The good times have been incredible and the bad times only a bit frustrating.
Best of the good times have probably been getting on stage with some incredible musicians, hanging out back stage with them. Getting into a national broadcasters studios to film musicians perform live, I was shown around Israel by a former paratrooper, he brought me up to the Golan heights and to the border with Lebanon which was all amazing.
The bad stuff? Just getting bitched at really, people at protests venting on me for
>"the lack of press coverage... Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>2736147 >golan heights >90% of it is landmines, barbed wire fence, and rusted blown up halftrucks >areas literally designated "fire zones" a walk away from tourist attractions, where you are in danger of getting fucking shot cool place
>>2736091 Background seems a little weird to me. It's all pink and red hues on the left but then transitions to a faded khaki on the right, with this big old patch of dark on the bottom right. I think if it was uniformly either red/pink it'd work better and be a decent backdrop.
How badly did I fuck up? On Friday I purchased a d70,and since then I have been reading photography books I borrowed from the local library, almost every author has nothing good to say about crop sensors and talks about how you should go for full frame.
I spent €900 in total on the camera and kit lens, and there are eos 6d's/5d mark ii for around 200 more on eBay.
>>2736053 >Does an aps-c have any benefits over full frame? it's smaller and usually cheaper you though have paid way too much for what you bought >>2736059 >Sensor technology is making them obsolete fast. please provide examples
You didn't. A camera is as good as how you use it. Full frame is better no doubt, but it's heavier, lenses are 3 times more expensive at the very least , and if you can't shoot good photos then full frame won't fix it. There's nothing inherently wrong with a crop sensor just like there's nothing inherently wrong with an old smartphone. They did the job fine then and they still do it now, and using them to the maximum depends on how much of a gear-stroking faggot you are, since gear is improving to serve a good photographer in making the photograpy... Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
It's ok being a hobbyist but you will never make it and achieve anything in your photography if you never become a professional. I'm like that as well but you will forever be an "amateur" who's photographs won't exceed the snapshot status. All the best photographs in this world were shot by pros and not amateur snapshooters who talk about gear all the time and has no plan becoming a pro.
DigitalRev showed it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ccf8fQ4AQr8
I myself only improved so much when I started getting paid for my photos. I've recently shot a wedding and it taught me a lot.
Alrighty, so I'm looking for some cheap ways to get a nice lofi/vhs/whatever the fuck look. I'm looking at some cameras like the Digital Harinezumi for film stuff but want to know what some other alternatives for that kinda look would be. Also, I have a Nikon TeleTouch 300AF that needs a new battery and a Canon A-1 that is damaged in someway that I don't know, so I was wondering if I were to get them operating would they give me the kind of look im going for?
Keep in mind I'm completely new to photography but I've got these cameras and I'm pretty fucking interested in the filming shit so I could really use some help with finding some cheap stuff >pic related, it's pretty much what I'm going for I guess
I use Flickr and Instagram. I find it's easier to get followers on Flickr but more people use Instagram. I think it depends on your kind of photography. Flickr users tend to go for more generic beautiful photos where Instagram loves fashion and more unorthodox photos with filters (raised and crushed blacks in your tone curve for 20% more likes!). 500px tends to be where the best stuff that everyone will like goes.
When any wave passes through a small hole it gets slightly disorganised on the other side, more so the smaller the hole. This is called diffraction. When you shoot at f/22 your aperture is absolutely tiny and thus diffraction decreases the sharpness of your image by interfering with the light waves.
Most lenses tend to be sharpest around f/8 to f/11. f/22 shouldn't be used unless you really really want a long exposure for some reason and there's too much light around. Also if you shoot at f/22 dust spots on your sensor appear because the depth of field is so... Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Hey /p/ I found my dad's old Canon AE-1 Program film camera with a 50mm 1:1.4 lens on it. Being a Nikon guy and someone who has only shit digital and paintcan photos, can anyone tell me about it? Is it a decent camera? Would it be good to start film shooting with? Etc?
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 firstname.lastname@example.org with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.