[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y ] [Search | Home]
4Archive logo
holy shit
If images are not shown try to refresh the page. If you like this website, please disable any AdBlock software!

You are currently reading a thread in /p/ - Photography

Thread replies: 51
Thread images: 20
File: bythepool.jpg (187 KB, 640x424) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
bythepool.jpg
187 KB, 640x424
holy shit
this board if filled with awful and boring photography
why do you retards keep spending money on expensive gear, when you're shit

>it's a hobby
well get a new one, because you suck

i am most likely half of age of an average /p/erson
and yet i am incomparably better and i don't even own a dslr
>pic related

seriously people
fucking stop
>>
pulling out all the stops in the OP, eh?

it lacks subtlety, but you'll get genuine replies from retards for some awful reason.
>>
>>2736561
I'm pretty good, you don't have to be a dick.
>>
>>2736566
how do you rate my stuff OP?
>>
File: image.jpg (188 KB, 1500x1000) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
image.jpg
188 KB, 1500x1000
>i am most likely half of age of an average /p/erson
So you are 6?

Underageb&

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS REBEL T1i
Camera SoftwareInstagram
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution220 dpi
Vertical Resolution220 dpi
Image Created2015:12:27 15:09:24
Exposure Time1/160 sec
F-Numberf/4.0
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/4.0
Exposure Bias-1/3 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length24.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1500
Image Height1000
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
File: an'a.jpg (192 KB, 640x424) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
an'a.jpg
192 KB, 640x424
>>2736565
genuine replies for a genuine post
I am dead serious

>>2736566
nice tones but a bit bland
I can imagine you have emotional connection to this photo
as it's a place you've actually been to, it means something to you - but the photo doesn't connect us to your world

>>2736567
crisp focus, nice lightning
the fence and the top right corner ruin it for me though

>>2736569
whoa, high contrast photo with manipulated shadows of people at a tube station
real deep man
never seen that before
>>
File: PB102738 (Custom).jpg (123 KB, 1000x1500) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
PB102738 (Custom).jpg
123 KB, 1000x1500
>>2736571
>high contrast photo with manipulated shadows of people at a tube station
You say that like it's a bad thing.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeOLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.
Camera ModelE-P5
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.0 (Windows)
PhotographerMUHMEGAPICKLES
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.5
Color Filter Array Pattern842
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)28 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2015:11:11 13:03:03
Exposure Time1/200 sec
F-Numberf/8.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating400
Lens Aperturef/8.0
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashFlash, Compulsory
Focal Length14.00 mm
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlHigh Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
File: before the storm.jpg (91 KB, 636x960) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
before the storm.jpg
91 KB, 636x960
>>2736571
top left*
>>2736574
on a materialistic level
there are millions of photos like that
nothing new, nothing unique about it
not to mention the composition in the photo above is kind of shit, it's very one dimensional
>>
>>2736579
That lightning strike is majestic

>>2736574
It's not bad, but it's nothing original or eye popping. It's a photo you go "oh" to, start at for a few seconds, then go on with your life
>>
File: 1451928631593.gif (983 KB, 500x364) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1451928631593.gif
983 KB, 500x364
>>2736581
thank you
>>
Shit photos OP.

I don't know why you're gonna come hard talking game like that and then post weak snapshits to back it up.
>>
OP is just mad that his photo's aren't as good as mine. My dad shot 20 years ago on film.
>>
File: deathx4.jpg (208 KB, 960x636) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
deathx4.jpg
208 KB, 960x636
>>2736596
because it's better than anything posted here
please proceed to post yours so you can "back it up"
>>
>>2736606
impressive genetics
>>
>>2736612

Why would I help you in your severely lazy trolling?
>>
>>2736636

just as i thought
no one has any valid arguments to back up their point so you're going to call it "trolling"
>>
>>2736636
>falling this hard for a bait
>>
>>2736650

Uh, I'm pretty sure I'm the only one in this thread who didn't fall for the bait.
>>
Yo OP rate my photography

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNokia
Camera ModelNokia 800
Camera SoftwareWindows Phone 7.5
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationUnknown
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Exposure Time1/16949 sec
F-Numberf/2.2
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
FlashNo Flash, Auto
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width3264
Image Height2448
Unique Image IDC0447BA9E5E8ACC511D43790CF924528
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
FlashNo Flash, Auto
>>
>>2736669
>Exposure Time 1/16949 sec

Damn.
>>
>>2736673
Yeah, but not too bad for a phone cam right?

