Hey gang! I still haven't given up taking photos yet, so

>>2787121
>I still haven't given up taking photos yet
Good!
Resize please. I'm on a data cap but would like to look at your photos as you post them.

File: DSCF2018.jpg (3MB, 4896x3264px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4896x3264px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-T1
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.4 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	41 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	99999 dpi
Vertical Resolution	99999 dpi
Image Created	2016:03:08 00:53:31
Exposure Time	1/180 sec
F-Number	f/9.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	1600
Lens Aperture	f/9.0
Brightness	5.8 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	27.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2787122
Oh shit! I'm posting from the wrong place, my bad

>>2787121
While I don't really care too much for the individual content in these, they give a very consistent feeling of "life". They feel energetic. I'd encourage you to take a little more time with your processing though, as your seemingly heavy handed addition of contrast and saturation is throwing some colors wonky.

(The yellowing of the guy's skin in the 3rd pic, the purpling of the guy's neck in the 4th, etc)

Oh, it's okay, anon.

You can go ahead and give up. No one minds.

>>2787121
>digital grain

>>2787123
Everything to the right of the woman is pointless. It would have been neat as a profile portrait with her eyes obscured like that.

>>2787128
I don't care. Get closer. Just a guy on his phone obscured by some green and yellow blobs and lines.

>>2787129
Neat. Not that strong.

>>2787131
Pretty cool. Would have been better without the guy. Would have also been better in landscape orientation.

>>2787134
Don't care. Makes me ask a question.

>>2787135
Incredibly awkward framing. No subject.

>>2787138
Lack of strong subject.

>>2787142
Almost. Boring lighting.

I'm done.

You're close to making images that are worth looking at.
Only post your absolute best images. That way you only put out good stuff. If you aren't comfortable doing that, then you'll never learn anything from online critique since you aren't being critiqued on things you actually care about. At that point just do things physically.

Get closer. I think you'd be better served with a longer lens, anon. Invest in the 55mm. Consider the 90.
Everyone likes to frame at certain perspectives. Your images remind me of my images when I don't have a 50+mm lens on. Longer lens + crouching + spend more time thinking about images. There are some people who can do the whole quick snap street stuff, but usually that takes a long-ass time to perfect.

As for digital grain; I don't like it. It puts grain in the wrong places. It looks like an awkward cross between really old, shitty film, and... nothing else.

>>2787129
Yeah, I see what you mean. I'm still figuring out my post processing, but I'll try to tone it back a bit.

>>2787149
Thanks for the feedback! I've been considering trying a longer lens, but I think I like the wide angle just a little too much. I'll give it a shot soon and report back here with my results

resize your images to 1000px on the long side before posting. it's in the sticky

>>2787504
before you try to be a sticky autist, you might want to read through it yourself

>>2787149
You will look like a creep with a long lens. just get close to your subject.

>>2787509

>• Please post images that are JPG format, smaller than 1 MB, and/or about 1000 pixels on the longest side

seems pretty clear. it's easier to look at images when they aren't too big. not evening being a dick about it.

>>2787516
The lens I was thinking of isn't crazy long or anything. 35mm, which is about 50mm equivalent

>>2787516
My reasoning was that it's easier to get a better perspective on someone with a lens in the 60-90mm (equivalent) range without creeping them out.

Even my family doesn't like it when I take their pictures with even a 45mm lens. I'd say 50+ is a requirement for people photos, unless you're doing surprise or candid streetsnap stuff.

With a lens at less than 50mm, you have to get too close for most people to feel comfortable.

More specifically: full neck + head shot is best performed at 5-15 feet. Any less insights nervousness. Anything more makes people suspicious.

I wish the Fuji X system had a lightweight OIS WR (40)50-90mm lens. A pipe dream.

If these are your keepers, you have a while yet before you're making actual keepers.

You have an interesting eye, but the framing, focal points, and a lot of your processing is throwing most of your photos off.

The only one I truly enjoy out of these is
>>2787131

It's a unique way to shoot landscapes, and the color and balance is excellent. The guy should be cloned out or should have been in a memorable pose. A crotch shot is no bueno.

>>2787625
I agree, it'll be a while until i'm producing any photos that are actually worth a damn. Atm, I'm just taking what I consider my best shots to get some feedback on them.

With the post processing I really have no idea what I'm doing. I've just been using presets recently to try to replicate a film look.