/p/ finally died. People don't even fight each other anymore.

>>2963240

is that isi

>>2963244
As if she'd ever wear any kind of stockings/heels let alone do a semi-nude shooting at all.

Oh no, we won't argue over /dpreview/ tier shit anymore. Oh no, moopco revealed himself as the sony shitposter.

What do you want us to argue over? It's not like there's as many photo threads or interesting technical drama

>>2963257
>moopco revealed himself as the sony shitposter
Did he?

>>2963240
It's just like shitposters are confronted with single aggressive lines instead of well articulated counterpoints, which causes zero effort for the non-shitposters and is effective since the shitposts have obviously been disregarded. This will not be changed by further posts from shitposters.

Well the thing is, for me actually. Idk why, but everytime i make a thread asking for critique or feedback, whatever, i dont have any replies or some shit like that. I personaly think my pics is ok and isnt shit. When i see a thread with wriiten like ''snapshits'' or nothin written at all and look whos posting, there is always some shit going on when some known faggot makes thread on the other hand a random guy like me that no one knows doesnt get shit for anything and is ignored. I think this is why ppl leave this shithole, i even dont post anymore, just lurkin and seeing lots of gear threads and troll shits.
>fuck /p/ :_^)

>>2963287
>did he

No, moopco is on welfare, he couldn't be a shill.

>>2963320
So I guess your threads were just random shots *and* people didn't recognize you as some of the good guys on here. How'd you describe it?
I'm indeed one who responds with critique and hints, however, I need to be triggered, have the time and the inclination to do so. I also ignore people if their stuff pisses me off. My hint for now: Let the people recognize at least reasonable effort or intent to get their effort. It's up to you to get strangers to do you a favor.

>>2963320
Maybe your threads were just fucking boring.
We have quite high standards here, if you want a pretty sunset circle jerk this isn't the forum for you. This place is about as "fine art" as any online community gets.

There is a few people here who don't take or post photos, they just lurk and look for people to insult, if you don't like that, then you're not cut out for the world of fine art anyways.

Tldr; git gud or fuck off, please.

File: 053ca482887a2f733.gif (2MB, 300x196px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 300x196px

>>2963331
>We have quite high standards here

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

File: IMG_1202.jpg (213KB, 798x770px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 798x770px

>>2963331
>We have quite high standards here

AHAHAHAHAHAHA

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	798
Image Height	770
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2963332
>>2963337
faggots that take no photos, as per usual.

I bet you're the faggot that takes photos off p and posts them on reddit as his own, faggot.

>>2963339
PROJECTION CONFIRMED
AHAHAHAHA

>>2963339
>3 faggots in two sentences
Careful m8, you're starting to project your sexual orientation

>I bet you're the faggot that takes photos off p and posts them on reddit as his own, faggot.
Does this actually happen or are you just speculating?

>>2963339
>>2963344
>you're starting to project your sexual orientation
That means your gay

>>2963343
>>2963344
>>2963345
itt: rustled faggots

File: IMG_1085.png (62KB, 300x200px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 300x200px

>>2963339
>Faggots

E D G Y
D
G
Y

>>2963350
t. mad

File: 1469834812596.png (137KB, 526x436px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 526x436px

>>2963350
>im not mad YOU FAGGOTS ARE FUCKING MAD
>seriously though faggots i'm not mad ok

>>2963364

lmao this. he should really contemplate subside.

>>2963331
To a certain extend you have a point there. Having said this, you're exaggerating and an arrogant and rude stance while addressing memes leaves you childlike.
The other guy is an idiot for repeated shit-posting, however, he's triggered by your attitude and sadly to a certain extend he's right on calling you out.

Post more isi semi nudes :^)

File: sinkhole5.jpg (169KB, 573x381px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 573x381px

>>2963366

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS4 Macintosh
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	150 dpi
Vertical Resolution	150 dpi
Image Created	2016:11:12 09:35:56
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	573
Image Height	381

File: no.jpg (2MB, 1809x2876px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1809x2876px

I am also in this thread.

>>2963244

Need an answer to this.

