ɟoʇo nd

File: FOTO0601.jpg (450KB, 900x617px) Image search: [Google]

450KB, 900x617px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: FOTO0603.jpg (389KB, 900x617px) Image search: [Google]

389KB, 900x617px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: FOTO0600.jpg (468KB, 617x900px) Image search: [Google]

468KB, 617x900px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>2927685
Fuck off you dickhead, jsut like you did at the end of your last thread when it was brought up how much of an abhorrent cunt you are.

File: FOTO0605.jpg (466KB, 617x900px) Image search: [Google]

466KB, 617x900px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: FOTO0693.jpg (214KB, 617x900px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 617x900px

>>2927689

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: FOTO0694.jpg (211KB, 617x900px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 617x900px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: FOTO0860.jpg (210KB, 900x617px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 900x617px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: FOTO0861.jpg (202KB, 900x617px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 900x617px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: FOTO0870.jpg (229KB, 900x617px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 900x617px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>2927685
What's your setup OP?

File: FOTO0879.jpg (136KB, 900x617px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 900x617px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: FOTO0895.jpg (409KB, 617x900px) Image search: [Google]

409KB, 617x900px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>2927697

who cares? its all shit.

File: FOTO0896.jpg (363KB, 617x900px) Image search: [Google]

363KB, 617x900px

>>2927697
Fujifilm Xpro2, 18mm f2

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: FOTO0897.jpg (420KB, 900x617px) Image search: [Google]

420KB, 900x617px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>2927695
>>2927696

Did you use tripod here?

File: FOTO0900.jpg (326KB, 900x617px) Image search: [Google]

326KB, 900x617px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: FOTO0903.jpg (365KB, 900x617px) Image search: [Google]

365KB, 900x617px

>>2927704
nope

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: FOTO0904.jpg (201KB, 900x617px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 900x617px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

lmao

I dont get these photos. Is there an underlying theme I'm missing?

They're not particularly nice to look at, and none of them have a discernible subject.

>>2927719
>none of them have a discernible subject.
that's inaccurate, do you not look at photobooks?

>>2927721
Obviously the statement was exaggerated but at least 3/4 of them don't

>>2927725
I dont see a single one without a subject
Subtlety is lost on some I suppose.

File: why.jpg (496KB, 900x617px) Image search: [Google]

496KB, 900x617px

>>2927703

[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	2016:09:18 09:51:57
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	900
Image Height	617

>>2927689
>>2927700
>>2927717
>5 posters

>>2927726

>>2927688
>subject

>>2927728
>autism

>>2927729
>I dont understand landscapes as subjects
judging by the filenames she uploaded them out of order explicitly to upload >>2927688
and >>2927690 together.
That might be a hint.

I really like the tones of these photos.

>>2927734
anon found the subject! :D

Oh man, all these negative responses and the IP count just doesn't want to go up.

>>2927728
only 5 posts that aren't isi so far in the thread...

Red channel's not blown, so that's something.

>>2927727
Your monitor is trash

>>2927873
>Le epic bad monitor meme

>>2927873
His edit is miles better than isi's murky dull looking shot.

>>2927882
>murky
Lol here's your you

the artist formerly known as isi

>>2927882
No, your monitor just lacks in color fidelity, which makes exceedingly tonal stuff like this simply look desaturated to you. That edit is oversaturated and looks very unnatural on a properly color-calibrated monitor.

>>2927937

>>2927876

>>2927945
This isn't a known meme. If you keep hearing this when you edit peoples photos, maybe theres a reason.

>>2927685
Please stop

>>2927949
"ur monitor is le bad, dat y u don understan MUH ART" is pretty standard isi meme

most of your shots have no subject, it's like you're shooting into the void

>>2927690
stop, this is terrible, what did you think you were shooting?

>>2927691
hipster trash

>>2927726
>makes shit
>doesn't even know what he's shooting
>Subtlety is lost on some I suppose.
pretentious hipster confirmed

>>2927975
>most of your shots have no subject, it's like you're shooting into the void
What do you think defines a subject, anon?

>rest of your reply
Nevermind, you have nothing of value to communicate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwmZZZoU_gs

File: swamp thing.jpg (274KB, 900x617px) Image search: [Google]

274KB, 900x617px

LEAVE ISI ALONE!!!!!!

>>2927980
Hahaha, these keep getting better

>>2927982
Cheers big ears.

>>2927978
>you have nothing of value to communicate.
hahaha, well said, you took words right out of my mouth

>>2927982
>Hahaha, these keep getting better

you are so fake.

>>2927727
actually really like this edit

the yellow tops of the plants really pop now

File: FOTO4179.jpg (358KB, 900x617px) Image search: [Google]

358KB, 900x617px

>>2927996
Why's that, anonymous?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: FOTO4078.jpg (474KB, 900x617px) Image search: [Google]

474KB, 900x617px

>>2927997
K e n n e t h

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>2928002
real nice light

Nice photos ISI, but you lack two things from them. A subject (or at least punctuation) and talent.
You definitely have the gear for it, I bet you made daddy feel real good for it.

>>2928002

I'd frame that.

>>2928037
why? its garbage
wheres the subject? you cant even tell because everything is in focus because op doesnt know how to isolate a subject

>>2928043

>can't see the forest for the trees

>>2928043
The subject (and the anti-subject, I guess) fill the entire frame.
It's light or the lack thereof.
:^)

>>2928051
You're an idiot.

>>2928054

>everything is in focus

You see all the depth of space and light? The entire scene? That is the subject... and you can tell it's the subject, because it's all in focus. (Shocking, right?)

