hills

File: 6.jpg (445KB, 1000x775px) Image search: [Google]

445KB, 1000x775px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: 7.jpg (528KB, 1000x775px) Image search: [Google]

528KB, 1000x775px

>>2803829

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: 2.jpg (503KB, 1000x775px) Image search: [Google]

503KB, 1000x775px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: 3.jpg (309KB, 1000x775px) Image search: [Google]

309KB, 1000x775px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: 4.jpg (233KB, 1000x775px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 1000x775px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: 15.jpg (482KB, 1000x775px) Image search: [Google]

482KB, 1000x775px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: 16.jpg (421KB, 1000x775px) Image search: [Google]

421KB, 1000x775px

a couple of these might end up being reposts

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>2803828
love the first one. You should try to do it with a lo-fi camera and bw film

File: 20.jpg (173KB, 1000x775px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 1000x775px

>>2803838
thanks, but nah

File: 5.jpg (420KB, 1000x775px) Image search: [Google]

420KB, 1000x775px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: 10.jpg (502KB, 1000x775px) Image search: [Google]

502KB, 1000x775px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: 9.jpg (480KB, 1000x775px) Image search: [Google]

480KB, 1000x775px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: 22.jpg (395KB, 1000x775px) Image search: [Google]

395KB, 1000x775px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: 23.jpg (605KB, 1000x775px) Image search: [Google]

605KB, 1000x775px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: 24.jpg (554KB, 1000x775px) Image search: [Google]

554KB, 1000x775px

shoot the fucking brumbies

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: 13.jpg (520KB, 1000x775px) Image search: [Google]

520KB, 1000x775px

comfy 1

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>2803829
Lurking. Looks like the fog is coming from the ground like a volcano here

File: 12.jpg (413KB, 1000x775px) Image search: [Google]

413KB, 1000x775px

comfy 2

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: 11.jpg (348KB, 1000x775px) Image search: [Google]

348KB, 1000x775px

comfy 3

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

All I want to do is shoot foggy stuff in my area but it hasn't been foggy recently fuck

faves
>>2803836
>>2803854

Also can you give a simple breakdown of your PP? You seem to get really nice contrast but still have decent muted colors

I feel like a lot of these pictures look way too similar

>>2803828
>>2803851
>>2803856
stood out in particular, but the rest is just more of the same.

Also not a fan of the white borders, but maybe that's just me. Decent stuff though overall

>>2803828
Really love this shot. Your greens are so delicious.

>>2803862
sorry to hear cobber. where you living?
desu its nothing special, just vsco then various other minor adjustments
>>2803864
thanks m8. the ones that are all similar are meant to be all v v similar
>>2803866
southern australia's forests; the most perfect greens in foggy weather

>>2803868
currently living near chicago

It's pretty shit currently but soon it's going to be rainy and foggy on and off for a month or two

Good work bruh,

Do you mind posting your gear? The Exif data isn't coming up.

Good god these are awful. Just so, so derivative and yet poorly executed.

>>2803938
Your opinion is worthless. You're like the guys that stand on the corners in Las Vegas and hand out hooker flyers. Nobody wants it. Stop trying to hand it out.

>>2803938
god damn dude, you came all the way from rpt to flame even further. get some positivity in your life before you get an ulcer.

Less is more blood, I think removing the following from the set would add a lot more weight to the rest of the images, these ones are just dragging the rest of the set down

>>2803832
>>2803834
>>2803835
>>2803836
>>2803837
>>2803842
>>2803843
>>2803846
>>2803854
>>2803855


Otherwise the rest of them are really pleasant. The PP is obviously what makes them pop. I'd argue the border is too thick though, it comes across as crude and a bit gaudy

feels like ive seen those a hundred times. boring ass shit.

>>2803828
>upgrades to ipon 6
>still leans hard on thick border resolution crutch

Maybe OP should have said "Only positive opinions, pretty pretty please"

>>2804175
strange comment tbqh m8
>>2803877
Hope the cloud and fog rolls in soon for you
>>2803922
My gear isn't that important
>>2803938
care to elaborate?
>>2803981
Thanks cob
I did post some to just fill up the thread and to get opinions on photos that I don't necessarily like myself. These are also a mixed bag and not really a 'set' - a few of these photos will work their way into other sets I've been working on. You seem to think most of the "foggy-nothing" ones are worth dropping, whats the main reason you think that?
>>2804164
what can I say, I'm a leaner not a lifter
(sorry Mr Hockey)

>>2804278
>My gear isn't that important

Of course it is, people wont talk about your artistry or narrative skills or ability to unfold a theme, because there isnt any. All your photos have of interest is gear and software related.

your borders are too thick

2/10 for photos
I am only kidding anon, I love these from the bottom of my heart.

