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

File: FOTO0521.jpg (281KB, 900x617px) Image search: [Google]

281KB, 900x617px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: FOTO0517.jpg (184KB, 900x617px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 900x617px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: FOTO0518.jpg (133KB, 900x617px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 900x617px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: FOTO0534.jpg (190KB, 900x617px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 900x617px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: FOTO0540.jpg (203KB, 900x617px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 900x617px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: FOTO0546.jpg (245KB, 900x617px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 900x617px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: FOTO0547.jpg (284KB, 900x617px) Image search: [Google]

284KB, 900x617px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: FOTO0551_v1.jpg (256KB, 900x617px) Image search: [Google]

256KB, 900x617px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: FOTO0549.jpg (244KB, 900x617px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 900x617px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: FOTO0548.jpg (302KB, 900x617px) Image search: [Google]

302KB, 900x617px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

nice photos OP, there's a 3D sharpness about them. would you mind giving us lenses used and processing techniques?

>>2920739
>not knowing

I almost feel bad for you, but you're probably just a troll.

File: popcorn bill hader.gif (498KB, 500x236px) Image search: [Google]

498KB, 500x236px

>white borders
>funky symbol for a name
>pictures of rural southern poverty

Fuck yeah! Gather 'round bitches! We about to have an isi shitstorm thread!

>>2920708
nice tone, mound of dirt adds nothing to the pic, forgettable

>>2920709
cool setting, would have been nice with something in it besides a vacant car

>>2920710
nice shade of blue, but its a pointless photo otherwise

>>2920711
much better than >>2920710 love the orange light in the middle

>>2920712
the sky looks muddy for some reason, i would have prefered it to be the blue youve been rocking so far

>>2920713
awesome, love the gradient from sky blue to white, and the trees disappearing

>>2920715
blacks are a little crushed in this one, and there isnt any composition in this to make the photo worth keeping

>>2920717
would have been loads better with the gate open showing the trail off in the distance

>>2920718
this is neat, the fence opposes the colors, but again, like in>>2920712 the sky isnt as blue as is should be

>>2920719
lifted whites and crushed blacks, but it works well for what this pic sets out to do

>>2920720
the fence post straight in the middle is really distracting

overall id say, its the usual isi show we get, a few great landscape shots with nice tones covered in a lot more pointless and forgettable photos with no subjects or composition, also your trip looks like a dick and balls

hows the x-pro 2's autofocus? i want one and am curious

>>2920742
why would i know what lens he is using you total fucking idiot? if i were to guess it's a sigma 35 art, possibly a 35 1.4L and possibly an iphone 6. it could also be hundreds of other things. 4chan is an 18+ website, btw.

>>2920747
>he
You're a fucktard for not knowing who this is and what she shoots with. Stick around for more than a day or two and figure out the board before asking questions.

You're also a fucktard for caring so much about shit like that. Like you said, it could be any number of things. So who the fuck cares? Why not focus on the merits of the photo itself.

You're also a fucktard because what the fuck does it matter that 4chan is 18+?

>>2920711
I actually like this a lot. No use in wasting time describing what I like or don't like about this or any other photo because, quite frankly, you don't give a fuck. But this is nice. Probably one of my favorite shots of yours.

File: Captudre.jpg (57KB, 752x750px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 752x750px

>>2920747
>he
>mfw

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Photographer	Trevor
Image-Specific Properties:

>>2920756
Of course something this bland and boring could only be produced by a female. What was he thinking?

this trip has never done a single good image. maybe her selfies.

>>2920768
Not true. She does, from time to time, produce decent images, but they're always mixed in with shit. Also, she doesn't care. She both (a) thinks she's fucking awesome, and (b) wants to watch the board burn. So, it doesn't really matter. She just posts for shits and giggles and to antagonize any detractors.

>>2920761
>Of course something this bland and boring could only be produced by a female.

This.

Only decent female photog i have seen is Sally Mann, but she was a child abuser paedo, so maybe women need that little extra to produce work worth looking at.

>>2920776
>Sally Mann
She probably has gender dysphoria, only reason she could produce anything worthwhile. She is a man trapped in a female body

isi I've got a crush on you

>>2920790
Fuck off she's mine

>>2920780

This is a fairly sound reasoning. It takes literally a woman with a male brain to make any decent output in photography, who could have thought! Why isnt neuroscience researching this?

>>2920796
put your trip back on Edd

>>2920790
>>2920796

she's moopco's. everybody knows this.

>>2920806
Whatever man. my mind makes it real

>>2920806
>implying she's not down in florida right now eating nasty vegan food with sugar

Bro, you need to step up your trip stalking.

>>2920812
>>implying she's not down in florida right now eating nasty vegan food with sugar

thats some raunchy ass fantasy. ever seen those porn videos with a small girl and a fat mexican who covers himself in salsa and nachos and then fuck her?

well, i got that image.

>>2920803
Because it's the (((current year)))

>>2920780
>that last name
What you say must be true

>>2920850

really activated my neurons.

>>2920814
Fuck yeah, you know it's true.

>>2920751
sticking around for more than a day is your problem. that's why you suck at the hobby.

>>2920870
>implying anybody at /p/ cares about photography

>>2920876
you've really hit rock bottom, haven't you?

Underexposed

>>2920946
Sweetie, there's no such thing as objectively correct exposure :^)

>>2920968
Yes there is you retard.

Shadows fall in Zone III.