Silhouette effects on purpose by the way
>>
>>2736677
How did any light get in to that phone's sensor?
>>
>>2736687
Oh I thought you were dissing the lack of visibilty in the photograph. I just my read the EXIF data, dafuq.

I tried taking the picture before the sensor auto adjusted to the light. but that fast? isn't that close to the speed of light?

But yeah what do you think of the image?
>>
>>2736697
It's alright, I suppose. I'm butt at actual critique, so I can't be of much help, but it looks nice otherwise.
>>
>>2736561
OP, your work is better than mine. In the same way a warm dog shit sandwich tastes nicer than a cold dog shit sandwich.
>>
>>2736561

Shit color reproduction.
Boring composition.
Distracting components. (Is focal point legs? Dragonfly?)

I've seen lots of bad and only some good here. Yours fits in the bad column, kid.
>>
>>2736561
This is the 17th best photo I have ever seen of blue pool vinyl. Well done!!
>>
File: dismantled.jpg (148 KB, 960x636) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
dismantled.jpg
148 KB, 960x636
>>2736669
the only thing that is impressive about it is that it was taken by a phone
>>2736697
>isn't that close to the speed of light?
now it becomes quite apparent what kind of people visit this god forsaken website
>>2736809
>shit color reproduction
the colors look great - borderline unrealistic with the recogniziable film tones
>boring composition
really? i honestly don't see it
the legs were taken at a flattering angle, the carpet edge cuts the left side quite nicely and the light bonds the subject with the area outside of the carpet
you find lightning strikes boring? no problem, there's so much more going in that photo, the old lady wearing purple in a pink building in the back creates a syzygy with the girl and the dog, the tree on the top left is twisting due to the wind not bokeh distortion as if it wasn't clear from the colors already there is a storm approaching
>distracting components. (Is focal point legs? Dragonfly?)
well i don't know about you but i'd look at those legs any day over the firefly
the firefly gives it away that she actually is by a pool
what else is distracting?
>>
>>2736818
>17th
you keep a mental list?
but thank you
>>
>>2736842
> Borderline unrealistic with recognizable film tones.
Is that what you call light leaked shit? The color in the legs changes from orange to white, the water changes from blue to white, and the top edge is faded to nothing. The diagonal strip of bold color in the bottom right ruins the faded out colors and vice versa. So yeah, shit color reproduction.

> Don't see boring composition.
Any single component coming directly out of a corner, with nothing else to lend context to what is happening makes a photo dead. There's no sense of movement, no sense of moment. It's just a pair of legs.

> lightning strikes and zyzygys.
What? Did I accidentally critique two pictures in one post, or are you that retarded?

> Don't know about you but...
Not everyone is a perverted basement dweller that gets excited over the sight of some leg. This picture was presented as an artistically and technically superior work that attempts to prove that the OP is better than every single photographer who has ever posted on /p/. As such, the mere fact that there are legs in the picture could have worked well as a beach or poolside stock photo, but then the dragonfly is there, which isn't especially common around beaches or most people's pools. It makes a distraction. There's a question as to why the dragonfly is there. Is it landing on the legs? We're you trying to take a picture of the dragonfly by itself and it flew over the legs? Did it fly into the frame as you were taking the picture of the legs, and you thought it looked good?

However you want to explain it, it's a distraction from the focal point, and in such a minimalist photo, distractions ruin the image.
>>
>>2737026
>The color in the legs changes from orange to white, the water changes from blue to white
i'm going to go out on a limb and suggest the bottom right is a shadow
>>
File: e1a20732.jpg (26 KB, 500x634) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
e1a20732.jpg
26 KB, 500x634
>>2737026
"Any single component coming directly out of a corner, with nothing else to lend context to what is happening makes a photo dead. There's no sense of movement, no sense of moment. It's just a pair of legs."

This is ridiculous. Photography is not about creating a sense of movement or moment, nor is it about creating context. OP is not a photojournalist, he's evidently an art photographer (a very arrogant one at that).

If you ever go to a photography museum or read a book, you're likely to come across a photographed praised for its ambiguity, or its ability to portray an ever-changing or moving object as static or immovable, or its ability to make the every-day provocative, or its lack of a clear focal point, or its strange colors. This is because these elements, which are for some reason judged as inherently bad on /p/, are able to be explored and used in art with a purpose.

The confusion you experience by looking at OP's photo may be intentional, either in the sense that the artist wants you to be confused or maybe he wants the viewer to consider their own experience of the work (such as with "Casie and Dresie"). For me, the problem with the OP's picture is that the intention is not clear. I can get something out of it, but is it what the artist wants?

