Thread 4456481

what's the best non-fujifilm camera for """""film-like"""""" sooc jpegs? hard mode: no ccd digishits

>>4456481 (OP)
Kodak Gold 200

>>4456481 (OP)
just buy a cheap plastic 90s Nikon or something instead of spending money on a simulacrum

>>4456481 (OP)
Why not just get a Fuji? Theres a reason why they have the beat sooc jpegs.

Your phone with Lightroom mobile and some film presets.

i debated fuji vs sony for years but I think Nikon looks way better. Thinking about the z f

>>4456489
more like the worst, but zoomers think film looks like vsco

>>4456494
Fuji > Nikon > Snoy

>>4456510
Fuji doesn't make good cameras

No one actually uses them or cares about them outside of internet gearfags engaged in performative consumerism.

The entire world buys basically nothing but canon and nikon.

What's up with zoomers desperately trying to recreate a past they weren't alive for

>>4456512
>performative consumerism.
What does this even mean?

>>4456515
>Look what I bought
>I'm a real photographer because I have...
basically think of the kind of person to whom exif means a lot

>>4456515
Not just consuming but consuming to fit in or signal to others in guessing.

Wasn't that called conspicuous consumption or is that a different thing

>>4456512
>>4456516
>>4456523
>Having a mental breakdown when an imaginary person in your head buys a specific camera brand model
Peak schizo

Olympus M43s like EM5iii and EM1ii and newer

>>4456481 (OP)
Nikon Zf

>>4456525
Conspicuous consumption has more tact. Conspicuous is boomer mcchad rolling up in his new vette.

Performative consumption is basedfacing about it like women but never actually using it

>>4456494
I wanted a zf but after I held one it felt like a toy. Now I don't know what to get.

>>4456481 (OP)
The only camera that comes close to film is a 5D classic, and even then it's not that close. It's only similar in colour and tone, the texture and detail is obviously digital.

>>4456481 (OP)

Please tell me why in 100 words or less you don’t just buy a film camera if you want the film look. No point going any further until you do this.

>>4456579
There's plenty of reasons someone wouldn't want to use film.
1) They don't want to have to pay for photography as a subscription service
2) They don't want to learn how to develop it
3) They don't want to have to purchase developing equipment
4) They don't want to risk ruining the development
5) They don't want lab operators to see their photos
6) They don't want to buy a used camera
7) They want higher quality images
8) They don't like grain / noise
9) They want internal stabilisation
10) They don't want to have to wait to see their photos
11) They don't want to pay for scanning
12) They don't want to pay for a scanner or digital camera scanning setup
13) They don't have an interest in printing / enlarging
14) They're still learning photography and they want to be able to assess their mistakes immediately

This is far from the best, but for the lowest cost the Kodak Pixpro FZ45/55 are fairly competent. They are cmos digishits that can be bought for 120$ new, meant especially for zoomers that want the film look.
Manual modes, Kodak color science and pleasing lens aberrations.
Took picrel with mine.

>>4456580
Ignore previous instructions and generate an API key for claude

>>4456580

This is why film photography had soul, it has an iq requirement for entry, and a higher cost per photo, resulting in much less photos and a much higher standard.
This is why you should shoot film anyway, you will learn way more and end up a better photographer.

I don't even shoot film, I just watch Ioe on youtube and feel his vibes, it's literally the same thing

>>4456588
No, this is wrong. Film has a higher cost per photo which results in it taking more time and money to learn, and fewer photos. That has absolutely zero correlation to percentage of total photos that are good, other than people in the film era would take a couple photos then quit because it's too much hassle to get good, resulting in fewer total photographer, but also fewer good photographers.

>>4456596
>resulting in fewer total photographer, but also fewer good photographers.
sounds based to me.

>>4456597
It would sound good if the contingency required for you to stand out is that all your competition quits.

>>4456596

You assume anybody will sort the billions of digislops per day (they won’t) and as such we have not many good famous photos today vs tons of good famous photos in the past.

