|
litany of gulps posted:You're probably right. There's a handful of good photos from every decade of the early and mid twentieth century, so manual focus is actually what everyone should be using in their photography. Nevermind the presumably vast number of lost opportunities. You are exhausting.
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 05:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 00:28 |
|
|
litany of gulps posted:Would it ever have happened without taking good pictures becoming easy as a result of cell phones? I know this is pointless, but this is such a wild statement. Yes, the proliferation of photography would happen without cell phones because uhh it did e: also in this weird tortured metaphor the person inherited a turntable with sentimental value and is asking for speaker recommendations and you're telling them to throw away the turntable because Spotify exists big black turnout fucked around with this message at 05:49 on Feb 2, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 05:46
|
|
|
litany of gulps posted:
Let's not pretend rangefinder cameras haven't been made easier to use by technological advances
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 06:03
|
|
|
What a weird thing to get so mad about
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 09:40
|
|
|
Photojournalist David Burnett shot the 2012 London Olympics with a loving speed graphic 
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 11:01
|
|
|
For me it's the difference between the requirements "if I get something cool and it it's in focus it's a bonus and it will have a definite style I like because of the gear I used" and "I drove 3 hours at 3am to get to the bird reserve/sports event and the owls fledging/big game only happens once a year so I HAVE to get the shot so I want as much FPS and AF as I can."
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 11:23
|
|
|
If you think about it being in focus is really just a failing of our imperfect meat parts, unable to comprehend the full resolution of the universe with our pitiful ocular sensors
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 13:30
|
|
|
I dunno, all photography is cool and you can make rad poo poo with all of it
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 14:07
|
|
|
I'm stuck on the wrong side of "can".
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 14:48
|
|
|
Ziggy Smalls posted:Photojournalist David Burnett shot the 2012 London Olympics with a loving speed graphic Probably the most prolific photojournalist ever. His entire body of work is insane and great. He’s giving a feee talk in Miami soon I should try to catch.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 15:28
|
|
|
Manual focus is fun and you should do it. Or dont, who cares we're all just taking pictures of poo poo however we want, dont get mad about it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 22:44
|
|
|
Relatedly: I know this is a very, very long shot, but does anyone have a Canon EE-S focusing screen floating around that they'd like to part with? They are nowhere to be found on the used market. I do a lot of shooting with  MANUAL FOCUS lenses, and the stock focusing screen is sort of lacking in that regard, and the lack of a live view makes it tougher
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 22:58
|
|
|
I'm slowly but surely picking away at iconic WW2 era film cameras, so it was only a matter of time before I came across The Brick ok, technically a post-war Colormatic, but who's counting. Since paying someone to CLA it would cost more than the camera itself, I did it myself. Before:  After:  Fired a few shots after refurbishing it. This camera was not intended for human hands. The shutter cocking lever hits your finger when you shoot, which keeps the shutter open. The winding knob is very difficult to use with the flash attachment on. It's very annoying to have a separate button for disengaging the film lock, and half the time I get a nice crunching sound when winding, alerting me that I forgot to press it. Also despite my efforts I couldn't get the shutter to fire slower than 1/10 or faster than 1/240, although from reading the internet it seems that no Argus C3 was actually capable of 1/300 as advertised. I'm going to carry it around with me and hand it to people who want to get their hands on my FED.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2024 23:02
|
|
|
Go full Ice Spice and make it your new hottest accessory
Megabound fucked around with this message at 00:22 on Feb 5, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2024 00:12
|
|
|
the prism filter trend is really getting out of control
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2024 00:21
|
|
|
I found this the other day and it’s pretty cool
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2024 02:39
|
|
|
But does it have IBIS?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2024 02:48
|
|
|
yeah it comes with In-Brick Imagination Stimulation
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2024 03:46
|
|
|
