>recent photos >*insert subject here* photo thread >feedback

>>2738739
theres portraits here all the time.
mostly outside since hardly anyone has a studio.

>>2738745
>>2738739
>twenty-anything AD
>posting photos of people you care about on 4 channel
>ever
nope

>>2738746
basically

File: Photographer Dad Makes His Son With Down Syndrome Fly In Adorable Photo Series.jpg (83KB, 880x585px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 880x585px

>>2738746
agree with THIS. only person who does that sort of thing are the troll threads with the "photoshop my friend to make it funny" posts

File: 1435098745663.jpg (185KB, 1083x720px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 1083x720px

>mfw I just want to take snapshits for fun
>mfw /p/ tells me that I should be shooting portraits, aiming to make it a career and update my gear

>>2738746
>four channels
>having people you care about

File: 59490001.jpg (3MB, 2079x2048px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2079x2048px

Furries on medium format.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NORITSU KOKI
Camera Model	QSS-32_33
Camera Software	QSS-32_33 8.01.001 2008.01.15
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2079
Image Height	2048

File: why.gif (4MB, 581x327px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 581x327px

>>2738824

File: 59490005.jpg (3MB, 2079x2048px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2079x2048px

>>2738840

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NORITSU KOKI
Camera Model	QSS-32_33
Camera Software	QSS-32_33 8.01.001 2008.01.15
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2079
Image Height	2048

>>2738824
>>2738844
looks like it was taken with an iPhone desu

Since I don't have any friends or girlsfriends I only take pictures of my family.

I'm not going to post my family pictures on 4chan.

I suck at photography anyway, so you aren't missing anything.

File: 42360001.jpg (708KB, 1039x1024px) Image search: [Google]

708KB, 1039x1024px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NORITSU KOKI
Camera Model	QSS-32_33
Camera Software	QSS-32_33 8.01.001 2008.01.15
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1039
Image Height	1024

>>2738824
>>2738844
>>2738849

any time i see these pictures i just wonder what's going on in the person's head when they realise the moment is being captured

also they're dum stoopids

File: Laura (14 of 16).jpg (684KB, 5472x3648px) Image search: [Google]

684KB, 5472x3648px

>>2738739
I mainly shoot portraits but don't feel comfortable sharing usually.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 6D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7.1 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	600 dpi
Vertical Resolution	600 dpi
Image Created	2016:01:07 18:56:59
Exposure Time	1/100 sec
F-Number	f/2.2
Exposure Program	Shutter Priority
ISO Speed Rating	2000
Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Exposure Bias	-1/3 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	135.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2739110
whoops too big sorry

File: _MG_4836-Edit-Edit-Recovered.jpg (592KB, 1500x1500px) Image search: [Google]

592KB, 1500x1500px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 5D Mark II
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3744
Image Height	5616
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Unknown
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2015:10:10 04:00:35
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/1.6
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/1.6
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1500
Image Height	1500
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: 885189_785753378196331_7303078508256349987_o.jpg (49KB, 944x1344px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 944x1344px

>>2739115

File: 12496413_460203424180714_3997937434035252639_o.jpg (59KB, 832x1200px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 832x1200px

>>2739120

>>2738824
>>2738844
>>2738849
I'm with >>2738845
They really do look iPhone tier.
What the fuck are you doing?

>>2739115
>>2739120
>>2739121

garbage processing and basically snapshits senpai

>>2739110
I like that

>>2739128
>"The processing is no good" no additional elaboration.

2/10 bantz r u even trying, lad?

>>2739141

You've crushed the highlights in an attempt at "uguuu~~ so moody and tsundere" and now they have that gross underexposed clipped look.

>>2739150
So what you mean is "these don't suit my personal taste" rather than a failure of a photo. Thanks for playing the home game.

>>2739152

No, I mean these fail on an objective, technical level.

I knew your butthurt was only a few posts deep, too, based on your response in the other thread when someone didn't like your borders.

>>2739150
It's called having a particular editing "style", perhaps if you shoot enough you'll encounter this term soon and in the distant future you could possibly develop one yourself yah /p/leb

>>2739154
That was my first reply to you. This is my second. "That gross underexposed clipped look" is obviously what he was going for, so technically, he achieved his goal. That goal also happens to be a very popular style at the moment. Your personal taste is irrelevant.

When you're critiquing, try to remember that people aren't posting photos to impress you personally. Judging artwork based on your own particular set of priorities is a waste of your own time.

>>2739154
It's the same with the borders. It's another method of portraying your photos; they do this in photo galleries and exhibitions. The borders help isolate and contain the colours and gives them a bit of structure. Regardless of what the highlights look, it helps separate the colours from the photo to whatever is in your browsers background. There's a reason why people do this.

>>2739155

2013 called, they want their "style" back.

>>2739154
>I mean these fail on an objective, technical level.
>technical level

The technique I used with the Curves is call "Film Density" look it up you retard.

>>2739163
>hurrrr there's only 1 objective way to edit a photograph

Get outta here, yah filthy amateur.

>>2739166

Looks nothing like film, retard. ;)

>>2739175
>Implying every film looks the same

You're clearly really new to this and beyond "I don't personally like this" argument you have nothing insightful or of value to add. You're obviously very new and an amateur if you cannot identify techniques & stylized processing.

>>2739177
>Implying any film looks like that

You're clearly really new to this and beyond "I personally like this" argument you have nothing insightful or of value to add. You're obviously very new and an amateur if you cannot identify faults in techniques & with stylized processing.

I get hired to do portraits most weekends in the spring and summer but the moment I'm looking for a little more practice and offer free shots my email becomes a desert.

How come people don't trust *free* god damn it.

I mean I know exactly why but it's frustrating.

