, even used some AI-aided software at the end and i still couldn't figure out some steps. I interpreted that you did those edits for small-time fun yet i finally realize you had a relatively complex way of doing it. Here's the eye-sore tests: First one used a base image that i probably should've not used, too many busy lines and the original uncropped was worse, i made the scanlines too small and they cannot be easily seen until too close. Second one i thought i had it nailed but when i downloaded my favorite image >>76 i realized it also had scanlines and texturing, i tried to add that but even so there's still something that makes the image very eerie/pictorial. I reverted and just added grain, i should've probably burned the blue out in Photoshop before to make the skies glowing white; you used a RAW image there? if not then i need to up my game hard and/or you took a very, very pretty image from the get-go, which is what i suspect. >then I can give you a few pointers. Somehow i never read this part of the post, that would be pretty cool, hope you didn't get eaten by the anon candlejack.
Open file (4.85 MB 1824x1368 jljkljlkk.jpg)
>>152 >I interpreted that you did those edits for small-time fun yet i finally realize you had a relatively complex way of doing it. Yeah, probably after doing it so many times. >I reverted and just added grain, i should've probably burned the blue out in Photoshop before to make the skies glowing white; you used a RAW image there? if not then i need to up my game hard and/or you took a very, very pretty image from the get-go, which is what i suspect. No, I don't even think the camera I used had a RAW option. >Somehow i never read this part of the post, that would be pretty cool, hope you didn't get eaten by the anon candlejack. I'm trying to retrace my own footsteps here for the order I usually do things, but it went like this: >apply an image gradient You're going to want warm colors here. One of my tricks is to almost always shoot on bright, sunny days to make everything pop out more. Warm colors like pink look really nice blended in with a bright blue sky. The opacity should be pretty subtle. You can also apply more than one gradient if you want. >Adjust brightness and contrast Contrast is the important thing here. You shouldn't necessarily go crazy with it. A little can go a long way in bringing out the colors of the gradient (as well as the ones that were inherent to the image itself). >Increase saturation This should again be pretty subtle. >Apply ripple and shift effects The ripple effect isn't all that necessary, but it's shift that creates that melting-pixel effect you see when you look at the image close up. >Apply video effect Stripe and wide stripes are the ones I usually use. That's basically it. All these assume you're using GIMP or have access to equivalent effects (I'm not very familiar with what Photoshop has beyond the basic things like being able to adjust brightness and saturation). I made pic related trying to remember how I usually did things. It's not very good (probably due to the crappy gradient I was using and the fact that I'm obviously out of practice and not used to newer versions of GIMP), but it looks roughly within the same ballpark. I hope that helps given that my example edit turned out so badly.
>>153 In fact, I don't even know if that image was worth including it looks so bad.
>>153 Wrote a big reply some days ago but it was deleted in a browser crash and then Gimp also did, here goes again but i forgot some points Downloaded GIMP after many years and i'm surprised to see it's almost like Photoshop now, back then opening it would pull up 3 or 4 small separate windows and it was mostly drawfag centric. Wonder if it can be reversed to that old form, i bet those old cartoonist liked this change. >I don't even think the camera I used had a RAW option. Then it was a good shot there, genuinely like it perhaps because there's no forests in my town. Curious to see the original. Also thanks for writing that guide, it makes sense now. >but it's shift that creates that melting-pixel effect you see when you look at the image close up. I thought you had to download the template or make it by hand, and then select it, invert it and move the selection on the original image to shift the lines manually, like 3 or 4 times, while moving the opacity of the scanline template to not make it look harsh. Now that's how i did originally, it seems GIMP does all the job with that shift filter; not underestimating your effort tho. I would also say you added a Canvas filter at some point, GIMP one is good but i think Photoshop's more refined, i used the latter but reverted it because saving the image in .gif adds texture enough. Here's my venture into it, this one from my first time i went out with a DSLR i shot this one with the backup point n shoot because i didn't know how to use the reflex camera, screwing the best day i've seen that beach look It does add a ton of character although my edit looks more like a vaporwave cover rather than your ambient shoegaze albums. >this image looks so bad. Funny, it's the first time i've seen the lenticular effect done right in a digital image, and it was done without an automatic app. You probably didn't want to go for that but mistakes into miracles™ How did it go with your film negatives?