I find these kinds of shots are most suitable for framing, because the whole frame is used, and anyone looking at it has no trouble knowing what they are looking at, and why. Except for you, apparently.

File: FOTO0882.jpg (211KB, 900x617px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 900x617px

>>2928054
You're a kidiot.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

I had no idea the only difference between a professional photo and an amateur photo, was simply a white border around the image. Thanks OP, going to update my Facebook bio to include that I am a Photographer now. Thanks!

>>2928087
Photographers can never be professionals, it is etymologically impossible.

>>2928088

>that feeling when you and james finally agree on something

when we getting hitched, hon? i can't cope with this heart so aflutter.

>>2927719
>>2927729
>>2927975
>>2928031
>>2928043
>no subject
It's cute how babby disregards things such as light, texture, patterns and colour as subjects.

File: 1366341569705.jpg (552KB, 800x1200px) Image search: [Google]

552KB, 800x1200px

>>2928216
>light, texture, patterns and colour as subjects.

we all like those things. when done right, obviously. unlike this whole thread.

>>2928061
Cool concept.

>>2928219
You going to post an example of it done right

>>2928219
this is something you'd be asked to take to demonstrate texture in a photo 101 class in the first week
I am not yanking your chain, that is just where your level of taste is

File: 0e3f6479134c76606e884b7ec1689e88.jpg (287KB, 1280x856px) Image search: [Google]

287KB, 1280x856px

>>2928222
>>2928223

mad? please keep going, i will too.

okay, laddy here mentioned color, here is color done right. dont you love it?

>>2928225
How is that color done right?

Would literally look better b&w. Collor is completely irrelevant to that photo

I don't even like isi but your examples are garbage

File: aaron-siskind-jerome-arizona.jpg (365KB, 956x1280px) Image search: [Google]

365KB, 956x1280px

>>2928230

i think you mentioned repetition too?

fair enough. here is a nice example im sure you will enjoy, as you did with the others.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2011:11:28 20:56:47
Comment	originally uploaded @ http://melisaki.tumblr.com

>>2928225
>mad?
lmao nice projection from the faggot shitposting every isi thread

>>2928236
what does this have to do with repetition? that's texture, dumbfuck

>>2928239

>implying the majority of /p/ doesn't roast isi on the reg for being a snotty cunt

File: 09Illuminance042.jpg (118KB, 750x749px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 750x749px

>>2928246
>that's texture

you fell for my clever ruse. its texture, but for first time in this thread, done right, isnt it?

now what else was mentioned, light? there you go.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2014:09:21 21:00:27
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1201
Image Height	1200

>>2928250
>snotty cunt
like...everyone else on the board?
>boys that hate women who act just like them
must have clicked on r9k on accident kek

>>2928250
>for being a snotty cunt
Oh you mean when the majority of /p/ comes to her threads with the one intention of shitpsoting, then get's BTFO when isi retaliates?

Here's a thought, maybe anon is the problem, and not isi???

>>2928252
oh, there's plenty of texture in this thread, just not texture as a singular subject. Compounded texture, tonality, and light.

>>2928253

Yeah, exactly like everyone else on the board. I get roasted all of the time. It's literally a part of being on fucking 4chan, man. It happens, retard. I just don't have a white knight echo chamber to rush to my defense, and neither do you, so our roasting goes unnoticed.

>>2928254

Maybe you're on the wrong website???

Y'all know that isi's got a boyfriend, right? Has she ever actually thanked any of ye brave lads for your chivalry?

File: la-dolce-vita-italy-1980s-22.jpg (51KB, 692x559px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 692x559px

>>2928257

they are dead images. they go nowhere. yes, they are photos, that have light and texture on them (LOL of course) but what for?

here is more tonality, composition and repetition. now you have a decent thread, i hope OP stops posting so you dont get distracted by dead photos again.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2014-09-18T18:33:18-04:00
Image Width	2560
Image Height	2069

>>2928266
>all these male tears
transition and take advantage of the white knights yourself then you whiney faggot

>>2927999
this one is good actually

>>2928088
>etymologically
jesus...

>>2928216
>hurr shooting at the ground is deep and subtle
>muh ground texture

I like how some /p/osters will unconditionally battle their critics instead of ever considering that maybe their random shitty shots could have more thought put into them

>>2928267
>this is considered good
>photographers complain about not being taken seriously as artists

>>2928294
>I like how some /p/osters will unconditionally battle their critics instead of ever considering that maybe their random shitty shots could have more thought put into them
Your error is thinking every photo can be a masterpiece. And its why you miss taking so many perfectly good photos. You fear boredom.
Millennials.

>>2928294
>>this is considered good
>>photographers complain about not being taken seriously as artists
by itself, no, in a series, potentially
and that's what's up with this thread too, and obviously with the photographer. she shoots this kind of stuff often enough to easily compile books of the content, and there is certainly a market for rural detritus.

>>2927937
>implying that consumer monitors aren't over saturated over bright as standard.

You're a joker.
Out of curiosity isi, what monitor and calibration tool do you use?

>>2927974
>implying quality of reproduction is unimportant to an artist.

So I'm guessing recording studios just grab a beko travel radio to listen to what's being recorded, right?

>>2928239
Hey, isi's not a faggot, haven't you heard, she has a boyfriend that's always away at war, so brave.

>>2928253
>you're mean to this one girl that's a cunt to everyone, therefore misogyny.
Cool, just so I'm aware, those that defend isi have a massive superiority complex because she's female and must be treated like a tiny china kitten. Well done isi, goooood isi.

