Why not. Send the shit to [email protected] Rules: 1.

>>2725932
yessss. Thank you sir. Love you for doing this again.

>>2725935
Except for Alex. He can send as many as he wants.

File: fatbitch.jpg (56KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 500x500px

>>2725938
Sorry, gonna update it.

ONLY 2 PHOTOS.

I'm gonna keep the same layout and stuff from the previous 2 books I did.
But instead of being able to get more than 2 photos, because of invisible categories, now you can only send 2 photos period.

2 photos only, if you want to send just 1 photo, that's okay.

But the MAX IS 2 PHOTOS.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	600
Image Height	600

>>2725941
If you send more than 2 photos, I'll pick whichever I like best.

But yeah, 2 PHOTOS MAX AND ONLY.

>>2725941
So you're doing a book, do you want original files for the sake of quality or is there a max image size you want to work with.

File: 1450259789951.png (258KB, 1280x866px) Image search: [Google]

258KB, 1280x866px

submitted

>>2725943
This is why I'm stating that the max is only 2 photos.

Read Rule #3.

2 PHOTOS MAX
MINIMUM 1800PX LONGEST SIDE

So 2 photos MAX that are AT LEAST 1800px.

sent

File: 1417157007700.jpg (49KB, 306x387px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 306x387px

>>2725932
>also no curation.

fine work, bb.

expect a submission from me soon.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2014:11:28 07:42:40
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	306
Image Height	387

File: 1424488_10151693462191300_828799987_n.jpg (125KB, 666x666px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 666x666px

Just a heads up to everyone.

If you send two photos, 1 horizontal and 1 vertical, only one of them is going to be in the book because it's impossible to get both in the same page.

choose wisely okay? <3

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

File: 1420952174833.jpg (17KB, 500x334px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 500x334px

>>2725932
I'll help curate if you decide to.

[email protected]

Dumb question but anyway to get it in print when it comes out?

>>2725975

In the past you would just order a book from blurb. No reason to suspect this will change.

>>2725977
cool, thanks.

why u wont curated?

>>2725998
because people are whiny faggots and got mad because their shitty bw "street" photography wasn't included

>>2726000
Even when, in almost every case, it was included. They hardly removed anything from the book. The main goal was to pare down from 6 submissions to 2 entries.

>>2726000
and? i am not good, but want to look some good stuff, not random stuff.

File: shibe inu being shy around a large bunch of strangers with cameras.jpg (143KB, 490x437px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 490x437px

aight now i've got to decide whether i've ever taken a photo good enough for a book

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 700D
Camera Software	RawTherapee
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	5200
Image Height	3468
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2015:10:10 17:05:08
Exposure Time	1/800 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2725942
that'll work

When do the entries close?

>>2726082
literally the first rule m8

>>2726082
>1. Send the photo by January 15, 2016.

nigger please

>>2725932
>also no curation.
wow, nvm then

>>2726087
Shut up faggot

>>2725932
>(If you decide to change your name later, tough shit.)
And what if you spell it wrong like the worthless 3rd world autist you are?
Happened last year.

Thanks for dropping by and pretending to be part of the community, though. We sure need more inflated tripfag egos here.

>>2726107
>Happened last year.
Oh boo-fucking-hoo

>Thanks for dropping by and pretending to be part of the community, though. We sure need more inflated tripfag egos here.
If it wasn't for these "ego inflated tripfags" we wouldn't even have a book in the first place, you fucking moron.

How about instead of doing nothing but whining, you actually offer to help? Oh wait, you're just one of those self entitled cunts who expects everything to be handed to him without out doing any work yourself.

Sent in a snapshit, pls no bully.

Sent some shit

>>2725932
you got mail, hun

sent ;)

>>2726110
Help with what? There's no curating this year.
And we already had a book thread before Iggy showed up to beg for attention.

I know there is no curative but are you going to allow absolutely anything in? I don't want to buy a book that's full of blurry snapshits of some anon's dog

>>2725960
Suggestion: (The same suggestions I make every time we do this:)
*Square* format book.
Submit 2 photos - get facing pages.
Submit 1 photo - get one page.. with someone else's on the facing page.
Photographers name/trip/whatever goes in the largest remaining white space - vertically if applicable - to maximise the image and minimise the text.

Also: fuck Blurb. Can we at least try the half-decent printers this time? Blurb's small book quality was shithouse back when BJDrew did that one.

thank you Iggy - gonna submit two today...

>>2726160
This

>>2726160
Fuck square format but okay on everything else.

>>2725932
I haven't used my trip since the book last year, but I wrote the end of the book (the little text blurb about /p/) and I'd be willing to write an intro/outro again if you want

Lord knows my writing is better than my photos

Are there gonna be any topics, themes, categories etc.?

File: 9e5.jpg (50KB, 499x550px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 499x550px

Just submitted one. This year I'll actually buy a copy :)

curated curated

>>2725932
Ooh, maybe I'll even consider taking part again. Thanks, Iggypoo for doing it again (guess the last one didn't give you enough profits for dat Leica M9).

is this something that you should put your actual name on? sounds sus considering the populous of 4chan

>>2726160
>Submit 2 photos - get facing pages.

Nobody that is going to submit is worthy of 2 pages.

>Also: fuck Blurb. Can we at least try the half-decent printers this time?

I've recently started using epubli, it's better quality for the price & they don't take the piss with postage (Blurb's blanket £6.99 postage for a single small book is a joke).

>>2726275
>Nobody that is going to submit is worthy of 2 pages.
EVERYONE is worth 2 pages. Let's make this book big.

