Out of focus

File: scriptical-wordpress-nudes-red-light-rendezvous-emily-ratajkowski-by-jonathan-leder-summer-2012-8.jpg (115KB, 652x850px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 652x850px

The rest are nsfw - but what gives?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS4 Macintosh
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3580
Image Height	4599
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2012:05:27 19:07:38
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	652
Image Height	850

Correct exposure and being in focus means nothing if you have a strong subject look at daido or araki. The subject always trumps technical perfection. Look in the RPT most of those photos are in focus and exposed correctly but they are boring and forgetable.

>>2916308
I guess you meant don't have a strong subject, but this subject isn't really strong could be any instagram camwhore who had her bf take these shots with a point and shoot/phone

sufficiently small, any image is in focus

>>2916303
>>2916304

tom cruise taps that.

and the focus thing, seems to be polaroid type, these cameras cant focus,with precision or wont focus given this photogs particular composition.

File: 20130909-IMG_8927.jpg (640KB, 1100x767px) Image search: [Google]

640KB, 1100x767px

being in focus means nothing . all that matters is its interesting.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 7D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015.5 (Macintosh)
Photographer	Jack
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1000
Image Height	667
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:09:03 20:48:48
Exposure Time	1/250 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	80.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1100
Image Height	767
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

Focus is a tool the same as any other available to a photographer. You use it as you wish, in this case I don't think the subject being in focus would help at all. There's an air of surreal about them now, only a bit but it works for me.

>>2916311
>this subject isn't really strong
>could be any instagram camwhore
pls google Emily Ratajkowski

Daido is the first thing to come to mind as a rebuttal to your notion that all good photographs must be perfect in technique.

That being said these images aren't really anything special imo.

>>2916450
>muh daido
fuck off amateur

>>2916450
Daido was just fap fodder. Being crappily out of focus made it look more illicit therefore more desirable
>inb4 but not all ...
the non-smut was just context for the fantasy world in which the smut lived

Op's pictures just look like amateur porno

>>2916328 is a shit picture. Pretty girls are not an excuse for sloppy focussing

Jonathan Leder's misfocused snapshits of Emily Ratajkowski are amazing in both subject, execution and the way it triggers /p/'s autism.

>>2916340
Models aren't automatically interesting subjects.

>>2916502
Their very purpose is to look interesting

>>2916503
No nigga, their purpose is to model. Modeling is not the same thing as "look interesting".

>>2916457
>>2916479
you guys should kill yourselves together, double suicide, it would be so cute

>>2916303
When it comes to hoes without clothes, some degree of softness (like he's doing with the focus) can be beneficial.

There are few things in the world more unattractive than a 50 megapixel shot of some needle-junky 'actresses' bunghole hairs.
There's some happy medium area in-between the distracting nature of low-resolution artifact-filled nudes and high-resolution eye-bleaching nudes.

Soft focus avoids the horrors of high-res hookers while also avoiding the hideous artifacting that comes from using a really low res camera pipeline like a cheap webcam's jpegs. It's a win-win.

The first image I think isn't enough of a compromise. Go halfway between that too-soft image and normal focus and it'd be perfect.
Image #2 feels more correct, though even that might be better toned just a tad down.

>>2916303
I think the artist is trying to create a tone of those old dirty photos your grampa took of grandma with his disposable camera back in the day. It was actually pretty effective if you think of it like that. Also the whole photoshoot isnt out of focus. The artist didnt even include any grossly out of focus images in his portfolio from the shoot.

http://www.imperial-publishing.com/collections/frontpage/products/emily-ratajkowski-photobook

>>2916568
Shitty snapshits have been pretty popular for a while. Hell, look at Uncle Terry's entire body of work that isn't a shoot for like Vogue.

File: 58159c4232621baead12fbb8ad706c8c.jpg (13KB, 236x323px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 236x323px

>>2916570
hell if you look past his engineering accomplishments, even Tichy had pretty snapshit artistic choice (at least when it came to female subjects). and that was back in the 1920s.

File: BVvQdshIYAAVwEA.jpg (28KB, 374x560px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 374x560px

>>2916570
also fuck terry

>>2916577
I actually like his high fashion stuff and the more personal snapshitty stuff (not him doing the direct flash in front of a white wall portraits thing).

>>2916457
>>2916479
I'm not even a fan of Daido's work, I was just pointing out that the particular aesthetic that OP was confused by has been relatively popular for quite a long time and can be effective for certain subjects.

>>2916505
>I've never worked with a model in my life

>>2916691
>I greentext things that do not follow from what's stated.

Protip: there are times when you want the model you're using to be as uninteresting as is possible..which if you'd have actually done any real shoots, you'd know. The model's role is to be whatever he or she is told to be.

>>2916577
All Terry's work proves is that with the right subject matter even a shit camera is sufficient to get a good shot.

>>2916747

But it's a snapshit.

>>2916763
Please try to use snapshit correctly.

It's not a generic term for a shitty photograph. It's a term for a photograph that has absolutely no sign of intent, of vision, of even making an attempt at even making a passing nod to aesthetics.

You can't say this about his work.

>>2916772

I can say it about this photo, because it's a snapshit.

A snapshit of Miley.

>>2916778
...you're aware that was taken during a styled shoot as part of that styled shoot, right?

>>2916780

No, you're right, it's a masterpiece.

If this styled shoot were done by high school kids on Facebook, it would still be 10/10. Absolutely amazing.

>>2916793
I never said it was good. That's my exact point. snapshit != bad photo
snapshit=thoughtless, effortless photo

>>2916772
>>2916778
>>2916780
>>2916793
>>2916799

epic discussion, friends.

ITT: a bunch of pretentious assholes bicker back and forth about a shitty photo set, except >>2916793 who actually has a worthwhile opinion

>>2916793
>>2916804
Samefag much?

File: nope.png (1MB, 924x379px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 924x379px

>>2916805

I can see why you'd think so, but no.

It seems someone else here simply has a brain that works.

>>2916805
Thank you for proving my point

>>2916808

He's gonna say we're samefagging again.

>>2916809
>>2916808
No, but I will say that you're an idiot if you can't distinguish between a snapshit and a bad photo and you're severely retarded if you can't comprehend why this is an important distinction.

>>2916816

>haha, hold the can like that again!
>click
>hahaha!
>click

Snapshit.

File: image.gif (241KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 300x300px

>>2916816

>>2916304
>the rest are NSFW
Link?

>>2916889
>wtf is reverse image search

Clue: it takes less time than asking for a link

>>2916763
>>2916778
>>2916793
It's not a snapshit, because it's not a snapshot. It's just shit.

>>2916957
good call. The artist actually planned and tried so that he could fuck up so hard.

>>2916966
>good call. The artist actually planned and tried so that he could fuck up so hard.
Have you ever actually seen Terry Richardson's photography, because while you're trying to be mocking, that's exactly what happened.

>>2916966
Correct. You might not like the result and neither do I but he doesn't just take spontaneous pictures of his friends or family. Those are planned shoots.

>>2916479
>illicit
In what way?

>>2916479
>illicit
In what way?