But you are a female, so I'm not surprised you do not think there is an objective truth. You're all about your fee fees

>>2920981
One day you'll realize that all photos don't have to be exposed the same way. Until that day comes, the cognitive dissonance will probably hurt. 8^)

>>2920986
One day you will learn that completely black shadows do not aid in composition, and is nothing else than a distraction in the image.

I do not think that there will come a day when you shall understand this.

>>2920990
>an area with nothing
>is more of a distraction
>than an area full of random shit that isn't a part of the subject or composition

Cool story.

>>2921000
What a waste of trips.

>implying eyes are not drawn to black areas and they serve as a distraction in composition, unless its masterfully done..

As we know, nothing posted in this thread is masterfully done.

>>2921004

Hey the convo about Sally The Mann was fairly enlightening.

>>2920990
>completely black shadows
Just because she shoots high contrast jpeg settings doesn't mean there's no info in the shadows. There clearly is.

>>2921008
Now, now. Don't spoil his fun.

Isi did nothing wrong

>>2921004
sorry you're falsely confident about your monitor calibration and can't properly view my photos as they're meant to be seen.

I'd recommend giving my thread a look on a mac at your local best buy.

>>2921087
>Implying I don't have a ColorMunki calibrated matt screen monitor.

You are cancer

>>2921091
I'm actually implying you didn't properly read the instructions and haven't taken proper precautions against ambient light.

9 out of 10 user "calibrated" monitors are worse than a stock Dell color calibration.

File: 1424550953086.gif (2MB, 387x269px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 387x269px

>isi thread

>>2920713
>>2920717
>>2920718
i like these. nice tones.

but a lot of isi's photos are dull and underexposed. is this a fuji thing or just isi?

btw she's cute

>>2921094
That's fine.

I have taken a class on printer and monitor calibration. I know what I'm doing. There is no "ambient" light around my screen and I have a hood for it.

You're the one doing things wrong.

>>2921100
>but a lot of isi's photos are dull and underexposed. is this a fuji thing or just isi?
I just like darker, moody lighting

The way I shoot gives me a broad range of control quickly. Most of my output is from jpegs (though I do keep the raws for archival reasons, or for throwing back on the card to reprocess) and I've got the camera set up so that the left D-pad button is a list of image settings based on my most commonly used film simulations (classic chrome and astia) with a variety of contrast settings between them. -2/-2 highlights/shadows for a basic and very flat jpeg with a high dynamic range owing to 800 iso, 400% dynamic range, cycling up to +4/+4 which is so crunchy with contrast that you often don't even perceive the color in the image immediately. My down arrow on the D pad is white balance, right arrow is film simulation. With the camera set up this way, I can change settings on the fly with one hand and scope out whatever contrast I'd prefer with the image.

>>2921101
>You're the one doing things wrong.
Nah, my camera's back screen is much more objective than some dude on the internet's self-proclaimed calibrated monitor and self-proclaimed taste.
I'm sure you'll probably disagree with me, but I print my work and am quite aware of what the colors and contrast actually look like beyond the fog of mismatched monitor calibrations. This stuff's the very reason I've swapped to a jpeg-oriented workflow.

>>2921106
Is this a ruse or are you this retarded?

>>2921108
Which part do you think is a ruse? That the back screen of an Xpro2 is a precisely calibrated color display that's more accurate than most user-calibrated monitors?

Only an idiot would doubt that. Spec sheets do exist if you want to go read up on it.

If you think any particular shot is missing crucial information, link to it and we can get super objective.

File: justwow.jpg (368KB, 900x617px) Image search: [Google]

368KB, 900x617px

Postin in troll thread.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:09:09 18:43:14
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	900
Image Height	617

Todd Hido cries over the thought of this thread.

>>2920751
>DID YOU JUST ASSUME THIS PHOTOGRAPHERS GENDER!?
>IM FUCKING TRIGGERED
calm down you stupid dick.

>>2921129
>Todd Hido
Todd Hido wishes you'd stop namedropping him in hopes that the awareness of the existence of another human being turns you into a photographer yourself. :^)

File: isihido.jpg (200KB, 1807x1200px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 1807x1200px

>>2921133
meant to respond with this photo

>>2921133
That was a bad post. You reached way too far for that insult which made it overly verbose and rhythmless. Apply yourself/7.

>>2921126
way better tbqhfamalino.

>>2921134
Fun, about top swap out power poles.

>>2921136
>d-don't call me out for namedropping, s-stop, I AM a real creative!

>>2921137
Thank you, bro. Its still a shit photo, but at least now you can see it.

File: 101696_25.jpg (74KB, 1142x900px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 1142x900px

>>2921134
oh you cheeky fucking cunt goddamn you isi goddamn you

>>2921134
>>2921144
...isi did it better

File: heh.jpg (384KB, 900x617px) Image search: [Google]

384KB, 900x617px

>>2920712

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:09:09 19:07:07
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	900
Image Height	617

>>2921150
now its overexposed and you cant even see the tree at the end of the path, grats
no wonder she accuses you of having a poorly calibrated monitor

>>2920776
EDGY

File: 1473459000609 copy.jpg (119KB, 900x610px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 900x610px

>>2921144
Fucking hell, bro. Do you even know how to isi?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1142
Image Height	900
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:09:09 20:00:23
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	900
Image Height	610

>>2921234
...that actually looks better, but why did you stretch it out horizontally

>>2920713
this is amaze
>>2920715
9/10 its just a beautifully composed scene. i would like you get some motion/human elements into your photos
>>2920717
meh a bit orthodox. still good image but >>2920715
>>2920713
are extraordinary

>>2921158
>whore out your kids with the "art" pretext

HERO WOMAN AMIRITE

>>2920708
>white borders

>>2921529
VOTE trump and there's only going to be white borders in the future :^)

>>2921150
>>2921151
You mean it's now better exposed, much better white balance and the tree is still plenty visible.

qnix2710 & Spyder 5 pro.