File: FOTO2657.jpg (260KB, 900x617px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 900x617px

so did anyone take any fotos today or yesterday?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: FOTO3260.jpg (306KB, 900x617px) Image search: [Google]

306KB, 900x617px

>>2963244
the inability to actually walk in heels lends credence to the theory lad

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>2963443
I believe you won't get an official answer :^)

File: FOTO4115_v1.jpg (229KB, 900x617px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 900x617px

>>2963331
>This place is about as "fine art" as any online community gets.
breehinnyhinnyhoohah

>>2963444
From behind you may look like a man, however, that's a really nice shot with the use of humor that men usually don't have in their sobriety.

>>2963455
I can tell by the pixels

>>2963447

I think I will. :^)

>>2963446

Cool. But why a D3?

>>2963455
>an x100
are your lore books bootlegged senpai

>>2963331
>we have quite high standards here
/p/'s "standard"s basically boil down to

>pretty girl
>nice landscape
>nice architecture shot

Not that there's anything wrong with this, but don't act like this board is anything other than a harsher version of flickr or 500px.

>>2963321
Poopscoop is not a *real* shill. He`s a fucked up idiot who only bought a Sony because isi shoots Fuji. He`s actually a major embarrassment to Sony Corp and it`s paid shills

>mfw I decide to try to hide all the gear threads that ask for camera advice
>mfw 34 hidden threads
>mfw this board is just a gearfag central
>mfw I have no face

/p/ is truly dead

>>2963483
>harsher version of Flickr or 500px
Which doesn't at all relate to higher standards, right?

>>2963802
I've shot sony since the release of the a7 pretty much, and wanted to switch to sony after trying a nex 7 shortly after it came out. There was even a brief moment i was tossing up between the xpro and the a7, then I got the chance to try the xpro and that put an end to that, felt like a hollow lunch box with a viewfinder from a sanyo vhs recorder.

>>2963240
>tfw isi has no ass

>>2963244
Looks like her greasy redneck hair from behind. I'd say it's plausible.

>http://stalker.smagazine.com/blog/2011/01/12/seductive-games/
>mfw no one on /p/ knows how to image search

>>2963244
Afraid not, sorry moopco

>>2965104
>which doesn't at all relate to higher standards, right?
It does, and it doesn't.

Yeah, people on /p/ will grill you for not having competent light, exposure, composition and a clear subject. And it should, if someone asks for critique and needs help honing the fundamentals.

But beyond that /p/ isn't doing you much good. Most of the time you aren't going to learn much here unless you have glaringly obvious flaws in the photo, and /p/ will stroke your ego if it happens to be a subject it likes, which is usually the three I mentioned (architecture, landscape, or a beautiful woman).

Fine art, on the other hand is probably not what you think it is. The art of photography and fine art photography are not the same thing. The art of photography simply means tapping into creativity and problem solving to create an aesthetically pleasing image. Fine art photography is about expression and message, not simply being very technically proficient. Not that one is better than the other, but I don't think the photos posted here often really escape being simple documentations of moments and things the photographer has an interest in, where the subject tells the story rather than the photographer.

>>2965237
>if it happens to be a subject it likes, which is usually the three I mentioned

you forgot street, you jelly cuck.

>>2965240
>jelly cuck
Nice buzzwords m8

>>2965246
>buzzwords

nice buzzword m8.

File: 1478672106021.jpg (2MB, 6064x6072px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 6064x6072px

>>2963331

>high standards

>>2965185

I didn't GIS out of sheer hopes that it was her. Not that I care about seeing isi nudes, I just want her to be a happier, carefree person. The girl in this photo looks comfortable with herself. She's content.

>>2965172

That was my initial tipoff, plus the desperate need for a sandwich.

>>2963331
you're the reason I filter all critique and advice threads

>>2967297
>literally creating a safe space

>>2963244
Who tf is isi anyway? I've been here for years and I've never really figured out who she is

>>2963240
F

>>2963483
our standards USED to be high

File: 0d46e19fe402fc23c3db03ff214b5144.gif (2MB, 384x216px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 384x216px

>>2967300
so good

File: 1312038158795.jpg (95KB, 521x640px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 521x640px

>>2967307
>she

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Picasa 3.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Unknown
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2008:06:04 00:24:42
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	521
Image Height	640

>>2967307
Then you haven't been here for years. She shitposts incessantly, and her haters love to reveal personal facts about her.