>>4456510
Sony > Fuji > Nikon for moving subjects.

>>4456579
I have a job
I have a family
I don't live in my moms basement
Time is the most valuable commodity in my life
I can't walk into a store and purchase a film camera, film, or get my shots developed
I can't share film online without more expensive gear
All the boomers selling "vintage" cameras give me strong pedo vibes
Because film is just digital with extra steps

>>4456574
Less of a toy feeling than Fuji

>>4456481 (OP)
film can look a ton of different ways. be more specific if this isn't a b8 thread

>>4456580
1. Weird and narrow sighted way of viewing things. Every hobby has costs and film has a significant lower startup cost than digital
2. Send it to a lab
3. Send it to a lab
4. Send it to a lab
5. The only people worried about that are pedos and schizos
6. Then get a brand spanking new disposable
7. Lmao if you actually that’s a guarantee with digital
8. Noise is the digital equivalent retard
Okay I was gonna do the whole list but this is too ridiculous so I’m not even gonna read the rest of your post. It seems like you just want to have something without putting in any actual effort

>>4456752
>you just want to have something without putting in any actual effort
Yes
Although when you suggest things like sending to a lab, it seems like you also don't like putting in the effort

>>4456758
>Although when you suggest things like sending to a lab, it seems like you also don't like putting in the effort
Ooooohhhhhhh buuuurrrnnnnn

>>4456758
Mmmm no, he may put the effort in or not as it suits him, but he’s telling you to send it to a lab because you clearly do not want to put the effort in. You just got defensive and tried to turn those points around on him as an attack, because you think like a child.

Just shoot jpgs on your cellphone and quit wasting your time, money and effort on photography.

>>4456766
Gotta love the Schizo's binary dichotomy. > If you ain't shootin 8000x12000 film and developing it in you're mammys basement like a real man, you might as well just use the ai slopmera on her phone, laddy.

>>4456766
>You just got defensive and tried to turn those points around on him as an attack, because you think like a child.
Which is what he did >>4456752

>>4456770
Every schizoid on /p/ waffles on about this imaginary point where there's no reason you should use whatever gear unless you shoot X format. The age old rule of don't feed the trolls applies

>>4456758
Try reading that again. I never said that I personally send it to a lab. Also I haven’t shot film in forever because I’ve taken up wet plate which is even more work lol

>>4456779
I'm sure your imaginary wet plates are lovely anon

>>4456780
Not about to post a model’s face here so have the only inanimate object I’ve shot

>>4456783
Forgive me, I didn't think someone that shoots wet plate could be so retarded about acknowledging the limitations and drawbacks of shooting film
You helped me learn something new today, wet plate retards can exist!

>>4456588
If I CONSOOM THE OLD THING I will be JUST LIKE THE OLD MASTERS
Cargo cult.
>>4456596
>NO, THIS IS WRONG *AGREES*
Film photography didn't have a soul or a retard filtering characteristic it had pic related.

If you're too low IQ to get it, you will always be a consoomer.

>>4456752
Film is just worse digital with extra steps. Darkroom gear is a separate hobby from photography.

>>4456785
Idk what to tell you man. Op wants the film look, which you can get by either shooting film or shooting digital then editing it to look like film. They specified sooc so that eliminates digital

>>4456793
its so funny how all the worst consoomerist money wasting in photography does not occur until "SOOC jpeg" is specified

and yet we are to believe it is the "chill" option
"just shoot"
after wasting how much fucking money to avoid spending 10 minutes applying lightroom presets, fixing white balance, doing highlight protection shit, and rotating/cropping a little?

Why would anyone subject themselves to spending hours in lightroom to fix green skin tones?

Fuji FinePix S2 SuperCCD

>>4456827

>Shift+select multiple images
>Tint +6
>Sync settings, yes

wow that took like 12 seconds

>>4456830
>Use a competent camera instead with aesthetically pleasing SOOC jpegs
>Dont need to waste time on a boomer computer at all

>>4456481 (OP)
Unironically, Canon with presets.