>>2921598
No its shit
IMac 4k

some really enjoyable shots itt.

>>2920718
>>2920717
>>2920711
>>2920709
all grouse af

>>2920712
the other dudes edit was trash, but I would recommend bringing this up a bit. Its a great shot but its distracting being just a little too dark.

>>2920710
I was going to ask if you could have shot this from the side, because this isn't doing much for the nice subject. The angle is also way too much.
>>2920711
Sick, spooky, nice breathing space around the subject, perfect spot of light, just feels a little too dark, 9/10

>>2920712
Pleasing composition, somewhat eerily inviting.

>>2920715
I'm thinking maybe you should have jumped the fence to get a clearer shot of the rows of trees and one interesting one on the left.

>>2920717
Open gate next time for a second shot. Still a nice shot that ties in well with the other spooky shots. Also like the fog in combination with what seems like strong light and shadows.

>>2920718
I know I keep repeating myself and half of this is just due to the fog but this gives me horror film vibes. The tension of the angle of the fence and stark contrast really work well here.

>>2921600
>he thinks apple screens aren't trash

How cute anon

I like isi's photos. I find them interesting because I'll probably never see the rural american landscapes with white fences and derelict gas stations and diners which serve scrambled eggs and toast and coffee and country music is laying in the background. And let's face it, the technical aspects of her photos are not that bad either. Of course I would not exactly shell $100 for her photobook, but...

You retards thinking every photo has to have perfect neutral colour balance and perfectly metered exposure don't understand that this is a hobby about expressing the emotion of a scene do you? Or does your autism prevent you from feeling any emotion

>>2921352
>why did you stretch it out horizontally
For the same reason that I made the sky dark blue/cyan. For the same reason that I added desaturated dark green shit. For the same reason that I darkened the fuck out of everything. For the same reason that I added the white border.

>>2921731
To make it more shit

>>2921732
Oh you simpleton. isi's style transcends such silly labels as "good" or "shit." isi's style is more of a state of mind. It's a state of being. It's a time and a place. It's a fleeting emotion.

File: 1472803420847.jpg (33KB, 163x240px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 163x240px

>>2921731
>>2921732
boy you sure are mad

Wow this thread sure is shit. The same crap picture being taken +100 times. No wonder no one did those pictures before, there was no reason to.

>>2920713
>>2920715
I really like these two, I suspect I'm not the only one

>>2920709
Good thread isi. particularly
>>2920711
>>2920710
>>2920712

Im the anon who suggested a couple threads back that your photos look like they've been taken straight from true detective and they're still living up to it. Maybe a dash of blair witch, with those random gourds hanging from a post.

your photos are scary, and i hope to god that it doesnt translate to who you are. I imagine you in these scenes and i cant help but see someone who is troubled. if you need help you can talk to somebody, you just have to be willing to. If that's not the case i'm sorry for suggesting it.

File: 14467856373752676.png (74KB, 300x256px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 300x256px

>>2921807
>your photos are scary, and i hope to god that it doesnt translate to who you are. I imagine you in these scenes and i cant help but see someone who is troubled. if you need help you can talk to somebody, you just have to be willing to.
lmao what is this

>>2921807
looooooooooooooooooool

by the way i dont remember true detective being set in such dull and pointless scenes, this kid is epic troll.

>>2921756
This thread only has 20 photos

File: image.jpg (101KB, 1136x640px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 1136x640px

>>2921807
No, anon. just no.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1136
Image Height	640
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: 1470586982174.jpg (13KB, 254x255px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 254x255px

>>2921807

>>2921807
>Im the anon who suggested a couple threads back that your photos look like they've been taken straight from true detective and they're still living up to it.
I could see that

File: 1460925720798.jpg (81KB, 607x704px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 607x704px

>>2921807

>>2921915
>>2921882
>>2921841
ITT: "I collect reaction memes but I'm too autistic to apply them properly"

>>2920708
>>2920712
I like these two, but I think you could bring the exposure up a bit and they would look even better. Maybe not so much with the first one as you're going for a moody atmosphere though.

>>2920709
I don't think this really fits with the others. Seems like the house is too far away, and overall I think the setting doesn't fit together.

>>2920710
>>2920711
I would only choose one of these two. In my opinion, the second one works better, the lamp in background really helps. I know what you're trying to do on the first one, but I dont' think it fits the subject.

>>2920713
Too centered. Cool light, but it's still boring.

>>2920715
>>2920717
I think these are better. You have more elements in the background that help keep the image interesting

>>2920718
Nice angle, but I think there's too much sky in the image. I can imagine trying to cut it down would have ruined the framing, though.

>>2920719
Nice light. But that's it.

>>2920720
I don't know if you intend these images to be part a set. If that's the case, I don't think the bw fits at all. How does it look in color? Even so, it's still too busy.

some are a bit cold but the warm ones remind me of polanski's tess. one of my favorites. some good shots

File: 1437343478571.jpg (27KB, 374x350px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 374x350px

>>2921922
tell me more

File: 1396443263308.png (214KB, 427x393px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 427x393px

>>2921971

File: tell me more.jpg (124KB, 543x1205px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 543x1205px

>>2921971

What camera is op use?

