File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Taken out of a car window perpendicular to the subject at about 20mph with a 135/2.8 Manual focus Rokkor lens. No cropping or straightening.

That's got to count for something, eh?
>> Anonymous
No, sorry. At least you tried though.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
Counts for something, but not enough to counteract the blur from motion/bad focus and the big railing or whatever in the front. Sorry.
>> Anonymous
>>163447
There's no blur from motion, it's f/2.8 you tard, the shutter was like 1/1250. Big railing I can't do anything about, she was walking down a set of concrete stairs with a railing about 6 feet in front of her. And I'd like to see you focus any better on a 40 year old MF lens, especially considering I didn't prefocus the shot with a frame of reference. I saw her about fifteen feet away while moving at 20mph, and brought my camera up and focused and composed in about 1.5 seconds. Do you even understand half of the things I said? lol.

Also, it was like 78F out, how the hell can she wear all that clothing without suffering from a heat stroke.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>163451
>There's no blur from motion, it's f/2.8 you tard, the shutter was like 1/1250
1/1250th isn't enough to counteract a car that's bouncing up and down and moving at 20 miles per hour, being shot by someone who's doing it really quickly without being able to take a moment to steady himself.

>Big railing I can't do anything about, she was walking down a set of concrete stairs with a railing about 6 feet in front of her.
Sure you could have. You could have stopped the car, gotten a better vantage point, and then taken the shot. Or, after having taken the shot, you could have just accepted that the railing was ugly and too prominent and thrown it away.

>And I'd like to see you focus any better on a 40 year old MF lens, especially considering I didn't prefocus the shot with a frame of reference
I focus better than that with manual-focus cameras frequently, actually. Never at 135/2.8, but often at 50/1.4. Wanna know how I do it? By not taking it from a car window.

>Do you even understand half of the things I said?
Yes, I understood all of the things you said. It's not like it's hard. The only thing that would even require any sort of special knowledge is 'Rokkor', and I own a fairly nice manual-focus Minolta setup, so that was no problem.

>Also, it was like 78F out, how the hell can she wear all that clothing without suffering from a heat stroke.
It's designed to cover her, not to keep in heat. The material looks thin, and it's white to reflect away heat rather than locking it in.
>> Anonymous
>1/1250th isn't enough to counteract a car that's bouncing up and down and moving at 20 miles per hour, being shot by someone who's doing it really quickly without being able to take a moment to steady himself.
Let's all figure this out together: 20mph = ~30 ft/s = 352 in/s = 8,940 mm/s. 8940/1250 = 7.152, meaning that there is a maximum of 7.152 millimetres of a blur radius, about the width of the iris in one of her eyes. Completely unnoticeable at this distance.

>Sure you could have. You could have stopped the car, gotten a better vantage point, and then taken the shot. Or, after having taken the shot, you could have just accepted that the railing was ugly and too prominent and thrown it away.
The whole point is that it was taken from a moving car. Didn't we have a thread on that earlier? I think it's a nice way to get a different view of things. And I never said the railing wasn't ugly, but I would argue that it's negligible.

>I focus better than that with manual-focus cameras frequently, actually. Never at 135/2.8, but often at 50/1.4. Wanna know how I do it? By not taking it from a car window.
Again, being from a car window is half the point. And yeah, because focusing on a 50mm lens where infinity is >30ft is the same as focusing on a 135mm lens where infinity is >50ft.

>It's designed to cover her, not to keep in heat. The material looks thin, and it's white to reflect away heat rather than locking it in.
Sure, that makes sense for the burka, but what about the thick, dark turqoise cashmere-like material making up her long dress, which itself is placed over a pair of long, lycra/cotton (assuming by look, of course) pants? That does nothing but retain heat. It looks very cumbersome and uncomfortable.
>> Anonymous
shit photo
>> Anonymous
>>163484
1/10
>> Anonymous
Nice photo.
>> Anonymous
good pic
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>163482
I'll grant you that it's as good a shot as can be expected given your motion and and equipment constraints.
>>163442

However, that doesn't make up for the fact that it's not a particularly good photo. It's like if I were to post a single black pixel and say "Hey guys, pretty good given that I was using a single photodiode rather than a digital camera, right?" and it might be true, but it's still wouldn't be a good picture.