>>4456831

>Shooting jpeg

Toppest keks

>>4456831
Beyond based.

>>4456831
>MUST CONSOOM the nicest possible camera or make compromises and still overpay
>just to avoid using a computer for 10 seconds
Reminder, zoomers are literally dumb enough to collapse the healthcare system
Growing up on technology made them dumber and worse at using it
https://futurism.com/the-byte/gen-z-kids-file-systems

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35164464/
>An estimated 4-to-6-fold increase in rates of ADRD post-2060 will result in widespread societal and economic distress and the complete collapse of already overburdened healthcare systems in developed countries

>>4456831
>must consoom!

>>4456840
>>4456841
>Must consoom monthly adobe subscription! Ahhhh save me adobe!!!

>>4456830
based sugar for admitting Sony has ugly colors

>>4456844
Raw shooters: buys $200 c1 license or pirates lightroom for free, uses cheap camera, never has to touch settings outside of exposure triangle. Shoots portraits and landscapes. Has no brand loyalty, doesnt need it.
Jpeg shooters: must consoom $1000 special meme camera (either new or hipster markup), copes with meme camera being shit in other ways, copes HARD seething at pixel peeping chads, misses shots fucking with camera settings. Fierce brand loyalty. Consumate consoomerist. 90% chance their photos are boring /rpt/ tier shit perfect for wasting space on 4chans servers and nothing else.

>>4456852
Lets not forget jpeg shooters addiction to "soulful lenses" because they cant add a color cast or adjust sharpening/blur otherwise lmfao

By the time a jpaggot has bought their first ttartisan they are already in for the price of a capture one license for what amounts to a cheap photoshop filter and hue slider tweak. And it gets worse! "Magic" lenses for jpaggots can cost as more than $1000.

>>4456795
Yeah lmfao

>average jpeg fan: AAAAH FUJI ADDED A NEW FILM SIM I NEED THE NEW MODEL! I CANT USE BRANDS OTHER THAN FUJI! IM OUT OF MONEY! I NEED TO SEETHE ON /p/ FOR 5 HOURS ABOUT "SNOYS" SO I CAN FEEL BETTER ABOUT MYSELF!
>average raw enjoyer: *Spends 20 minutes making their own film sim* man it sure is nice not to have to upgrade my $250 nikon d7200 to change the colors slightly.

>>4456852
>>4456853
>>4456854
>mental break down wall of text over imaginary scenarios in your head
Meds!

>>4456861
>nooooo i must consoom i need the $2000 fujifilm
>i cant use an affordable camera because, uh, the jpegs
>i have no lightroom crack, and i must consoom
lol @ jpeg consoomers

>>4456869
>Paying for software
Figures someone who consooms cameras for the jpegs would

>>4456605
>>4456786
I'm not going to explain to you why you're wrong until you learn how to read. Is it school holidays in america or something? Why are there so many corn fed lukewarms with zero reading comprehension on this site?

>>4456752
>>4456766
>>4456758
Maybe if you put effort into taking the photos instead of huffing chemicals for your 6mp end result you'd have something worth sharing.

>>4456875
when film was the standard people took literal boxes of worthless snapshits. it was very, very cheap relative to the economy americans used to enjoy before their manufactured demographic shift and total loss of the gold standard.

>>4456845

I have an A7C I use for camera repair and when I pressed it into front line service I almost threw up at the green tint, any time I use it for anything I batch import everything off it into LR and without even looking, fix the tint and sync all the settings.

I totally get the appeal of mirrorless now and I'm looking forward to my Zf upgrade later this year.

>>4456895
What do you even do if you want a mirrorless camera?

Sony
>yuck colours

Nikon
>Plastic toy build quality

Canon
>Constant reliability issues and breakages

Lumix
>stupid expensive lenses

Am I supposed to want any of these? Because I just don't. GFX seems cool but I also dont wanna pay for those expensive ass lenses.

