Long-Necked Edition
Last thread: >>4438315

>>4440269 (OP)
That's immaculate framing, sharpness and tone but it could be better in colour.
>inb4 nosefag
>>4440286
perfect horizon, saturation and tone but the scrub in the bottom right is distracting. Could use a touch of warmth too.

Doe necks are a lot slimmer than you'd think

>>4439884
welp

>>4440319
hi todd

early morning

>>4440349
Wow, I've never seen one grow sideways before

>>4440350
theyre oriented properly on my pc idk why they come out sideways when posting.

>>4440319
stalker / serial killer vibes

>>4440355

>>4440344
Awesome. The colors and overall vibe remind me of movie poster for some reason.

>>4440355
>>4440356
feels cinematic

I'm posting my eggs

>>4440402

>>4440404

>>4440405
This one is the best

>>4440407
really? I kinda thought that was the worst one

>>4440402
>>4440404
>>4440405
Those are some great egg images, anon. First one is best imho.

>>4440431
Thanks anon I appreciate it

>>4440411
Yeah, something about the light and having the whole platter in frame is more pleasing to me

Abstract snapshit of my window.

>>4440405
>>4440404
>>4440402
Based eggtographer. I scanned my last two with a flatbed for maximum egg tonality. I shoot these at f45.

>>4440476
And no.2 cropped close to how I would frame it. I'd probably go a little tighter to cut out the corners..

dusty ass negative

>>4440185
Ty :)

It's digital actually. I've been experimenting with post-processing film emulation to get rid of the 'digitallyness'

>>4440479
Be careful posting those.

>>4440405
>>4440404
>>4440402
>>4440476
>>4440477

Is this the new iteration of the mannequin poster?

>>4440485
it's a meme contagion. Also we are 2 different people

>>4440484
posting what, dusty negatives?

>>4440485
Try it. It's fun and good lighting practice. Ill have another posted by the end of the day.

>>4440490
Yeah. Some people care a little too much. I think it causes them physical pain when they see a dust particle.

>>4440490
Ignore that guy. Your dusty negative is ok because it's a good photo instead of a picture of a dog.

>>4440490
Told ya

>>4440492
eh, it's probably dust on my scanner. i don't engage with /p/ autists anyway, it's a waste of time. i'd rather be critiqued on the subject of the photo rather than minor mistakes or something
speaking of which, this is my first time using fomapan 400. it's cool but it's REALLY grainy

>>4440482
what tools did you use? I like the results.

>>4440497
Based.

>>4440500
the tweaker and the chinaman

>>4440500
leading lines up the literal wazoo

>>4440501
It's funny because it is still a picture of dogs lol.

>>4440498

I use VSCO film presets in LRC to give me a base and adjust from there for the majority of the pictures I edit in this style, unless I accidently take something S tier that deserves its own treatment.

>>4440516
cool guys wearing sunnies at night

Imagine an "I spy" image where you have to look for 10 hidden eggs! The incredible resolution of 8x10 would be an ideal format for such a picture.

>>4440560
holy shit

>>4440269 (OP)

>>4440567
clouds never behave. they always drift out of frame.
>>4440569
very nice
the subject and saturation are excellent but there's more tone hiding in the rocks

the power of pentax

>>4440303
Like so?

>>4440600
Youve got a well trained deer to take the exact pose as your other pic. Bravo anon!

>>4440600
I think with more warmth, like this, she's a bit more frenly :)

>>4440560
fantastical. that's NC, right? pretty state

>>4440355
comfy

sorry, none of these have been recent as you can probably tell :P

>>4440610
https://ibb co/sYWNYR2
shifted temperature towards yellow with LAB b adjustment curve
https://ibb co/QjJNk6bk
shifted RIBRARY towards green and blue with LAB a and b adjustment curves and decreased chrominance based on red hues with the chrominance based on hue equaliser

edits done with RawTherapee

>>4440618
take a new one

>>4440583
Clouds are pricks, haha

i bought just one macro lens and now i'm a filthy bugposter

>>4440516
vsco presets look like that!? nice
>>4440569
nice

Playing around with SOOC emulations, startin to feel a lil comfy

>>4440669
>>4440618
>>4440620
>>4440615
>>4440569
>>4440500
Lots of good pictures here anons

>>4440724
Is this what Japan looks like?