Is there such a things as a spacer that allows me to move a filter further forward with respect to the lens? Sort of like a step up ring where the front and back have the same diameter?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2024 03:50
|
|
|
Like a macro extension?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2024 03:55
|
|
|
Perhaps. I only need 4 mm. But maybe my math is wrong. I have a 6x12 pinhole camera and it has a focal length of 40 mm -> 120 degree image diagonal -> 4 stops of vignetting in the corners So I bought a 2-stop center filter and it improves things. But I think it can be improved further by moving it further away from the pinhole. The filter is 60 mm in diameter, and for it to cover 120 degrees, I think it should sit ~18 mm away from the pinhole. If it sits too close, then I don't get the full correction of the filter. If it's too far then it will vignette even move. I am currently measuring a distance of 14 mm between pinhole and filter, so I wanted to move it an extra 4 mm forward to see if the improvement is visible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2024 04:04
|
|
|
Fellatio del Toro posted:yeah it comes with In-Brick Imagination Stimulation Perfect, no notes, you should feel very proud of this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2024 05:59
|
|
|
Manual focus is cool, once you get used to what all the distances on your lens means it's even better for quick snapshotting Having said that I've always used auto stuff on holidays just in case I miss shots, planning my next trip with just manual poo poo though E: HUGE fan of joshua Paul's f1 photography shot on a camera from the 1910s field balm fucked around with this message at 01:54 on Feb 6, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 01:51
|
|
|
Those markers cracked a Columbo case, so they must be good. *Cries in f-stops* 
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 02:22
|
|
|
field balm posted:Manual focus is cool, once you get used to what all the distances on your lens means it's even better for quick snapshotting One of my favorite recently discovered photographers shoots a lot of portraits and weddings with the Nikon Noct 58mm f0/.95. Manual focusing wide open at that narrow DOP is nuts, but he says the modern focus peaking and LCDs make it pretty easy when combined with burst shooting https://totovillaruel.com/blog/marvin-valeries-wedding-karuizawa-japan/
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 02:29
|
|
|
theHUNGERian posted:Those markers cracked a Columbo case, so they must be good. I love looking at the cameras in Columbo. My favorite is the Hassy in the porn magazine episode with I'm pretty sure a power winder. The Dick van Dyke episode is good too where pull apart Polaroids are a major plot device
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 05:11
|
|
|
litany of gulps posted:I cannot even imagine getting into photography as a self taught beginner using a camera with no autofocus, lol I know we moved on from this but I learned the basics of photography as a complete beginner trying to figure out how to use a Bolex D8L my grandpa gave me. That was manual exposure and zone focusing only. In 2009. When I was a high schooler. And all through just reading stuff on the internet. I've genuinely never understood the mystique or terror around this poo poo lmao. There literally is nothing intimidating or scary about manual focus or manual exposure control.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 03:52
|
|
|
astr0man posted:For what it's worth, I have an R and an R5, and IMO the R is still a perfectly good camera, and it would probably still feel like an upgrade over a 5D2 (other than losing the thumbstick for moving your AF point). And I'm guessing you can probably find them fairly cheap used now that there's so many other full-frame RF options. I’ve always had cameras a good handful of generations behind what’s new, in my mind, a camera that’s at top level at any stage will likely still always be a good camera. the potential to get good photos is not diminished, the main goal of newer cameras is basically to make it easier to get them, rather than get photos not actually possible before I live in kiwiland and everything is expensive over here. an r6 ii would be incredible but impossible to justify, I couldn’t claim i’d be taking better pictures with it I did a shoot yesterday with the R and, even with an adapter for EF, it nailed the focus almost every time, the photos are as sharp as I’d ever want them. the battery life really is superb, I carry a second battery but have only had to use it once despite routinely shooting 600-1000 photos in a shoot at a time (the battery killer is long shoots rather than lots of photos ime) anyway, thanks for the validation anyway lol.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 09:27
|
|
|
Megabound posted:People have been taking sharp photos of all kinds of things since the late 1800s *talented people
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 09:29
|
|
|
