Whats up /p/, I'm still new to photography but what do you

I like the colors. I wish there wasn't that shadow creeping up on the left hand side, as it seems out of place.

I would have moved to the left in order to position the tower in-between the two buildings in the background, right now it's obscuring half of the one on the left which looks odd.

>>2762612
Yeah, I was kind of focused on trying to get the moon and the building on the right in good spots.

>>2762613
I don't think the moon really adds anything to it, to be honest.

I bet you don't even know what metering is you fucking inbred I can't believe how piss poor this shot is everything is wrong I'm with other anon live stream you kurt cobaining yourself

yeah the moon looks like shit

File: that's just you opinion man.jpg (29KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 300x300px

>>2762616
>trying to troll this bad
The only thing that was worse was your mum in bed

>>2762605
>Exposure Time 1/320 sec
>F-Number f/6.3
Learn to expose. It will take time, but consciously put an effort. Also did you post process it or is this just a converted raw?

File: IMG_1455-1 - Copy.jpg (136KB, 1300x867px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 1300x867px

>>2762605
i think it's alright
i think you should learn to use the tone curve to make that tower a bit more mellow
did you shoot it in raw?

pic only somewhat related, the structure has similarities

>>2762605
read the sticky

>>2762769
This was shot in jpeg and edited in the ps express app

>>2762605
I don't like that the tower is so damn centered. Other than that it's ok.

>>2762769
What's wrong with his exposure? He hasn't blown out anything and you have no idea what the iso is.

File: 1454819089781-edit.jpg (147KB, 664x1000px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 664x1000px

Not OP, but I decided to try massaging his photo a bit.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: DSC08749.jpg (4MB, 3343x2308px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3343x2308px

>>2763077
Not OP, but can you please massage this anon?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	NEX-5N
Camera Software	NEX-5N v1.01
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2016:02:08 17:20:21
Exposure Time	1/2000 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Brightness	4.4 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Daylight
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	0.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3343
Image Height	2308
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Unique Image ID	F1F519B9E5974F78A9E2F3F1B762207A

>>2763297
This needs a lot of work. The whole exposure is way off, and the light sucks. Post the raw.

File: 1454905716428-edit.jpg (152KB, 1000x690px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 1000x690px

>>2763297
This is about the best I could do. Might be easier with the RAW.

I'm not really great at Photoshop, I just have the Nik suite and click shit until stuff looks OK.

File: 1454905716428-1.jpg (1MB, 1500x1036px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1500x1036px

>>2763297
1/2

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	640 dpi
Vertical Resolution	640 dpi

File: 1454905716428-2.jpg (711KB, 1500x1036px) Image search: [Google]

711KB, 1500x1036px

>>2763297
>>2763409
2/2

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	640 dpi
Vertical Resolution	640 dpi

File: no.jpg (6KB, 254x240px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 254x240px

>>2763301
>The whole exposure is way off
Yea, it's only off by a half to 2/3rd stop

>>2763373
why does your compression look so bad m8?

>>2763412
The subject is the crane, which is about a stop and a half to two stops dark.

To me, it feels like you're at that stage where you're almost there. It's almost a good photograph.

People are going to look at it and be impressed by the colors you got and the image quality, but your composition isn't quite there yet. I think it's the background of the shot. it isn't meaningfully placed.

As critical as that sounds: this is a great place to be if you're still new. You're getting there.

>>2763297
>>2763601
edit trying to save the sky highlights after pushing it 1.75 stops
compare that to
>>2763409
where i just pushed it half a stop

File: edit (2 of 1).jpg (1MB, 1500x1036px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1500x1036px

>>2763621
fuck forgot image

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	640 dpi
Vertical Resolution	640 dpi

>>2763623
The subject looks better here.