>>4440725
Its what american freedom looks like

Can someone help me untangle the moon?
It's been night for three days already

>>4440608
That does look better, thank you for the feedback.

>>4440497
I like the juxtaposition of the primary subject being captured from his side profile and then you have a neat line of onlookers behind him directly facing the photographer.

Was this in DC for the military parade?

>>4440724
I would love to see what this looks like in IR B&W

>>4440767
This one is :)

>>4440771
>>4440771

SOOC

>>4440772
he looks drunk

>>4440775
hmmm I guess it's not as interesting as the color one

>>4440734
dust

>>4440618
super cool photo

>>4440497
>first time using fomapan 400. it's cool but it's REALLY grainy
What did you develop in? I have had good luck with D-76 1:1. This is 4x5 and 4-month expired fomapan 400, but even cropping to a 35mm equivalent area I don't have nearly that amount of grain.

>>4440849
Are you shooting it at 400 or 200?

>>4440853
400, yeah. But the accuracy of my metering is suspect since I'm taking measurements with a spot meter and sometimes conditions change between calculating exposure and hitting shutter release.

>>4440857
Foma400 is technically a 200 speed film, so if you don't want mega grain it is a good idea to shoot at 200.

You ever consider stepping up to 8x10 for these doll shots? You'd be able to do some 1:1 shots of them.

I don't shoot dolls, but the idea of shooting your cat, doll, or dog and having a 1:1 negative of them to make contact prints with just sounds incredible to me.

>>4440857
Just imagine a 1:1 doll pic with ektachrome!

>>4440861
>not kwik trip
have a pinhole snapshit
>>4440863
>>4440865
A 1:1 shot would be 24" tall; that would be a bit much. Larger than 4x5 would be too much money for me to invest in, and you also lose a lot of variety in film stocks. I would rather continue learning with my 4x5 setup and potentially getting another lens with that before I decide to jump to other large format film sizes; I'm nowhere near pushing the limits of what I have.
But a 1:1 photo enlargement is possible.

>>4440868
That's one dirty pinhole

>>4440868
Oh! I didn't realize they were that big! Are they very expensive?
You'll just have to go straight to 20x24 in that case! 920mm is the 20x24 equivalent of 50mm on full frame hah. DoF would be razor thin, so you'll probably need to shoot at like f124 to get just a couple inches of focus lol.

Sounds like a good plan to keep working at extracting as much juice as possible from your 4x5. There is a lot of potential there. Looks like you're doing pretty well so far.

If you are not enlarging your negatives by more than like 3x I have found that film choice barely makes a noticeable difference. I've done some testing with 100 speed films and 8x10 contact printing and the difference is very very minimal. Developer choice too. Lighting, good development, and proper shooting technique is about 95% and then everything else is the other 5%.

>>4440868
To get 1:1 magnification you take your focal plane, multiply it by 2 and extend your bellows that distance. You could probably do some 1:1 bust shots like that.
There's also bellows factor you need to account for, which would be an additional 2 stops of light at 1:1

>>4440772
old mate on parade
>>4440861
>c'mon morty
>a quick hue shift
>in and out, just ten minutes
or do those trees naturally have pink foliage?

>>4440917
Full spectrum, so yes, they are actually pink.

>>4440921
Well no, they are bright in the IR/NIR spectrum, which you have chosen to display as pink.
In reality, the IR light has no color, because color is just our brains interpretation of the various wavelengths of light our eyes can detect, and we can't detect IR light.

>>4440933
The camera literally interprets it as red light, bud.

>>4440939
Yes, which is incorrect.

>>4440939
>>4440947
Stop.

3 for 1 special
cats only got a few brain cells left
corgi beach day tomorrow

Not at all recent but trying new editing on old pics.

>>4441027
cinema

>>4441026
Looking forward to it! I may call it a tie/no contest if there aren't at least 2 or 3 pics in each category for both sides because that wouldn't be a real victory for either team. :[ I would still like to see the pics you make tho! :D

>>4441027
place: japan

>>4441027
cool

personally like how this one came out

>>4441149
I don't like it because your main subject seems to be a woman's back.

>>4441219
Croatian bro, is photography your main activity or are you just living there?

>>4441149
Garry winogrand did this better because he got the fronts of peoples heads not the backs

>>4440618
kino lighting.

