Tetas y sexo.

Jejeje

Meh.

>>400 >>401 Got the Kenko Pro 300 2x DGX, works great. 1/50s, f/20, ISO 6400 on tripod. This is after adjustments in Lightroom, upped the contrast a lot but took the highlights down a bit and corrected the chromatic aberration too. I also went back to the pic in >>400 and tried applying the same settings, it came out a bit better than the one I had posted but still nowhere close to the teleconverted one.

In recent light of local events and in memory of the doggo here >>384 we shall resume the testing grounds of that one lens. I don't even remember why i had to take these shots but i suppose it was to test the bokeh on high frequency details aka small vegetation (nervous vs. smooth rendering), the Nikkor 50mm f1.8 Series E i don't have anymore but i still have the pics around and i do recall testing a theory i had with the whole 3D + Pop effects, i have somewhat proved it but i feel like discovering 2+2=4 so i feel retarded rather than accomplished. So this set is about my experiment in slightly front focusing so the background gets considerably more blurred at the cost of subject sharpness, i busted the first image but the other "trick" is merely downsizing for the binning to make the image sharper while the background still being as blurry in our human eyes, obvious backside is not full resolution but depending on the presentation it does not matter that much... it did matter here because it was a test for vegetation rendering but we can somewhat still see it is not that nervous as presumed by many reviews. The front focusing tactic seems to work often, this along with diagonal composition to make the smooth Out-of-Focus gradation appear subtly and trying to include a foreground to add another layer of blurriness seems to make the pictures' subjects "pop" more than mere frontal shots. What does not work that often is overexposing for highlights to shine, it works great for colours when processing the RAWs but these are jaypegs and some stuff gets washed out along with making things a bit confusing, second image being an example although both bushes being mixed in that border makes things a bit more difficult. In the fourth image i finally realized something was wrong and why doing the last point was even less effective, indeed it was the fucking lens developed a misty thing which i still don't know if it was fungus or condensation, i suppose in one of my apocalyptic rain sessions that happened last year it got in because i didn't have a back cap for that lens. The patterns were not ramified but neither central, weird to explain, almost like balsam separation but wouldn't make sense as i never had it in high heat other than natural weather here Heated some american pennies in a stove, placed them in a back cap and locked it into the lens, let it rest for a week and the weird stuff never became big so if it was fungus it was pretty much dead after that poisonous copper vapour did its job. Still that shows most of the bokeh characteristics in these pics are not from an actually clean copy, they show some halation/mist conditions which will be more obvious in the next pictures.

In these ones i tried to mimic some test shots i did with another lens some months before to compare it, anyways in my opinion the nervous nature of this lens has been a bit exaggerated, indeed it is not creamy smooth bokeh but neither a bunch of powerlines rumbling in the background, they seem here as smooth but defined spots of colours, to me at least that is a very cool rendition and would actually seek for it in some occasions. All this test needed was merely the fifth picture here, a showcase of what this lens' characteristics are at wide open: Bubbly, soft bokeh with smooth gradation albeit with clear sharpness penalty... also that our public service gardeners suck ass for trying to work fast but i won't blame them that much due to them summers' heatwaves. This copy however blooms the highlights extra like no tomorrow, at times it looks elegant like a soft-focus lens, particularly in the third pic here but in the second and fourth ones it seems to bother more than help. For the price this 50mm goes, around 40 to 50 dollars, i think it is a great beginners' tool and can easily be used for more advanced stuff due to its artistic values, it does a slight 3D effect when used at the right moment and can Pop given optimal lighting conditions found often like dark background + illuminated subject... which are not really most of the cases here but i believe most lenses can Pop as it is more dependent on light factors.