Also:
>>163487
>>163488
>>163491
Same person.

No way that many people on /p/ responded to this that quickly when there's a Canon vs. Nikon (and now vs. Sony) flamewar thread going on elsewhere.
>> Anonymous
blurry, poor saturation & contrast

I give it a 6/10
barely above a snapshot
>> Anonymous
Rofl Grandma's creed
>> Anonymous
>>163494
Maybe
>>163488
>>163491
Were the same, but
>>163487
Was me (OP) so, not all three of them. I was just as surprised as you.

>However, that doesn't make up for the fact that it's not a particularly good photo. It's like if I were to post a single black pixel and say "Hey guys, pretty good given that I was using a single photodiode rather than a digital camera, right?" and it might be true, but it's still wouldn't be a good picture.
Oh come now, that's surely a terrible exaggeration.

>>163498
That has nothing to do with me, retard, that's the 40 year old lens at work. I like it. Maybe you can go masturbate to some oversatured Ken Rockwell pics later.
>> Anonymous
But why did you take it? It's so boring.

Or did you see an ethnic person and you had to whip out your camera?
>> Anonymous
>>163503

It's too bad you can't edit the saturation and contrast of a picture using a computer.
If only you could do that there would be no need for such arguments!
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>163503
>Oh come now, that's surely a terrible exaggeration.
Exaggeration, sure. But at its fundamental level--I.e., that we should overlook the quality of your photo as a photo because of the constraints under which it was made--it's the same thing. My example was just a degenerate case of that. A bad photo is a bad photo, no matter how hard it was for you personally to make it.

>That has nothing to do with me, retard, that's the 40 year old lens at work. I like it. Maybe you can go masturbate to some oversatured Ken Rockwell pics later.
It's a poor craftsman who blames his tools. You're vastly overestimating your own skill and underestimating the abilities of the old Minolta 135/2.8.
>> Anonymous
>>163504
Yes, it is boring. I took it because I took lots of pictures of moving subjects with a MF lens while I, myself, was moving, and thought this one was surprisingly good. Not great, but good considering the conditions surrounding it, and I thought it could be appreciated by other photographers. It had nothing to do with her ethnicity.

>>163506
Yeah, so why not do it yourself, rockwell fag? It's pleasing to my eyes and probably many others' as far as contrast and saturation go. I hate the overdone flickr levels so prominent in photos taken by "professional photographers" with sixteen years and silver XTi bodies.

>It's a poor craftsman who blames his tools. You're vastly overestimating your own skill and underestimating the abilities of the old Minolta 135/2.8.
It's not a casting of blame on the equipment, though. As you can see in there, I stated "I like it" because the colors are pleasing to someone who isn't used to the oversaturated mess so prominent in digital photo communities. Just because the colors of a photo are like ARGHHHHH FUCK LOOK AT ME doesn't mean it's a good picture. Ooh, yeah, it's magical because it doesn't look like anything I've seen in real life, that must make it great. It's the same mindset that makes HDR photos so "popular" when everyone knows they're usually done horribly and look terrible. I'm also not overestimating myself or vice versa with my lens (it's an excellent piece of equipment), I'm only giving the poster who had a problem with it the more logical reason for his discourse.
>> Anonymous
I'm interested why you are forcing your self to take photos out of a moving car, care to entice me with the reasoning behind it. ( not just its a different way to take photos, or get a different view of things) I want to know how taking photos out of a moving car gives strength to the meaning of the photo. etc.
>> Anonymous
>>163515
It doesn't, really. I had my camera with me on the way to the Post Office and wanted to try doing something I've never done before.
>> $19.99 !OSYhGye6hY
>>163451
Shitty photo is shitty, stop defending it.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
slightly improved shit

also
>It's pleasing to my eyes and probably many others' as far as contrast and saturation go.

nobody likes the contrast and saturation but you
it looks washed out and flat

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:04:17 14:38:24Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1200Image Height803
>> Anonymous
>>163519
Yeah, thanks for the blown-out whites on her burka. I think you've just proved your own stupidity.