File: 2016_0912_16561000.jpg (2MB, 1776x1184px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1776x1184px

>>2923455
Xbro2

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-Pro2
Camera Software	Digital Camera X-Pro2 Ver1.00
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	27 mm
Maker Note Version	0130
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:09:12 17:29:46
Exposure Time	1/80 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/5.7
Brightness	2.6 EV
Exposure Bias	-0.3 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	18.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1776
Image Height	1184
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Hard
Subject Distance Range	Unknown
Sharpness	Hard
White Balance	Auto
Chroma Saturation	Unknown
Flash Mode	Off
Focus Mode	Auto
Slow Synchro Mode	Off
Picture Mode	Aperture Prior AE
Continuous/Bracketing Mode	Off
Blur Status	OK
Focus Status	OK
Auto Exposure Status	OK

File: 2016_0912_17232700.jpg (2MB, 1776x1184px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1776x1184px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-Pro2
Camera Software	Digital Camera X-Pro2 Ver1.00
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	27 mm
Maker Note Version	0130
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:09:12 17:29:16
Exposure Time	1/105 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Brightness	2.1 EV
Exposure Bias	-0.3 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	18.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1776
Image Height	1184
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Hard
Subject Distance Range	Unknown
Sharpness	Hard
White Balance	Auto
Chroma Saturation	Unknown
Flash Mode	Off
Focus Mode	Auto
Slow Synchro Mode	Off
Picture Mode	Aperture Prior AE
Continuous/Bracketing Mode	Off
Blur Status	OK
Focus Status	OK
Auto Exposure Status	OK

File: 2016_0912_17204200.jpg (2MB, 1776x1184px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1776x1184px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-Pro2
Camera Software	Digital Camera X-Pro2 Ver1.00
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	27 mm
Maker Note Version	0130
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Right-Hand, Top
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:09:12 17:29:22
Exposure Time	1/52 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Brightness	0.1 EV
Exposure Bias	-0.3 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Daylight
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	18.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1776
Image Height	1184
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Hard
Subject Distance Range	Unknown
Sharpness	Hard
White Balance	Daylight
Chroma Saturation	Unknown
Flash Mode	Off
Focus Mode	Auto
Slow Synchro Mode	Off
Picture Mode	Aperture Prior AE
Continuous/Bracketing Mode	Off
Blur Status	OK
Focus Status	OK
Auto Exposure Status	OK

>>2923569

learn to focus your subject.

retard.

File: image.jpg (463KB, 530x800px) Image search: [Google]

463KB, 530x800px

Any tips Isi? just general knowledge or even specific to doing in camera processing? Love your stuff. Pic unrelated

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.
Camera Model	GR II
Camera Software	Snapseed 2.9.4232
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	28 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:09:12 20:14:52
Exposure Time	1/250 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Brightness	3.6 EV
Exposure Bias	-1 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	18.30 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	530
Image Height	800
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Hard

>>2923455
I was about to ask her the same thing. I'm still trying to figure out my own style and after this thread I'm actually planing on looking into the Xpro2.

>>2923639
your composition is poor.

File: I WANNA PLAY.jpg (272KB, 900x630px) Image search: [Google]

272KB, 900x630px

I wanna give it a shot. This is one of my first photos I took when I got into photography.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	FS4000
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.0 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	2000 dpi
Vertical Resolution	2000 dpi
Image Created	2016:09:13 00:46:42

>>2923819
oh shit, namefag forgot to take his name off before stirring drama
what a little bitch haha!

>>2923827
What drama?

>>2923566
>>2923568
>>2923569
>no white borders
>photos are suddenly shit

what did she mean by this?

Interesting set, I like 'em.

I think if you condense it down to the following and print, they'd be a really nice visceral experience of the place.

>>2920720
>>2920718
>>2920717 (fuck everyone telling you to open the gate, I hate that sort of critique)
>>2920712
>>2920711

>>2923847
actually no that set i picked out is bullshit, maybe remove either >>2920718 or >>2920717

>>2923827
I didn't forget to take off my name.

File: 2016_0912_18503700.jpg (2MB, 1776x1184px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1776x1184px

You boys behave and go to church ok

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-Pro2
Camera Software	Digital Camera X-Pro2 Ver1.00
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	27 mm
Maker Note Version	0130
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:09:12 18:55:37
Exposure Time	1/120 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/5.7
Brightness	4.6 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	18.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1776
Image Height	1184
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Hard
Subject Distance Range	Unknown
Sharpness	Hard
White Balance	Auto
Chroma Saturation	High
Flash Mode	Off
Focus Mode	Auto
Slow Synchro Mode	Off
Picture Mode	Aperture Prior AE
Continuous/Bracketing Mode	Off
Blur Status	OK
Focus Status	OK
Auto Exposure Status	OK

File: 2016_0912_18330700.jpg (872KB, 1776x1184px) Image search: [Google]

872KB, 1776x1184px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-Pro2
Camera Software	Digital Camera X-Pro2 Ver1.00
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	27 mm
Maker Note Version	0130
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:09:12 18:39:13
Exposure Time	1/9000 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Brightness	9.0 EV
Exposure Bias	-1 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	18.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1776
Image Height	1184
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Hard
Subject Distance Range	Unknown
Sharpness	Hard
White Balance	Auto
Chroma Saturation	Unknown
Flash Mode	Off
Focus Mode	Auto
Slow Synchro Mode	Off
Picture Mode	Aperture Prior AE
Continuous/Bracketing Mode	Off
Blur Status	OK
Focus Status	OK
Auto Exposure Status	OK