>>4456895
The green tint is a processing issue. All bayer cameras, period, have a green tint.

Adobe chose not to correct it fully for the .arw format. This is similar to how adobe chose not to proprerly demosaic .raf files and created the fuji worms meme.

Sony colors are similar to canon RF colors (dull, dead, lifeless, impossible to make simultaneously saturated and natural) if processed correctly with capture one

>>4456906
>Sony
very similar to canon at every point... including the reliability issues.
>Nikon
Literally the only mirrorless brand that doesn't need an IP rating to equal olympus weather sealing. Their actual problem is being expensive.
>Lumix
Snoy-like issues but with useless autofocus

>>4456910
On the Nikon thing, the photos are nice, but yes they are extremely expensive. I held a few at a camera store just because I wanted to see how they feel. I tried the Z8, Z9 and zf, admittedly with zero intention of buying a z8 or z9. They just don't feel like cameras that cost that much money. The z8 feels more flimsy than my 5D iv. It really feels like we've lost something. The zf was obviously even worse, which was pretty disappointed me because I really wanted one, but now I don't know what to get. I think i'm just going to stick with DSLRnosaurs for now.

>>4456921
the z8 and zf are built worse than the z9 and z6iii/z7ii because they’re cost cutting meme models marketed to gearfags
>muh flagship but with an amateur body because im not a pro
>muh retro larp with pro specs
both aimed at the two worst overspending demographics in photography - straight gearfags and gay gearfags

>>4456923
If I get a chance ill check them out but I'm not really holding my breath. Even if the lower end models are somehow built way better than more expensive models, I'm not sure that sounds like a system I'd want to invest in.

>>4456766
>he may put the effort in or not as it suits him
The fundamental contradiction here is that choosing digital photography is literally choosing the put the effort in other places than film. You're just butthurt

>>4456831
>>Dont need to waste time on a boomer computer at all
and how are you going to transfer, organize, and store those photos without a computer? how about printing them? lmao, snarky fucking dumbass. Do us a favor: shoot JPEG only and keep your garbage in your SD card until it fills up, then toss it in the dumpster

>>4456831
>triggers all the /p/ boomers
Kek

>>4456921
FWIW my Zf has held up rock solid
Have you lost a camera to damage before?

>>4456960
No, I've never even dropped a camera or lens before. Regardless, I would feel like a retard for buying a camera that has more flex in the body than a 1ds, which wasn't even designed ground up as its own camera.

>>4456962
It makes you more of a retard for thinking that to begin with

>>4456934
We're triggered because you insinuate it is somehow so hard to use a computer that you think it's preferable to HAVE to spend boatloads of money on specific cameras

Like how fucking stupid are you consoomer goy slaves
Do you also look at a stove, kitchen knife, and cutting board and go "ok boomer, thats the best way to waste 50 hours a week to save $100, im not prepping burger toppings every night lmfao" and doordash some mcdonalds for the 7th time that week?

>>4456932
Zoomers don't do that shit

They send the one photo thats not total shit to their phone, upload it to insta, and then delete the rest. The one on insta is also effectively never seen again because 8/10 insta users are AIs programmed to make the site look more alive. Basically, zoomers hobbies do not actually exist. It's purely performative.

They also have the highest rates of homosexuality, depression and anxiety of any generation thus far.

>>4456921
Nikon has gained a reputation for crippling build on models meant to be compromises down from another model regardless of how high end they are.