Open file (269.33 KB 912x684 h.jpg)
>>155 >Then it was a good shot there, genuinely like it perhaps because there's no forests in my town. Yeah, I think it turned out decent enough. I feel like my camera did most of the work though. I kind of actually dislike pine forests but also kind of find white pines interesting. The place I used to live didn't have them (at least not many), and so they always stood out to me as being kind of unusual from what I was used to. >Curious to see the original. Here's a small image of it. >Also thanks for writing that guide, it makes sense now. No problem. >I would also say you added a Canvas filter at some point, GIMP one is good but i think Photoshop's more refined, i used the latter but reverted it because saving the image in .gif adds texture enough. I don't think I've ever actually tried one of those. >Here's my venture into it, this one from my first time i went out with a DSLR i shot this one with the backup point n shoot because i didn't know how to use the reflex camera, screwing the best day i've seen that beach look It does add a ton of character although my edit looks more like a vaporwave cover rather than your ambient shoegaze albums. I think it looks a bit too sharp, rather than soft. I do like how the mountains in the background turned out. It makes me think of a background layer from an old video game. >How did it go with your film negatives? I haven't gotten around to that yet. I realized that the place in my town probably doesn't do 120 film and that I should just send the negatives off elsewhere to be scanned in higher resolution. I'd prefer to do things 100% analog, but I don't even know that that it's possible to get the images like I'd want them to look without a ton of work. I may go that way eventually though. Right now I'm holding off on doing anything until all this rioting and unrest cools down, since I'm paranoid about having my negatives traveling through a crappy area and getting destroyed (even though nothing's realistically going to happen).
I don't mean to do a double post, but have you been doing more edits lately?
>>157 Hey there, i don't think anyone will trouble you for "double posting" >doing more edits lately? College got a hold on me completely, sorry about not replying back. i did toy around some more and i discovered the obvious fault that shift effect cannot be scaled so i rescale the images down and apply the effect, with the con that they are not really wallpaper potential. Also saving in .gif gives an extra touch but the color depth and the dithering varies wildly, no general number recipe there other than sliding until satisfaction. I did make one more and redid the palm squad but i could never replicate your lovely yellow-tinted forests without using absurd amounts of filters in Lumion, with Gimp i tried but never with real intention. After that i went to book reading but had to ditch them to read the ones i need for the damn grade papers. I would've done more in the free time but i actually don't have that many images in the backlog that might exploit the advantages of this style, i wanted to shoot some but never got to it due to lockdown. As a side note I plan on selling my DSLR because i want the full frame meme but there's no money income and i want a 1400+ USD one, so to scratch the itch i will buy a premium point n shoot while i save for the big one. Guess i'll also use my older cameras too for this kind of edits and we have great sun yawns around here so it's a matter of going out, i'm kinda bored already of cloudbusting and shooting pigeons from my windows. Also awful quiet around here, guess we have the same curse as the old 8/p/.
>>158 >College got a hold on me completely, sorry about not replying back. It's fine. Things happen. >i did toy around some more and i discovered the obvious fault that shift effect cannot be scaled so i rescale the images down and apply the effect, with the con that they are not really wallpaper potential. Also saving in .gif gives an extra touch but the color depth and the dithering varies wildly, no general number recipe there other than sliding until satisfaction. I actually found that the number of options in the newest version of GIMP seemed kind of overwhelming. In the older versions, you couldn't even select the amount of opacity you for things like the CRT filter or the amount of RGB noise you wanted and just had to settle if I remember right. Maybe I should just go back to an older version. It seemed easier that way. Sometimes it's nicer to have simplicity than more options. >Guess i'll also use my older cameras too for this kind of edits and we have great sun yawns around here so it's a matter of going out, i'm kinda bored already of cloudbusting and shooting pigeons from my windows. Yeah, you don't need great cameras for these. As far as going out is concerned, I really have to push myself to get anything taken. >Also awful quiet around here, guess we have the same curse as the old 8/p/. Yeah, it's sad to see. Imageboards seem to be dying.
Open file (2.50 MB 1500x2000 SAM_1512LRES-PS-Tpz.jpg)
>>159 >Imageboards seem to be dying. Anons with the specific culture to be around here are disappearing but photography boards have always been low in numbers, 8 had the famous post per month thing going while the older 4 place i never visited, months ago i did to peak what were they like and it's a perpetual food fight with photography skills or methods being the last subject approached, a total shitfest. The old forums in the big websites are also filled with camera war threads and the odd 60yo actually taking photos for once but not "training" to be better, just bragging about going to Hawaii. The "social" websites are to the brim with girls whoring out with softcore shots and wedding photographers promoting their trade, the ones who do take photos as a hobby only take images of trashcan bins in public streets and random pedestrians minding their own business, none are composed particularly well and are just candid potshots. Rarely will there be an interesting or highly skilled photog but they usually drown in irrelevance because people either look at something else. Even if one finds the sweet spot in a kinda big social site, like the chinese scam 500px, it feels like there's not much going on in terms of community: It's a "like" mechanic, a small chat where people only say "nice" and if you do anything other than asking where did you take the shot, the machine will ban you for being mean or promoting ideologies. No conversations or debates like it would happen on an imageboard, and the sad thing is that all of these applies in most hobbies other than video games, anime and porn, and even then in the case of games there's tons of user in-fighting due to controversial figures roaming the communities, and in terms of anime the draconian moderators in most sites. I just wanted to talk about taking pictures.