File: 2016_0912_17103700.jpg (2MB, 1776x1184px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1776x1184px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-Pro2
Camera Software	Digital Camera X-Pro2 Ver1.00
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	27 mm
Maker Note Version	0130
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Right-Hand, Top
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:09:12 17:29:30
Exposure Time	1/120 sec
F-Number	f/3.2
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/3.2
Brightness	1.1 EV
Exposure Bias	-1 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	18.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1776
Image Height	1184
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Hard
Subject Distance Range	Unknown
Sharpness	Hard
White Balance	Auto
Chroma Saturation	Normal
Flash Mode	Off
Focus Mode	Auto
Slow Synchro Mode	Off
Picture Mode	Aperture Prior AE
Continuous/Bracketing Mode	Off
Blur Status	OK
Focus Status	OK
Auto Exposure Status	OK

File: 2016_0908_19110200.jpg (876KB, 1776x1184px) Image search: [Google]

876KB, 1776x1184px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-Pro2
Camera Software	Digital Camera X-Pro2 Ver1.00
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	27 mm
Maker Note Version	0130
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:09:08 19:21:34
Exposure Time	1/250 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Brightness	4.8 EV
Exposure Bias	-0.3 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	18.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1776
Image Height	1184
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Hard
Subject Distance Range	Unknown
Sharpness	Hard
White Balance	Auto
Chroma Saturation	Normal
Flash Mode	Off
Focus Mode	Auto
Slow Synchro Mode	Off
Picture Mode	Aperture Prior AE
Continuous/Bracketing Mode	Off
Blur Status	OK
Focus Status	OK
Auto Exposure Status	OK

File: 2016_0908_06504700.jpg (1MB, 1776x1184px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1776x1184px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-Pro2
Camera Software	Digital Camera X-Pro2 Ver1.00
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	27 mm
Maker Note Version	0130
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Left-Hand, Bottom
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:09:08 06:54:08
Exposure Time	1/1000 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Brightness	3.4 EV
Exposure Bias	-2.3 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	18.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1776
Image Height	1184
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Hard
Subject Distance Range	Unknown
Sharpness	Hard
White Balance	Auto
Chroma Saturation	Normal
Flash Mode	Off
Focus Mode	Auto
Slow Synchro Mode	Off
Picture Mode	Aperture Prior AE
Continuous/Bracketing Mode	Off
Blur Status	OK
Focus Status	OK
Auto Exposure Status	OK

>>2923868
1/9000
Iso 800
Sharp to infinity, F2.8; shooting into the sun

This is why people take the piss out of you isi, you have no idea what you're doing.
If the sun were a star, there was cleaner shadow detail and more thoughtfully framed you may have had a nice shot.

>>2923905
>If the sun were a star, there was cleaner shadow detail and more thoughtfully framed you may have had a nice shot.
The sun wouldn't be a star here at any aperture. Deeper dof has no impact on this image. 800 iso for dynamic range in the jpeg. Insane shutter speed because I can without negative impact upon the image via electronic shutter.

You're so stuck in what you think is right that you don't notice it's not actually wrong.

>>2923910
>800 iso for dynamic range

loses 2 stops of DR, to get more DR

>deeper dof has no impact on this image

not like you wanted it to be sharp across the frame either

>The sun wouldn't be a star here at any aperture

it's a point light source, of course you can star it

>Insane shutter speed because I can without negative impact upon the image via electronic shutter.

wut, grammar fail?

And, No, my main point was you had at least 7 stops of play before the shutter speed will start to become too slow without support.

Isi, take 2 moments to look at the noise on the trailer, that's after it's been through in camera noise reduction and resizing, the more noise, the less colour information, which is why your images look flat and muddy.

>>2923868
Lol good luck printing that with the terrible aliasing and noise.

Your compositions aren't that bad. But you need to stop with the jpeg meme. Learn to postprocess. You can make a fucking action in LR or Photoshop.

I'm retarded and I'm able to do it. You should be able to do it too.

>>2923947
I've never seen someone so comprehensively take isi's photos and method apart before.

get rekt.

>>2923905

It's not that great of a photo, but the camera settings are not the reason. Iso 800 is obviously for fuji dr400. Go look it up so you won't sound quite as dumb the next time.

>>2923968
> Iso 800 is obviously for fuji dr400. Go look it up so you won't sound quite as dumb the next time.

> shooting compromised raws for better sooc jpegs

LOL

>>2923874
>sideways
>>2923870
>sideways
>>2923569
>sideways

Nigga wut r u doin?

>>2923971

There's nothing compromised about them.

>>2923978
>nothing compromised about shooting iso 800 at 1/9000 compared to shooting iso 200 at 1/2250

Do you mean apart from the 2 stops of dynamic range lost?

>>2923984
Spotted the clueless gearfag.

>>2923995
So you're saying iso 800 has the same DR as iso 200?

Or that 2 extra stops wouldn't have helped with the shadow on the side of that farm vehicle?

File: little-girl-eating-popcorn-23226663.jpg (199KB, 1300x1343px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 1300x1343px

>>2923997
>>2923995

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi

>>2923997
For one you don't seem to understand the difference between two stops of light and two stops of DR.
Is stop a buzzword for you?

>>2923997
>Or that 2 extra stops wouldn't have helped with the shadow on the side of that farm vehicle?
Dynamic range won't really fix faded shadows from a bright backlit flare either...exposure on the tractor isn't an issue, you can see the shadows easily, but its faded looking due to the suns proximity

>>2923868
This looks like a really shitty version of an Alex shot. Alex would've taken this same shot with Portra, and both the tractor and the sun would've been perfectly exposed.