>>2928254
>checks previous thread
>abandoned by isi when people turned on her for previous behaviour and asked her questions she couldn't answer

Lol. Maybe isi is the problem

>>2928297
Holy fuck, isi are you admitting that you regularly take sub-par photos. And no one in here fears boredom, they looked at your shots didn't they?

>>2928298
Books of sub standard photos of depressing trash,
Set up a kickstarter and lets see how many people want to see that

>50 or so more replies, poster count doesn't change, isi, get yourself another couple of mobile devices on different networks so you can sockpuppet more effectively.

>>2928305
And Moopco has awoken for the day.
Remember not to vaccinate your kids lest they turn out just so.

>>2928305
>>abandoned by isi when people turned on her for previous behaviour
That's...what? Who turned on who?
I assume she made a new thread because the other was near bump limit as they all tend to go quickly.

>>2928305
>abandoned by isi when people turned on her for previous behaviour and asked her questions she couldn't answer
>previous behaviour
There's your problem poopco, you hold a grudge longer than a teenage girl for fucks sake

>50 or so more replies, poster count doesn't change, isi, get yourself another couple of mobile devices on different networks so you can sockpuppet more effectively.
>coming from poopco
lmao that's rich

>>2928314
Didn't she make a girl break up with him or something like that though

>>2928317
No, she swatted another member of /p who was depressed. Attempted to doxx another members girlfriend. Sent messages to another members girlfriend saying he was stalking her.

She's fucked in the head.

>>2928307
Not moopco, he's not the only one happy to call out isi on being a cunt.

>>2928335
>No, she swatted another member of /p who was depressed.
That wasn't isi. The only thing she's ever done is post quotes from moopco superimposed over photos of him.

>>2928340
>damage control intensifies

>>2928340
Its common knowledge isi swatted him. This is pathetic.

>>2928354
It's not damage control when you've done no damage but simply tried to fan the flames of drama you clearly weren't around for.

Everyone knows which trip swatted another; and it wasn't isi

>>2928305
>so Im guessing recording studios just grab a beko travel radio to listen what's being recorded, right?

No. But if your recording upon playback requires a studio-level setup, and is completely inaudible on the travel radio, you might A) want to think over what the fuck you're actually trying to accomplish B) stop broadcasting your recording over the radio and leave it for the studio environment only, the way you intended, instead of being angry at the radio listeners for not understanding your greatness.

>>2928358
>falling for my bait

Recording studios actually use multiple different setups, 99% of the time yamaha ns10's are used as an emulator of shit hifis/car radios/etc as that's where the music is likely to be listened from.

However the ns10's are used more like a final check, the vast majority of the work will be done on very high quality, reference speakers, such as classic celestions.

The point is they sound good on all equipment because you've worked from the top down. Unlike if you mastered on ns10's first you will probably have a shit ton of sibilance and wooly undefined bass. Do your color on a good, calibrated monitor, then check it on a cheap mobile device, if it looks good on both, it will look good to most. This is clearly not the case with isi's shots where there is always more than one person commenting on the dull, flat colors.

>>2928356

>Everyone knows which trip swatted another; and it wasn't isi

I was in irc at the time, I'm well aware of your role. Denial won't erase your guilt you weirdo freak, no wonder you live in the middle of bumfuck nowhere with just your family.

>>2928365
Then why is isi friends with the guy that got swatted?

>>2928367
She's not.

>>2928340
Why are you posting about things you clearly have no clue about?

Oh wait, this is 4chan after all.

>>2928340
>The only thing she's ever done
And continually shitpost on /p/ just to stir up anger. Anybody who ever spent any time in IRC knows that. This is all just a game to her.

File: 1474202029432.jpg (410KB, 900x617px) Image search: [Google]

410KB, 900x617px

>>2927727
Fuck off, nigger. If anything, the photo needs more isi.

>>2928335
>No, she swatted another member of /p who was depressed. Attempted to doxx another members girlfriend. Sent messages to another members girlfriend saying he was stalking her.

I can see her doing that.

>>2928466

you are doing it wrong, rookie. you needed to pull a narrow curve downwards on the mid tones, that way you get grey, flat and shitty mid tones. they are not dark photos, they are dull.

File: whyy.jpg (543KB, 900x617px) Image search: [Google]

543KB, 900x617px

>>2927685

[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	2016:09:19 11:55:53
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	900
Image Height	617

File: 1474202029432.jpg (329KB, 900x617px) Image search: [Google]

329KB, 900x617px

>>2928504
Shit. I'm sorry. I applied a reverse s-curve to really fuck up the contrast in the mid tones, and then I lowered the white point a bit and added some heavy, lopsided vignette.

Is this getting closer? I'm new to isi'ing, so I'm willing to take some tough critique.

>>2928384
>this is all just a game to her
And what is it to you?

>>2928484
She didn't however. Only newfags believe this.

Itt: anon reveals his amateur taste
>too flattttt wahhhhh

>>2928507
you overcooked it

>>2928535
t. mad.

>>2928544
t. Newfag

File: hifi.jpg (329KB, 900x617px) Image search: [Google]

329KB, 900x617px

>>2928527

this is how you do it.

[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	2016:09:19 12:40:12
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	900
Image Height	617

>>2928530
Serious business.

>>2928546
t. cucked.

>>2928547
That's close, but it's too bright overall. When you dulled out the contrast, you brought up the shadows too much. If you're going to isi, it's got to be dull *and* dark simultaneously.

>>2928535
Trip on , Jamie.

>>2928551
t. this is a fun meme!

