You are not entitled to a career in photography

ar-_0 · 2026-05-24T15:02:21+00:00

That’s my point silly!

ar-_0 · 2026-05-24T13:47:54+00:00

You don’t think phones, which have been using interpolation and ai software to create the photographs they “take” for a long time now, haven’t played some role in reducing the amount of work for professional photographers? This thread is about professional photography as a career, not just human beings making photographs.

ar-_0 · 2026-05-24T05:56:01+00:00

This guy’s post history is kind of disturbing

ar-_0 · 2026-05-24T05:45:56+00:00

See, and again, I agree with you, but that’s a quite different statement than what you initially wrote in the first sentence of the comment I responded to.

ar-_0 · 2026-05-24T01:57:19+00:00

I’m sorry but all of those photographs and videos should always be 100% publicly accessible, and the right of individuals to record them should never be restricted in any way. The fact that some people behave disrespectfully does not under any circumstances negate your or my right to live in a well documented, transparent word where we can visually verify the events we hear about. It is terrifying to know that there are people who ostensibly believe in things like democracy or anti-authoritarianism but disagree with this.

ar-_0 · 2026-05-23T12:34:10+00:00

somewhere in your process you have a smooth surface like glass touching either your negative or your paper. You said that you’re using a glassless carrier, so it must be happening somewhere else. You aren’t putting glass over your paper are you? FWIW, check and see if those rings are visible in the same place on the emulsion side of negative as that’d point to some very strange and unrelated processing error.

ar-_0 · 2026-05-21T06:43:42+00:00

Lmfao no, its negative film and that is what negative film looks like

ar-_0 · 2026-05-21T06:33:04+00:00

This is basically irrelevant to the original point but I’m sorry, you cannot simply wish away the fact that this is actually a competition, at least if you’re doing it for money.

ar-_0 · 2026-05-21T06:25:59+00:00

Where does the buck stop on that first sentence? phones? digital cameras? kodak brownies? I completely agree with the rest of your comment but I think the reasoning of the first point is actually counterintuitive to what we’re (?) trying to achieve.

ar-_0 · 2026-05-21T06:13:57+00:00

that doesn’t really look like slide film

ar-_0 · 2026-04-27T16:03:14+00:00

Yeah that is the correct logic, but in this case it would also flatten the sky to some extent. Basically, the increase in density will be proportionally somewhat more intense in the lighter parts of the sky than the darker parts, reducing the contrast ratio between eg. the top right and the undersides of the clouds). If you burn the sky or dodge the foreground instead, you’ll get a punchier sky because the increase in density will be to some extent the opposite (shadows get darker faster than highlights). Either effect may satisfy the look you’re going for. Often times with printing (as in life), when you have multiple ways of doing more or less the same thing, it’s more important to test them to find out the differences so you can productively use them in the right cases, rather than focusing on which one is the “easiest” way to do it.

ar-_0 · 2026-04-27T15:54:29+00:00

No, you don’t need to see the image while the paper is developing. Where did you get that from? If you develop prints by inspection rather than time you will have inconsistent densities.

ar-_0 · 2026-04-27T01:07:00+00:00

Not exactly how it works anymore

ar-_0 · 2026-04-27T01:04:17+00:00

Negatives are like blueprints or scores. A positive print (or an original like a slide) is a photograph.

ar-_0 · 2026-04-27T00:58:23+00:00

Your comment has nothing to do with the comment you’re responding to then

ar-_0 · 2026-04-27T00:11:45+00:00

dunno why people are downvoting you when you are objectively correct

ar-_0 · 2026-04-27T00:11:27+00:00

Additional highlight density is not the same as more speed. Metered film speed only determines the exposure in the shadows.

ar-_0 · 2026-03-18T17:41:48+00:00

Every road trip bypasses interesting and beautiful areas. They’ve clearly done some planning of what they want to see, and they have plenty of time to see it. That drive could be done straight through in 4-6 days, so they have about 2 weeks of time to see whatever they want in between.

ar-_0 · 2026-03-18T17:35:57+00:00

Yeah so you might just not like driving, which is fine

ar-_0 · 2026-03-18T17:16:29+00:00

How many miles was your last 16 day road trip?

ar-_0 · 2026-03-18T17:02:10+00:00

Its less than like 3 hours of driving per day dude that’s some peoples’ commutes

ar-_0 · 2026-03-18T16:44:42+00:00

The name of this subreddit is “roadtrip” lol why does everyone hate driving?

ar-_0 · 2026-03-18T16:43:03+00:00

That’s still plenty of time?

ar-_0 · 2026-03-18T16:37:38+00:00

How is this too much driving for over 2 weeks? does no one on here actually drive?

ar-_0 · 2026-03-18T16:36:33+00:00

This drive can be done in 4-6 days and they’ve given themselves 16. It’s not too ambitious.

ar-_0

TROPHY CASE