>>2725932
>dec 21
For fuck's sake, I need to get my camera out of my closet.

Sent for ya m8

>>2726274
It's your choice, but /p/ is usually very friendly with things like that. People post personal accounts, personal websites, etc. It shouldn't come back to bite you. Many of us are friends on facebook, Insta, twitter, tumblr, etc. Not a lot of serious real world trolling going on in the years that I've been here. That being said, many people just tag their photos with their trip, so that the board can recognize who they are.

>>2726276
The bigger the book, the more it costs.

>>2726107
>And what if you spell it wrong like the worthless 3rd world autist you are?
What are you doing namefagging on a Japanese weblog for suicide enthusiasts?
It's your own damned fault.
I doubt even a fucking peruvian is going to spell Anonymous wrong.

>>2726160
>Submit 2 photos - get facing pages.
Last years book was extremely expensive due to how many people submitted, imagine if everyone got 2 pages to themselves, it would have doubled in cost.

So no, everyone gets one page. If you want a big picture, submit just 1 photo.

>>2726214
Got your email.

>>2726229
Invisible categories like I've always done.

>>2726270
Why do you think I'm doing this again? :^)

>>2726275
How good is epubli? I'm considering changing places if it's cheaper/better quality.

But I like blurb because it's fuck easy to make a book, and I don't feel like dealing with other softwares and putting in numbers from another place to make it work and etc.

If epubli is easy, or someone is willing to help, then sure, I'll change.

I would love to do Artisan State, but ain't nobody got money for that.

>>2726276
Okay mr. rich pants.

(not actually okay)

>>2726107
You still butthurt about that? Sorry for triggering your PTSD m8.

Also, if you seriously cannot decide between 1 photo or 2 photos, post em' here in this thread and get people's opinion.

It's much better than leaving it all up to me, then not being happy with my decision.

Just my two cents.

File: IMGP0071-1-2.jpg (596KB, 1000x665px) Image search: [Google]

596KB, 1000x665px

is this a decent enough image? also does it look overly processed? i'm new to lightroom and still figuring everything out

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	223 dpi
Vertical Resolution	223 dpi

File: IMGP0618-1.jpg (165KB, 1000x665px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 1000x665px

>>2726385
also considering this

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	223 dpi
Vertical Resolution	223 dpi

File: IMGP0071-1-5.jpg (565KB, 1000x665px) Image search: [Google]

565KB, 1000x665px

>>2726385
this one might be a little better

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	223 dpi
Vertical Resolution	223 dpi

>>2726385

we can't answer that for you, buddy. there is a BEST OF 2015 thread already. post some stuff there, see what feedback (if any) you get.

>>2726385
if this sort of shit is going to be in the book, I'm not even going to bother sending something

>>2726422

Oh, I didn't see iggy posting already. Disregard.

>>2726385
>>2726393
This retardation is exactly why everyone wants a curated book. It's the sort of garbage you wouldn't even bother expanding if you scrolled past it. Does anyone think this should be on the facing page to an alex shot?
>im new to lightroom and still figuring everything out
=
lurk moar try again next year

>>2726482
>>2726423

Yeah seriously. I've already submitted but I think I'm going to regret it if any old garbage is allowed in... Even if that means mine get cut.

>>2726482
>Does anyone think this should be on the facing page to an alex shot?

Do you possess the self-delusion to think that one of yours should be? Because ultimately this boils down to one of those masturbatory "my taste is better than u're taste" arguments, and no one ever wins those.

>>2726503
not everything is subjetive my friend.

>>2726168
>fuck square pages

>I mindlessly shoot in landscape all the time and don't care that square pages are appropriate for a book containing portrait, and landscape orientation, and various aspect ratios.
>Translated by Bing!

>>2726503
> an alex shot?
YAWN.
Can you go choke on penis somewhere else?

>>2726511
Careful around the edges everyone.

>>2726275
>worthy
Then they aren't worthy of one either.
That sort of attitude isn't conducive to even making a book in the first place, and is totally invalid as an argument against 2 images and pages.
But iggy is just going to put two tiny images together on a page anyway.. which is a totally shit approach. So Really what he means is "only submit one image"

>epubi
Sounded good until...
>Does epubli deliver internationally?
>Yes, we currently ship to the following countries: Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, England, Finland, France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Scotland, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, USA, and Wales.

...So not really all that international at all...given that many of the current /p/ contributors are Australian.. or otherwise not in those countries.
But
98 color 20x20 pages + 2 B&W pages = £30.99
+£7.95 shipping for international orders.
isn't terrible.
...Just moot becasue they don't ship here.

>>2726520
>tfw no Germany on the list

Well fuck me.

>>2726524
actually they have a .de domain, so it's possible that office even mails to some different countries.
Pity they aren;t intelligent enough to redirect or even mention the .de site on the .uk site.. doesn't really instiill confidence.

>>2726525
oh. they do..
top right of both sites... eng and de flags that redirect to each site
subtle

>>2726524
oh... but if the book has an ISBN then it's available via amazon etc.. and i'm sure that would allow distribution pretty much everywhere. Just for significantly higher cost (ISBN + distributor specific freight costs)
>What are the possible sales and distributions channels for a book published at epubli?
>For £14.95, you will be able to sell your book at the epubli bookshop, as well as on Amazon and physical bookstores (incl. ISBN).
>What are the possible sales channels for an eBook published at epubli?
>If you publish an eBook, it will be available on the epubli eBookshop and the following distribution channels:
> Amazon Kindle Store
> Apple iBookstore
> Collins Booksellers
> Fnac
> Google Play Store
> Indigo
> Kobo Book Store
> Livraria Cultura
> Mondadori
> Whitcoulls
> WHSmith
>
>Please note: Due to each of the above distribution channels having their own criteria in their respective platforms, we cannot guarantee that your eBook will be incorporated in all of the above distribution channels.