>>2927695
>>2927696
>>2927698

holy noisy crap.

is this a ricohbro thread?

>>2928563
What's an aesthetic? I thought that word meant pastel colors and 90s memorabilia

>>2928563
>thinks that noise isn't intentional

:^p

>>2928547
>>2928507
>destroying op's lovely greens and yellows like this
Plebby contrast babbys

>>2928571
>>2928574

its only an aesthetic when it looks good, otherwise is amateur hour. ricoh looks good. this looks like shit.

>>2928585
One of these days, perhaps, you might wake up an realize that words like "good" and "shit" aren't a description or analysis of anything other than your subjective opinion.

I wouldn't count on it, though.

>>2928592
>homeschooled redneck thinks "good" and "bad" doesnt exist

not your fault, i guess.

>>2928600
>homeschooled
What

>>2928616
Love ya, Sugar. Hope the injury's all fixed up by now.

>>2928606
Read: introvert special snowflake daddy's little girl

>>2928618

Yup Im walkin fine, can actually climb into the back of the trailers now, but I have my co-driver do it for me anyway

>>2928619
but you explicitly said homeschooled, and I'm pretty sure she wasn't

>>2928622
Wasn't me but you don't have to be homeschooled to be an introvert special snowflake.
In kids it is cute but then it turns into an adult and becomes an annoying useless parasite.

>>2928634
I think you're projecting your own social ills onto a person on the internet that you've literally never met but I could potentially be wrong
probably not however, it's a safe bet

Wow this thread is petty. When did /p/ turn into this constant shit?

>>2928643

troll threads are always run into the ground.

>>2928647
>posting photos in clear sets = trolling
ok anon I think its time you turn off the aol

>>2928643
>being this new to /p/

File: nigelrific.gif (1MB, 620x349px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 620x349px

>>2928650
>believing that isi posts serious sets for serious discussion

>>2928636
I know a few of these IRL. One is family member.
It just irks me how some people are totally fine being lazy parasites all their life and why I need to spend my hard earned money on a perfectly fit 23yr old who does fuckall all day.
He is the shame of the family but his mom doesn't do the Talk with him.
Isi is the same, I can see all the telltale signs.

File: 659872345970.jpg (326KB, 900x617px) Image search: [Google]

326KB, 900x617px

>>2928655
If you're going to meme in an isi thread, you better step up your game.

>>2928658
Lol undiagnosed mental disorders

>>2928574
>claims bokeh is a meme but noise isn't

nah senpai, that sounds like you trying to justify being poor and having bad equipment as an aesthetic choice.

File: 3567493329500431615_n.jpg (106KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 960x960px

>>2928571
>What's an aesthetic?

pic related is an aesthetic. a well done one at that.

>>2927727
I actually really like this edit.

>>2928689
>isi
>bad equipment
lol

>>2928697
>crop camera
>shitty old lenses
>no monitor
>no spyder
>can't take camera out of iso 800

it's a real good equipment, friend :)

>>2928693
>no white border
Do you even know how to aesthetic?

>>2928700
Crop camera that costs more than a 5D.
18mm f2 isn't a vintage lens.
>no monitor, no spyder
>believing she doesn't have a fucking monitor because she doesn't answer your gearfag questions
top lol
>can't take camera out of iso 800
>some of these photos are obviously like iso 52000
You're a real informed poster, friend :)

>replies dropped from 154 to 151, Isi begins the purge of all the shitposting she's done so far.

File: stan_nose_pinch.png (214KB, 432x458px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 432x458px

>>2928571
>What's an aesthetic?

Typical fucking /p/

In this sense it means the reasoning behind a work of art - the propositions which form the foundation of the piece.

The early 90s computer aesthetic has become quite popular recently - with its stunted graphics and strange neon compositions. I dont know why it has been so strongly associated with the word "aesthetic" - its like looking at a period in literature and calling it "AXIOLOGY".

>>2928707
Jesus Burt what the fuck is sarcasm while you're at it?

>>2928706
>newfag thinks you can delete posts more than an hour old
lol

>>2928704
the 18mm isn't vintage, but lets see what the reviews say...
>I don't have a lot to say about this lens because, well, it's fairly simple and basic. It is the smallest of the Fujinon lenses, so if you're looking for a compact mirrorless system and don't mind the 28mm equivalent focal length, this is probably your best choice. I wish the corners were a little better behaved, but they're not terrible wide open, and very usable stopped down. That said, a Coolpix A is a better choice if that's all you want (small APS sensor camera with 28mm equivalent lens).

As you can probably tell, I have a hard time getting excited about this lens. It's basic, it's an okay performer for its price, but there really isn't anything special about it. If you need 28mm equivalent at f/2 (and especially at f/2.8 or f/4), then this is your lens.

Oh, ok then.

>Crop camera that costs more than a 5D.
xpro2 - 1400
5diii - 2300
Nope.
Or were you referring to a 12 year old body...
Either way, no camera using the sensor in the xpro2 performs up to the standard of any current full frame camera, no matter what way you look at it.

Also, investing in bodies instead of glass meme.

>You're a real informed poster, friend :)
>buying a camera that excels at native iso
>bumping iso by minimum of 2 stops to remove any pros from using that body

>>2928713
>Either way, no camera using the sensor in the xpro2 performs up to the standard of any current full frame camera, no matter what way you look at it.

We all can notice that. The images in this thread clearly show that its a camera just barely iphone quality tier. Now, why fujicucks insist on using such mediocre cameras? Are the branding and consumer fidelization strategies so persuasive they cant get better options because it hurts them internally?