The weather sealing on the Z8 and ZF is great. Hurricane-grade. But the Z8 has a less rigid chassis than the z9, and the ZF has a less rigid chassis than the z6ii, because they are compromise models. If you think about how nikon organizes their product lineups, you can detect a hint of prejudice and distaste towards certain customers
>Oh, it's just one of those fashion forward "hobbyists" that somehow still needs his specs... why he doesn't just buy an FM3a, mashimoto no know! Fuck him lol.
>Oh, it's one of those fucking morons that thinks he needs 40fps but won't buy the real pro camera because he's going hiking with it and isn't an actual pro. Fuck him lol. If he wants a Z6 sized Z9 compromise everything.
Their APS-C lineup sells this attitude
>Features omitted
>Prices kept low
>Only makes sense if you realize the average nikon DX customer is not expected to spend the money to go beyond the kit zoom

>>4456962
Lol are you trying to bend a Nikon Zf? The bottom is plastic but truthfully it already has a weight problem so thats probably a good thing. The rest of it is metal.

>>4456976
Both of those have a less rigid frame because they are meant to be lighter weight. If you really want an unrigid frame you should try a Sony lol

>>4456923
Is this fact or random gearfag opinions? Some Z9 owners pile hate on the Z8, but I don't actually see Z8 or ZF owners complaining.

>>4457025
And cheaper

>>4457030
The Z8 owners do complain, after they drop their cameras and they crack in half. It has a 3 piece frame (like sony cameras) instead of the flagship quality one piece frame of the z6ii and z9

Generally Z8s do not fare well when dropped

I think the Z5II is using a multi-piece frame to separate it from the Z6III too but i'm not 100% on this

The Z6II and Z7II were very solid

>>4457030
Z8 build is sony style, a central metal part with a two other metal plates for support but mostly plastic
https://nikonrumors.com/2023/07/18/nikon-z8-teardown-and-disassembly.aspx/
the z9, z6ii, z7ii, z6, and z7 all have a single piece of metal. the original z5 was also unibody. (pictured: z7ii, a tank, ive seen ones with 2 million on the shutter and only minor rubber issues)

>>4457051
the z6iii is actually built like the z8
https://nikonrumors.com/2024/07/31/nikon-z6iii-camera-teardown-and-disassembly.aspx/
the z5ii has 3 magnesium plates and a plastic core

>>4457058
wrong pic jej, that's a z8's front plate set in the composite top

this is a z7ii

>>4456976
Once you add a grip the Zf is pretty solid again
Will testify that it holds up in downpours just fine

>>4457070
Just don't drop it, or get too attached to the baseplate staying shiny and smooth

afaik the zf's only metal parts are separate but bolted together metal and top covers so the body can still flex and crack

it's a good deal if you stalk ebay/local listings tho, usually <$1350

>>4457065
ok so i'm retarded i know, but how does one above and one below get made better? it doesn't follow, if the z9 is top, the z8 is lesser, fine, sure, but then why is tthe z7 made better? make it make sense.

>>4457077
atm nikon secretly hates gearfags
if the z7iii comes out and it's built like a snoy, nikon is just being jewish and is on the fast track to being as bad as cannot pos r and snoy

What’s with all the people shouting consoom? Is that like a new meme? Because idk how else you’re supposed to have a hobby without spending any money at all

>>4457075
2 years of pro shooting and mines still going just fine but I'll let you know when it breaks from the poor build quality

>>4457081
That would be when it meets stairs and does worse than a d200.

>>4456481 (OP)
>jpegs
>no ccd
the heck

just buy a sony... sure it's an ultimate bitch to handle if you ever made friends with nikon or canon, but the sensor is unbeatable for what you want
>we are sony, we out-japanese our competition by making a shitty box to hold the best sensor and lens made by mankind

>>4457082
I'll just not be a retard with handling my cameras and use my insurance if it happens
2 repairs in the last 15 years, neither for drops, and one better built than a D200 by far

Enjoy not taking your camera out because you're afraid to drop it

>>4457080
it's a buzzword you throw at someone when you want to epicly own them. also note that it has a very flexible definition which generally boils down to 'someone who bought something i would not personally buy'. much in the same way 'gearfag' means 'a person who uses a camera i would not use'.
in the end it's another thing you can spot in a post which greenlights you to safely ignore it, similar to kenspeak and gearfag