>>2726274
Not everybody is v or b it's pretty docile here

>>2726368
You have to curate

>>2726001
I'd like to know where this fallacy comes from, I saw no nature shots in the last book. I can't be the only one who submitted them,

>>2726520
The problem isn't being "worthy" or anything like that.

Last two books were curated, and I'm guessing a lot of people decided to not submit. So If that's the case, more people should be submitting to this one because it's "open".

Now following that theory, last years book cost Softcover US $45.14 for the softcover version with the premium paper.
If I were to give everyone 2 pages, 1 picture on each page, then the cost of that book would have went to US $74.19 for the softcover.

The majority of people that actually buys books, buys the cheapest option available, and I'm 100% sure that only a few people would opt to buy a $75 dollar softcover book.

But what about small square? It's small, which means it's cheaper, give people two pages! Okay, let's take a look at the numbers.
If I had made last years book in small square format, it would have cost US $38.49 which is pretty good, about $7 dollars cheaper than the standard landscape.
Now doubling the number, and subtracting the intro/index/outro which doesn't need to be duplicated, it still would have cost US $60.99 for the softcover version.

It's still too expensive, and I try my best to make these books accessible to everyone in here. If this year's book isn't successful and not a lot of people submit, I might think of a two pager.
But otherwise, it's going to stay in 1 page manner and in standard landscape to make the images a bit bigger to offset it a bit.

Can I email a shared onedrive link?

>>2726591
I'm only gonna download the photos when the deadline has reached, so it's probably you just attach it to the email.

File: wtf.gif (3MB, 359x202px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 359x202px

you got a link to a previous book? wanna see what im working with here.

>>2726582

>The problem isn't being "worthy" or anything like that.

>Last two books were curated, and I'm guessing a lot of people decided to not submit. So If that's the case, more people should be submitting to this one because it's "open".


>lots of shit photos is better than not as many good photos :^)

you have to curate ffs.

>>2726654
this.

Have to curated. is pointless otherwise. Is like a massive random book of google images. not paying shit

>>2726582
M8, last years book was good.
Ask yourself, would you pay money to own a print of >>2726385 ?
Seriously, nobody gives a shit about muh cummunity spirit.
We're on /p/ because we hate the dick-riding circle-jerking like4like nature of "online photography communities".
>and how is making the cut for the book going to stroke anyone's ego if there is no "cut"?

File: A0004365-y1080px.jpg (297KB, 1631x1080px) Image search: [Google]

297KB, 1631x1080px

>>2726582
>The problem isn't being "worthy" or anything like that.
I understand your rationale, I was addressing negative Sakura's attitude.

>other things you said:
People who are too cheap for a ~$100 book will be the majority who want the PDF.
I only bought the BJDrew compiled small book becasue I was uncertain of the print quality. And it turned out I was correct to assume it would be a bit crap. Numerous images on one page also contributed to making it even crapper.
Especially as a small book.

I realise the worst thing anyone can say is "If I was in charge..."
But....just in case it's helpful.

Suggestion:
Accept up to 2 images from each person.
All images get a whole page in a square format, so it's visually egalitarian for any orientation or aspect ratio of images.
Submit 2 = guaranteed facing pages.
Single image submissions come all together at front of book.. or back .. whatever.
Decide size of smallest available book at end of image submissions.
Aim for 20x20cm or bigger, and <~$100US on the basis that the small book will be crap and cheapasses wont buy any book anyway, but will PDF-beg instead.
If the number of submissions fits A bigish ~100UD$ book then make available for print.
If there is a lot more submissions than what fills a roughly <$100 book then either print two volumes, three volumes, or reconsider sizing down a bit. But the first 15cm small book was a bit shitty, so avoid downsizing.

TL;DR: get the images, then decide, aim for big with no small version but PDF instead.
... basically what you are probably already doing :)

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	PENTAX
Camera Model	PENTAX K-5
Camera Software	darktable 1.4
Photographer	Andrew Wade Eglington oh-hi.info
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	75 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2015:12:22 17:34:16
Exposure Time	1/180 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	80
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	Flash
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1631
Image Height	1080
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Distant View

>>2726716
>We're on /p/ because we hate the dick-riding circle-jerking like4like nature of "online photography communities".
Nah, I still like Flickr because it's nice to know thousands of people look at my stuff, and receive some friendly comments from both strangers and people you've "known" for ages. However I'm not a delusional fucking retard, I know my shit is nothing special and that's why I come to /p/ to get some realistic feedback, and look at the feedback of others.

The harshness and honesty of /p/ has helped me improve a lot, but it's always nice to balance that out with some ass kissing from Flickr.

>>2726718
Literally 1 or 2 people would buy a $100 book. I would wager at least a dozen would buy a $50 book.

>>2726772
>50$ + shipping for a book full of /p/ snapshits
nah

>>2725932
Policy on nudes ?

and if 2 images are submitted is it advisable its two portaits or a portrait and a landscape ect

>>2726810
saw a nude in the last book so should be fine

>>2726365
>How good is epubli? I'm considering changing places if it's cheaper/better quality.

I've only tried their full colour 170 g/m2 matt option so far, but I'd put it on par or slightly above whatever the last /p/ book was. That plus being marginally cheaper & having more size/shape/binding options (including really cheap saddle stitching for thinner books) is what attracted me.