>>2928713
>As you can probably tell, I have a hard time getting excited about this lens. It's basic
No, you clueless gearfag. It is you that is basic here.

>>2928718
>The images in this thread clearly show that its a camera just barely iphone quality tier.
>>2927686
if you think a phone can handle the dynamic range all of those swamp photos have then I have nothing else to say to you except welcome to /p/
>>2927686

>>2928722

ever been to a zx thread?

>>2928724
Yes, and almost all of his photos in his last thread involved either clipped skies, or bloom, or various other issues tied to dynamic range.
if zx bought an xpro2 it would be a great improvement.

File: loss for words.gif (2MB, 320x180px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x180px

>>2928720
>you're a gearfag
>because you don't know why this
>gear
>is so great

Wut?

>>2928713
>Also, investing in bodies instead of glass meme.
What is it like to be so insecure in your own ways and stuck to the meme path
do you hate your own photography?

>>2928731
No, you're a gearfag because you describe lenses with how "excited" they make you, or how "basic" they are
You're a gearfag because gear is the starting point for everything you say.
Sorry if you were confused!

>>2928733
>you're
You don't really know how this whole internet thing works, do you?

>>2928735
You're not old enough to be using this website, are you?

>>2928735
>>2928745

wow quality discussion guys.

>>2928758
I'm glad you posted, to bring up sophistication in this thread. It was really starting to slip, but you really righted this ship.

>>2928766

glad to help, buddy. now please keep having this high caliber photography argument, im all eyes.

>>2928722
>iphone does 12 stops of dynamic range at base iso.
>Fuji sensor does 11.5 stops of dynamic range at iso 800

So, in answer to your question, no, an iphone has more dynamic range than isi's photos.

>>2928720
That's from the dudes review, faggot, it just dropped the green text as there's a page break in the text I didn't edit out.

>>2928732
What's not meme about taking out a loan to buy a camera body that will be outdated before it's paid off when good glass lasts a lifetime.

>>2928733
Talking to the wrong guy homes, and you're quoting a review, no-one off here.

>>2928770
Cool. Do you want me to argue about the white borders? Or perhaps should I use the fun new meme A E S T H E T I C. Or, perhaps, should I talk about how much of a cunt isi is?

I want to make sure you're entertained.

>>2928795
>review
filtered

>What's not meme about taking out a loan to buy a camera body that will be outdated before it's paid off when good glass lasts a lifetime.
lol what are you talking about you spaz

>>2928795

Exactly how poor are you?

>>2928795
>>iphone does 12 stops of dynamic range at base iso.
>>Fuji sensor does 11.5 stops of dynamic range at iso 800
Now tell me how much dynamic range iso 200 pushed to iso 800 in the shadows has on the Fuji, because that's what you're actually looking at, not iso 800.

>being this argumentative with this little technical knowledge
bet you don't even know how to measure DR, just quote numbers you once read on 4chan. bottom keks.

>>2928795
>>iphone does 12 stops of dynamic range at base iso.
>>Fuji sensor does 11.5 stops of dynamic range at iso 800
Actually, the Xpro2 has 14 stops at base iso 200, and at iso 800 expanded DR settings it would have around 16.
And this is talking about jpegs. Remember. OPs photos are jpegs.

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%205D%20Mark%20III,Fujifilm%20X-E1,Fujifilm%20X-E2,Fujifilm%20X-Pro1,Fujifilm%20X-T1

I dislike isi personally a great deal, we've clashed a lot in the past, but it is impossible to suggest she doesn't understand the technical side of photography anymore. Anyone that can master a jpeg based workflow this well does.

>>2928843
>iso 200 pushed to iso 800
>pushed iso
>on a digital camera

and you wonder why no one takes digifags seriously.

>>2928845
>master a jpeg based workflow

they all look garbage, what are you trying to say really.

>>2928852
The fact that you don't take this seriously is why film users aren't taken seriously. Digital pushes far more cleanly than film now. And it has for the past 8 years.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5LFfQADiWI

>>2928856
>they all look garbage
Found another badly calibrated monitor. When did /p/ become so basic?

File: FOTO9228.jpg (119KB, 900x617px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 900x617px

Well my thread sure did go the way of the sadboi. Hello to the usual cast.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>2928867

Hello cat lady.

>>2928858
>When did /p/ become so basic?

when thirsty virgins started praising some 4/10's snapshits.

>>2928872
what does this thread have to do with aang??

>>2928845
I only see 10 stops of dr at base iso according to ze chart.

What am I missing anon?

>>2928897
the part where thats an xpro1, not an xpro2

>>2928900
>>2928897
>>2928877
>>2928872
>>2928868
> being this ass hungry
i have a bf

>>2928905

whiteknights obliterated without recovery.

>>2928905
>pretending to be isis
>not capitalizing "I"
nope

>>2928900
Err yeah m8, now add xpro2 - no difference

>>2928897
The part where it's a comparative against another camera without a control. All this chart can actually tell us is which cameras have more dynamic range than others, not how much they actually have.

Do you know what a stop wedge is?

>>2928910
>pretending
>being this delusional
sell your rabal anon, buy a xpro2, you dont need to shoot raw, film is the equivalent

>>2928915
post timestamped xpro2 if real isi

>>2928915
>sell your rabal anon, buy a xpro2, you dont need to shoot raw, film is the equivalent
>being mad that someone is happy with the jpeg quality of a fuji
well this is very obviously an actual rabal owner projecting, you heard it here first

>>2928930
>implying I gearfag
dont be mad anon :^)

File: FOTO0906.jpg (138KB, 900x617px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 900x617px

>>2928930
Now let's not be cruel, Rebels are very useful. I still use mine to this day!