>>160 >I just wanted to talk about taking pictures. Ironic. You're condemning offhand the one thing that can reign the abuse in, namely moderation. I suppose you consider the slightest moderation in the most basic way 'Draconian'? Pick a side Anon.
>>160 >No conversations or debates like it would happen on an imageboard, and the sad thing is that all of these applies in most hobbies other than video games, anime and porn, and even then in the case of games there's tons of user in-fighting due to controversial figures roaming the communities, and in terms of anime the draconian moderators in most sites. Traditional forums feel neutered compared to imageboards, and even then traditional forums are being killed off by things like Reddit and Discord.
>>161 >You're condemning offhand What, where >you consider the slightest moderation in the most basic way 'Draconian'? Why would you imply that? "I just want about taking pictures" as in i want to talk with some people about a basic topic while in other parts of the board they might want talk about gear, economic conditions of the trade, film vs digital and so on, one does not refute the other. And if anything i'm in favor of moderation in healthy amounts, and by my definition of that is elimination of spam and war bait (heh pills, iron pills, senseless raid requests, etc) and reorganization of probable benevolent actions that might appear as spam (controversial topic which spawns several duplicate threads, gear threads). Moderation doesn't mean prison camp, it means home keeping, by "Draconian" i mean auto-bans for diminutive incorrect grammar faults that don't affect the quality of the message and the de-facto prohibition of discussing anything older than a year or non-illegal "x" things that the mods don't like. Are you implying i should pick a side between eternal free-for-all shit flinging or iron guard punishment sessions? I think we should be reasonable. >>162 Yes, in the big photography web sites the forums became either technical support or brand loyalty reassurance talks, they are alive but ideas don't really flow aside from knowledgeable individuals spanking someone in a purely technical aspect of the camera. They might as well be dead on the water as they are more for official camera discussions rather than hobbyist photography talk. I still think there will be a renaissance of imageboards at some point, but that will come years later because there's a generation right now who have never talked freely about something in a public chat and might be very attracted to this concept, yet they are still very young to explore options. At this point they might be between 8 to 15yo.
Here be a pictar, took it some years ago with a (currently) $40EUR camera honestly thought it would be cheaper nowadays it was winter and i think i was waddling around after eating a plate of beef head in the early morning, there was our brand of rare eerie desert mist in the air and i saw this fellow wholesomely reading his newspaper at a corner he just walked in. I don't know if he lived near or was just a hobo but i liked the scene and just shot it & stored it, after checking it casually recently i thought the mist combined with the haze didn't help that much and started toying with it, trying to see what could i squeeze. Surprisingly i could push it way more than i imagined; love going out when that morning glow happens but here i just took it out. I don't know why i wrote all that, didn't want to be pretentious, just wanted to post these as a friendly reminder we all can make somewhat presentable and contemporary-looking images with cheap cameras, that is if you have the right tools in your computer. They are relatively easy to use these days and free if you know where to look so no big deal.
Open file (264.00 KB 1020x780 Stylus300-400.png)
Open file (396.90 KB 750x750 750.jpg)
Open file (289.65 KB 600x900 900 A.jpg)
Open file (218.82 KB 600x900 900 B.jpg)
Got a couple new cameras, a big pro one and a pair of brother small casual ones, both oldish/cheapish. Been experimenting with them in this pandemic without going out and seeing the shameful gear path to grow the main system with lenses, filters and accessories. Not really cheap but most grow-up hobbies aren't, long way to go but the camera and my traveler's pick, a 28-200mm zoom, have been performing above expectations. Here's a few of the many test shots i did but edited with my outdated high-contrast sensitives and, BEHOLD, a pretentious IG edit i did for fun (white borders, saturated colors, mundane subject) but ended up exploiting what i liked about the image in the first place: Deep Blue with Perfect Whites. The 2003's Stylus 300 still has it with its 3+ megapixel CCD sensor and 20 dollar price tag. The other ones are with the big guy, a Nikon D700. A sunset from a front window and the last one the first meaningful shot i did to test it, an away view to a back window.
Open file (134.88 KB 1000x1000 xIGver.jpg)
>>183 I have a tendency to convert all my edited photos into B&W to compare and it's usually normal that i like it better than the original. Text books say one should never have two versions of the same image but i cannot help it, and it's not the first time i have backtracked on the color version to post the grayscale later. A constant battle between tones & forms vs. light & textures.

Report/Delete/Moderation Forms
Delete
Report

Captcha (required for reports)

no cookies?