But as >>2726520 pointed out it seems they don't do proper international delivery (which I didn't know, sorry), so it's not really an option for us here.

>>2726646
>lots of shit photos is better than not as many good photos :^)

I'd rather have the good photos along with the shit photos (which the non curated approach would achieve) than have all the drama & extra work of trying to remove the shit ones in exchange for maybe giving the good ones more space or marginally reducing the price.

>>2726716
>Ask yourself, would you pay money to own a print of >>2726385 ?

Not on its own, no. But its inclusion in a book with 50 other prints wouldn't stop me from buying the book.

>>2726718
>I understand your rationale, I was addressing negative Sakura's attitude.

Sorry if that came across as brash. My point was more what Iggy has since explained more eloquently; giving everybody two pages adds a substantial amount to the price & the whole point of making a book is so that people can end up with something physical, so meeting a price that maximises how many people will actually buy it should be a priority.

>People who are too cheap for a ~$100 book will be the majority who want the PDF.

I think >>2726772 is more realistic. I imagine no more than 2 or 3 people would buy a $100 book, but a book at a similar price as last year's might get bought by maybe as many 1/8th of the people that submit. Can the authors of the previous books see how many copies were bought? It would be interesting to know.

>>2726274
Don't give these people your name, no.
>>2726542
It only takes one of them.

Curious to see how this works out. I wasn't around last time you did one without curating but I have the impression the place had more "pros" back then.

>>2726835
Go look at the instagram/flickr threads. People post their names here all the time

File: C00001763-y1080px.jpg (226KB, 810x1080px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 810x1080px

>>2726824
>>2726772
>$100 book
No, a less-than ~$100 book.
If a 20cm book ends up at $75 its probably going to contain 100+ images
whereas a 30cm book with 30 pages and ~60 images might end up at near $100
etc
etc

Stop thinking in absolutes.
I'm just suggesting we aim as big as possible, and $100 as a ballpark.

Seriously though, cunts who won't pay <$100 for a decently sized book of full-page images... but are prepared to pay $50 for a tiny shit reproduction with several images to a page are the reason our books are so often half-assed. Nobody just goes full-tyrant and does what should be done for it to be good, and instead waste time trying to placate poorfags who wont end up buying one anyway, and if they do they end up with somehting shitty that fails to display the photos in a manner appropriate to a coffee-table style book's main function. LARGE, CLEAR, DISPLAY.

Image related: The more visually interesting books tend to be the largest.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	PENTAX
Camera Model	PENTAX Q7
Camera Software	darktable 1.4
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	39 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2015:12:22 23:54:18
Exposure Time	1/20 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	500
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	Flash
Focal Length	8.50 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	810
Image Height	1080
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Hard
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Hard
Subject Distance Range	Macro

>>2726874
How about the people who actually plan/want to buy the book post how much they are realistically willing to pay, rather than just two people arguing over it.

>inb4 $100 guy just samefags a ton of times

>>2726874
>Nobody just goes full-tyrant and does what should be done for it to be good

>I am right and what I want is best

You're starting to sound like isi.

>>2726874
It doesn't matter if a big $100 book will be better than a small $50 book, because nobody but you will buy the big $100 book. The book is being made for /p/, not for you.

>>2726817
i assumed it would be no bother.

will the book be published as a pdf or a image collection somewhere ?

>>2726888
If it's the same as previous years, there will be a PDF version of the book on Blurb that one kind person will buy & then share with everybody.

>>2726824
>than have all the drama & extra work of trying to remove the shit ones in exchange for maybe giving the good ones more space or marginally reducing the price.

jesus dude there are plenty of us who would be more than willing to help. And I'm not talking about culling the 'subjective' ones I'm talking about culling the snapshits that obviously should be in the recycle bin.

>>2726874

I'll just make a small book, a large book, and a two pager book.

>>2726892
>I'm talking about culling the snapshits that obviously should be in the recycle bin.
Except even that is subjective.

>>2726893
Based iggy, pleasing all us ungrateful bastards.

>>2726893
thx bby :*

File: 1450708432236.jpg (56KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 600x400px

what if you think your photo is good but u really shit tho

what are the requirements

>>2726900
If you think it's good, submit it. If it doesn't get in, take that as constructive feedback.

what the fuck is this shit? what kind of photos should i post

File: _catenated-column-y300px.jpg (22KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 400x300px

>>2726881
indeed.
I'd pay ~100$ for a decent sized ~30cm book
>>2726882
inb4 i am isi
also: hnng
>>2726883
>bitter wailing sound
.....nah
>>2726893
>3 weeks later
whatev's
a smart book printer would make it trivial to make one book and export multiple sizes.. but afaik most don't.
In any case, the expression "Work smarter..." comes to mind.
You took an awfully long time to do the last one iirc...and the last time I looked at the typical layout app from these sites it was like pulling my own teeth.
Sounds like a minature nightmare to me.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	PENTAX
Camera Model	PENTAX Q7
Camera Software	PENTAX Q7 Ver 1.00
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	39 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2015:12:21 12:32:35
White Point Chromaticity	0.3
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/1.9
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	250
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	8.50 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Hard
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Hard
Subject Distance Range	Macro

>>2726935
If the /p/ book is going to be too slow, small, cheap, low quality, full of bad photos, and horribly laid out for you, just fuck off and make yourself your own book with only your photos in it.

For a bunch of photos from /p/ I'd buy as a community memento, rather than anything with artistic merit? I'd pay $25 USD plus shipping.

