Yeah shooting film is indeed fun but maaan, it is no way cheaper than shooting digital.
Someone should sticky this to inform new/p/hags that film is not cheaper than digital
Film camera: $100 lightmeter: $50 Film (say $4 each): $4 x 52 rolls (one roll per week) = $208 Developing: $5 x 52 = $260 Put in CD: $3 x 52 = $156 = $774 for one year and $1398 for two years (if the film camera and lightmeter is still working)
>>2736854 I don't get mad, but I do feel some envy whenever I see people with shitexpensive DSLRs and everything set on "auto" while using a shitty kit lens, while I use a Canon AE-1 so that I can buy cheap FD lenses because a similar digital outfit with EF lenses would set me back about 5-10k and I'm europoor.
Anyone can pick up a camera and with a couple of weeks of practice, can be proficient. Not good, not talented, but proficient in a technical sense. Imagine if you could just pick up a violin or a paintbrush and become technically proficient in the same span of time. Imagine if you could produce a decent piano composition just a few weeks after laying your hands on one for the first time.
Because... Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Why does /p/ have such an issue with wedding photography?
-One of the few avenues left to make a living in photography. -Creatively one of the most rewarding as you are faced with a multitude of venues, body shapes and situations. -One of the most technically demanding requiring skills from multiple disciplines, everything from macro to large groups and in the best and shittiest light. -Also requires tremendous interpersonal skills as well as strong time management
>>2736822 >One of the few avenues left to make a living in photography. Yes, that's true, money in wedding photography is good. >Creatively one of the most rewarding as you are faced with a multitude of venues, body shapes and situations. LOL x12 >One of the most technically demanding requiring skills from multiple disciplines, everything from macro to large groups and in the best and shittiest light. What.jpg Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
As a wedding photographer you can work from grand country halls to city centre hotels. From teepees in a field to rooftop restaurants. You can have old brides, young brides, fat brides, thin brides. Brides with big noses or ears. And you have to make all of them look good. To utilise your surroundings and available light, to augment with your own light, to hide negative aspects and enhance the positive takes real skill.
With regards to the technical side think about the range of shots: up close details of the dress and jewelry, candid shots of the guests, groom portrait, bridal portrait, family group shots, architectural shots of the venue, shots of the food and table details. Most of these you have very little control over forcing you to adapt to the conditions rapidly. You have to be confident in your skills and equipment.
Now, I would agree that wedding photography is not art as art should be created without compromise. Believe me wedding photography is fraught with compromise.
But that doesn't mean it is worthless, to be good takes true skill and to dismiss because of some arbitrary stipulation of its worthiness makes you blinded by your own snobbery.
>photography is not photography >photography is supposed to be art
I think I know what you meant to say, but you sure didn't articulate it well, hopefully your photogra... art is more clear and concise. Next time make some art to express your opinion instead! :DDDDDDDDDDDD
Story time: >friends are having a New Years party >decide to bring my Canon 60D >slap on my all purpose EF-S 15-85mm What the hell, why not. >took about 200 pictures and 10 videos throughout the night >got some real prime pictures of my friends >spend the next day editing >hours upon hours of juicy Photoshop >got a particularly... Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Hello friends, i have a question for those who used this lens, is it worth 364 eurobucks? I'm not afraid to use full manual and to be frank this is going to be my first prime lens i'll buy, or should i get the 50mm 1.4 from cannon?
>>2736712 I'm sure it will be an okay lens. I've used the 14mm and it was alright, definitely soft in the corners. If you're willing to spend more, go with the sigma 50mm, it's better than the canon 1.4. And I'm not talking about the sigma art series lens, just the regula 50 1.4 that costs around 400 USD
>>2736710 I was thinking of doing something similar. Not as structured as this, I simply wanted to have one good photo per week that I was willing to post on my facebook and instagram.
As far as making you "better", I'm sure it will help getting your creative juices going by shooting things in ways you normally don't. But after a while you may feel like it's tedious, and you might lack motivation because some of it won't interest you
>>2736727 >Not as structured as this, I simply wanted to have one good photo per week that I was willing to post on my facebook and instagram.
That's also what I have in mind. But I may end up lacking ideas on what to shoot.
>As far as making you "better", I'm sure it will help getting your creative juices going by shooting things in ways you normally don't. But after a while you may feel like it's tedious, and you might lack motivation... Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>2736710 I would love to but I shoot film. I need to finish the roll first before I develop it so it translates to 52 rolls of film for the entire year. That's a bit costly and may cost $500 for the film and developing for one year.
>>2736595 bumping for an answer I dont know why the fame file looks different depending on where i'm viewing it, or what it actually looks like to others/if it changes based on what theyre using to view it
I bought an a6000 about a month ago and have a tiny spec of dust on my sensor. It's not effecting my images but it's bugging me. I tired using a blower to get it off but it won't leave. If it's not effecting my images will it damage my camera or am I fine to just leave it?
>>2736601 You should be fine. I've got an a7r and I have a nasty chunk of dust too. It's just a pain in the ass to have to remove the spot on every single photo. You can always get a sensor cleaning kit, or bring it to a camera shop to get it cleaned if it bothers you a lot. There shouldn't be any damage caused by the dust sitting there though
>>2736601 >>2736678 Just buy a high quality soft brush at an art store and carefully brush the sensor off with very fine movements. I do this from time to time on my DSLR, it's nothing to be afraid of. The key thing is the brush, rabbit hair brushes are the best.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at email@example.com with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.