No.38
I do, just for fun. I have no interest in doing for-profit work. I like having one thing in my life that has nothing to do with money.
I mostly do portraits. I used to do a lot of street work, but not recently.
No.39
I like to do it for fun currently but would like to make a profit from the photography work I do for my company
No.522
>>520I once had a chance to earn by doing photos. My friend asked if I wanted to do a session of her friend (no nude photos, just normal photos in forest etc) but lately she just stopped to talk to me and I never did those photos
No.571
>>494Love your second pic.
Photography is one of my professional tools, even though I'm not very knowledgeable, technically speaking.
I also enjoy flower close-ups
No.708
>>707If you really want an SLR, the Canon SL2 is damn good value for money, with lots of affordable good lenses, new and used. Good build and image quality.
But if you're looking for something nearly as good that's a lot more portable, consider the mirrorless Panasonics like the GX850 (if on a tight budget) or GX85 (if you want a built-in viewfinder). They have a really clever autofocus system called DFD that's super-fast even in dim light. I have a GX85 and absolutely love it. The sensor is a little smaller than most SLRs, so low-light image quality isn't going to be quite as good. That's just the trade-off, can't beat the law of physics. But a GX850 with the standard zoom is just tiny, you'll find yourself carrying it everywhere. And the GX85 isn't much bigger.
I'd avoid the Canon mirrorless bodies, as their native lens lineup is tiny. You can get an adaptor to fit SLR lenses, but it costs extra and makes the camera just as big as an SLR.
Fuji mirrorless also gets good reviews, but the lenses are as big as those for SLRs. So depending on if you prioritize portability or image quality, an SLR may or may not be for you.
No.709
>>708Thanks a tonne
The GX85 and the 850 both look really great for what I want.
Will keep all this in mind
No.710
>>707if you dont know alreay, look at used ones (ebay, craigslist, olx et cetera). many new dslrs cost considerably more than even slightly used ones – my current main camera I bought for 1/3 or the new price and in basically new condition.
also, pay attention to what lenses you get, and do some reading to try to figure out what you want before hand. Many dslrs are sold with ''kit'' lenses that are fairly versatile, but also very middle of the road. They work, but if you already know what you're going for you can get something much better.
No.711
>>710Yeah, I immediately jumped onto ebay, it's the same when buying audio equipment
No.712
>>709No problem. I'd forgotten to mention a handy site for comparing physical sizes of cameras and lenses,
http://camerasize.com/compact/ . It's often hard to judge sizes from a photo on a review article, so this will give you a sense of relative scale if you're buying online and not in a camera store.
For example, here's a size comparison of the SL2 and the GX85 with their equivalent standard zooms (roughly) that come in the boxes.
http://camerasize.com/compact/#715.377,673.397,ha,t No.803
>>40Beautiful. Reminds me of The NeverEnding Story for some reason.
No.807
Depending on your threat model, Google Photos could be beneficial. You can either upload photos through the web interface or you can take photos with your phone. Photos taken with your phone are automatically synced and there's an option in the app to free up space on your device which deletes synced media. If you choose high quality storage instead of original quality storage, your photos may be compressed but it does not count against the 15 GB limit for your Google Drive so you can take an unlimited number of photos. Videos always count against your quota, however.
No.808
>>807Also, should you ever want to download all of your uploaded photos in bulk, Google has a tool for that. It allows you to download your data for a lot of their products but you can just select Google Photos if you like.
No.809
>>807many of us use real cameras.
Perhaps one day you should try it. Its really nice, actually.
Often, you get a really handy feature where there's a removable internal disk. You just, remove the disk and put it in your computer and–presto!
access them like its a regular external disk (if you've ever used a flashdrive or something).
There's also stuff like libgphoto which allows you to transfer directly from the camera without even unplugging the internal disk.
Its virtually magic. I wish 10 years ago we had this kind of convenience.
No.811
>>807thanks google internet defence army! very active on arisuchat relatively to the amount of traffit this site attracts
No.813
sometimes i want to take a picture, but it's not worth it, because the details of what i see are not pictured
can a camera capture something exactly the way my eyes see it? what cameras? will i have to tune it every time, adjusting to time of the day and light?
No.814
>>813
>can a camera capture something exactly the way my eyes see it?TL;DR: No camera will capture a scene as you saw it, and no display will show it as you saw it. It's going to take another decade or two until sensors and displays at affordable prices can do what you're looking for. The human visual cortex is just too good.
To use a computer analogy, the vision system of the average healthy person has roughly a 20-bit range of data. It's actually super-ultra-complicated, but that's the short short short version. Basically, our eyes see ridiculously well, especially in dim light. (Seeing dangerous animals in darkness before they can jump us and eat us is a big evolutionary advantage.)
Even the best and biggest camera sensors are nowhere near that capability. If you go out and spend a fortune on a brand-new top-of-the-line camera with a massive surface area to collect a lot of light (like say the Fuji GFX), you might get about a 14-bit dynamic range. (Hasselblad claims 16-bit on the X1D but they're not being honest about that. It's really 14-bits.) The average camera with a price tag that mortals can afford is likely going to be 12-bit, and the average phone is 8-bit (maybe 10-bit on a really expensive recent flagship phone).
And since sensors are bad at low light, the bottom 2-bits (the darkest areas) are often a blur of noise. There's no detail.
And of course, most people are viewing the resulting downsampled-from-the-sensor-bit-depth 8-bit JPGs on effectively-6-bit TN displays (such as damn near every 1366x768 15.6" laptop on the planet). Even if your camera managed to capture details in the really bright areas (the top 2 bits), the average laptop will display the JPG as being a blurry white mess in the highlights. You'll actually see the detail on an IPS-or-better display though, so not all hope is lost.
No.815
>>814neat-o, thanks for the explanations, really clarified many things i've been thinking about.
No.816
>>815No worries. Half of digital photography is about knowing where to put the camera's effective dynamic range in any given situation.
This is also why IPS-or-better displays and colour calibration tools (like Spyders) are so useful for digital photography. You'll have a much better idea of how the photo really turned out. Especially in reds. TN panels just plain can't render red properly, it always looks orange.
No.819
>>817i love these. all the geometric patterns are and particularly in the second the blurring of the only visible human is a really nice touch. Sort of seperating them from their environment in a disctinct way.
No.908
>>806I can see that last one with a serene or more peaceful kind of musical genre. Maybe not classical music. Something with vocals? I don't want to say romance, because that's way overdone in pop music, but music with a longing sort of mood.
No.965
>>817>>820is this calgary?
neat pictures lainon
No.966
>>965Good eye! Yeah, that's Calgary. I've since moved to a suburb in Kitchener-Waterloo for work reason). But I really miss living in the heart of a major downtown core. So much opportunity for street shooting within just a few minutes' walk from my apartment.
I'm aiming to do some street-shooting day trips into downtown Toronto this summer (combined with touristy things like the ROM and the islands), but logistics is tricky. Weekend transit options to/from K-W are inconveniently scheduled, and driving in the GTA is, uh, less than fun. I'll probably do a few overnight weekend trips once I've done some research on good areas to shoot in.
No.997
No.998
No.999
>>998>>997Looks like I tried to upload a file that was a bit too large
Here's a smaller version