>>2920708
boring and ugly

>>2920709
a shot of nothing

>>2920710
idgi

>>2920711
mildly interesting

>>2920712
a road. of dirt. ok?

>>2920713
hey guise i just got my first lomo back from the lab, did i do good?

>>2920717
better

>>2920719
a nice basic shot, but i now realize
i just REALLY dont like the processing/ "look" of your images

>>2920720
snapshit, bw adds nothing

Tbqh I don't know what your're going for with these, but what ever it is it isn't doing it for me. Well, except for your colors and processing, which I for some reason find mildly disgusting. Like, belching and having some stomach fluid pop in your mouth for that unpleasant savory acidic taste.

%triforce

>>2924098
>hey guise i just got my first lomo back from the lab, did i do good?
stopped reading here, you're stupid

>>2924072
dr is measured in stops dildo.
http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm

>>2924074
so you think shooting that same shot at +2 ev wouldn't increase the shadow detail? that's what's been thrown away

Your damage control is as hilarious as it is flawed.

File: 1473759515356.jpg (1MB, 1776x1184px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1776x1184px

>>2923868
You won't get good results with just a shitty quality jpg, but some simple luminosity mask work would really help this.

>>2924113
You do realise that she wants her images to look dark right? After all she has a super fabric calibrated xlol2 from fuji. She's quite literally retarded in the colour/luminosity department

File: mmm.jpg (799KB, 1635x1184px) Image search: [Google]

799KB, 1635x1184px

>>2923868

:^)

shame about the noise though, i hope this is not your main camera.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:09:13 16:08:13
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1635
Image Height	1184

File: 1473029696139.jpg (2MB, 2000x1500px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2000x1500px

>>2924108
>dr is measured in stops dildo.
I think anon asked you if you knew the difference between two stops of light gathering and two stops in dynamic range performance.
...do you, lol?

Spot the iso 200.

>so you think shooting that same shot at +2 ev wouldn't increase the shadow detail? that's what's been thrown away
No, I think he's saying that the reason my shadow detail is ass on the tractor is that the tractor is being consumed by a flare from the nearby sun- which I'll note is not a star flare because the point of light is not obstructed enough by the framing.

Argumentatiate less, learn more. :)

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-Pro2
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	24 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4000
Image Height	6000
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:09:04 17:53:42
Exposure Time	1/2500 sec
F-Number	f/6.4
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/6.5
Brightness	9.6 EV
Exposure Bias	-0.3 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	16.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2000
Image Height	1500
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Hard
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2924113
>>2924117
Sorry about your monitors, anons.

>>2924115
Show me a piece of yours with impeccable color/luminosity work and I'll do likewise.
I think you might be missing the point of photography, though.

>>2924118
LITERALLY NO FUCKING DETAIL IN YOUR SUBJECT. EITHER BLEND TWO EXPOSURES IN LIGHTROOM LIKE A DECENT PERSON OR BUY A FUCKING SOFT NEUTRAL DENSITY FILTER.

YES I'M TRIGGERED.

>>2924119
I shoot film.

>>2924120
Wait, what's the subject again, boyo?
Sorry you couldn't spot the 200. :^)

>>2924122
You mean analog jpegs? Eh, your decision I guess, but that stuff's pretty primitive. Can't shoot into the sun wide open like this newfangled digigold.

>>2924105
hey baby, tell me what i'm missing, come on, ream my ass

"ur dumb" is a pretty shitty retort tbqh (then again so was the critique mostly)


I just find the image wholly uninteresting, though it's by no means the worst of the bunch

the light is ok, the composition is ok. but it's still a shot of an mostly empty field with nothing in it, and the shitty disgusting lomo-tier processing kills whatever small visual interest there was in the image.

File: geeifuckingwonder.jpg (1MB, 2000x1500px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2000x1500px

>>2924123
Gee I fucking wonder

>>2924124
Retard.

https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/05/kodaks-new-portra-400-film/

>>2924126
I know that learning to read a photo can be hard, but I'm sure you'll eventually get the hang of it.

>>2924125
>shitty disgusting lomo-tier processing
Your monitor just has to be really awful for that to look anything lomo to you, and thats reason to disregard your interpretation of my work.

>>2924126
Sorry you couldn't spot the 200. Or the Subject.

File: geeifuckingwonder.jpg (1MB, 2000x1500px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2000x1500px

>>2924126
You should also crop away the bit I marked here, as that part of the three leads the viewer out of the image, due to it pointing outwards.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

>>2924132
Hey, you're not me! :^)

>>2924133
Are you really this dense or are you just trolling?

>>2924135
You're really clever. :^)

>>2924136
>Are you really this dense or are you just trolling?
Do you really think you're awoke but you're really just snoozin?

>>2924136
>trying to have a conversation about photos
>in an isi thread

>>2924141
>trying to have a conversation about photos
>the light is ok, the composition is ok
The conversational skills are off the charts.

>>2924133
>Your monitor just has to be really awful for that to look anything lomo to you, and thats reason to disregard your interpretation of my work.

bait moar plz

fo sho, gotta check my montor, on which all other image on the whole internet look perfectly acceptable and non-nauseating


Yeah, I don't really dig your work in this thread. But it has everything to do with your images you just posted here, and really nothing with, well, anything else.

You are of course free to ignore naysayers like me and employ that circular logic that only some personally-by-you categorized lesser people could possibly dislike them, because otherwise they wouldn't be lesser people and they'd like them ":D".

