Thread 4460516

Does anyone care about instant photography in /p/

>>4460516 (OP)
It depends on what you call instant photography. I have an Instax printer, and it's in my drawer after the thrills of the beginnings were gone.

Women love Instax
And that they can have several prints out in one session

>>4460516 (OP)
I got a Polaroid Go (2nd gen) a few years ago. It's very fun to use, very cute design-wise, and relatively unobtrusive. Shots inevitably suck (very limited latitude with inaccurate exposure), which fits the purpose of creating a unique memorabilia of whatever I'm experiencing (more often than not it's some group photo) rather than objective documents of reality, or artistic work for that matters.

>Needing glossy colour prints

Dinocam is all I need, anything more is just gear cope.

I bought a Xiaomeme Zing bluetooth printer, it's kinda nice for giving pictures on the go for coworkers or family partys

Any recommendations for printers that just work out the box without apps

I was gifted a Xiaomi printer before but it required a chink botnet app that was ass to use, also the prints got stuck 60% of the time

Yeah instant photography is cool.

Instant film is cool. One of these days I'm going to get an instax back for my kiev

>>4460516 (OP)
I do a lot of direct from camera printing to my SP-2
Also use Instax Wide for my 4x5 sometimes

>>4460516 (OP)
Is am instant Polaroid technically medium format?

>>4460516 (OP)
I carry an instax mini when going to anime convention so I can give the photo to cosplayers that I really like.

fun

>>4460756
the catechism suggest taking penance for uttering words so outrageous

>>4460758
That's the kind of shit this hobby was made for
Exactly why I was asking in another thread about the printers

>>4460746
Legit. Is it easy to reload?

>>4460746
That one by Kidamento? Or possibly what Kidamento sources and brands with their name. I see Walmart has an identically shaped one.

I could've sworn one of these kids print-cameras could also bluetooth connect to your phone, adding an additional angle of use. But I can't find any at the moment. You'd think someone would make one like that.

>>4460782
Come to think of it. On a similar note, HP has their Sprocket 2-in-1. It's a Zink based instant digital camera, but can also pair to your phone to print from an app.

I had a kodak one i bought cheap of but it broke

>>4460516 (OP)
My kids love shooting instant photography. Immediate gratification, I guess.

Instax film are kinda bad, over contrast, undersaturated, blacks are almost lost.
People told me Fujifilm instant film was outstanding in 70s 80s, what went wrong?
Is polaroid film superior? Have you tried it?

>>4460746
I have one of these print cameras and I have let family use it. They are super fun, but the novelty wears thin. They have a ton of potential, but they need
- better dithering algorithms
- a bit more dynamic range, at least enough to print
- a basic builtin flash (some have this)
- selfie mirror or mode (a few have this)
- custom overlays
- more special effects like fisheye, double exposure, etc
- a rewind to double print
- screen protector for kids
- closer focusing distance kids can't even do selfies with it
- better ergonomics even for kids
- wide/extra long printing for panoramas or collages
- more insane designs rather than a colored rectangle

Kenko was on to something for an adult version, but it was trash. Even the chink $30 ones were better. No one was going to pay $100 bucks for worse.

https://japantoday.com/category/features/new-products/kenko-tokina%E2%80%99s-retro-cool-camera-instantly-prints-black-and-white-photos-on-thermal-paper

>>4462381
Old Fujifilm was using the licensed Polaroid process, whereas Instax is an evolution of Kodak's design. Old machinery and chemical plants got sold off and scrapped during Polaroid's downfall and manufacturing quality instant film became sort of a lost knowledge.
Fuji could do it, but they won't bother because:
A) they are on a crusade to kill film for professional uses.
B) there is now a generational gap between people who shot actual Polaroid film back in its day and those who use modern instant film. The look Instax provides fulfills faux-nostalgic expectations of the latter group on what instant film looked like, even though it looks nothing like the actual stuff.
C) It sells well anyway
Now the thing is Instax is actually a pretty decent film stock, it is Fuji's cheap plastic lens full-auto cameras they keep releasing that are responsible for the crappy results. I'd suggest you look into what kind of photos people have been making with third-party instax cameras from Mint, Lomography and such.
Revived Polaroid stuff is inferior to Instax in both quality and handling, but they've been making small improvements over the years and the situation might reverse in the future.

If the (((elites))) wanted people to shoot film they wouldn't be doing everything in their power to kill it. They went after Polaroid, then Velvia (regulations) now Kodak, who knows who's next.

>>4462492
I swear it's the film, I've doing the same thing as >>4460755
Or maybe it's the machine itself mmmmmmm

>>4462497
But cryptographically signed digital raw is as close to honest recording as photography can get. They dont care about film its just irrelevant and everything that happens to it is an afterthought. They DO care about preventing civilians from getting anything like c2pa unless they’re among the few hundred that buy shit like leicas.