Probably because /p/ is among the most demotivating places on the internet for photographers.

>>2739221
Why not just ask friends?

File: Bear.jpg (1MB, 6000x4000px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 6000x4000px

New to this whole thing, would love any criticism .(now matter how negative) 1/2

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-6000
Camera Software	iPhoto 9.5.1
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	75 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Pixel Composition	Unknown
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:01:06 15:56:32
Exposure Time	1/160 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Shutter Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	3.0 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	Flash, Compulsory, Return Not Detected
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	6000
Image Height	4000
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

File: Window.jpg (1MB, 6000x4000px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 6000x4000px

>>2739271
no*
2/2

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-6000
Camera Software	iPhoto 9.5.1
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	75 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Pixel Composition	Unknown
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:01:06 15:46:16
Exposure Time	1/320 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Shutter Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	6.5 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	6000
Image Height	4000
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>2739270
Oh I do from time to time, posted a few of those shots on /p/ before actually.

>>2739200
>ITT gearfag getting rekt'on

Looks like it's time to find a new hobby, m8 ;^)

>>2739271
there's a recent photo thread for this, anon. with that said, this picture would be better without the really distracting thing in the foreground, and >>2739273 is a picture any newbie will take

>>2738746

Why? I would assume /p/ is a little bit safer than /b/....

>>2739612
It absolutely is. Most of us share our personal sites, personal tumblrs, personal instagrams, etc. I don't think there's a single case of malicious "doxxing" from /p/ in the eight years I've been around.

>>2739622

Inb4 irc drama.

>>2739622
inb4

>>2739622
ayya was doxxed by an actual fascist for being transexual

in after

>>2739640
a self-defined fascist

>>2739659
it matters because these are the types of people on /p/

fascists

>inb4 fascism isn't bad

>>2739632
>ayya
You mean isi mk. 1?

>endless pointless arguments
>attention whoring trap
>constantly foaming at the mouth with shitpost

>>2739672
who do you think i am

File: keep-calm-and-kill-fascists-2.png (34KB, 600x700px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 600x700px

>>2739683
god forbid people hate fascists in 2016

when will your oppression end

>>2739695
all we have are assumptions as ayya got the fuck out of /p/ after the dox

could have been in the closet

>>2739702
>Unless of course you're some kind of retard who didn't actually know how ayya got doxxed but still insists on "informing" others on the matter.
Why stop with Rickster when you redefine everything?

>>2739707
i think it's just a small chunk of california that's liberal, and even in those liberal areas you can have parents that just don't get it

sometimes it's easier to keep it to yourself

>>2738739
Nice straw man you got going there

>you can't ask that qt3.14 out on a photoshoot

On the contrary I've had girls/women randomly walk up to me and ask to have their picture taken. Many of them just want their photograph taken because they want to feel beautiful and look good on camera, or they just want an FB profile photo/graduate portrait. Possibly all of the above.

I personally don't into portraits because
1.) I'm not exceedingly bad at it, but I can't be assed to get really good at it either
2.) I don't really like photographing people, for a variety of reasons.

But there's a lot of portraits on here. They're not all typical head shots though, many of them are called environmental portraits and they are exceedingly popular just about everywhere.

>>2739735
ye re gyan tae touch yer penis tae the photos anyway sae fit dist it tirr the bed

>>2738844
This is great.

>>2739110
This is good too, you should share more.

>>2739271
>>2739273

For starters, read the sticky (particularly the part of 1000px on the longest side for posting)

>>2741783

You go read the sticky. They're both one meg.

>>2741790
What is the benefit of having them be 6000 pixels? Do you imagine it improves the experience of looking at the photos? Clearly you do.

>>2741800

Enhanced texture and detail. I like that I can click on his photo and see the weave on the pillows, the screen on the window.

This fucking board is so weird sometimes. The same people who will harp on and on about throwing away 95% of your photo so you can adhere to some arbitrary limits will also arduously defend their ultrapleb white borders and sanctimoniously cry about how no one understands the importance of presentation.

just sayin...elaboratin.
ridin dirty
http://pseudosticky.wikia.com/#Resize_your_images

>if the photo is boring as a thumbnail, it's unlikely to be worth looking at on the 100% zoom pixel level.
>my precious snowflake
>emotional metadata

>>2741813

>thinking you matter

>>2741807
if the best part of a photograph is pixel peeping, it's not a good photograph

resize to 1000px, sharpen for this size, and we'll all see it with ideal settings instead of however shit a jpeg you needed for a six fucking thousand pixel image

also most of us straight up aren't going to open your photos

>>2741824
>if the best part of a photograph is pixel peeping, it's not a good photograph

okay?

>resize to 1000px, sharpen for this size, and we'll all see it with ideal settings instead of however shit a jpeg you needed for a six fucking thousand pixel image

that's not how resizing works, family member. there is always going to be detail that you're losing.

>also most of us straight up aren't going to open your photos

you can't prove that. there very well could be a silent majority who don't give a fuck about file size. really, the only thing that you CAN guarantee is that you're going to attract some wannabe janitor who's going to whine and belittle you and bitch because his life is super small.

>>2738840
So there will be a record of them after /pol/ has gassed them all.

File: 2016-01-10 21.26.25.jpg (943KB, 2448x3264px) Image search: [Google]

943KB, 2448x3264px

I hate this picture but what do you guys think?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Model	SPH-L900
Equipment Make	SAMSUNG
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2016:01:10 21:26:25
Image Orientation	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
ISO Speed Rating	80
F-Number	f/2.6
Focal Length	3.70 mm
Exposure Bias	0 EV
White Balance	Auto
Exposure Time	1/10144 sec

>>2741929
Shit, wrong thread