>>2924152
>bait moar plz
She will, so long as you keep biting.

>>2924152
>personally-by-you categorized
lol you should stick to simple language if that's all you can wrangle

If you're seeing "lomo-tier" processing in my photos, I can only assume you either a) know very little about photography and only have a few derogatory terms in your arsenal, one of which is lomography or b) your monitor is so badly off-calibration that you're seeing false colors and other lomo-esque traits in classic chrome.


You are of course free to ignore my suggestion that your "calibrated" monitor is, like most on /p/, way off calibration because if everyones monitors are pink then blue is actually purple :DDD

how do you blow highlights and block shadows at the same time

>>2924345
Fujifilm

>>2924345
Which photo are you referring to?

>>2924118
>difference between 2 stops of light gathering and 2 stops of dr.

None. You yet again demonstrate your lack of knowledge.

>spot the iso 200
On silhouettes from sooc jpegs.
That's not how this works, the side of the tractor is a fine example of your jpeglol workflow giving technically piss poor results.

>flares made my tractor noisy
>i couldn't get a star because i didnt cut the sun with the frame

Lol, What, i don't know where to begin here, you haven't even addressed the question.

And these comments have been all me, you haven't answered whether you think the side of the tractor would look cleaner at +2ev.

>argumentatiate less, learn more
That's a decent mantra, you should do well out of it

>>2924158
>arse fucks the colour balance
>claims it's not lomo

Confusedshrug.Jpeg

>>2924574

Isi getting fucking destroyed itt.

This is some terrible hipster shit. It is very reminiscent of /fa/. Shame on you, OP.

>>2924574
>>2924589
>>2924590
Holy autistic samefag

>>2924574
>None.
??? Do you think a stop is a measured value? Iso 200 being 2 stops from 800 doesn't mean it has two stops less dynamic range. Do you even know how to measure dr?

>>2924595
A stop is a doubling/halving of light

And yes, sony produced sensors lose approx 1 stop of dr for every iso stop you go up.

>>2924592
Nah isi, i can troll you plenty good without resorting to buzzwords and insults. All i need do is pick apart how bad you are at this hobby.

File: trollface.jpg (12KB, 120x99px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 120x99px

>anon has a crush on me
>this desperate
>posts in my thread
>doesnt know im a boy

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FujiFilm
Camera Model	FujiFilm X-Pro1
Camera Software	Windows Movie Maker
Photographer	isi
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Left-Hand, Bottom
Image Created	2016:09:23 20:59:19
Exposure Time	234255 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	9001
Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Metering Mode	Unknown
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Exposure Mode	Manual

>>2924626
I see you've removed your secure trip.
So you can claim sockpuppetting.
And divert attention away from anon making you look dumb as shit.

And his name isn't anon, it's agno.

>>2924626
Aight, you still haven't answered my question though, would the side of that tractor look cleaner if it was shot at +2 ev.

>>2924630
>>2924632
You sound like moopco, moopco. Who is agno?

>>2924635
You sound like someone all out of answers.

>>2924638
You sound like you think you're talking to op.

>>2924640
>>2924630

THE PROPHECY IS COMPLETE

>>2924644
Look I know you're moopco because he's the only one to ever mention agno
Maybe if you were less bloody autistic...

>>2924646
So which one are you, agno or isi?

>>2924651
Just shut up and go away, you only ever try and upset people on here.

>>2924651
I'm Kevin buddy.

>>2924653

Moopco did nothing wrong. He only shits isi threads, which are on themselves troll threads if you haven't noticed, so nothing has been lost.

>>2924653
Agno then, lol

>>2924654
And I'm Sophie Towlson-Kirkland, pleasure to meet your acquaintance ^.^

>>2924657
Doxxing.

Classy.

>>2924661
Doxxing who?

>>2924663
Well there's only one person in the world with that name, which has never been uttered on 4chan before.

>>2924661
>Nah isi, i can troll you plenty good without resorting to buzzwords and insults. All i need do is pick apart how bad you are at this hobby.
>d-doxxed, t-trigger
Guess what though? Only one of us has correctly guessed the others identity.

>>2924655
He's not exactly shitting on it, he offered c&c and the reasons for it. Isi shat on her thread when she tried to imply the image couldn't have been improved technically, then refused to answer a basic question because she knew she was wrong.

>>2924671
Classic goalposts moving. Do you have any self awareness moopco?

>>2924672
at least put your trip back on

>>2924672
We're back at the original goalposts, would the side of that tractor be cleaner if it was shot at +2 ev

>>2924657
Who dis semen demon

>>2924675
No because of flare. Reframing would be necessary to save shadow detail.
This is why you're so recognizable. She did address you. You just only take in the answers you expect which is natural for someone with your mental health.

>>2924678
Flare doesn't add noise and block shadows.
Which is the issue on the tractor. (im not sure if your familiar with how the dr modes work on fuji, but in using them it underexposes then pushes shadows, exacerbating issues with shadowy areas)

And flare would have been reduced if she took my other suggestion of stopping down.

>>2924681
>im not sure if your familiar with how the dr modes work on fuji, but in using them it underexposes then pushes shadows, exacerbating issues with shadowy areas
I'm not sure you understand either. It underexposed by using a lower iso value. On an isoless sensor.
Those are washed out shadows and contrast lost via flare. Noise is not an issue and it's preposterous to claim to see it at the posted size you foolish yokel.