Oh wait, you're a troll, nevermind.
>> Anonymous
>>163520
>Yeah, thanks for the blown-out whites on her burka. I think you've just proved your own stupidity.

like i said, "slightly improved"
not good
there are no blacks in your post photo, and if you look at the edit her velvet dress stands out much better

you should not be allowed to take photos
>> Anonymous
>>163523
Right. Thanks again for the shitty edit. Now get lost.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>163526
here you go, faggot op.
just fixed the black levels.
no changes to highlights, saturation, or sharpness.
45% better photo now. plz credit me when you put this in your portfolio.

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:04:17 14:48:19Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1600Image Height1071
>> Anonymous
>>163528
I'm honored that you care so much about gaining attention for your horrible shop that you've gone and redone it just to make me happy. Thanks!
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>163528
This one's a lot better.

Though I still think it's ruined by the blur, which I still maintain is camera shake and not narrow DoF.
>> Anonymous
>>163532

i think it could be car movement motion blur + shake + shitty focus.
any way you take it it's not a good shot.
>> Anonymous
May have been hard to take, but the picture itself is mediocre at best.
Popular opinion decides what is good and what isn't. You can think what you want, but /p/ is telling you that THEY DON'T LIKE IT.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>163532
<-- 100% crop. It's not blur goddamnit. It's OOFness.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>163540
Got any other shots taken at this subject distance with your 135/2.8 we could compare it to? Because that still looks like camera shake at 100% to me.
>> Anonymous
>>163540
what the fuck is OOFness

this thread needs to be destroyed
>> Anonymous
>>163536

Fuck you, you troll.
>> Anonymous
>>163528
I doubt the OP would have gotten flamed if he had posted this from the beginning.
>> Anonymous
>>163547
..... the state of being out-of-focus...? Are you that stupid?

>>163545
I'll rummage, hold on.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>163555
<---- Approximately the same distance, me and the subject both perfectly still. Shutter is 1/320 (it's darker out now). This is as sharp as this lens gets wide-open at f/2.8 (it was the sharpest image out of 5 different focused-looking shots I took, so yeah, definitely).
>> Anonymous
>>163563

If the lens is really this shitty and can't focus any better than this, WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU USING IT YOU STUPID NIGGER?
>> Anonymous
>>163565
It's not shitty. Go find a sharper 135/2.8 lens when wide-open. You'll pay out of your ass. This lens cost me $40 and is better than anything else you can get at that length and speed for less than $300. l2lense, then make replies.
>> Anonymous
>>163567
Who cares how fast it is when the images all look blurry and like you have a broken autofocus?
Who cares how cheap it is when the images all look blurry and like you have a broken autofocus?
Who cares how long the zoom is when the images all look blurry and like you have a broken autofocus?

Your image sucks, op.
Your lens sucks, op.
The fact that you're defending such suckitude shows that you suck, op.
>> Anonymous
>>163567
no matter how much or little you paid for a lens, if its shitty its shitty. it may be a "good value" but its still shitty.
>> Anonymous
>>163571


FUCKING NEWFAG.

ROKKOR LENSES AREN'T AUTOFOCUS.

GB2/SLR/
>> Anonymous
>>163573
>FUCKING NEWFAG.
>ROKKOR LENSES AREN'T AUTOFOCUS.
>GB2/SLR/

NO SHIT CAPTAIN FAGGOT.
I SAID IT *LOOKS* LIKE A BROKEN AUTOFOCUS.
LRN2READ ASSHOLE.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>163571
>>163575
You know, I wasn't even going to reply to your post(s), but it's so clear you don't understand anything about optics, I thought it would be a shame if I passed up the easy opportunity.

This is a 100% crop of a picture taken just now with the lens stopped down to f/4.5. No PP at all. It's nearly tack-sharp. Show me something sharper for the money. And yes, money matters, you faggot, not everyone has wealthy mommies and daddies who can buy them whatever they want. Some people have to work for what they want.
>> EvenSteven !!RBDL+S5h60X
>>163567

OH HAI

Chinar 135mm at f2.8

I found it in a shoebox. It just might be sharper than your 40 dollars of power.