>>4441268
like the comparison first I heard of the guy
but yea his pictures are great

>>4441267
I guess main subject is what's in the middle of the frame now?

Imma throw this money while you do it wit no hands...

All that ass, in those jeans...

>>4441339
>>4441340
disturbing, yet I can't look away

>>4441344
Better call 1-800 axe gary

>>4441339
>flash so strong it turned the black girl light skinned
Fellas, this might be worth exploring further

Snapshit if my boy after a long day of fetch on the beach

>>4441424
comfy

>>4441417
windows xp

>>4441424
You took your dog to hawaii? Awesome.

behold the power of micro four thirds

tremble in fear, fool framers. a blobmera could never do this.

behold the power of micro four thirds

tremble in fear, fool framers. a blobmera could never do this.

>>4441424
oh no no no be very careful haole
if you on the island do NOT leave dog alone no no no...
you take eye away for a second, someone grab him take him to the butcher to eat him
they love the taste down there

Too dark for my 180-600.

For some reason Rawtherapee shows the grain 10x moreso than the NX Studio (I know its RAW files but wouldn't the initial profile be better? ) I can't seem to get the noise levels down where NX Studio doesn't have the noise in its profile. Is it just an optimization issue?

>>4441454
The newest $1500 android phablet could do this. And neither can use imessage or facetime.

Does mft = phone, my sirs?

>>4441517
He forgot to use ai post processing.

>>4441417
peaceful. saved.

>>4441517
there is no phone that can focus that close

>>4441484
maybe there is something adding noise

>>4441007
This is great. What does it look like with color?

>>4441540
love these colours

>>4441437
>>4441455
What joke am I missing here

>>4441531
like ass (thus the BW edit).

irl this photog was wearing all black

>>4441624
Looks like a Velvia side, very cool

>>4441517
Good moorning my saar, i have done the needful Ai processing

OM-5 destroys fool frame, my sars. This is a better photo then any dog hair negative taken. ai processing only adds 10 minutes of manual adjustment per raw so if i take more than 6 picture it is truly spending hours at a computer to edit the raws my sir! if i were being paid to do this, i would make much more money (that is why indians are the most successful people on earth, we know how to make more money)

when using fool frame it is an overpay to finish editing photos almost immediately after opening the lightroom because it is old technology that does not utilize the advancements of today such as ai and relies on "ok boomer" technology to get the desired photograph immediately in the camera. needing fool frame is a skill issue, sirs!

this is the best purchase i have made since coming to america and getting a job at amazon

>>4440269 (OP)

>>4441624
is that a tunnel that emerges into a gas station? What a bizzare space

>>4441647
This IS a phone photo.

>>4441647
It is still trash because the entire bug is not in focus. You have 100fps and automated focus stacking. There is no excuse for lazy macro like that.

>>4441627
thanks! i tried

>>4441665
yeah the whole area is crazy.
the gas station is below the prague congress centre, next to the underground parking - google "omv prague congress center"
and theres plans to make it even crazier - google "prague congress centre design competition 2017", its on e-architect dot com

the spam filter is mental jesus, cant link anything lol

>>4441540
breaking bad mexico ass color grading
>>4441376
noice
>>4440612
nice but it's tilted
>>4440567
insane location, noice

>>4441687
nice framing, but it needs some blur and bokeh. i would've used a much lower f-stop.

>>4441689
not it doesnt
like this the deer looks as if in a sanctuary of greenery, a magical circular garden at the entrance of the woods
bokeh would kill it + muh bokeh

>>4441688
> breaking bad color grading

You say it like its a bad thing, nofoto

>>4441688
not saying the photo is bad, it's good, but it would be a great shot if the framing was something like this.

>>4441703
>nofoto
you have no idea what this means + bold saying this and joining no photo + sage

>>4441718
When should BW be considered?

>>4441721
not in this one.

>>4441718
Less saturation please
>>4441721
Went too far; more saturation please

>>4441727
Agree completely with this assessment. They both have that "ugly digital" look to them.

>>4441729
What does that even mean?

>>4441733
He's saying its trash

>>4441733
Harsh in a bad way. The colors are just unnatural and gross looking. Everyones skin tones pop out in a distracting way.
The black and white has very unappealing and overly harsh contrast. Look at that white guys arm on the left for example.