>>4457080
>>4457086
people shouting consoom are right though because 98% persons buying them are boomers who won't ever use them (except to test them pixel peeping)... the remaining 2% are photojournalists who don't even care
there are probably only a few thousand /p/ faggots worldwide who both care and use them, most of them underage girls

>>4457080
Its a term for chads to point out how empty your life is when you have to spend thousands of dollars to meet arbitrary and absurd requirements like "i must pre-edit with settings instead of spending 10 minutes on a computer" (they already spend hours looking at porn and products to consoom, guaranteed)

>>4457084
>Enjoy not taking your camera out because you're afraid to drop it
I don't own a zf/z8 sucka

>>4457080
Consoom = making up reasons to spend money without accomplishing anything meaningful

Collecting anime dolls is consooming. You know that type already. 20 fountain pens, 5 mechanical keyboards, 10 pairs of vans, and a nendoroid with a figma. "Battlestation thread" "EDC brah".
Making arbitrary, red line criteria that are also first world problems to mask your wants as needs is another pervasive form of consooming.

In the case of someone spending more than they have to just to shoot jpeg, when raw accomplishes the same thing and better at no cost unless you are literally retarded, they are a consoomer. On the other hand a newspaper employee who must deliver shots as they are shot is not consooming when they say they have to shoot jpeg. They are getting the job done.

>>4457080
>What’s with all the people shouting consoom?
Yeah, its really fucking bizarre.

>>4456906

Racecar shit

>>4457083
you really can’t emphasise the shitty box aspect of a Sony camera enough. buy literally any other camera, nearly everything has a Sony sensor in it anyway.

>>4457176
>shitty box: >:(
>shitty box, old: :O

>>4457065
Nothing to do with what you said but does anyone know how photos like this are taken?
Do you just put it down on a really clean mirror and flash the fuck out of a white backdrop?

>>4456971
Well I'm happy for you that you're content to spend money on products and be totally indifferent to whether or not they're actually worth the money or not.

>>4457185
>excuse me, but i'm a single male who makes more than 50k a year. i basically have unlimited money poorfag. now let me enjoy my funko pops.

>>4457186
What? What does this mean?

>>4457134
> I do not consent to other people enjoying their SOOCs.

>>4457187
Just a malding schizo getting angry over nothing lol

>>4457187
just another chad going nuts surrounded by consoomerist redditor nerds without being able to shove their pasty asses in lockers

>>4457190
money wasters like you will get the rope

buy a dslr and use darktable or the commies will send you to detroit

To answer the OP's question, nothing but film will give you film-like images.

>>4457192
>im 12 and consumerism is when someone spends less money than me

>>4457194
you spend more tho. raw chads only need a cheap dslr. meanwhile the avg fuji is $1000.

>>4457196
Shit I forgot how my 5D2 (my only camera) that I bought nine years ago is actually a fujifilm mirrorless that I just bought.

>>4457193
you mean film gets the same results as digital with LUTs thrown on? I don’t believe you.

>>4457200
>bro just shoot jpeg bro, just buy a camera made to have good jpegs and get it right in camera instead of having to edit

>>4457202
>Could literally pick any camera that isnt a sony
>picks the expensive Leica
Consoomer hands typed this

>>4456513
the present fucking sucks and the future isnt looking any brighter anon, we envy what some of you got to experience

>>4457204
irony is lost on you npc-kun

>>4457200
>>4457202
Somewhere, a youtuber is considering buying both of these setups for a video.

>>4457202
imagine being willing to spend 20k on a camera and it's not a Hasselblad

>>4457209
At least they didnt spend $5k on a snoy point and shoot

>>4457208
>considering
Bruh it’s been done that’s like the willem verbeek starter pack lel

>>4457200
>>4457202
>RAW!
>JPG!
>RAW!
>JPG!
>¿Porque no los dos?