>>2726892
I totally get your sentiment, but it's never been that obvious. The past two years there has been curation, and while 95% of the photos are obvious, there's always heated discussion on more than a handful. One man's garbage is another man's experimental masterpiece. What then? There's always going to be too much grey area.

>>2726894

Objectively shit photos are never subjective friendo

>>2727213
>>2726940
>>2726937
bitter wailing futility intensifies

Iggy, do you know how many people bought the last two books? does blurb tell you that?

>>2727248
/p/ 2013= 29 sales (9 were the large books)
/p/ 2014= 13 sales

>>2727250

Damn, I figured they'd be higher.

>>2727258
we spend all our money on gear and we get the .pdf files online so yeah. We /p/oor.

>>2727250
Do you recall what the prices on the various sizes were?

>>2727280
They should still be available on Blurb, just look for them & adjust slightly for inflation.

>>2727215

Put your trip back on you lazy cunt. You are going to curate this shit instead of having a book half full of garbage

>>2727280

/p/ 2013 Small - Softcover - US $39.14
/p/ 2013 Small - Hardcover - US $50.61
/p/ 2013 Large - Hardcover - US $90.99
/p/ 2014 Small - Softcover - US $45.14
/p/ 2014 Small - Hardcover - US $56.61

>>2727352
>p/ 2013 Large - Hardcover - US $90.99
jew

>>2727366

>implying that isn't a good investment for a photobook that will be worth millions in a few decades

File: Yacht-Charters-Worlwide10.jpg (83KB, 880x420px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 880x420px

>>2727366

>>2727352

Also can we get page counts for each book below plx?

>/p/ 2013 = 20 sales
>/p/ 2013 Small - Softcover - US $39.14
>/p/ 2013 Small - Hardcover - US $50.61
>/p/ 2013 = 9 sales
>/p/ 2013 Large - Hardcover - US $90.99
>
>/p/ 2014 = 13 sales
>/p/ 2014 Small - Softcover - US $45.14
>/p/ 2014 Small - Hardcover - US $56.61

Every way I look at those numbers indicate that each new small book progressively loses favour with buyers, and consequently either discourages small book sales, or discourages all book sales.

large 2015 book ftw

>>2727453
The book only sold 13 copies total last year? I know there aren't that many people on /p/ but I would think at least most of the people published in the book would buy a copy. That's sort of depressing, at least I have mine though.

File: nipponpepe.gif (2MB, 750x750px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 750x750px

>tfw shot no worthy photos in 2015

oh well, /p/ is dying anyway.

at least I found a nice job.

>>2727406
how do u take dis photo

>>2727453
There isn't enough information there to indicate anything about your beloved large book. Do you honestly think that the lack of a large book in 2014 unambiguously explains the lower sales compares to 2013?

>>2727509
With a camera

File: DSC_0158-3.jpg (3MB, 1662x2500px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1662x2500px

is this good enough to get accepted

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D3200
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7.1 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/5.3
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	804
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	60 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2015:10:28 16:43:27
Exposure Time	1/10 sec
F-Number	f/5.3
Exposure Program	Not Defined
ISO Speed Rating	3200
Lens Aperture	f/5.3
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	40.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2727517
probably not

File: 1450506671799.png (686KB, 759x1200px) Image search: [Google]

686KB, 759x1200px

>>2727453
Where did you get those sales numbers?

File: 1450872872149b.jpg (390KB, 665x1000px) Image search: [Google]

390KB, 665x1000px

>>2727517
No, peoples backs aren't interesting. But here, look how better it looks if you took 30 seconds to tone it a little and RESIZE YOUR NOISY CRAP god damn it.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D3200
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/5.3
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	842
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	60 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2015:12:23 13:41:49
Exposure Time	1/10 sec
F-Number	f/5.3
Exposure Program	Not Defined
ISO Speed Rating	3200
Lens Aperture	f/5.3
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	40.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	665
Image Height	1000
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2727517
>>2727529
I saw worse in the book we had last year.
"People's backs" it may be but unlike most of the shit in that category this has a story within it.
I'd absolutely say this is good enough for a /p/ book, minding that that's not much of a compliment.

File: Untitled.png (53KB, 1159x633px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 1159x633px

>>2727510
Don't think so, no one asked for a large copy afaik or I would have done one.

People even complained that the book was too expensive, but I mean, nothing I could do about it.

>>2727528
Pic related.

>>2727509
I paid a mexican to take it on top of a jetski.

>>2727617
>I paid a mexican to take it on top of a jetski.
I thought you took it from your second, larger boat.

>>2727510
It's conceivable that people who bought the small book in 2013 realised it was crap and didn't to do it again in 2014.
I did this.
Mind you the whole curation thing was more of a reason.

Also: fuck off with being a cunt about book sizes just for the sake of disagreeing with me.
A big book is visually better.
Assuming it can be made for a reasonable price; it is a better option.

>>2727622
second boat is few months from now.

>>2727625
I already said I'll do variable sizes just for the sake of it.

File: DSC02496.jpg (173KB, 667x1000px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 667x1000px

>>2726385
>>2727517
Pretty good photos as such... but are they the kind to you that you'll wallpaper or look at multiple times in print?

Pic related too. Also probably not interesting enough.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi

>>2727637
now you guys have to be taking the piss.

File: 49720403.jpg (61KB, 500x313px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 500x313px

>>2727640

>>2727617
>>2727625
>It's conceivable that people who bought the small book in 2013 realised it was crap and didn't to do it again in 2014.
I did this.
>Nobody asked for a large book in 2014

>Assuming it can be made for a reasonable price; it is a better option.
>People complained about the price of even the small book.