>>2928934
aren't you a joker

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>2928939
canon crop is shit objectively, sell it

>>2928939
>destroying a perfectly good camera instead of using it
fuck you you entitled daddys princess cunt

>>2928952
Legend has it the shutter mechanism gave out after 6666666 actuations, the final image being a tree stump in the shape of a human person.

>>2928952
>perfectly good
>canon
>xxxD series
>daddys
>princess

>>2928697

>Fuji milc and 18 f2
>digilol
>good equipment

>>2928704

>costs more than a 5d
>implying it's better than a 5d

>>2928958
Shut the fuck up, Sugar, you're going bald waiting to take your first good photo.

>>2928906

#rekt

>>2928959

All the classic greats were bald with few exceptions. Most of them had beards too js

File: image.jpg (135KB, 500x635px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 500x635px

ITT

[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	500
Image Height	635
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2928963

FATALITY

>>2928963
what did isi mean by this

>>2928958
>>2928960
>>2928961
>>2928966
Have you just got to a truck stop and forgot to say decaf?

File: image.jpg (130KB, 600x499px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 600x499px

OP

[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	600
Image Height	499
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2928970

>implying I drink the brown jew

I have got to be the only truck driver that doesn't drink coffee

>>2928974
Carob soya milkshake?

>>2928973
pls explain your memes to those of us that arent gay for art

>>2928963
>>2928973

wow this really made me rumiate.

>>2928978
They're from dante's inferno

Aside from that I'm not sure what the dude means by it

>>2928981
He's doing his bit to 404 the thread.

>>2928981

it means that he is a very sophisticated whiteknight.

This board is shit, and it's not because of trips.

>>2928986
>the divine comedy
>sophisticated

>>2928986
>very sophisticated
are you from Alabamy too

>>2928988

thank you for helping us getting a little closer to 404!

>>2928991
>not realizing that 404ing isi threads just makes isi threads take up more of the board
You know she's going to start another one, she takes more photos in a week than most of /p/ does all year.
Good job, man.

>>2928991
Just because the thread has hit bump limit doesn't mean it will 404 faster

That being said I'm surprised none of you salty sailors have decided to spam new threads to try to slide isi threads right after they hit bump limit

>>2928989

yes im rural and dumb lmao.

Hey you guys, stop picking on isi. I like isi fotos and threads and it always ends up like this.

Go and make your own thread to be mean in.

>>2928995
that would involve them needing photos to post, OC photos or she might report them for breaking the rules

File: I love you isi.jpg (33KB, 1176x264px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 1176x264px

>>2929004
Good point

>>2929003

fuck off

>>2929003
>it always ends up like this.

im pretty sure she enjoys the massive bukkakes over her threads each time they happen. she is a girl after all.

>>2929007
ok i'll go and be mean in your thread and see how you like it

>>2928845
>Anyone that can master a jpeg based workflow this well does.
That's not really that big of a deal. Hell, it actually simplifies a lot of your post work.

>>2929009
>ok i'll go and be mean in your thread and see how you like it

lmaooooooooooo how new r u you fucking cuck.

Sugar only gets stronger with bullying. he is a fat fucking retard, but thats what happens.

I could actually see a lot of this being presented in book form. Reminds me of Excerpts From Silver Meadows by Todd Hido.

>>2929010
It is a big deal. Getting jpegs right is a lot more demanding than getting raw files right. If you argue this you are literally a retard.
It simplifies your workflow of course because there is no workflow outside of the camera except for cropping. But it also requires more technical ability from the photographer for exactly the same reason shooting film does.

>>2929012
>todd hido
Watch out, isi will make a joke about name dropping, then one of her white knights will jump on thinking it was serious and seriously attempt to insult you for knowing hido and recognizing similarities.

>>2929013
Nope

Seriously, getting a good exposure isn't voodoo magic.

>>2929012
>Reminds me of Excerpts From Silver Meadows by Todd Hido.

thats quite an amount of imagination you have there.

>>2929016
Limiting yourself from excessive post production and turd polishing and only seeking photos for what they are and not what you can make them into requires quite a degree more discipline than taking photos in spring and changing the green foliage to orange for Tumblr likes.

The amount of cognitive dissonance on this board really tickles me. Filmfags like film because they can get the look they want without needing to understand working with color, but then turn around and get mad at jpeg shooters who are their digital equivalent. I guess its because the results are so much better.

>>2929021
>Filmfags like film because they can get the look they want without needing to understand working with color

citation needed

>>2929022
>he can't even do the [citation needed] meme right
just fucking gb2leddit you dont belong here

>>2929025
>REEEEEEEEEEE

lmao why so salty.

>>2929032
how do you interpret me as being any saltier than you when youre shitposting a thread because youre salty at the trip
lmao

>>2929021
I love how you're pretending that there's no skill involved in post processing. Even if you assume someone is just using presets, then again we're back to the point that getting a good exposure isn't dark mysterious art requiring baby sacrifices or calculus.


>cognitive dissonance
There's more than one person who posts on /p/. If shooting jpg gets her the results she wants and the workflow she prefers, good for her. That she has found such isn't that special though. What is telling though is that your skills are so low that you think it is special. That isn't a slight against isi either. Any competent photographer should be able to get the results she gets with the gear she uses in the conditions she shoots. It's literally basic competency.

The aesthetics of her choices are a different topic, but again, there is no voodoo magic to getting a good exposure. Just learn how your camera and it's meter works.

