What does /b/ think of my photography?
I think it's more impressive you managed to get a shot of the inside of presumably a busy place without any fucking people ruining the shot.
Im guessing you either work there or got in fucking super early and staff didn't care that you did this.
did you press an entire button to do that?
It's nice fodder for my architecture folder.
these are the only ones I find good and interesting so far. the rest look too basic
I liked this one before I saw the ground. you should've only captured the top half
I hope you didn't pay too much for your camera because the quality in this is pretty bad. either that or you have a shaky hand. + would be much better without the basic black and white filter. and what's the purpose of capturing the tourists at the bottom?
Its pretty easy to take like 10-20 shots on a tripod and run them through a tool to remove all moving objects and stitch together a picture like OP's, its the secret to getting great travel shots.
I'm an art major, and I always bitch about photography. I'm not easily impressed by it, and it's basically the every-man art form for brain dead white girls. It's fine for things like documenting and whatnot, I understand it has it's place. But a photo on the wall usually just pisses me off
Most of these have either no subject or too many subjects
for example >>734045355
could've been a nice picture but you chose to include too much. both the ferris wheel and the blue lights on the building can't be the subjects. I get no sense of mood or intent in these photos. you need to guide our eyes better.
You are totally right. I think the problem is that I go someplace, and but I haven't planned the angles and composition... Sometimes I stumble into something nice, but that's just by chance.
I have, and it's very rare to find someone's photography I like because so much of it is unimaginative and simply point and click, as opposed to something like a good non-pollock painting
You're kind of degrading photography as a whole, because you say it's easy and everyone can do it, while at the same time acknowledging that it's actually difficult to take a good picture. So I'd say the problem is that everyone is presenting their shitty photos as art, just like all these modern art paintings that are just shit on a canvas.
Do it properly.
Another one done properly
heres some real photography, film shot, chemically developed, printed on paper, untouched by software, because as a real photographer i never needed to digitally enhance any of my work.
hot shoe flash + 2 slaves on tripod
taken just after midnight in almost complete darkness, last frame on roll, one shot one pic
Agfa Chromogold 50
lit only by the flames
don't recall the film
first couple of trucks rolled out during exposure
taken at around 1:30am Glasgow Airport
Fuji Neopan400 again
taken in film change cupboard, no light, lit only by match and cigarette glow
All good art is difficult, but the world has become so over-saturated with cameras and pictures that anyone with a iphone thinks they're a photographer, and then those esame people go out and buy digital cameras without still knowing how to take a good photo. In all honesty, it isn't that difficult, just be at the right place at the right time
Avatar isn't a real movie, because they used CGI.
Times change, technology changes. The best photographers in the world digitally edit their photos.
Go on with that "purity" crap. Get back in your horse and buggy, and take 3 days to drive home to fuck your butter churning wife.
>anyone with a iphone thinks they're a photographer
But this is what I mean. They're not, so what they do is not photography.
>In all honesty, it isn't that difficult, just be at the right place at the right time
I disagree with this. That's not art, that's luck. The art is to pick the right place and the right time to achieve the result you were aiming for.