I think another issue is the DoF. It is in that midground where the out of focus looks bad/frustrating rather than eliminating clutter from the main subject. I think either smaller or bigger aperture would have been a better choice.

Idk maybe Im crazy. If you like it more power to you, but I just dislike that sort of look a lot. I think the composition and subject matter is fine btw. That full visor helmet guy looks like the leader and is definitely the focus of the image.

>>4441703
>guy literally posted a photo
>butthurt assmad no photo projecting as usual
Sometimes I wonder how you people remember to breathe, I swear.

>>4441735
It reminds me of olympus colors/rendering

The harsh, unnatural, digital look is characteristic of over-editing low tonality raws and small sensors (larger sensors have better OOF/IF transitions)

>>4441729
The colours are radioactive and the black and white is crushed in both directions, typically both situations you would never see on film. It’s uncanny and looks 100% post processed and fake.

>>4441740
I didn't want to say the "f" word, but yeah. Uncanny is a really good word for it.

>>4441742
Almost reminds me of when those shitty “HDR” apps first came out in phones and everyone was deep frying the shit out of their snaps, picrel lol

>>4441740
>>4441739
>>4441735
I only boosted the saturation by +10

Couple of old shots, new edits

>>4441755
Wow, 4Chan really messes with the colour. The shot is far warmer open in Photoshop.

>>4441757
You sure your color profile in PS isn't just fucked up?

>>4441764
Ugh, had this annoying little cunt turned on didn't I...

>>4441678

Czechs are pretty interesting huh

>>4441799
Boot detected.

>>4441346
Wall poster worthy
>>4441359
I see what you were trying to do but the fence is blocking too much and there isn't really anything framed up in the background

>>4441799
>DSC_0026
>sweaty_forehead.jpg
d-did you just buy a new camera?
good lines btw

>>4441825
Nah, I just have tiny SD cards because all my cameras are ancient. I periodically just wipe them.

>>4441829
pls review your cameras, I love old shit. my main camera is the Pentax K10D.

>>4441734
i like this. was it staged?

>>4441844
definitely staged

Ultra snapshit, screenshot from a video

I did not touch the saturation slider.

Saturation gang here.

Snapshits from today's walk, in chronological order.

>>4441866
comfy pier
very industrial
>>4441870
nice texture, lots of detail

>>4441877
Thank you, I love interesting/decaying textures a whole lot

>>4441876
cool shot
just enough blur

>>4441878
Thanks anon :)

Three more and then I'll not shoot for another two weeks

>>4441881
Oof, this reply was supposed to go to >>4441879

And the last one.

Hope y'all enjoyed these.

Random encounter

>>4441890
Did the man survive?

>>4441891
He was the master of the beast

A challenger appears

>>4441894
He is tested

>>4441896
Peace is achieved

>>4441841
Nikon D90: It's fine. Inoffensive. Autofocus is kinda slow.
8/10

Nikon D50: I converted this to full spectrum, and this was a bad choice. Half the screws were stripped, so there's holes all over it where I drilled them out. No live view, and the viewfinder is too small to tell if you're actually in focus. Shooting with an IR passthrough you just have to hip shoot it. It's bad. I don't think I'd even recommend this thing prior to the horrors I did to it. These things are like $20 and worth about that price.
D50/100

Sony DCR-DVD405 Handycam: It's fun. It's got the cool CCD bloom lines. Surprisingly usable indoors even without nightsight. MiniDVDs are annoying, photo mode uses snoy memory sticks for some god forsaken reason. Works very well for video feedback.
7/10

Sony XC-711(picrel): Industrial shitbrick. Requires 10lbs of equipment to function. NTSC resolution. Have to disassemble it to change the exposure and white balance. Everyone thinks you're planting a bomb when you take it out in public.
10/10

Thank you for reading my super cool camera review.

>>4441901
>this colors are sick
is that out-of-camera from the shitbrick? if not, what was your process there? I’d love to try something similar.

At my grandparents' lake

>>4441778
yeah dude, wish they were a bit more comfortable with building more vertical stuff. theyve got all these housing shortages but the buildings top out around the 4th floor. but i guess thats an issue everywhere in europe.

In Røst, Norway. Lovely place.

>>4440610
Amazing composition and colors. Love it.

