>he takes pics landscape
>>4525222i do not care for the opinions of people who look like they play golf
I dun geddit
>>4525225Zoomies are too lazy to turn their phones so they want even a picture of 4 guys standing next to each in front of a vista they spent a ton of money to get a photo in front of to be shot in portrait.You're welcome.
>>4525284>he thinks it's about lazinesstime for your nap gramps
>>4525297>NOOO ITS BECAUSE IT FITS BETTER WHEN I DOOMSCROLL AND I DONT HAVE TIME TO TURN MY PHONE BECAUSE THEN ID HAVE TO WAIT .1S TO SCROLL TO THE NEXT VERTICAL VIDEO NOOOO>TAKING PHOTOS TO ENJOY THEM INDIVIDUALLY IS LE OLD FASHIONED AND ADHD IS IN!You’re not hip. You’re hampered. Literally brain damaged. Tech billionaires, political elites, and hasidic jews don’t let their kids use smartphones, fyi. Let that sink in.
>>4525225It's because zoomers have to take photos in aspect ratios that are good for scrolling and posting on social media, which means it has to be vertical. Shit like TikTok and Instagram just aren't made to have anything that's wide and will just auto crop it to look vertical.
>>4525222>he shoots film and then scans the negatives>he shoots film and uses a lab>he shoots snoy>he shoots fool framemental illness
>>4525358I do all those and nobody here can tell kek. Literally makes no difference.
>>4525358What about slide film?
>>4525362slide is for snoy people, horrible colors.
>>4525358Pretentiousness+a photo that shit+being such a gearfaggot you’re trying to bring back exif=all of your opinions are wrongSony’s marketing department will be compensating you shortly. You really made buying a FF snoy sound like a good move there.
>using any lens with >5 elements at allI physically cringe
>>4525297You won't say what it's "actually" about because there is no answer, you stupid kid.
>>4525364You're fuming lmao, he did well just for that reason. Getting rid of all EXIF was done not to spite gearfags but to protect incompetent fujislugs who shoot nearly still subjects at like 1/22000s and sky high ISO
>>4525389>Getting rid of all EXIF was done not to spite gearfags but to protect incompetent fujislugsIt made this place better since photos are now judged on how they look and not what camera was used. It's a based change.
>>4525396>Inb4 guys check out this sick photo I took with my full frame niggon!>PSYCHE. It's actually a lolympus >Lmao no-one can actually tell the difference
>>4525398Yes.
>>4525396it's only a based change if you're a worm faggot and get bullied everywhere for spending money on overpriced toys
>>4525407You'll never know though evidently kek.
>>4525358>Yeah bro the white border just makes it look and neat *slaps branded technical slop text contiguous with the image on the entire frame's length*
>>4525358dangerously based
>>4525223Advice for life
>>4525407Nah you're just a shit photographer.
>>4525358>He takes a perfectly functional digital camera and tries his best to make the photos look like they are b&w film shots
>>4525396They could have just left the settings and not show camera brand or model
>>4525428I take pictures of my Fuji photographs with my Leica before posting them.
>>4525399>>4525398Yes that actually happenedFull frame with bad settings looks just as bad as a crop sensor if not worse because these people are retarded. A lot of them get shaky hands or overestimate what “low light performance” is good for while neglecting to try giving the sensor more light and using a higher end prime lens instead of a travel zoom or a cheap retro chic “street” prime. If you think full frame is better you still need to not be a noodle armed snapshitting retard/fashion victim/etc to reap the rewards, and sadly buying a camera isn’t a subsitute for a bigger brain and more time at the gym. So lesser men go running back to crop sensors rich in “proof” that “fool frame” takes the same/worse photos compared to their smaller sensored beginners camera that’s barely 1lb lighter. Only greater men can really enjoy full frame.
>>4525363Oh you're the color accuracy autist. Yuck
>>4525428Apparently they either couldn't figure out how to implement it again without it still having some security issue or something, so it's unlikely to ever come back. The whole site was running on an extremely outdated versions for years as I recall and I guess that feature won't work now. But I do miss being able to see the settings used. We got to have all the gearfagging disappear from /rpt/ but we also lost being able to view settings that achieved certain photos.
>>4525518I remember a year or so ago when someone was taking intentionally bad photos of the garbage on their desk with a FF and an MFT. Even in those conditions, the FF photos had better light rendition, more accurate colors, and retained much more texture even with a shallower DOF.
>>4525222
>>4525641But how was the microtonal harvesting?