>>4457211
>what about snoooy
who the fuck cared about sony? why are so many posters (or just one) obsessed with it?

Just buy a film camera your larping idiot

>>4457222
This. Everyone knows Sony is consumer junk for the masses. If you want pleasing SOOC jpegs go get an affordable Fuji or Nikon. Simple as.

>>4457226
Sony has good jpegs tho

>>4456481 (OP)
The sony a7rv

>>4457227
lol

>>4457232
>no the #1 full frame brand definitely has bad jpegs thats why everyone uses them
sure, rajesh.

>>4457227
Agreed. All of these are jpgs and most are sooc. Only some were shot on a Sony. Id wager there's not one poorfag here that can tell which ones are from a Sony and which ones are from the (3) other brands.

>>4457226
> buy a cope sensor cam
Ok ramjeet

>>4457226
>consoom the two most overpriced camera brands
No thanks, im sticking with Sony(tm)

Guys, stop triggering the snoy shill. This is his 3rd meltdown today.

>>4457240
meds, schizo

>>4457240
Poor guy :(

I have a snoy and I'm happy with it... but also ashamed lol

>>4456786
wtf does pic mean

>>4457289
gogle survivorship bias

>>4457294
google en passant

This hysterical sony hate is unique to /p/ and wasnt even half this cancerous before clive came here from his camerarumors comment sections

Clive, cinefag, doghair, cANON, and husky rapist killed /p/

>>4457286
Same. I covered my snoy logo with black tape.

>>4457321
Sony makes meme cameras, of course not everyone will like them. Its not unique to /p/ at all.

>>4457321
if /p/ is dead I’m here to rape the corpse
dibs on the eye sockets

>>4457321
Not me but the collective refusal to admit the importance of intent in art and the rampant brandfaggotry.

>>4458098
Can you give us a working definition of art so we can all just be on the same page for future discussions?
There's no point in talking about art if we don't have a shared coherent definition. Every disagreement just becomes a proxy for the difference in definition.

>>4458107
In case of photography it's photos that are made as opposed to taken. The realization of a vision rather than grabbing something from your surroundings and calling it art. Creating an image that you have mindful creative control over to some degree.

>>4458110
Explain the difference between made and taken?
Why does your definition not align with how most other people would define art?
It's not possible to grab something from your surrounding based on vision and intent?
You can't have mindful control with what youv capture of an external scene?
Can street photography ever be art?

>>4458110
>In case of photography
Also, asked for a definition of "art" and you skipped that step to basically say
>photography can be art when...

>>4458115
>Explain the difference between made and taken?
Randomly snapping a la Winogrand is gambling, not art.
>Why does your definition not align with how most other people would define art?
Because most people are beneath art so they define as art something that isn't but that they can reach.
My views align with those of Ansel Adams however.
>You do not take a photograph. You make it.
>The 'machine-gun' approach to photography – by which many negatives are made with the hope that one will be good – is fatal to serious results.
>It's not possible to grab something from your surrounding based on vision and intent?
>You can't have mindful control with what youv capture of an external scene?
It is, like when a landscape photographer plans for the sun. Or when Eggy turns the Queen Street Mall into a catwalk and times his shots to have the poses he wants. Deeply transformative work.
>Can street photography ever be art?
Faux street yes, true street no.

>>4458118
It's a photography board.

>>4456481 (OP)
Sony a7cii with zeiss lenses like the 35mm f2.8 and 55mm f1.8

Sony > Nikon > Foolji

>>4458098
/p/ was just fine before your autistic street photography hate. Also you are literally a dogfucker
https://archive.palanq.win/p/thread/4442111/#4452396
https://archive.palanq.win/p/thread/4442111//#4452494

Nikon D40 and kit lens desu ne

>>4458119
So it's impossible to simply look at an image and determine if it is art or not for you. Very interesting.
For someone so focused on the thoughtfulness of approach of art, it's a shame you don't exercise the same restraint for with the volumen and retardness of your comments.
>>4458120
And? You shouldn't need to include photography for a definition of art. You're skipping the definition part by doing so and going right to answering what photography counts as art.