>>4440269 (OP)
I took this hiking out with m’gal a few weeks ago

>>4441721
never
>>4441799
nice
>>4441847
neat
>>4441890
silly shot. saved
>>4441922
i am at peace

>>4440269 (OP)
I'm reading the photographer's eye and trying to do the exercices

>>4441951
>>4441952
>>4441953
I hate negatively critiquing peoples art, but holy shit those are some of the snapshittiest snapshits ever. I've seen better composition on photos on ebay.

kit arrived today

>>4441963
that hurts a little, but I can't really disagree. I just wanted to post something.
Do you have any advice?

Walked the dog and snapped some cheaproid phone snaps of flowing water to "edit".

>>4441973

>>4441974

>>4441975
That's all.

>>4441972
subjects, colors, themes... shooting for the sake of shooting is fine but dont expect anything out of it. especially on /p/

>>4441972
Not him but I'll help you out
>>4441951
I usually think of photography in terms of light, composition, color, and subject. You should have at least 2 of these things be good in order to have a good photo. There are lots of other variable you can consider but this is my personal theory that has been working for me lately.
I find the composition kinda loose. It's mostly foreground that doesn't lead your eye around too much. The background is framed up in an interesting way and the road leads your eye to it but there is nothing interesting there to look at. The lighting is totally flat. The blue wall is kinda something in terms of color but overall it's very flat. As for the subject typically industrial stuff is pretty cool but you haven't really showcased anything with your composition leading it to look boring

>>4441952
For this one the subject is definitely interesting but the lighting is again very flat. You have snapshit composition meaning you just walked up to it and took a picture without really thinking. I personally would get low and see if I could really get in there to create an interesting sense of space. I would also pay attention to the background and see if I can complement or juxtapose the subject.
>>4441953
This is what I like to call a picture of nothing. There is some interesting light and color here but I am not directed to look at anything in particular. In other words the photo has no subject. It has nothing you're showcasing. Also the column on the right is a crazy compositional error. It feels like the entire photo is to the left of it. The entire right fifth of the photo feels tacked on and unnecessary.

>>4442004
I will now show a photo to prove my theory picrel.
>light
I saw this dramatic light on this wall and thought it was too good not to consider
>Color
very bright colors that are eye catching and non typical for industrial looking pipes. (this doesn't mean colors have to be saturated and bright to be good)
>Composition
I made an effort to cut off the pipes at a satisfying point and make sure nothing was uncomfortably close to the edges. There was a yellow sign on the edge of the photo that I photoshopped out because it was fucking with my composition too much
>Subject
probably the weakest aspect of the photo but I liked the industrial looking pipes enough so it's good enough for me.

>>4441973
Kinda looks like crude oil on top of the water. I think you're kinda on to something there but I personally don't really like mega baked images

>>4442006
You just need a sexy lady standing in that light and it would have been worth taking

>>4441951
>>4441952
>>4441953
>>4442006
Also gonna add if you're shooting with your phone just please buy a real camera even a super old cheap one. Aperture control is so important. Also learn to edit raws. Your image quality will instantly go up by a lot

>>4442008
That's how I feel about a lot of pictures. But I also don't want to just be a coomer

>>4441907
Yes and no. The colors themselves aren't edited per say, but I take a burst of separate R, G and B photos with a little arduino dongle and composite them with a script. Only other editing is removing the green bar on the bottom because despite being an NTSC camera it shoots in 16:9 for some reason.

>>4441972
no I didn't mean to hurt your feelings, fren. It's just, there's no real composition. no subject. it's all just cluttered with no direction. it's impossible to make out a subject. Maybe watch some videos on composition.

>>4441026

>>4442018
No worries desu. I have literally zero knowledge about this stuff and just occasionally come to drop random phone pics I take at work or out and about, so I do appreciate the value of criticism that points me in the right direction, even if it's just "this is shit"
>>4442009
>>4442006
>>4442004
actually incredibly helpful, sankyu

>>4441939
Thanks brother.