>>2804294
>/p/ foaming at the chops for a chance to gearfag in a thread of photos

>>2804294
oh my mistake cob, I used a holga 120 with ektar 800
>>2804301
>your borders are too thick
i like 'em chunk, those big booty borders

>>2803851
this one is fantastic but pls get more into the foreground and give up some of that fog. in this case i guess its ok bc you have the two branches on the sides. but others less fog more foreground.

>>2803828
Do you spend a lot of time here and just luck out with fog or?

>>2804453
Shit. How do I hide my name?

>>2804455
When you go to post a reply you need to delete the name from the top box

>>2803828
>>2803829
>>2803832
>>2803842
>>2803856
>>2803857
>>2803861
my faves, Especially >>2803845

you do a superb job at establishing serenity and isolation in your photos at the same time. My fave part of these photos is the awesome texture you managed to take back form the grass/moss/rocks/trees.

i wanna say have more human subjects? but i also think these hold up on their own very well

>>2803877
>lives in one of the most photogenic cities in the US
>complains that there is nothing to shoot

ayyyy m'lmao.

>>2804481
I never complained about having nothing to shoot but I did complain about not being able to shoot something I want to shoot

Where in SA is this? I'm from there and would love to check it out.

wheres all the victbros

File: IMG_2790-2 - Copy.jpg (385KB, 867x1300px) Image search: [Google]

385KB, 867x1300px

>>2804619
hi

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 700D
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.14
Lens Size	18.00 - 55.00 mm
Firmware Version	Firmware Version 1.1.3
Lens Name	EF-S18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:03:30 23:31:16
Exposure Time	1/3200 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/5.7
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	18.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Exposure Mode	Av-Priority
Focus Type	Auto
Metering Mode	Evaluative
Sharpness	Unknown
Saturation	Normal
Contrast	Normal
Shooting Mode	Manual
Image Size	Unknown
Focus Mode	One-Shot
Drive Mode	Single
Flash Mode	Off
Compression Setting	Unknown
Macro Mode	Normal
White Balance	Auto
Exposure Compensation	3
Sensor ISO Speed	224
Color Matrix	129

>>2804452
>but others less fog more foreground.
how much more foreground? because the excessive fog is kind of the point
>>2804453
Combination of spending a lot of time in the high country and luck
>>2804477
Thanks. I do enjoy shooting human subjects, especially from a distance and a bit lost in the scene, however I think I prefer my shots without them (which may be just me rationalising the fact that 95% of the time I can't get any human subjects into the shot)
>>2804614
Highlands in North Eastern Victoria. Worth a camping trip

File: angry hank9.jpg (9KB, 205x286px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 205x286px

>>2804278
>My gear isn't that important

YES IT FUCKING IS, TELL MEEEEEE!!!!

The white borders kill it for me. Too distracting.

>>2803845
I love this. Very comfortable.

>>2805377
is it really that hard to ignore a small border?
>>2805421
Thanks. It was a very comfy camping spot. Fluffy grass, high exposed site, warm and perfectly still

>>2805752
I'm already looking at a shitty snapshit, the white borders are too much.

>>2803828
White borders are very tacky when used to present images on the web. Its on par with watermarks.

It makes your photos look gimicky and instagramy.

edgy

These photographs don't do it for me, sorry OP, but I just like to say good on you with the borders. In reality, the borders isolates the images from any other distracting elements and colours on users browsers; the image is actually being contained. People will cry it's tacky, distracting, etc but it's what they do in galleries, books, and any other form of professional presentation. Please continue with it.

>>2807385
Thanks for the support m8. I started doing in late 2012/ early 2013 iirc, because I liked the separation from the background; whether viewing on /p/, tumblr, or just on my computer - I preferred how it looked. There is also the added bonus of lols each thread as people cant seem to comment on the content of photos due to the borders. I think it does a good job of weeding out the standard /p/-level critique to ignore (for example >>2805377 >>2805774)

>>2805915
>Its on par with watermarks.
Nah, watermarks are shit because its an added element within the frame of the photo. These are somewhat gaudy but arent messing with the elements or composition of the photos as watermarks do. But hey, each to their own m8t

>>2805915
>White borders are very tacky when used to present images on the web. Its on par with watermarks.
Literally retarded.
>It makes your photos look gimicky and instagramy.
Eliminate these words from your vocabulary immediately. It will do wonders for your ability to discuss, well most anything.

As to why you're wrong: it's literally the same thing as choosing a matting for your image.

>>2803828
Why do you call yourself zx, and why do you refer to people as cob?

Every time I try to look at your photos I just can't get over how much of a pompous wanker you sound, its very distracting

>>2807687
cmon cobber, cool ya jets. if yr ever in SE Aus then lets grab a beer, I promise I'm not a pompous wanker

>>2807743
I am sorry