Lrn2focus
>> EvenSteven !!RBDL+S5h60X
     File :-(, x)
>>163578

Oh shit, forgot pic

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D200Camera SoftwareVer.1.00Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)0 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2008:04:17 06:58:57White Point Chromaticity0.3Exposure Time1/125 secF-Numberf/0.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating100Exposure Bias0.7 EVMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length0.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1280Image Height856RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> Anonymous
>>163577
That is quite possibly the worst quality picture I have ever seen. It won't be hard for anyone to find a better quality lens than that. Hell on a budget of $5 i bet someone could find a better one
>> Anonymous
>>163577

A fucking Holga could do better than that.
>> Anonymous
>>163581
Ever? Really? You must not have seen more than a handful of photos in your life.
>>163579
I am intrigued by your Chinar, it is indeed sharp. Link to pricing/availability info?
>> Anonymous
>>163577
>It's nearly tack-sharp.

Are you blind? It's a blurry mess.
It looks like you were jiggling around like a fucking crack whore when you took the shot.
Honest to god, that looks like horrible motion blur. If your lens does that when it's on a tripod there's something wrong with it.
>> EvenSteven !!RBDL+S5h60X
>>163590

http://www.pgsys.com/3920/

This guy has a pentax mount going for $9. Like I said, I found mine in a shoe box.
>> Anonymous
WHY WON'T THIS THREAD DIE!
>> Anonymous
>>163593

LOL
op got ripped off with his $40 faillens.
>> Anonymous
is this thread still going? Someone archive this shit. It would be the only /p/ thread and quite accurate of how the board is.
>> Anonymous
>>163607
>quite accurate of how the board is

What, that someone posts a terrible picture, gets some brutal criticism, and then cries about it?
>> Anonymous
>>163607

Can't. The archive has no option for /p/, although it has one for /po/.
>> Anonymous
>>163614
and then spirals out of control, yes, I'd say that was pretty accurate.
>> Anonymous
>>163614

Pretty much.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
This lens is really sharp u guys, I swear. See pic.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
EPIC THREAD
>> Jesus !1EQ.kCAg9c
     File :-(, x)
Why are you bragging about taking a shitty picture OP? Also, have some lol 100% crop.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 10DCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:04:17 22:04:59Exposure Time1/500 secF-Numberf/2.8Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/2.8Exposure Bias-1/2 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo FlashFocal Length26.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width770Image Height677
>> Anonymous
>>163720
Yeah, because that was taken with a 40 year old manual-focus lens and you're not an idiot, right?
>> Anonymous
>>163722
Dude don't insult Jesus. He's 2000 years old, Camera's back in his day were only manual focus.
>> Jesus !1EQ.kCAg9c
>>163722
...buy a new one? Seems pretty simple to me.
>> Anonymous
>>163756
You're missing the point. It's cheap. It's old. Like your mother, it has a lot of things going for it.
>> Jesus !1EQ.kCAg9c
>>163778
A "your moma" joke? Really? Thank you, I desperately needed to be reminded that it's actually 1994.
>> Anonymous
>>163787
Oh come on now, don't be a pussy.
>> Jesus !1EQ.kCAg9c
>>163792
Don't take shitty pictures and then pretend that you're awesome for doing so.
>> Anonymous
>>163796
Don't live in your fantasy world where you think every picture you take is gold because you sat there framing a flower for ten minutes and then half-pressed the shutter to autofocus and think you put any effort into it or that you're a good photographer.
>> Jesus !1EQ.kCAg9c
>>163800
You've made the mistake of assuming that
1: I think that picture is a great picture.
2: I used autofocus on that picture.
3: You are not, in fact, retarded.
>> Anonymous
>>163805
Assumptions don't equal misjudgements. I don't hear you saying it sucks or that it was done manually. I'll let you ramble on pointlessly, though.
>> Jesus !1EQ.kCAg9c
>>163808
That's right, I'm not saying it sucks or that it was manually focused, or that it was a snapshot. I don't have to. You, on the other hand, are fapping all over your inability to correctly take a picture.
>> Anonymous
>>163812
Yeah, just like that.
>> Jesus !1EQ.kCAg9c
>>163813
It's ok, don't get frustrated. I'm sure that if you invest in a nice point and shoot your pictures won't be as blurry or out of focus.
>> Jesus !1EQ.kCAg9c
>>163818
damn, forgot my sage
>> Anonymous
>>163818
You're still going at it? lol
>> Jesus !1EQ.kCAg9c
>>163825
It's 2am. I'm bored. Sue me.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>163787
While I'm on your side in this argument, I would like to point out that "Your mother" style jokes are *awesome*.
>> Anonymous
>>163903
Finally, someone with sense about them.
>> Anonymous
>>163813

I can't believe the OP is still BAWWWWWWWing about this.
How old is this homoerotic ass-spelunker? 12? 13?