>Also: fuck off with being a cunt about book sizes just for the sake of disagreeing with me.

You're the cunt here. You've done nothing in this thread but shit over the previous books and you're only 'constructive' input has been 'make a bigger and more expensive book' that literally nobody but you seems to want.

But whatever, Iggy said he's going to make a larger book for you special snowflake, so kindly shut the fuck up now and stop trying to force your opinions on everybody else who doesn't share them.

>>2725932

mail sent!

File: DSC02485.jpg (292KB, 636x1000px) Image search: [Google]

292KB, 636x1000px

>>2727640
No, I'm honest. The photos are decent. Maybe even something to include in a portfolio.

But I'm not sure you'd want to pick up a printed book repeatedly to see these shots in particular.

Just my opinion tho, if you want to submit, go ahead. Figures you might be among the better submissions anyways.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-6000
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7 (Windows)
Photographer	M.Schmid
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	45 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2015:09:25 03:57:53
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Shutter Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Brightness	7.8 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	30.00 mm
Comment	GPS coordinates approximate
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

I bought the large hardcover version of the 2013 book.
Probably won't this year, though.

>>2725967
Cock.li is compromised. Just a heads up.

File: PhotobookSamples-2.jpg (1MB, 2700x3000px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2700x3000px

>>2727626
>I'll do variable sizes just for the sake of it.
I know.
We are still arguing for the sake of it too. It wouldn't be a proper book thread if we didn't.
>>2727662
>bigger and more expensive that literally nobody but you seems to want.
Your mother.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	PENTAX
Camera Model	PENTAX K-5
Camera Software	RawTherapee
Photographer	Andrew Wade Eglington oh-hi.info
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	75 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2700
Image Height	3000
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2013:03:25 19:08:41
Exposure Time	1/180 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	80
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	Flash
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Distant View

>>2727878
>Your mother.
If we're going to argue for the sake of it, at least put some effort in.

>>2727637
>cosplayers
>interesting.
yeah. nah

also: fix the damn exposure you tool

>>2727879
ok..
You're mother.

>>2727889
Actually made me smile, well played stubborn tripfag.

File: 1450822212904.jpg (47KB, 386x600px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 386x600px

>>2727878
>>I'll do variable sizes just for the sake of it.
>I know.
>We are still arguing for the sake of it too. It wouldn't be a proper book thread if we didn't.

File: 1405060794747.gif (1MB, 400x226px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 400x226px

>>2727916
>>2727898
Playmates detected.

>bumpan teh throd to death

>>2726718
i understand the choice of having no curation to improve engagement and sales but the shit in that photo is just pathetic

Bumping so it doesn't get too far down on the page.

>every year the deadline comes and goes, the book gets published, and then somebody complains that they never saw anything

>>2727878
>mfw my page is in that shot
>mfw i'm not too ashamed of what i submitted that year

>>2728122
Which snapshit is yours faggot?

File: tumblr_mh521qbuq51rn99yco1_1280.jpg (57KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 640x480px

im okay with boo

who sending entries? smash that like fa m

You should see something later today

For what its worth, I'll buy a big one.

Considering ordering the last 2 years too, because fuck you all.

File: Yachts-Cruise-in-Company-on-Day-Two.jpg (207KB, 640x427px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 640x427px

>>2728169
You da real mvp.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS4 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4992
Image Height	3328
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2013:06:26 14:53:36
Exposure Time	1/400 sec
F-Number	f/9.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/9.1
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	24.00 mm
Image Width	4800
Image Height	3200
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: stupidfuckinducksihateducks.jpg (2MB, 1600x2000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1600x2000px

I'd like to get in this. I just want one though. Which of these four would you guys think best?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	200 dpi
Vertical Resolution	200 dpi
Image Created	2015:12:24 11:25:11
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1600
Image Height	2000

>>2728203
Portraits, because I've seen the other two a billion times already. Can't say I care for crazy eyes though

What is the outfit on the kid all about?

>>2728217
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caporales

>>2728169
I got the big hardback last year, and I'll be getting it again.

>>2728203
>wasting patrician sheet film on fancy dress beauty shots of beaners
>still better than your nothing tourist shots of nyc
Holy hell dude, I hope 2016 is looking up for you...

>>2728203

top and bottom left

>>2728203
Top left.

File: 1335399530278.jpg (4KB, 113x102px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 113x102px

>>2726532
This looks good to me.

>>2726824

Dude, wy won't you make a public curation and rhen make two versions of a book: without curation and with it? It may even occupy less time if you separate curated and non-curated images.

>>2728754
>make 2 books
>it'll take less time

Just listen to yourself.

File: Screen Shot 2015-12-25 at 11.33.17 AM.png (81KB, 1184x1446px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 1184x1446px

>>2728336
>what is 645, Alec?

>>2728756

So, of two possible interperetations of my post you chose the one which sounds absurdly and not the other which is equally common.

>>2728914
>645
hmm.
What camera leaves that frame border?

>>2728124
The really shitty one. You know the one I mean: the one that REALLY makes you mad that it was included in the book.

>>2729262
You mean to tell me that all of those images are yours?

>>2726893
Thanks heaps for all this, Iggy!

>>2729262
you took the picture of the owl didn't you.

>>2729322
Every. Single. One.

nice telenovela, faggots.

