Anybody else's blood boil when they see retards posting

File: holy fuck.jpg (272KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

272KB, 1280x960px

>>30760995
You think that's bad? Boy I have a treat for you. Here's a pic from another thread that is up right now.

nope, doesn't bother me a bit

>>30760995
Just your's sport. Calm down. Life is better when you aren't sperging out at every little thing.

>>30760995
I know right? Why can't all these plebs buy padded glass cases if they want to take a picture of their gun?


Seriously though boyo, stfu and stop being an autistic aspie about everything.

File: 1412525457919.jpg (104KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 500x500px

>>30760995
no, but I usually prefer to see and use a big ass bullet like a 30-06 or .50 for propping up guns.

pic related with a half decent 1911 paintjob

>>30760995
Yeah, it looks fucking retarded and is completely unnecessary.

File: Snake! Snaaakkee!.jpg (569KB, 1616x1212px) Image search: [Google]

569KB, 1616x1212px

>>30760995
I agree

>>30761053
> halfway decent

No. That's embarrassing dogshit. It's well painted, but the actual paintjob is just stupid.

File: casio.jpg (97KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 500x281px

>>30760995
Oh look, a Casio!

>>30760995

How exactly is wanting to get a better angle/lighting bad?

File: penis5.jpg (801KB, 1800x1200px) Image search: [Google]

801KB, 1800x1200px

It doesn't bother me as much as OP portrays, but it is the universal mark of an idiot. I have never seen a single good photograph of a firearm with something stuck through the trigger guard. Cases in point:
>>30760995
>>30761009
>>30761084
Terrible exposure, terrible angle, terrible lighting, terrible subject, terrible composition, terrible scene, it goes on and on. It's like a visual guide on how to take the most awful photo, and these people are proud of this trash photography. Nevermind their typically dirty, common guns or lack of gun safety in general.

But people have a right to take painful, shitty photos. I guess what gets me is that these people do it with the explanation that it's for a "better angle," but then imbeciles like this kingdumb here >>30761053
take a picture exactly perpendicular to the surface it's set on anyway, so it did nothing whatever. If you got out a framing square and a laser you couldn't do a better job lining the camera up at a perfect 90 degree perpendicular angle. Plumb and square. And he did it TWICE, by hand. He's like an idiot savant.

tl;dr The world has never seen an even halfway decent firearm photo with something jammed through the trigger guard.
inb4 a smart guy takes a brand new SLR troll photo without realizing i already qualified everything as past tense

Protips from an embarrassing amateur:
Don't prop anything up. Use creative scenery.
If you HAVE to prop something up, do it invisibly. Pic related.
Consider your lighting. One diffuse source is simple, and never, under any circumstance whatever, use an on-camera flash.
Rule of thirds doesn't always apply to firearms, but mind your borders; busy or high contrast is ugly.
Don't expect anything remotely passable from a phone or pocket camera.
Don't expect any depth of field from a lens without a large aperture.

>>30761166
kek thought the same thing

File: HalfBakedPrivate.jpg (50KB, 389x414px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 389x414px

>>30761312
Although I entirely agree with you, the average joe shmoe around here simply doesn't know or doesn't care about photographic composition for the most part. They aren't setting out to create a piece of art here, they're just trying to get a quick image out there. And there really isn't anything wrong with either approach imo

>>30761312
>Nevermind their typically dirty, common guns
>posts a P5
>lack of gun safety in general
>the gun's own weight could engage the trigger
>creative scenery
>a plain wood table who'es graian contrasts poorly with wood grips
>Consider your lighting. One diffuse source is simple, and never, under any circumstance whatever, use an on-camera flash.
>not knowing you can use tape over a flash as a nigger diffuser

You're right about some things though. Mainly that you are an embarrassing amateur.

File: 12g Jet.jpg (75KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 800x600px

>>30761053
>Not pic related
Its shit

>>30760995
>don't have glock
>use safety

Problem solved.

File: drinky.jpg (851KB, 1800x1200px) Image search: [Google]

851KB, 1800x1200px

>>30761432
Tape over a flash is no better an an unobstructed flash. Even large on-flash bounces aren't very good. Show me photos to the contrary, because I've never seen them and I've never produced any with my equipment and all kinds of experimental bounces and diffuse filters.

The light cannot be near the camera, unless washed out contrast is the specific look you're trying to achieve (shit).

The rest of your post is pure toxic autism, doubly so without so much as personal anecdotal examples or photos.

>>30761053
Funny I hold onto a 30-06 round because my grandpa who passed like his garand to shoot and took me out a few times. He died when I was ten so of course I couldn't inherit his guns. I don't even own anything in that caliber, but I use the round to prop up every other gun I picture.