Evem cms 20 is too low resolution in real use and can be faked by the AIs and micro printers used by governments

>>4462445
It's closer to fifty USD. May as well use a Gameboy camera

>>4462625
>cryptographically signed digital raw
There's issues with it, it can be faked. It's just a stamp of Truth™ as defined by some authority. A certificate that the photoshopped-on-the-fly landing site and more things to come in the future are true™. AI is everywhere, it's time to stop believing pictures to be proof of anything.

>tripfag summits mount stupid before rolling back down to the base for the millionth time
avg cANON post: *literally nothing is correct, hates photography, never takes the L*
avg cinefag post: *argues in favor of bestiality, hates photography, never takes the L*
2 worst posters on /p/

right now cinefag is perpetually defending his fetish for being raped by dogs and cANON is constantly defending his crackpot theories despite being btfo by hard evidence several times

when will they die?

>>4460758
Don’t bring cosplay girls into your life my dude

>>4462673
I don't hate photography, I hate the misconception that if something was photographed it must be the truth. Ironically it's actual photography that lends itself to those fabrications, because they're works of art and photography is art. On the other hand, snapshits aren't photography, for they're not art. They're just digitizing things or recording them on film.

>>4462684
like cinefags entire philosophy ultimately comes from his lust for dog junk your entire philosophy centers around the russians being too retarded to make it to the moon (or kiev)

>>4462687
Wanna talk about CNN staging shit in Russia in the 90s? Or nowadays, same thing. They gather a group of actors and use deceiving angles to make it look like there's some huge demonstration. I find it both fascinating and despicable.

>>4462673
Oh suddenly it's the dogs who you claim are doing the raping, basically conceding your previous "argument" was bullshit. Now the only one who needs to consent for it to not be rape is the nonwhite female in heat, which they do.

>>4462671
Peak clown world is going to be if news agencies and outlets will start digitally signing their photos.
> It was produced by Washington Post therefore it's true.

Although I hope it will remain a purely camera manufacturer thing, even if it's flawed.

>>4460751
this is just sad

>>4462671
Idiot. Digitally signed (in camera) originals are foolproof.

>>4462787
Not how it works

>>4462769
Putin lost

>>4462769
No one is reading that dogfucker

>>4462814
>Not how it works
It all depends who puts the private key into the camera (they can sign anything with this key) and who can jailbreak the camera to extract the key (they can sign anything with this key).

>>4462817
Ideally it should be an open system. Guess why sony is keeping it closed off to official journalists. Yes, sony is actively against authenticity.
>shoot film goy
>*state level ai and lithography machine modified to write to film goes brrrr*

>>4462821
>Guess why sony is keeping it closed off to official journalists
I think for once Japs are right. If they release a camera with Sony's signing key embedded, and someone finds a way to extract the key, it will be bad publicity for Sony.

>>4462822
Gee how does pgp emailwork without googles special secret key?

shit is signed for authenticity daily but only cameras treat basic (and yet still relevant) 90s tech as something only "real professionals" (feds) can use?

>>4462823
Ok, explain then how you want this system to work? Your camera signs your raw file using some private key. Where did that private key come from?

>>4462825
https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=how+does+pgp+signing+work

do pgp private keys come from gmail anon?

>>4460516 (OP)
Instant photography rules for taking nude/sex pics.
Girlfriend is down for it but I only have an old OneStep. SX-70 film is useless indoor.

>>4460516 (OP)
Instant photography rules for taking nude/sex pics.
Girlfriend is down for it but I only have an old OneStep. SX-70 film is useless indoor.

>>4462826
Instead of pretending to be retarded, just write down, with what key you want to sign your raws and at which point in time. You will see that signed raws prove nothing of value if the key was generated by you, and prove something, but with known attack vectors if the key was generated by (for example) the camera manufacturer.

Your analogy with pgp in email is incorrect. Let's say you send a picture in attachment of a signed email. Pgp would be used to prove the origin of the signed message (the owner of this key pair signed this text), but not how the message was produced (is the attachment a photo or a drawing).

>>4462851
>A signed raw doesn't say anything but it's your unedited original
So exactly like a manufacturer signed raw.

Any photograph can be faked by the photographer. Signing is only to show it hasn't been altered by other people later.

Photography's truth value is not much more than a written statement. Never has been, never will be, and can not be.

>>4462853
What you are talking about goes back to "this jpeg was made by Washington Post" (or anonymous fom /p). You don't need camera manufacturers to do anything about it. You need a system that integrates signatures into exif metadata.