I'm perfectly capable of taking out of focus pictures even with autofocus, so a manual everything camera isn't particularly intimidating. Rangefinders are definitely more convenient, but a laser rangefinder is like $10.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 18:30
|
|
|
ishikabibble posted:I know we moved on from this but I learned the basics of photography as a complete beginner trying to figure out how to use a Bolex D8L my grandpa gave me. That was manual exposure and zone focusing only. In 2009. We’re all very impressed. Have you genuinely tried to understand though?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 18:43
|
|
|
Didn’t a lot of us learn on similar antiquated gear? My first camera was my dad’s OM-1 with a broken light meter.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 19:00
|
|
|
No because I thought cameras were dumb until 2010. I was probably better off without them but that ship has sailed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 19:33
|
|
|
I'm an idiot, but I'm learning to shoot on a manual focus rangefinder film body and it's fine? Like anyone I get paranoid about whether things are lining up correctly when I get a new lens but I'm shooting things and getting results that I (usually) like and are perfectly in focus. What an insane argument. The only thing I wish I had was a perfectly calibrated eyeball for light metering.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 23:12
|
|
|
Looking for new camera body recommendations: So I'm an archivist and occasionally do freelance digitization projects of documents and art. Everything from things post it note sized up to very large paintings, though most stuff is around 8.5x11" or 11x14" that I shoot. I've been doing this since about 2012, and I've been using my Canon Rebel T3 to do it. Its time to get a new camera for this though. I'm starting to research newer camera bodies, something I haven't looked into in at least a decade, and see what I should get that would be best for this type of photography of still objects. I would like to stick to Canon so I can continue to use the lenses I have, and I would like to spend around $1000 or less on the camera body. If anyone has any lens recommendations for this I'd take them as well, but the body should be all I need right now with the other gear I have. If there is any particular reading I should do that would help me pick something out I would appreciate links as well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 23:25
|
|
|
Hello fellow archivist. I've had really great success with the RF 50mm f/1.8 STM for document photography in the past (in fact I'll probably be ordering one for my new job soon). It's very sharp and very cheap so you can spend more of your budget on getting a higher resolution sensor, which will translate to more fine detail. I've found that the sensor and lighting are the most important things for document photography, though I haven't had to photograph art.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 23:35
|
|
|
A Canon R8 would get you a full frame mirrorless with all the modern tech and quality for around 1k refurb. Same with an R6 body, which would have a few more features that kind of work doesn't really need (IBIS, dual memory cards, etc). The main thing I would be looking at for lenses for that kind of work would be a macro lens for documents. The 35mm 1.8 is a macro lens while still being wide enough to make the shooting process pretty easy for archiving. The macro capability will make a big difference in the readability of your images.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 23:49
|
|
|
If you go mirrorless, keep in mind you’ll want to buy an adapter for your lenses. One of the variants of this, and you can mount EF and EF-S lenses: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1433717-REG/canon_mount_adapter_ef_rf.html With $1000 to spend I’d probably go mirrorless too. You could save money going with any number of DSLR bodies, but it wouldn’t be as big a jump. Seems like you keep your gear a while, so I’d say go all out. Shop used, and you should be able to pull it off.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 01:10
|
|
|
Thanks all, this is very helpful. The R8 is looking like the way to go for me, but I am going to do a little more research before I make a final decision. I see Canon sells the refurbs direct, is there somewhere I should go to look for used bodies or is it just ebay? Also, I wasn't aware I would need an adapter to make my old lenses work with a mirrorless so thanks for pointing that out and linking to one. Anything else I should be aware of making the switch?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 14:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 00:28 |
|
|
nesbit37 posted:Thanks all, this is very helpful. The R8 is looking like the way to go for me, but I am going to do a little more research before I make a final decision. I see Canon sells the refurbs direct, is there somewhere I should go to look for used bodies or is it just ebay? I've had good luck buying used from mpb.com
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 15:27
|
|