Just because you took a bad photograph doesn't mean you're a bad photographer, it just means you need to be more judicious about what you decide is worthy of posting.

Yeah, OP image may have been a _technical_ achievement, but you need to be able to understand that other people care about the final image, not how difficult it was to take. I don't care if you had to ride an elephant's cock covered in dog shit for 30 days to get a shot, if it looks like ass and you come in here acting like hot shit it's going to get criticized.
>> linkiE !ei5A1FPDuk
I think

OP has trolled the hell out of everyone from the beginning.

If not...

ITT OP contradicts himself, like, too much.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
I've been exclusively using disposables for a couple of weeks now. Not one of my images looks as bad as the OP's.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
In other news I just got my 70-200 2.8 IS today. In honour of /p/ I spent all day taking bad pictures of my shoes, flowers, a cat, random crap on my desk and [insert terrible cliché here] with equipment I clearly do not deserve.

Vincent was right about the balance of it on the small camera body though. Not the problem I was worried it might be. If anyone else is considering trying a heavy lens on it then feel free to take the plunge or at least consider trying it at your local camera shop.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>164023
That's pretty awesome.

In related news, I realized the other day that I own a manual-focus F-mount 135mm f/2.8, so I'm thinking I might take that out for a spin tomorrow.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>164032

I'm pleased it worked on the Rebel series body. I'm very glad now I got the lens instead of upgrading the body first and then saving up again. The results were better than expected. It's my first real use of a "L" lens. The build quality and weight reminds me of the old manual focus lenses I have, made back before they went all plastic in construction. It took a while to save up for it, but at least I feel I got something for the money when it arrived. In a rare moment of generosity Canon actually give the hood, tripod mount and a lens case with it for free and the dealer threw in a free 77mm UV filter to say sorry for my delivery being late. That saved me a few pounds.

A nice old 135 2.8 sounds pretty tasty too.
>> Anonymous
>>164037
excuse my noobness but dont UV filters do nothing? cept maybe protect lens' from getting scratched. Why would you be so happy about one?
>> Anonymous
>>164102
>cept maybe protect lens' from getting scratched.
>maybe protect lens' from getting scratched.
>protect lens' from getting scratched.
>lens' from getting scratched.
>from getting scratched.
>getting scratched.
>scratched.

$2000 lens + scratch = ;_;
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>164102

A valid question. You are right in that it will do nothing other than protect it, but as I planned to use it in a forest full of rough terrain, mud, splashing water, sharp branches and bushes it makes a lot of sense to use one. I was shopping around for one, but thankfully I didn't buy before the lens was here. So I'd have bought one anyway if he hadn't given me one.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>164108

Also yes. Scratch it on the first day and I'd be hanging myself or pimping my tender arse out to raise cash quickly to repair it.
>> Anonymous
>>164109
>>164108
But why not get a piece of material that wasnt UV absorbing but somthing mainly designed not to break. no more expensive at all, just works better for that purpose.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>164117

A "piece of material"? I'm not sure what you mean. Make my own ghetto cover? UV filters are the cheapest (unless a brand makes "clear" filters in that range, not all do) and they are optical glass so they don't ruin the image while still protecting from dirt, splashes, sand and scratches. The UV absorbing is very useful for some people as it can reduce the haze in images.

I got this one free in the post, so I'll use it.
>> Anonymous
>>164117


entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
>> Anonymous
this photo is complete fucking shit
trash your camera and never take a photo again
unless its with a cellphone camera, hopefully you will be able to operate that a little more then w/e camera your using
>> Anonymous
OP: YHBT. HAND.