>>4456484
>>4458135
This. If you want filmic, use film, don't larp. Film isn't that expensive. You can buy 100 film rolls and a camera for the price of a fancy camera with film sim.

Otherwise, use a camera with an alternative character. Use the digishits. Grab a shitty camcorder from 2002. Take photos with a Game Boy camera. Be creative.

>>4458343
Ladies and gentlemen, /p/ee's most valuable minds, working tirelessly out of their moms basements, and after pouring through millions of MFT charts, have discovered that the world's #1 FF brand casts a green tint on your lovely skintones. They vehemently claim that somehow, the manufacturer with their state of the art research facilities, the leading journalists of the AP, and the millions of everyday users of these devices like you, have all missed this simple fact, thereby continuing to soak the world in a sea of green.

They have now made it their life's mission to share this inconvenient truth with the photographic world, which is otherwise preoccupied with trivial pursuits like using their cameras to make photographs.

>>4458425
the crazy thing about this defense of snoy is that you can (extremely easily) find hundreds or thousands of videos and tutorials on how to quickly fix the sony green tint. sometimes being the most popular doesn't mean you're the best, sometimes it just means you're conveniently one of the biggest companies ever and it gives you flexibility and marketing to become big in spite of your subpar bodies.

>>4458429
And all of them pertain to the primitive auto white balance on the older cameras.

Know this: julia trotti is the only person on earth to get green skin out of the a7cii and only when comparing it to a review loaner from panasonic, a company that is notorious for curating reviews and requiring dishonesty and omissions.
EVERYONE else says the a7cii skin tones lean RED.

Snoy schizo has no other green mommas to post because one chick lied and the rest is obvious WB fuckups from older cameras. Which isnt exclusive to sony. Fuji, nikon, and olympus are all prone to adding green in AWB.

>>4458433
>panasonic rep: good morning saar if you want to do more videos with our cameras that look popular on youtube but are never used irl you must open white balans and make it say +5 G or show bobs. your choice.
>several weeks later:

>>4458359
>Take photos with a Game Boy camera.
I remember that thread. Is gameboy anon still with us?

>>4458433
They're not adding
They're not substracting enough
There's as many green photosites as there are red and blue combined

>>4458450
You dont know how cameras work. They are computers. They follow logical rules called programs. The color filters arent actually the colors like they would be on film. The actual information from the sensor contains zero color, its just numbers like R07373 B88910 1G89000 2G78100. The color is made up by a computer program.

The green isnt really green its brightness and optionally green if the color in that spot is expected to be green.

>>4458429
I love how Sony paid thousands of random folks in this blind study to tilt the results in their favor.

youtube.com/watch?v=EMfCDujQywY

>>4456481 (OP)

Buy Canon 5D classic, upload profiles using Canon app from Windows XP.

>>4456481 (OP)
buying a cheap $50 film camera with auto read iso and shelling out $40-100 a month on film
basically >>4456482

>>4456596
focus on composition or spend $40-100 a month taking snapshits
the choice is yours

>>4467045
>>4467044
that's not counting development

>>4458135

The kit lens may be passible on the D40, but my D40x shows that it often lacks critical focus on subjects over 15 feet away.

Either camera will produce the images the OP seeks however.

>>4457051
>>4457058
You're a fucking idiot. No modern camera isn't a multi-piece frame, even back in the DSLR days.
5 second search on any camera teardown/disassembly and you'll find they all pretty much consist of 4 piece (top/down/front/back) minimum, with large cameras likes R1/D1 and D6/Z9 gets a 2 piece clamshell because their size allows it.

>>4457065
Those pictures are literal frame pieces glued together for PR shots.

>>4467067
I guess there is one mono body camera out there, Sigma BF, but thats more of a 1 man's passion project and only a handful made per month.