File: DSC_0318-2.jpg (2MB, 1500x989px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1500x989px

>>2729562
Is this good ?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D3200
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7.1 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	804
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	27 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	92 dpi
Vertical Resolution	92 dpi
Image Created	2015:11:26 14:00:48
Exposure Time	1/500 sec
F-Number	f/3.5
Exposure Program	Not Defined
ISO Speed Rating	1000
Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	18.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2729612
no

>>2729612
yes

>>2729612
maybe

>>2729612
can you repeat the question

photobook up

>>2730748
Link?

>>2730748
>Send the photo by January 15, 2016
>photobook up
Huh?

>>2730866
>>2730889
For fuck's sake. I know that the old days of 4chan are long since dead, but you've still gotta remember to lurk moar before spreading your retardism all over this board.

The phrase "[blank] up," merely means that a certain [blank]-themed thread was sinking to the back pages, and the anon was merely bumping it 'up' to the front page.

>>2731076
>before spreading your retardism all over this board.
It's literally two comments in the same thread... shut the fuck up.

>and the anon was merely bumping it 'up' to the front page
There's a word for that, it's called "bump".

Don't get all pissy because some people might not know what a phrase means, I've lurked this board long enough and never once seen "[blank] up" used to bump a thread until now.

>>2731080

at least troll with photo related content, not some "look i pretend to be retarded hurr".

>>2731080
>I've lurked this board long enough and never once seen "[blank] up" used to bump a thread until now.
One week doesn't count as "long enough."

>>2731076
You gotta understand that photobook up sounds like the photobook is up, most people just say bump now if they're bumping

File: fagsreadfilenames.jpg (391KB, 1000x662px) Image search: [Google]

391KB, 1000x662px

Since there is no curation...

What usually happens with the cover? >>2726874 is generic as fuck but I don't know how this was in other years?

>>2731076

I've been on 4chan since about 2004-2005 and not once have I EVER seen "[something] up" used in the context of a bump.

The use in this thread can only be taken as someone saying the photobook is up/online.

Stop being a retarded cunt

>>2731302
It didn't look much different back then. Black cover and some text.

>>2731302

Ya, I agree. Let's come together and try and formulate a better idea for the cover. I understand that we are sending pictures from all walks of life and of different subjects and of varying degrees of quality -- but we should still have something better than "/p/ photography 3.0".

I also understand that we're all a bunch of fucks and that coming together to try and reach a consensus on a "proper" title and cover image is going to be ridiculous -- but I say we try regardless.

We could do the classic [whatever title we agree on] in large bold letters and place numerous images inside the letters. It would be easy in photoshop. Make the photographs the background layer, and just overlay the title as layer 1 but have the letters completely transparent and the rest of layer 1 white or black to block out the other photos.

>>2731509
If we can't agree if/how to judge the shots that go in the book, how the fuck do you think we're going to agree on images to go on the cover?

File: Farmers market.png (176KB, 600x324px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 600x324px

>>2731547

The images that are on the cover would be small and tough to fully make out because they would be cropped since the transparent title would be overlayed atop of them.

It would look similar to pic related. The only difference is that there would be numerous photos instead of just one large one. But they would not be made to fit inside the letters -- rather, the letters would be placed over top, blocking certain aspects of the pictures that they are above.

Nawwwww mean?

>>2731509
I hate that idea. I like the minimalist cover on 2.0, just do a little better with the text layout.

>>2731588
trash
>>2731598
yes. keep the title, just change the font and positioning. nice and simple

>>2731302
We could always invade /gd/ with this and see if they come up with anything?

>>2731302
photoshop a pic of ansel adams weeping

File: f8b6e957-7116-4f46-a91a-11118ac68820..jpg (52KB, 541x438px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 541x438px

Halfway through the thread - I have a few questions

1 - what exactly is this? I gather pics will made into a book. What is the cost, how is bought, does it get published and sold?

2 - could I put my name and my instagram?

3 - Can I see last year's book? Will there be themes etc?

>>2727751
>Cock.li is compromised. Just a heads up.

Its still good for nonimportant, spam, troll accounts.

No one really used it for work right?

>>2732043
>what exactly is this?
It's a book m8.

>What is the cost
If you read the thread, you would know the cost is based on how many pages there is, etc.

>how is bought
Blurb.

>does it get published and sold?
No. I make it and it sits pretty on my hard drive.

>could I put my name and my instagram?
You can put your name, not instagram.

>Can I see last year's book?
Sure.

1st book - http://www.blurb.com/b/3100411-a-photography-collection-from-the-internet-s-wild
/p/ 2.0 Small - http://www.blurb.com/b/4145243-p-photo-book-2-0-small
/p/ 2.0 Large - http://www.blurb.com/b/4145886-p-photo-book-2-0-large
/p/ 2013 Small - http://www.blurb.com/b/5134098-p-2013-small
/p/ 2013 Large - http://www.blurb.com/b/5132777-p-2013-large
/p/ 2014 - http://www.blurb.com/b/6074398-p-2014

>Will there be themes etc?
No.

>>2732043
Fuck off

>>2731598

Yeah the minimal design is fine but the layout/execution was horrible

Book up.

>>2732529
Faggot up

>>2732593
This is a no-homophobia blue board. Adjust your manners accordingly.

>>2732676
No use in resorting to name calling. We're just trying to have fun here.

>>2732679
>>2732681
We're all gay here. This is fucking /p/ for Christ's sake. Now, y'all two niggers stop flirting and just fucking give each other a blow job, k?

Book up, so that we hopefully don't get as many "B-B-B-B-BUT I NEVER SAW THE THREAD" posts when it's released.