File: Oi.jpg (2MB, 1648x2464px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1648x2464px

Please give me some thoughts.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS-1D
Lens Size	24.00 - 85.00 mm
Firmware Version	Firmware Version 1.4.0
Owner Name	David Mullen
Serial Number	0000006408
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:02:08 19:42:29
Exposure Time	1.6 sec
F-Number	f/22.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/22.6
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	66.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	0
Image Height	0
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Exposure Mode	Manual
Focus Type	Auto
Metering Mode	Evaluative
Sharpness	Unknown
Saturation	Unknown
Contrast	Unknown
Shooting Mode	Manual
Image Size	Large
Focus Mode	One-Shot
Drive Mode	Unknown
Flash Mode	Off
Compression Setting	Fine
Self-Timer Length	2 sec
Macro Mode	Normal
White Balance	Auto
Exposure Compensation	3
Sensor ISO Speed	192
Camera Actuations	69658
Color Matrix	1

>>2763631
Very "meh". The reflections are nice enough (though very cliche) , but your processing is more or less nonexistent. Would be a lot nicer if there were something happening in the frame. If you want to continue with the cliche, maybe a couple dressed in formal-wear dancing in the street.

>>2763634
This brings up a question, as I'm also a new photographer, as I expect many of the people here asking for critiques in this thread are. Is it okay for new photographers to take the cliche pictures that everyone is tired of? Isn't that a step along the road to taking a great and interesting picture? The kind of moments that a great photograph consists of don't come around as often as we'd all like, but the cliche is always around us.

Basically what I'm saying is... is it okay to be cliche as a new photographer if we plan to work past it? I could see an argument being made that "if you don't take cliche pictures ever you'll never to have get stuck in that rut", but then what the hell would we take pictures out of?

I almost feel like cliche photos are a necessary stepping stone.

>>2763653
Of course it's okay, but those people must have the understanding that their audience is not going to have a positive impressed reaction to it. When your 6 year old comes home from school and tells you that they know that 1+1=2, you're happy for them, but you're certainly not impressed by it.

>>2763656
Oh, sure. I'm not saying it should be praiseworthy, but I'm merely musing if there's any other way to go.

>>2763656
.. I was quite impressed about it. I dont think you have children

>>2763688
Many people get into photography because they've seen need photos that they would like to have taken themselves, which is why people go through the predictable "phases" that are so exciting to them, but so annoying to other people.
Macro flowers,
in-living-room still-life
First cheap fast prime bokeh phase
"I try to take normal life and make it beautiful" phase (most of /p/ is still stuck here)
etc etc.

There's nothing wrong with it at all, and imitation of past work is how most of us grow. It's like training wheels, or a guide-rail that hopefully leads us to an open field filled with our own knowledge and the freedom granted by creativity.

Again, the issue only comes when that person posts their fourth macro flower in the garden, with a shitty background, and no sense of pleasing light, and presents it as something genuinely good, because he looks at it at 100% and sees a lot of detail, and the background is blurry like it is on "pro" photos sometimes.

>>2763689
?

Why would you be impressed about your child learning something at school?

>>2763689
What is impressive about the basic understanding of arithmetic? Everyone you know understands it without any thought whatsoever. Why is it notable, other than your own personal emotional investment in not fucking up your child?

Fine, imagine some random 17 year old comes up to you. You don't know him. He hands you a piece of paper, and on it, is written: 1+1=2. Do you congratulate him on his profound mathematical proof? Or do you go "...and?"

File: 1454905716428-edit-2.jpg (660KB, 1000x690px) Image search: [Google]

660KB, 1000x690px

>>2763591
Good question.

It's most likely my export settings in PS. I usually don't work with jpegs, and I also rarely export directly from PS except for meme bullshit. I also had to put some pretty heavy noise reduction on the crane to get a decent amount of light into it.

Here's another try, without the NR and exported at 100% quality.

File: dubs swee.jpg (379KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

379KB, 1920x1080px

This shit pisses me off, no matter what picture you take people will shit on it. OP take their advice as you'd like but no matter what you do it will never be perfect in others eyes. It is your art, be proud of it you did a good job.