Any way, this is why it's hard to take critique on /p/ seriously. It's always from the perspective of a composition 101 book and hardly ever bothers to inquire into the photographer's intention, the "critique" thus limiting itself to a shallow opinion. It's no wonder why many /p/hotogs are insecure and why some tend to be so angry at /p/ — nobody gives them a chance to have an imperfect photo and photos are judged by low and superficial standards; an "interesting" photo seems to only be deemed "interesting" on /p/ because it makes the viewer look for more than 5 seconds.
>>
OPs picture is just boring o.O
>>
5/10 you made people reply.
>>
>>2737049
If it's a shadow, it's combining with the vignette in a terrible way.

>>2737230
You should study some classical paintings sometime. Even the most minimal of great paintings show some kind of movement or moment. That technique isn't just for photo-j's, sports, or weddings. Fine art, minimalistic, macro, and other genres can all benefit by including something seemingly dynamic that draws you into the photo.

> Artist Intent
Normally, those photos you are talking about have a placard explaining the details of the photo, and what the artist is conveying. Here on /p/ we get OP's "I'm god, revel in my flawless work!" bullshit. I've never seen someone here explain the what they are showing us. It's up to each viewer to decide, and each viewer is different. This leads to:

> Interesting only if someone can look at it for 5 seconds
Well, yeah. Without any explanation of what I should be looking at in art photos, if I can't pick out something interesting, I have no need to continue looking at it, because whatever the artist wanted to convey is done poorly.
>>
>>2736842
Cleo is fat and a shit cat.
>>
File: DSCF8117.jpg (45 KB, 673x449) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
DSCF8117.jpg
45 KB, 673x449
I took a picture today.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
>>2736561
Sweet instagram post bro. You forgot the hashtags though. Also yeah, your color composition sucks ass. Try not using a flatbed scanner.
>>
File: iggy.jpg (101 KB, 960x636) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
iggy.jpg
101 KB, 960x636
Don't be such a bully, Iggyboy, not everybody has your obvious talent. I mean, using film grain, subdued colors and missed focus to evoke nostalgia and suggest authenticity? You're clearly a genius, and we would all do well to bow before you.
PS your friends look like insufferable twats
>>
File: igglywiggly.jpg (66 KB, 636x960) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
igglywiggly.jpg
66 KB, 636x960
>>2737667
>Get it? My clothes don't fit and it's not a very good photo. I'm so fucking ironic. Does anyone love me yet?
>>
I took a picture of my dicks and it was more intesting than any other picture in this board, it had such composition hard on and texture in the image, it had to be a b&w it was so crisp and had such expression of human condition that my mother was crying and they made it best picture in the whole castle and i got a nobel in peace for that like obama
>>
>>2737698
If say it got you laid as well, whereas OP's shitty work doesn't even do that. Girls love a crisp B+W dick pick.
>>
LOL at all the try hards desperately proving how shit op image is

I remember now why I don't come here any more.
It's a fucking cesspool of constant fucking abuse and knocking each other down

You ain't no better op.

Why do you guys insist on fucking each other up all the time.
>>
>>2737741
Namefags/trip gags?

R u just jelly of my circlejerk friends?
I bet you're the kind of guy that looses at soggy biscuit on purpose just so you can eat that delicious cum covered digestive.
>>
>>2736606
r u Turkish
>>
>>2736844
no its written..
>>
File: beira dágua.jpg (486 KB, 1564x1600) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
beira dágua.jpg
486 KB, 1564x1600
>>2736566
>>2736567
>>2736571
These are nice.

>>2736561
>>2736569
>>2736574
>>2736579
>>2736669
>>2736842
>>2737026
>>2737621
These are so-so at most.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeMicrotek
Camera ModelScanMaker i800
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2013:05:28 18:36:43
Image Width2933
Image Height3000
>>
>>2737944
My friends are cool.

But I was banished from there.
>>
File: 1452100267218.jpg (489 KB, 656x788) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1452100267218.jpg
489 KB, 656x788
>>2738992
>you deserve better
>>
File: Woods.jpg (1 MB, 6000x4000) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Woods.jpg
1 MB, 6000x4000
>>2736561
You're so much better than me OP, wow.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-6000
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.3 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/3.5
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)24 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2016:01:10 17:30:28
Exposure Time1.3 sec
F-Numberf/14.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating1000
Lens Aperturef/14.0
Brightness-0.4 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length16.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>2741919
Shit, that sounded sarcastic. Didn't mean it to be.
Thread replies: 51
Thread images: 20
Thread DB ID: 421628



[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Home]

[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Home]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.