File: 20160628_163335.jpg (2MB, 1627x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1627x1080px

>>30761312
You seem to know what you're talking about, so tell me what I can do to improve.
All I have to work with is a phone camera currently.

>>30761507
Not him but most people are of this >>30761374 opinion, quick dirty pics to show a gun. Not everyone gives a shit about finding a quirky background and taking out a bunch of lights and messing about with camera settings unless they are a hobbyist.

Also that is the worst flavor of Rockstar, why did you buy two cases?

>>30761009
>being a bitch nigga and not bitching to the anon
I swear most photography fags are super nice and helpful in threads about firearms photography threads but they are worse than women in backbiting.

File: keystar.jpg (897KB, 1800x1200px) Image search: [Google]

897KB, 1800x1200px

>>30761602
The whole effort of propping the gun up so clumsily belies that motivation entirely. Quick and diirty would just be a snapshit on a pile of soiled clothes. Which is fine in principle. The pretentiousness of propping it up juxtaposed with the horrific result is I think what rankles most people. It does me.

If you need a snapshit, take a snapshit. Don't try to artzy fartzy it up with a knife on the trigger.

Orange is the only flavor I can chug, it's so smooth I bought 3.

>>30761432
>lack of gun safety in general
>the gun's own weight could engage the trigger
truly, some of the stupidest shit on /k/

File: desk.jpg (582KB, 1500x997px) Image search: [Google]

582KB, 1500x997px

>>30761556
That's a perfect snapshit. Even, diffuse, color correct lighting from a window, no cluttered borders, your subjects are in focus and given how many their are there isn't much different you could do with composition. I have no complaints.

Long guns are hard because they're so long. It's not easy to make something long and thin appealing when contained within a typical photo aspect ratio of 4:3 or 3:2. Handguns are easier in that respect. But that photo is fine.

If you want better photos from this point, you'll need to read some books and buy a DSLR with a halfway decent lens so you can play with depth of field. Have fun with composition, play around with other shooting gear like bags and cases. Stack things up, lay them rakishly. Look at photos by Oleg Volk and Stickman. The former does mainly informational/political photos with and without models, and the latter does product photos with and without scenic props. If your focus is on ONE gun, it's easier to lay the scene, lighting and composition around it than it is trying to shoehorn a bunch of funs in. When you do that you typically end up with some mayhem like pic related.

>>30761312
>Terrible exposure, terrible angle, terrible lighting, terrible subject, terrible composition, terrible scene, it goes on and on. It's like a visual guide on how to take the most awful photo, and these people are proud of this trash photography.
gb2/p/

>>30761663
>every fucking can was listed individually
Why?

I don't really think anyone thinks thier quick photo it belongs in a gallery, the problem is that most people are already sitting on a desk but a direct overhead shot is a bother to take and doesn't look great most times or would require getting another light becasue most don't have bright lights on all the time and taking it on a floor is even dumber and doesn't solve the problem (unless you want people looking at you're feet becasue you are a degenerate fetishist) and holding it or finding something else to prop it while remaining hidden is again, a bitch most people wanting a quick post don't want to bother with.

A photo conveys information, whether you think it should convey meaning or have aesthetics is another matter.

>>30761556
price and info on that shotgun bandoleer plz.

File: that dust tho.jpg (922KB, 2600x1795px) Image search: [Google]

922KB, 2600x1795px

>>30761743
But the thing is you can take a fine photo without propping the gun up through the trigger guard. Or at all. You just put it down... and take a photo. Pic related. So why prop? It can only be pretentiousness. "I'm doing this for a better photo," but the result is universally unpleasant, and indistinguishable in any meaningful way from an identical photo without propping.

I'm totally not roasting you, but try to find a single good photo taken with something through the trigger guard. I can probably lower that qualification to "a decent photo" without results. I've seen tens of thousands of gun photos in hundreds of threads on dozens of forums and boards without ever seeing a single one I'd call 'good.' I'd like to think I'm not a snooty cunt either, look at all this simplistic amateur garbage I've been posting. It's shit even by /p/ standards, which are shit.

File: sweet glocks.jpg (660KB, 1600x1067px) Image search: [Google]

660KB, 1600x1067px

>>30761779
Oops, that was supposed to be this photo without propping.

>Autism: The thread

>>30761779
It might be a meme in the literal sense; a shared idea that became viral over time with people not being sure why they do it other than it's just kind of what you do. I don't think anyone actively goes out of their way thinking that it gives their photo any more artistic merit.

Who knows, you might be the guy to introduce a counter meme becasue what you say kind of makes sense.

File: IMG_0342.jpg (3MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3264x2448px

what about flashlight batteries? are they OK?

>>30760995
>blood boil
Not really.
>Who the fuck does that
I dunno, you could ask.
>and how do we teach them a fucking lesson
See above, big boy.

Or you make a thread bitching about it.