File: i-want-to-believe-ufo-x-files-poster-daily-quotes-sayings-pictures-810x1089.jpg (173KB, 810x1089px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 810x1089px

>>2965185
>mfw no one on /p/ knows how to image search
Don't ruin the fun.

File: FJD0K9.jpg (203KB, 1300x1035px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 1300x1035px

>>2963240

File: isi S-21_0139.jpg (24KB, 450x446px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 450x446px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KTsXHXMkJA

I've been shitposting on /pol/ 2bh.

I just came here and this was the first thread i saw?

>> 2967484

>>2965324
>>2963483
>>2963448
>>2963371
proves >>2963331 is right, even thinking that /p/ fives us high standart is a meme.


85% of all the pictures seen on /p/ are silly snapshots with MUH FILM GEAR, good Qlaty and neet sharpness but nothing behind. Just some shitty plain pictures of random shit that has no impact or story what so ever.

We are literally a debutant echochamber, everybody takes shitty snapshot with expert gearing but all they do it just shitting snapshot in 1:1

>>2963444
Great picture lad.

>>2963446
A dead bird on the road
>I'll take a picture of it, minimalist composition.
>/p/ is going to love my arty feelins

Go fund yourself boii

>>2967424
well i actually have been around here a while and I've seen some of her posts but I didn't really get why everyone talks about her, it's probably because I really only stick to film related threads

>>2967507
no the real reason is
> she's a girl

>>2965237
>The art of photography simply means tapping into creativity and problem solving to create an aesthetically pleasing image. Fine art photography is about expression and message, not simply being very technically proficient.

In your opinion. The only fact in art is that there are no other facts. People who try to pigeon hole art are critics not artists.

>>2967511
I think what >>2965237 meant is that there is more snapshots and gear threads on /p/ than porn on /b/.
Just admit it, most people on /p/ are either snapshitters or non-photographer trolls

>>2963240
bump for truth

>>2967511
Again we're talking about the art of photography/general artistic photography vs "fine art" photography.

The art of photography is basically all creative photography beyond merely taking a picture of something to show somebody else as evidence of something. "Fine art" photography goes beyond that and typically has a message or intent. It's not that nobody who takes aesthetically pleasing images does fine art or can be consider artists, but not all photography is fine art, just like not all photography is sports or street or landscapes.

>>2967515
To be honest all I meant was that this board rarely posts fine art. It has its share of talent and decent photogs but I wouldn't consider most of what's posted on here to be fine art.

Which trips lasted the longest?

>>2968059
I think burt gummer was on for like 10 years

Doesn't come around no more

>>2968066

He's still around. I made him delete a critique thread the other month because I shamed him for creating the RPT's. I still feel really bad about it. Burt's a nice kid. He doesn't mean any harm.

Photography overall is kind of stale.

All the cameras are good, there are better places ro talk about film, and all the editing and processing texhniques have been beat to death.

It is just a really stale moment and there is basically no reason to be here aside from a little curiosity and nostalgia. Like visiting ur old hjghschool.

File: 1478646296298.jpg (73KB, 540x432px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 540x432px

>>2968077
unnecessarily harsh and nihilistic

There will be progress and innovation in regards to image making. I will concede there is a lot more crap out there now that photography is much easier than it once was.

>>2967900
>The art of photography is basically all creative photography beyond merely taking a picture of something to show somebody else as evidence of something. "Fine art" photography goes beyond that and typically has a message or intent.

Repeating it doesn't make it true. Trying to make distinctions between art a and art b serves no purpose other than to allow gallery owners and critics to apply some kind of 'value'. To the artist such distinctions are just twaddle.