>>2929075
>I love how you're pretending that there's no skill involved in post processing.
There isn't. Only knowledge.
You need more knowledge to work with the same freedom in a more confined system (i.e. jpegs)

Raw processing on this board is very clearly 90% about polishing turds and erasing your mistakes, not about fulfilling a creative vision.

I won't ask you to prove me wrong with your own photos because I don't like putting people on the spot like that. I know it's stressful.

>woman posts photos on photography board
>some of them are breddy gud :DDDDDDDD
>entire board shits itself to death

>>2929079
I don't think you know what "skill" actually means.

>on this board
I never claimed that this board was chock full of competent photographers.

>I won't ask you to prove me wrong with your own photos.

You obviously don't know how statistics work either.

>something about more restrictions being harder to work with

Actually, for many people, limitations are helpful to the creative process. Too much latitude becomes paralyzing.

But please, keep trying to convince people getting good exposures is difficult.

>>2929081
>Actually, for many people, limitations are helpful to the creative process. Too much latitude becomes paralyzing.
Did you actually just argue with me by saying the exact same thing I just said?
Holy bumblefuck.

>>2929085
Not by a long shot. You're just so damn stupid you interpret it that way.

>>2929081
You're right anon, I prefer to only populate my mind with my own experiences instead of getting carried away in defending or assaulting positions based on "statistics" or "conventional wisdom"

We all find our place in the world in different ways. Some people just want to fill their slated role, you know?

>>2929086
No, man, you definitely did exactly what he accused you of;

Him:
>You need more knowledge to work with the same freedom in a more confined system (i.e. jpegs)
You:
>Actually, for many people, limitations are helpful to the creative process. Too much latitude becomes paralyzing.

Unless you think that raw is the more confined system...are you a waterhead anon?

>>2929087
Oh Lord...you actually think that's biting and witty?!

Buddy, life is going to be painful for you.

>>2929091
Looks like it bit you pretty hard, yeah.

>>2929090
You're bad at language if you think those are even kissing cousins.

>>2929094
Explain the difference without making yourself look like a bigger moron.
I believe in you.

>>2929094
>>2929097
>20 minutes later
BTFO
T
F
O

>>2929101

>20 minutes later

Still autistic... both of you.

isi threads always bring the best out of /p/

>>2929013
>Getting jpegs right is a lot more demanding than getting raw files right. If you argue this you are literally a retard.

On what terms?

If you're talking exposure, well...that's stupid easy to nail with modern cameras.

If you're talking about color balance, contrast, sharpening etc., I'm not sure why it matters if you get that right in camera or in post, since they're pretty easy to manipulate after the fact. I'd rather do that kind of fine tuning on a big color calibrated display than on the back of a screen but that's just me.

Yeah there's not as much latitude and maybe some people like that kind of limitation. I like to discipline myself with my images too, but shooting in jpeg is not one of those ways.

>>2928987
underrated and the only valid comment ever on this board

>>2929080
>woman posts photos on photography board
>woman posts photos
>woman

after years and years of saying, you fuckers still don't get that isi is not a female.

>>2929013
>But it also requires more technical ability from the photographer for exactly the same reason shooting film does.

thanks, guy who has never developed or printed his film.

If you're saying that jpeg shooters are like the folks who drop their film off at 1-hour photo labs for a $7 pack of 4x6" glossies, then hell yeah you're right.

>>2929146
your memes are weak

>>2929157
just ask "her" :^)

>>2929141
>Yeah there's not as much latitude and maybe some people like that kind of limitation. I like to discipline myself with my images too, but shooting in jpeg is not one of those ways.
its not a real viable option to shoot raw+jpeg and do your raws in camera unless you have an xpro2. Its the only camera with a backscreen of its specs. The other Fujis are a lower resolution and much worse screen.

>>2929169
Ah, I thought we were talking about shooting jpeg in general as a form of creative limitation/challenge. And I thought we were still giving room to change the jpeg output settings, like the contrast and sharpness. I know Ken Rockwell does this and brags about it on his site all the time, so...

>>2929198
No, I'm talking about it as a general replacement for shooting raw as that's what OP has done. It has a sophisticated in-camera raw conversion system, and the back screen is perfectly calibrated to the sensor (the EVF is actually a little too blue I've heard)

When you can push a file 4 stops or pull it 3 in camera, can push and pull the shadows and highlights seperately (read: curves in a different UI), set color shifts, and start with a nicely color balanced film simulation in the first place, much of the raw workflow becomes obsolete unless you're doing heavy composite work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14Bww3u8L_0
Here is a video to demonstrate the power of the system.

>>2929202
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHvCkRTK4_g
I linked the wrong video

>>2929204
i shoot raw and then process in camera on my gr

>>2929227
Yes, there are a few cameras that can do it, but none to the level of the Xpro2/XT2 and other third generation Fuji cameras to come.

so what we've concluded is fuji is the pinnacle of snapshit cameras and currently hopeless for tethered or even untethered studio based photography. No wonder isi bought that camera.

>>2929233
>he thinks studio photography is the realm of high art
rofl

File: dsf8787.jpg (170KB, 1216x929px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 1216x929px

>>2928945
What's shit about canon crop?

A rabal at base iso outperforms an xpro2 at iso 800, has better lenses, better af, better battery and ergonomics, arguably a better jpeg engine. The old ccd models are especially good, if you want a ccd body.

>>2929013
>getting jpegs right
implying any of these look "right", they look like tommy the pinball wizard got his hands on nik effects.