I wanted to do a more extensive and well-made post about this lens along with its other two bros but if i don't do it now i think i will never do, it's been almost two years so might as well show the testing of this one when i had to sell it. The mid-70's Nikkor 105mm f2.5 P.C. (Penta-element, Coated) the famous portraitmaker, the Vietnam Face Lens (later AI-S version would be the Afghan Girl Lens) this Gauss or also named Xenotar pre-AI seen here all busted up in its chassis and also with a quite rugged back element, cost me little so had to give it a chance and boy did it prove its value: The best lens i've tested in the F-mount but that' not saying much as i've used less than 20 i think... but still. There's another Pre-AI version, which uses a Sonnar design and has a smaller back element which makes that thing render with swirly corners and supposedly is a bit better in terms OoF gradation, those would make it be my preferred choice but the costly adaptation to make it shoot in a F body with aperture tab and the fact it isn't coated as good as the -C. versions that happened later on made me not lose sleep over that but i love the silver top of it, cannot deny its aesthetic object value Still this one is 5 elements in 4 groups, the 3rd generation of the 105mm 2.5 which started back in the S/rangefinder days of them, supposedly story says the rangefinder lenses were sharp as hell but had very nervous OoF renditions so when they were making the perfected Sonnar version the engineers at Nikon tried to design its boekh smoothness, something usually ignored back in the day. The effort went that much that this next iteration supposedly had those factors still improved, and to this day it is still well-known for it as it is very well balanced. Supposedly, according to the blogposts by Nikon's lens design department, this lens was also designed to have good corrections at close distances but at short-medium to medium distances the corrections for SA and coma are not that good by decision so the faces in portraits could have a particular glow and without very sharp detailing. If so then we can be sure this was considered and treated by the company as a killer lens and its sales history does prove they succeeded in that regard. The P.C. version is 420-430 grams, a bit heavy for its size but it's full metal and glass, it feels like holding a piece of real hardware and it doesn't come with a build-in hood sadly, but can be adapted a hood from other lenses which are more solidly made too but a bitch to get when not included. Probably its only minor detail because i am a sucker is that it has 7 blades, which is okay but they are not rounded, as someone who was used to the 15+ rounded blades of pre-set Vivitars i think i got too spoiled with perfectly good OoF even at f5.6. I wasn't that much of a dummy back when testing this and did shoot taking into consideration i would edit only the JPEGs, so exposures were not that high and we can see how these colours smashed the sensor, very nice and the OoF/bokeh is smooth as a girl, both in fore and backgrounds. In the third and fourth images we can see it does separate between planes decently, fifth one is testing its sharpness wide open which is pretty good although the OoF gradation might be a little sudden but indeed that shot is a tough cookie, a 12m (i think) wooden telephone post taken from the very base; this lens shows very, very little distortion too.

Due to lack of food had to sell this baby but initially i liked it so much i did pony up earlier to buy another better copy which is the one i possess now, also came with a hood too; no way i would've sold this rugged lens as a first move if it was my only one, i think it is that good. First image is a tunnel-tier test in the play area of that park, this one is the original i tried to do to say this was sharp and could be sold as is. Sun just burns the shit out of that pavement so both this one and the 50mm image were the only ones edited here, did an exposure blend ASAP because i forgot how to do them after so much time. Second image is another original test, the flagstaff image i did that i later tried to do in the 50mm test, conditions were different along with exposure so it sucks but we can somewhat see the rendition differences, that includes that this one is also fucked with pocked back element with slight mist in the corners but it seems that's not as dangerous as plain center mist in the front element... But that becomes noticeable in the third pic, sun blooms around the tower here much like the other pic but considerably less. Next images are using the newer copy, first rugged friend was american while this one was kept by some swiss fellow who sold it for surprisingly cheap due to its conditions and items: 120 euros for a leather case, hood and the lens this time being CLA'd. For some mysterious reason Switzerland does not count when i have to pay for luxury taxes so it was a cheap mail order too, everything went good with this copy. Fourth image here is a sunset test, straight-out-of-camera with the normal colour engine, it's the bomb and i even dare to say these lenses have that newer buzzword of "embossed" light rendition which is easy to identify but hard to find in a lens. Highlights seem to appear in a different layer than the rest, obviously helps that the subject is a glossy bag-covered mannequin. Final image is probably going to get me castrated by my buddy in subject if he ever finds out but it's the only example of a portrait that doesn't downright shows who the person is, in this case the reason why the lens was designed for. These were indeed edited but the sharpness was the least i moved, razor sharp in my own tastes and generally speaking the B&W rendition of this glass is top-notch, pretty exaggerated in the example here as i tried to bloom the highlights/make it dramatic but the shirt tones makes us clearly see the waves around the textile; sun was pretty hard hence why the arm doesn't seem that detailed and reason why the dude covered himself, candid of course because i suck at trying to pose someone. I find pretty hard i could ever replace this focal length even if i had the money, this lens is just downright good and even competes with the attractive AF-capable lenses like the 105mm f2 D.C., with autofocus adapters in newer ML cameras i think this keeps being a winner and only things like the 105mm f1.4 might compete with its sheer absurdity in aperture, but in terms of smoothness and convenient size i don't think this will see the back of a shelve... if i only used my full frame camera more. Perhaps in the 135mm area i could find harder cases due to Zeiss vs. Voigtlander vs. Nikkor, but now that i think of it the 90mm f2.5 by Tokina could make a case against this very lens due to beign in the middle of this lens and the 85mm range, we shall see someday.

There's some overused trends nowadays and the last two ones here follow them but in its specific context i think they work very well, this guy's very good. I'll check him further, thanks anon.

>>150 Damn it's been two years now, been hoarding pictures but never writing about them. I found some more from Ikko Narahara so here goes: These ones from his Zen, Domains and Sumo/60's Japan days

These ones from his Spain book Grand Tarde

Some more from Europe, from Where Time Has Stopped and i think the Venice book from the late 80's but i am not too sure. And the cover for one of his books, Tokyo, the 50's, that's that, not many scan books i see lol. More subjects to come i hope, work is busting me.

>>405 That first pic is amazing

'' ''

>>175 /co/ is like a slightly less gay version of reddit.