If you must try to label different types of art the the only one that makes any kind of sense is the difference between art that is sold and then produced ie commissioned art, and art that is produced and then (hopefully) sold. Call that fine art if you must. All this shit about intent and message is just masturbation

>>2968080
Oh, I'm not pessimistic for the future. These things are cyclic. Maybe 4-5 years ago, there was just an intense moment of collective learning, growth and exploration. I am certain that excitement will ignite again with new people and some old ones too.

It's just in a lull. I don't blame the people. I don't blame the "dang kids". It's just a natural path.

File: tfb.jpg (102KB, 565x600px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 565x600px

>>2968066

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:11:20 14:35:10
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	565
Image Height	600

>>2968059
Isi has been here for forever

Personally I haven't been posting because I fucked up on a pro gig a few months ago and now I just get depressed every time I pick up my camera.

Otherwise I think the whole site's been pretty turned down lately. I think some of it comes down to the recent election, a lot of anons I know IRL stopped posting because they just couldn't handle the constant political shitposting that 4chan had devolved into, even if /p/ wasn't affected too badly.

Also, I think there just aren't a lot of new anons coming here anymore. People are getting older and getting sick of 4chan, and most of the new people on the site are coming for /pol/ and the like, not for stuff like /p/. I've seen /o/ and even /v/ and /a/ slow down pretty heavily in recent months.

tl;dr 4chan is dying overall and it's just more obvious on /p/ since it was always so slow.

>>2968349
not even 4 years

BJ Drew, sugar and burt have been here much longer

>>2968356
How did you fuck up? Lose your temper?

>>2968356
>I fucked up on a pro gig a few months ago
Story pls

>>2968284
Personally I think the big boom was a few years before that, when CMOS brought prices and usability into the realm of the every man and post processing on digital had reached the point it needed to.

Who doesn't have a Nikon D40 gathering dust? I've been donated 2 this winter by my family to clean and sell, and I've already sold 2 others in the past.

Shitty HDR, stupid macros of insect eyes, drops of water frozen in mid-air, c l a r i t y s l i d e r, etc. all gave a massive boost to sales and desire to shoot.

Will photography have another boom like that? probably not for another decade imho, when the sequel to CMOS and raw allows us to do a load more silly little tricks. There's strong rumours that a replacement for raw will be coming with Sony's new bodies and it's fairly well accepted that CMOS has hit it's limit, the next generation of sensor materials are offering massive improvements to sensitivity and we're looking more at treating sensors as a bunch of individual pixels as opposed to a linear single sensor. This should mean MUCH more flexibility with shutter speed and the opportunity to have infinite dynamic range by measuring the time taken for each pixel to reach it's maximum brightness as opposed to a set colour and brightness value.

>>2968369
>to have infinite dynamic range by measuring the time taken for each pixel to reach it's maximum brightness as opposed to a set colour and brightness value.

I don't see the point of this.

And isn't the only neccesary thing to reduce digital noise. Why complicate things.

The only weird trick I could imagine wanting is for the sensor to be able to tell the direction it's light came from (each pixel takes values from many angles) so I could do something in post like reduce the light reflecting off the wall into the sensor.

The real use of that would be to auto-contrast someones face.

>>2968359
>>2968366
It was a whole clusterfuck, and a long story.

So, I used to be the in-house photog for an car tuning shop and racing team. We all got sick of each other's shit and I left the business before shit got too heated.

A few months ago, the business owner hits me up and says that a major company/media outlet that's sponsoring them is double booked, and they need a photog to shoot my old job's car at a time trial event. I'm working for the media outlet, not my old company, but in a situation like that shit can get pretty confused.

So, day of the event, we all have to get up at 3AM and drive 2 hours to the track. Shit pretty quickly goes back to the way it was when I worked for these guys - they don't understand that I need to get my side of the job done, and they're uncooperative as fuck. On top of that, they're not a very professional bunch, and their sponsor doesn't understand this - they want, you know, slick photos of a slick pit crew doing pit crew things, and there just aren't opportunities to get shots like this, unless the client wants shots of fat guys' asscracks peeking out of dirty shorts and t-shirts.