>>2924681
Did it occur to you that isi doesn't want to polish snapshits in delusion like yourself? She obviously doesn't put equal effort into all photos and that's a sane perspective.
Your obsession is not lol

>>2924684
>isoless sensor.

what is this meme. whatever trick the camera used to reveal the shadows its shit because it looks full of noise. so this meme DR mode is nothing but in camera pp? gross shit.

>>2924686
That's because she's clearly metering to keep the sky from blowing out while pushing for an extremely wide dynamic range from a jpeg, which involves different shooting parameters than if you want to work with the raw file.
That's what moopco seems not to understand. The intent of the shooting format. It's not his fault though.

>>2924657
>Sophie Towlson-Kirkland
Oh so you're the bitch with the cunt attitude who calls people idiots for not knowing the minute differences between a "forest" and "woodland" lmao

>>2924689
>That's because she's clearly metering to keep the sky from blowing out while pushing for an extremely wide dynamic range from a jpeg, which involves different shooting parameters than if you want to work with the raw file.
i dont care, sounds like a stupid way of saying "on camera jpeg rape".

>That's what moopco seems not to understand. The intent of the shooting format.
the intent means nothing if the result looks like shit, and that is the case.

>>2924694
>i dont care, sounds like a stupid way of saying "on camera jpeg rape".
Sounds like you're the ubiquitous newfag that thinks they're technical master but really they're stuck to a strict ruleset mentality that slows them down to the point of creative attrition.
You probably don't even believe in getting it right in camera.

>>2924693
"Tim is a fellow Bristol-based photographer, and the person who pushed me to invest more time into my photography. Before I met Tim, I was intimidated by the art-form for which I had once held so much love. I had been put off entire systems due to the ridicule I faced when I needed help. Tim does not deride questions, and he does not pander to anxiety; rather, he relishes the opportunity to share his knowledge with people who are genuinely motivated to learn, and finds joy in seeing confidence emerge where previously there was total fear."

TOP KEK

File: noise.jpg (28KB, 301x226px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 301x226px

>>2924684
>Noise is not an issue and it's preposterous to claim to see it at the posted size you foolish yokel

see crop attached, definitely no loss of detail there due to noise and lack of colour information.

>>2924686
It just means that a shot underexposed by 2 stops at base iso (for this example 100), then pushed, should look the same as if the shot was
taken at iso 400 in the first place.

>>2924691
No, that's just OP stalking someone that makes fun of their photos and posting their partners name.

It's probably a new low for /p

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:09:14 11:35:26
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	301
Image Height	226

>>2924701
>see crop attached, definitely no loss of detail there due to noise and lack of colour information.
The only loss of detail I see is due to the flare covering the trailer. The "noise" just looks like the typical Fuji grain effect.

Are you actually autistic outside of the 4chan meaning of the word? I feel like you must be

>>2924702
>The "noise" just looks like the typical Fuji grain effect

multiplefacepalms.jpeg

>>2924701
>No, that's just OP stalking someone that makes fun of their photos
>makes fun
>aka shitposts
So you admit to shitposting an isi thread and are now mad because she retaliated?

>>2924706
>multiplefacepalms.jpeg
It helps to know what you're talking about
http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/x/fujifilm_x_pro2/features/

"Grain Effect

The FUJIFILM X-Pro2 has the ability to reproduce graininess typically unique to film-based images. There are two strengths: Strong or Weak, which can be combined with each of the different Film Simulation modes. The effects are also possible through in-camera RAW development."

>>2924657

Why saying OP is a bitter cat lady that will never be able to have kids because her ovaries are vessels full of tumors warrants immediate post deletion and ban, and this doxxing post is still up?

DO YOUR JOB MODS.

>>2924708
moopco kinda proved his point though didn't he?

>>2924708
just your old fashioned "moopco starts aggressing and then gets blown the fuck out" exchange, just like old times!

Nice little SJW you found there Moopco, very devious in that she can't break up with you without holding herself accountable for crimes against the differently abled.

>>2924702
>The "noise" just looks like the typical Fuji grain effect.
what the fuck hahahahahaha stop brandfagging it makes you seem worse than usual

>>2924709
That would explain why the sky has little to no grain and the shadows look like a brown palette lite-brite

>>2924715
Your revulsion to a little noise in your photos would be explained by the fact that you're a millenial that's never seen a photo presented off of a backlit computer screen

>>2924712
I only see one person getting blown the fuck out.
It's not moopco.

>>2924716
So your rescinding your statement about it being grain? it's noise now?

Wow, that one didn't take long! Your learning.

>>2924718
You aren't, though. I seem to recall isi correcting you on your/you're continuously more than a year ago, and you're still mixing them up.
Some concepts are just too difficult for high functioning spergs.

>41 posters
>200 posts
>44 posters
>227 posts
Ah, looks like moopco has found the thread

>ITT: Moopco argues with himself while pretending to be isi pretending to be anon while doxxing his own girlfriend to humblebrag about finding someone that can tolerate his presence
lol what a read

>>2924724
>>2924726

Mad much?

>>2924724
>>2924726
>isi attempts to call out moopco for some closure
you're the least self aware human being on this board

>>2924728
>moopco swings defiantly at ghosts in the air once more before falling to the ground, collapsed and defeated, plastic sony camera broken in hand
>brexit...vote...won

>>2924728
>poopco responds with hypocrisy

File: noobs.jpg (309KB, 1776x1184px) Image search: [Google]

309KB, 1776x1184px

>>2924731
>>2924730
Lol,

Noobs.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:09:14 12:16:33
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1776
Image Height	1184