>Why is it so comfy? Is it? Having studied it a bit and practiced the modern version for giggles i find it emotionally exhausting, at least for me, because i think it requires very little skill to pull out as it depends mainly on luck and the little aforementioned abilities in knowing about shutter speed results and how to press a button, not even proper exposures because you can hide a bad acquisition by using chiaroscuro compositions or downright applying grain as an artistic decision/excuse because for some reason it is still the norm to convert most compositions into monochrome. It does require skills at times but those are social and depend mainly on disarming tense situations and/or suppressing the shame when flashing people on the street, if you have a slight amount of respect to your fellow denizens this becomes difficult because it is obvious some people dislike being taken a picture of especially in candid situations when they are eating or doing stuff without wanting someone checking on them. Then you also end up going into the moral artistic matter of seeing inconsistent/out-of-your-hands situations being the main gist of the composition/subject/message which you cannot replicate without hiring models in specific situations and places, this is degrading to how you consider your own skills because you depend on something else not yourself to have a good day in terms of acquisitions, and you also end up spraying and praying more than actually composing scenes which ultimately causes mild impostorism if you are used to doing and achieving more traditional stuff. I think it is a genre much more enjoyable to see than to go out and create, and ultimately the usual and even above-average results are not really that endearing particularly if you ended up doing them yourself and comparing them to other work of yours which demanded much more effort. I haven't analyzed in deep introspective the kind of person who enjoys doing this type of photography but preemptively i think they are not very swell to be around with although there might be exceptions of photographers who are actually fascinated with the prospect of being stealthy and able to capture scenes without anyone noticing, like a ghost, and genuinely feel bad when they get caught and called out. Also Tokyo/almost any japanese city is like a cheat code in terms of this kind of activity due to their citizens' common place passivity and politeness along with well-kept and safe environments, i dare those easy going photographers going into Haiti, rural latin america or industrial eastern europe and attempt doing the usual street and see how they fare, high-level street photography with actual fast operating skills with a decent amount of acquired charisma/diplomacy are required there and those who usually pull those out are called photojournalists aka a real job In the video fella's case even the japanese chauffer was getting pissed and did a stare down at him for repeatedly taking shots of the car while he was waiting in the middle of street; to cross someone who's job is to be quiet and patient, in a place like Japan, is a testament on how people see these practitioners and a small window into what it feels like for a photographer to be seen as a pest by either people you share paths with everyday or foreigners pondering when are you leaving, at best because you usually get confronted if you are not using uniform from an agency. Although have to say aside from that part he was very conservative and minded his business, the same cannot be said about the cameraman who went into people's tits and got honked several times for strolling around like a rooster. >Nikon Z9 + 40mm f2 Mad jelly here, that setup does make me feel more puzzled at the photographer, the camera is hard to get but doesn't fit the job at hand in terms of the usual customs. Or am i too negative :^)

>>398 Not OP (zoom zoom guy here) but I think it helps to realize that some of the street photography "greats" actually staged much of their stuff. That said I despise most street.

>>377 Thank you anon! I'm afraid I have no idea what that star is, not even after trying to check on Astrometry. It did pick up on other stars from the uncropped pic but not that one.

>>376 I agree, it's too pretty not to use the strong blue to contrast that saucy good red there. I saw the blood moon after work but didn't shoot, too tired to pull the camera out. >a rubber band to keep it at 400mm wat, is the Cosina giving you some slack now?

>>380 It was pointed upwards so there was some zoom creep. It always had some but if you're not carrying it vertically it's no issue for normal shooting.

>>381 I thought the push-pull stuff was mostly the creepers, being that the AF rubbergripped zooms of the mid 80s and early 90's always felt sticky and not uniform in their mechanisms i thought they did not creep. Must've been a pain in the bitch to set, i really like the colours so it was a good choice.

>>382 Oh, this one is a push-pull zoom, don't get me wrong. I also got a 28-135mm Canon recently that regrettably creeps despite being sticky in the way you describe and not being push-pull, it was sort of disappointing but it's nice in other ways (namely the stabilization). I'll be reviewing it soonish. Unlike the Cosina, there's no easy rubber band hack to use precisely because it's not push-pull.

I don't shot nearly enough film to have a favorite stock. I used some HP5+ 400 and liked it, but I wouldn't call it my favorite because I have nothing to compare it to.

>>290 Same here. Just got into film and photography in general so I don't really have a preference. Just got some ektar for the first time so I'm hoping its good. Or at least better than the colorplus I was using.

For me right now, just whatever is cheap and available. I stocked up on a few boxes of Superia 400 (all that the local pharmacy had) for much cheaper than I could find it from photo retailers or scalpers. And I've gotten good images in the past from it, so it's good enough for me.

>>358 Nice pic, there's some funky reel square stuff on top right? I don't know much about film so i don't know if that's supposed to be there.

>>359 I think it's either a very minor sort of light leak, or, more likely, surge marks around the sprocket holes from the lab. This was on 35mm film. I don't think it's a light leak because the area is darker there which would indicate less light. But I'm also not entirely sure how this would happen at the lab. It might have something to do with my scanner. Still pretty happy with how it turned out.