>>4441974
incredibly psychedelic textures here
>>4441952
if you want to take interesting photos, keep on experimenting and for the love of sweet suffering Jehovah do not listen to /p/anons, unless you want to take photos like everyone else and stand out in no way whatsoever.
>>4441951
I think you captured the interest of this scene really well. The road draws my eye in and the abundance of lines draws my eyes out to the sides. best thing you could do here is some post -processing to make the colours of the bricks and metal stand out more to emphasise that effect. Try local adjustments.
>>4441952
>>4441953
I think I know what interested you in these photos and that's the only advice I want to give you: photograph what interests you! Nobody else has that capability, only *you*. In these cases, I think it was the computer junk and the purple window, yes? If it interests you, *get closer.*
>>4442026
>I have literally zero knowledge about this stuff
Valuable. Your head isn't yet full of other people's ideas, like this fucking guy, who's watched every video about composition until his shots resemble a toddler's bucket of shapes. How fun!
>>4442004
FUCK THIS GUY. You know why he's calling your shots "boring," "flat," "pictures of nothing," "loose?" Because that's how *he* reacts to *his* photos. Sure, internalise his voice if you wanna hate yourself and this hobby. My advice? Listen to the voice inside you that says, "that's good," "that's exciting," "that's interesting," and, the piece de resistance, "I *like* that." Why? Because neither this guy nor I can tell you what *that voice* is saying; it only speaks to you brother.
This approach will take years. It's like learning to listen to the wind: kinda retarded in a way but you might eventually find you like what it's saying, even if nobody else can hear it.

>>4442051
>inb4 nofotos
my shots
>>4440303
>>4440319
>>4440545
>>4440566
>>4440583

>>4442052
my (other) shots
>>4440599
>>4441359
>>4441376
>>4441825
>>4441841
>>4441877

>>4442051
>Sure, internalise his voice if you wanna hate yourself and this hobby
you sound traumatized nigga. It's just constructive criticism. I don't want him to "internalize a voice". I want him to realize his potential because I can see he has some good ideas. You are literally giving him wrong advice and pretending his photos are good. Why are you sabotaging other people on the internet. Why would you do that to someone? People like you don't strive to get to a goal you just bring the finish line to you.

>>4441883
rust in front of green gets my dick hard

>>4442057
You would love eastern Kentucky

>>4442051
Art is subjective in that taste is up to the viewer, but that doesn't mean every taste is recognized as valuable. The fact is, that to some degree there is a right and wrong way to do things because we exist in context, and that has to be appealed to. If you want to just keep all your photos to yourself, do whatever you want, fine. But if you share them around for other people to see, that comes with the expectation that you're speaking the same language as whoever you're showing your photos to. Having good taste is the ability to mind-beam the enjoyment you have of a subject into the head of your viewer, and it's a skill that needs to be developed like anything else.

>>4442081
Original warmer version

>>4442082
I like this one better. The sky and ocean look a little more natural.

>>4441844
>>4441846
Yeah, I went to this even that had a bunch of photographers and models. Thought it was gonna be a street photographer meetup but it was for portraitures. Not my wheelhouse but pretty cool, regardless.

tried out noise reduction on this already soft image followed by a bit of fiddly colour toning.

>>4442101
I like it but I personally prefer no noise reduction. Detracts from the lo fi feel

>>4441951
this one is nice IMO. not save worthy but not even close to being my least favorite on this RPT. couldn't tell you exactly why though sorry. maybe i like how open and empty it is idk

>>4441952
4441953
i see the vision
but the composition/framing isnt quite there. how long did you stay at that spot taking pics? how many compositions did you try? yknow how in the movies the character holds out the two hands and makes a rectangle frame with the fingers? try that really
also that indoors one is blurry? no good.

>>4442065
i like

>>4442082
i like too

>>4442101
actually yeah i agree with 102 i wanna see the noisy version im curious

>>4442102
>I personally prefer no noise reduction
>>4442105
>i wanna see the noisy version im curious
fair enough. I just found that out on this image when I attempted wavelet denoising after using the ordinary noise reduction & impulse noise reduction. The wavelet denoising just smeared things out too much and it looked unpleasant but before the general noise reduction the chrominance noise looked crap. It made the black areas very mottled green and red.

I went back and adjusted it again after reviewing the JPEGs because it came out more smeary-looking than I had adjusted it in RawTherapee. Fiddly.

spirited away?

>>4442101
>>4442108
>>4442119
You need to increase your shutter speed

End this with a cutie.

>>4442007
For myself it is graphic more than photography.
But >>4441976 I only slightly adjusted, the bukkake highlights in particular are product of phone camera.

(Image reply limit reached)

>>4441964
nice bird pic, what'd you use for this

>>4442834
e-m1 mk iii + 100-400

>>4442160
cutie is cute