>>4462857
>You don't need camera manufacturers to do anything about it
Actually, loading your private key onto the camera is necessary for it to be signed with your private key AND something unique to the camera so it says "this is the original raw taken by anon with this camera". Otherwise it could be signed at any point. Even if the camera were compromised someone couldn't impersonate you without your private key, which is as unlikely and bad as someone stealing your camera, or a state/billionaire level actor faking film as easily as people print out 8x10s.

The way sony is doing C2PA is more like a ministry of truth that only select journalists who answer to politically influential powers can work with.

>>4462862
and for that we'd also need a basic feature even phones can have

lockable cameras

for some reason i can't use a shitty fingerprint unlock, or have my camera fully encrypted without a key stored in hardware or otherwise entered with another device or my fingers. it's a fucking free for all.

>>4462862
If there's only your private key that participates in this, you cannot tell a raw signed in camera from a raw signed later on your computer.

>>4462862
>>4462868
My reading comprehension lol.

Anyway, I finally get you to admit that you need a manufacturer-issued private key to prove that something was produced by a camera. Next step is to have you realize that no one cares about your personal signature on the raw, it's the manufacturer's signature that somewhat changes things.

>>4462865
Camera theft benefits camera manufacturers, so they don't feel like making it harder to steal cameras.

>>4462872
The photo needs signed by both the camera and the photographer for crypto signing to be meaningful at all
Therefore the camera also needs to be fully encrypted at all times and rely on a key stored in an external device (dongle, human brain, etc) to unlock so neither key is likely to be stolen.

Ideally, even if the entire hardware setup were stolen, if it were turned off none of the keys would be retrievable. Most likely just one would be compromised (the private key) since that one would preferably go on a dongle, with the camera encrypted with a third key.

If just one key is stolen an authentic photo can't be reproduced

>>4460746
that's sick, nigga

>>4462853
>>4462862
Gigabased posts.

>>4462681
Why not??

>>4462883
Ok, you want, way your camera manufacturer to certify that it's you who took the photo with their camera. Fair enough, it's just that there's already a mechanism of proving authorship - you publish your photo somewhere (preferably not 4chan) and you become known as the author. What makes me suspicious of what you want is that if your camera model gets "jailbroken" and there comes up a publicly available way of extracting camera's keys - this devalues all signatures made by this camera model.

why wouldn't this work
>give every camera its own unique private key
>camera signs raws/jpegs/heifs with its unique key
>camera co-signs images with the users key (stored encrypted on a special memory card)
>camera is fully encrypted, needs a password or password stored on an external key to unlock (could double this up with a proximity sensor)
>user key card is also encrypted, password entry done on camera, can (somewhat insecurely) store it to do it automatically
i dont see why c2pa needs to be exclusive to journalists and involve some special third party

its definitely ministry of truth/corporate data ownership shit. it is not about proving photos are camera originals instead of edited or generated by AI.

>>4463344
Retarded take.
Keys can be made entirely unique with a salted hash of the serial number contributing to the encryption key. Nobody is going through the effort to undo that just to imitate someone's snapshits
>>4463355
It would work. It's quite obvious a lot of anons here don't actually understand how cryptography works. Your method isn't exactly how I'd go about it, but theoretically it would work.
Anyone who cares can use a biometric locked yubiko (usb key) to access their TPM enabled camera (to prevent hardware fucky wucky). From there you just sign all RAWs with a key pair. I would not store the private key on the camera; despite the low chance, I'd rather just the camera have the pub key and your yubiko have access to the private key.

Essentially you'd be "authoring" your photos with a key linked to your physical sign-in device (the yubiko). I'd prefer that to be linked to an anonymous profile instead of real name etc, but keep in mind your biometrics are going to be linked to it in my suggestion. Easy solution: strip the encrpytion off anything you don't want to be traced back to you.

>>4463360
Take your head out of the ass and think for a second. For this whole thing to make sense, manufacturer's private key (can be unique per camera, but it does not help much) has to be stored within the camera and the manufacturer has to make the best effort it cannot be extracted from there. That's the whole point (also the point of TPM): you trust the manufacturer to make it so only their devices and nothing else can use a specific key to sign an image.

>>4462813
IIRC this was at the end of the day at the zoo and the elephants were put back indoors.

Have a cat instead.

Polaroid film changes colour so much from the temperature

>>4463360
To address "no one will bother hacking cameras". People hack videogame consoles for Patreon donations, cf. Nintendo Switch emulation shitshow (similar idea btw, secret keys are supposed to ensure that you cannot pirate games). If there is even a small thing to gain from piracy (could be just another Jap company messing with a competitor), third worlders start working on it, while redditors cheer.

How did it get so far off topic