>>2732679
fag

Sent

Wouldn't it be a good idea to also release it as a free .pdf as well.
I'm sure that won't stop people from buying it, but it would also allow more of us to see the contents.

>>2733644
I think the argument against this is that blurb doesn't allow it.

>>2733644

There's always a free pdf.

>>2733644
Did you join this summer?

>>2733634
>>2733591

fucking retarded cunt

>>2734228
Yup, I'm only posting with a trip cause it's book related.

File: 1451149963674.gif (452KB, 508x270px) Image search: [Google]

452KB, 508x270px

>>2725932
I have some scans of film that are smaller than 1800px which one of 'em I'd like to submit. The photo is 1024x1536. Also ISO400 grain. Is that unacceptable?

>>2734467
Send it and we'll see.

>>2734467
You don't have scans, you have potato vision.
Get any modern digital camera, and take a photo of your film taped to a window as close as you can get, and you'll have better 'scans' than that, you fucking mongoloid.
>and yes, it is unacceptable

Woah woah woah woah woah.

This shit's about to fall off then back end of the board.

Book up.

bumpity bump

>>2736869
>Book up.

You're so fucking retarded cunt. Do you wear nappies so you don't shit on your parents carpet?

4 days.

>>2727352
What was the page number of this books?

anyone has the pdf for 2015/2014 books?

>>2742169
It's in the link in the sticky.

im not sending any of my photos to this shit ass book.

File: 1429479894667.png (24KB, 365x259px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 365x259px

>>2742171

Book up.

Also, Iggy, can you please extend the deadline even a week? I just sent out some film from December and I don't think that shit's gonna be back in time.

>>2726874
It could use a way better font yuck.

Might submit. Hmm.

>>2742235
>Book up
Shut the fuck up already you stupid cunt

What makes you think you're such a precious little snowflake who deserves a fucking week extension, while the rest of us had no problem submitting on time?

It's a low quality scan, but how about this?

File: 08000002.jpg (798KB, 1040x1024px) Image search: [Google]

798KB, 1040x1024px

>>2742697
Mistake.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NORITSU KOKI
Camera Model	QSS-31
Camera Software	QSS-31 G002
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1040
Image Height	1024

>>2742235

Fuck off, use pictures you took in the other 11 months of the year.

Not going to contribute this year as the submissions tend to be weak and noobish as fuck. I wanna see great images, not snapshits.
2012 and 2013 had the best /p/ books.

File: Capture.png (36KB, 285x268px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 285x268px

Keep submissions coming, only 3 more days.

>>2742698
niggah what are you doing

>>2742920
so is this going through without ANY kind of curation?

>>2742920
jesus christ.

>>2742965
>no curation edition

Welp.

>>2742965
>>2743002
>>2743232
>>2743270
I was OP in the other book thread, I'm really sorry guys, I didn't expect it to turn out like this.
If it makes you feel any better I won't be submitting either.
I guess isi and the spate of godawful newtrips we're dealing with at the moment will get their time in the sun in this 'muh representative of the whole cummunity' vanity project.
>who's prepared to bet Capturd society won't remove his watermark from his submissions

>>2743297

its very easy. you dont want your photography in a sea of newfag terrible photos, dont submit. do your own prints with fellow photogs irl. or solo. whatever, this 2016 /p/ book is shit from the start, from the very OP, who is a photoless faggot.

>>2743300
Hard to imagine that /p/ is going downhill with posters like you around.

>>2743327

lmao cry more

>>2743327
>/p/ is going downhill because posters like you want quality pictures and people to act like they give half a shit about photography.

Not even the guy you are responding to, but you have to be pretty delusional to think a photobook of anonymous snapshits is worth anything.

>>2743346
How many of this year's submissions have you seen so far?
I'll remind you, the first two years that were widely considered to be the best, were uncurated as well.

>>2743355
>widely considered
You wanna try editing on Wikipedia sometime m8.

>>2743355

two years ago we had rubber, pantsuit, nouveau, carlos, miki, prime alphon, not shit NG, not depressed trapsocks, alex burke, mike larremore, shuttermaki, aang, just to name a few.

what do we have now? cc? captured society? craylton? LOL

>>2743359

>curated book
>zero photos
>one page that just says "u fukn suck fgts"
>$59.95

>>2742632
>Shut the fuck up already you stupid cunt
Book up.

>>2743361
at least that's art

File: 1446785637352676.png (526KB, 600x526px) Image search: [Google]

526KB, 600x526px

>>2743390

>>2743583
Book up.

>>2743583
Book up.

File: 144765248394857.png (62KB, 300x200px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 300x200px

>>2743630
>>2743956

>>2743956
>>2743630

I bet you're still breastfeeding. I wonder if you've been toilet trained yet

>>2744046
Book up.

>>2744192
>>2744046
>>2743996
>>2743956
>>2743630
>>2743583
>>2743390
Imagine if you guys put this much energy into taking photos

File: 1421514482889.jpg (38KB, 362x346px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 362x346px

Why are people so upset about the phrase "book up"

>>2744193
Ditto friend

>>2744193
>implying anybody on /p/ puts any time into photos

I hate to break it to you, but you're shitposting on /p/ just as much as "book up" guy. There's literally zero difference between the two of you.

File: soooooooo.jpg (63KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 500x281px

78 emails so far....

24 hours left, send the good stuff now please.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Width	500
Image Height	281

>>2744736

brb starting multiple email accounts to get more submissions and finding multiple cats to take snapshits of

also finding expired film for my edgy lomography shots of street lights

also cocks

>>2744736
>send the good stuff now please.

manchild "in charge" mocking the submits, very classy.