>>2929021
>filmfags get the look without understanding colour
You've never shot film, or processed paper, you can make huge variations to your colour in the dark room.
Also film is A E S T H E T I C, isi's shots have an aesthetic, if she had greater control over her colour she could create some sort of pleasing colour palette, however she's not got past fucking with sliders, didn't do very good, then tried to make jpeg non meme and failed.
Can you name an artist apart from ken who uses jpegs?

>>2929075
>learn how to meter
No need, the evf shows a wysiwyg of the image with the jpeg settings. She just scrolls the shutter speed back and forth until it looks shit, petrified of blowing any whites.

>>2929079
>jpeg presets require more knowledge than being skilled at lr/ps
Lol, you keep believing that isi.

>>2929080
Yo ambush, these are considerably worse than your photos, you don't get to catch a break and you're not a massive cunt to everyone on the board. It's nothing to do with gender, loads of guys get shit flung at them.

>>2929169
>low voltage, thin screen of unknown specs and not calibrated
No, this is not a suitable environment to analyse photos, it's a quick preview and a way to chimp for sharpness.

>>2929228
If you have to not use a pc, sonys can wirelessly tether to a phone/tablet (which can have their screens calibrated, and the screens are of a much higher quality.)
So you can then edit your raws in your mobile image editing app in a colour controlled environment.

It's a shame as fuji cameras can produce really lovely tones if edited carefully. Pic related

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-E1
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.6.1 (Windows)
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	75 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:09:06 12:26:22
Exposure Time	1/250 sec
F-Number	f/1.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Brightness	2.7 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Spot
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2929242
>A rabal at base iso outperforms an xpro2 at iso 800, has better lenses, better af, better battery and ergonomics, arguably a better jpeg engine. The old ccd models are especially good, if you want a ccd body.
Jesus Sophie you really need to learn your camera information from someone other than an autistic manchild that wears ironic t-shirts.
And also how to focus on an eye.

>>2929242
>(which can have their screens calibrated, and the screens are of a much higher quality.)
>No, this is not a suitable environment to analyse photos, it's a quick preview and a way to chimp for sharpness.
Confirmed for never using an Xpro2.
Yes, I see your camera is an Xe1. Yes, the screen on that camera is completely shit and useless for anything.

isi knows how to shoot interesting subjects within a theme. this is what actual artistry is made of. not how much you've learned to work in the "digital darkroom"
How many masters do you think actually developed and edited their own photos? Your answer to this will reveal a lot.

>>2929243
keep your trip on when you shitpost, shows you don't hide behind anonymity. Secondly, I don't know who sophie is.

>inb4 i dont know myself
I'm not sophie

>>2929245
>How many masters do you think actually developed and edited their own photos?
Ansel Adams for film, JoeyL for digital, there is two of the many who do :^)

>>2929248
https://sophietowlson.wordpress.com/portfolio/bertie/ okay sophie
but I'm not isi, I'm Kevin

>>2929249
>Ansel Adams
>master
>of anything but marketing to tourists
absolute and utter lack of artistic knowledge, you probably watch a lot of youtube tutorials.

>>2929245
>How many masters do you think actually developed and edited their own photos?
lol tard, nearly every film photographer, most digi shooters depending on their projects and their preferences.

>>2929251
this sophie chick sucks

>>2929252
> being this retarded

File: 1471863961594.jpg (16KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 600x600px

>>2929252

>>2929253
>lol tard, nearly every film photographer, most digi shooters depending on their projects and their preferences.
I said masters, not hobbyists. If you're always shooting, you don't have time to do mechanical uncreative jobs like development.

>this sophie chick sucks
you be nice to moopco's main squeeze
https://sophietowlson.wordpress.com/portfolio/tim/

>>2929255
>/p/ has fallen so far that people think you're baiting when you say that ansel adams is the thomas kinkade of photography and contributed little to the art beyond technical manuals, and that most of his most famous compositions were photographic revisions of already existing paintings of the yellowstone landscapes
oy vey I can feel my heart valves paining

>>2929257
yes as >>2929249 this negroid mentioned, JoeyL.
Then there are youtube photographers like that bald english guy. You shouldn't "always" be shooting, thats retarded, a cook doesn't always cook, a write doesn't always keep writing, they always decorate/re-write/improve their shit, equivalently, photographers retouch.

>>2929259
you're still retarded lad

https://sophietowlson.wordpress.com/portfolio/elspeth-van-der-hole/
> Though she has faced adversity that would embitter even the most resilient of people, she has retained the most enchanting softness, and the fiercest determination of any person I have yet to meet
oh praise kek this stuff is comedy gold, who writes like that

>>2929261
>JoeyL
>master
lol lol lol
could you do me a favor and name 15 photographers you consider masters if joey l qualifies
thanks

This is by far the most shitflinging I've seen in any isi thread in every direction possible

>>2929261
>equivalently, photographers retouch.
So does OP. She does it in-camera instead of on her computer. That's been mentioned multiple times in the thread. But if you get a result thats where you want it straight out of the camera, why should you edit the raw file when it happens? Because a voice inside you tells you that its not 'real art' if you don't do it that way?

And you think OP is the one deluding themselves? HAHAHA

>>2929265
Well, for months the call was "IF ISI WOULD STOP TRIPFAGGING WE WOULD ALL STOP" but now she's just simply namefagging instead of tripfagging and, Cotton, I'll be honest, the field is wet with piss.

>>2929268
>How many masters do you think actually developed and edited their own photos?
I was answering that, what you just replied with was pretty irrelevant :^) unless you're saying that "masters" develop in-camera (^: for which I need not say anything for your name is isi.