So, next problem - I've promised the client live photos, and it turns out the track's press center isn't open during this event, nobody knows the wi-fi password, and there's barely enough cell data at the track to send emails, no way photos are getting uploaded. Major issue right there, and I dunno what the fuck I could've done about it. Making it worse is that this event made us press guys park way the fuck out in the middle of nowhere, so it's like a 40 minute walk to my car, and with our car on track every hour, there's not enough time to get to my laptop and back between sessions.

Cont'd

File: uncontacted-tribe.jpg (47KB, 724x407px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 724x407px

Photo is the Devil.
You all do the witchcraft.
Camera steals your soul.
Bad mojo.
No thanks.

>>2968380

It doesn't end there - Our car is in 5 sessions, 30 minutes each. That should mean 15-20 laps per session, around 100 total passes for the day. I know the driver/owner of the car likes to run short sessions, only 3 or 4 laps, but I asked him to run full sessions for photo op's sake. He agreed. Of course, once he gets on track, he's right back to his old shit. That means I only get 3 or 4 passes per session, maybe 20 total for the day, and that's not enough to get a good variety of photos. On top of that, this track is stupid, chainlink everywhere and only a few photo holes, each of which are at least 10 minutes walk apart. That means I can only get 4 or 5 angles in the whole day, again, not enough variety for the client.

Also, I specifically asked the client if they wanted me to focus on our car only, or get shots of the other cars in the event. They said they only cared about our car, and I mostly shot accordingly, though I did get (and supply) some shots of the other leading cars in the event. What do I hear after the event? (Through the grapevine, because the editor went radio silent on me and stopped replying to my emails, btw.) That they wanted more shots of the other cars and I didn't provide them.

Oh, BTW, I'll throw in that they were dodgy about payment the whole time, and while shooting the event I talked to another photog who said that this company has a major rep for stiffing photogs.

>>2968383
You sound really unprofessional.
Screenshotted for future purposes.

>>2968383
So, anyway, it gets worse still. In an attempt to get multiple angles during the last session, I made a mad dash across the infield, and as I ran I noticed that my pouches (Think Tank belt rig) were bouncing pretty badly, but grabbed onto them and didn't think too much of it. This came back to haunt me when I reached for my 35 1.4 during the awards ceremony and it wasn't there. I shot the ceremony and immediately headed for the infield to look for my lens, only to find the gate locked. After running all over the paddock, I find out that the only person who might possibly have a key is the guard way out at the track's front gate. I drive down there, he agrees to send somebody out, and I drive back to meet the security truck.

As I drive back through the paddock, one of the guys from the team jumps in front of me and immediately starts screaming at me. This guy is a part-timer, a giant fucking asshole moron, and a major part of why I left the business in the first place. He's screaming that I need to shoot the end of the day group photo, I tell him that I have to meet security to get my $1000 lens back before they take off for the day and I'll be back to shoot it in 20 minutes, the light isn't good yet anyway. He tells me it's too fucking bad I lost my lens and then starts screaming a bunch of shit about how this is why I don't have a good job, etc. I tell him to go fuck himself, that this company probably isn't even paying me and even if they do it's nowhere close to worth giving up on my gear, and drive off to meet security - only to spot their truck and watch it drive off as I get there.

Anyway, I did manage to meet up with security after driving back to the gate again, and found my lens exactly where I expected it to be. I would've been back and finishing the shoot with plenty of time had jackass not turned it into a huge fight and then stormed out of the track in anger. By the way, he actually contacted me to apologize after calming down.

>>2968386
OK, so I deliver the photos. They were decent, not as good as my usual work. There weren't enough of them. The outlet published them, only even gave me credit on half of the posts, and then stopped replying to my emails.

So yeah, I fucked up.

Oh yeah, what I also forgot to mention is that I'd also committed to pre-event glamor shots of the car. I, the shop, and the publisher had agreed that I'd shoot and deliver them on the Monday of that week. The guys who actually owned the car didn't have it ready until Thursday. I went over there every day, only to find that progress hadn't been made, and to have to send another apology email to the publisher. (And make up excuses for the team while I was at it, because I didn't want to lose them their sponsorship by exposing their own lack of professionalism to the sponsor.)

When we actually finally shot the car on Thursday, the guys didn't get it ready until late afternoon, not enough time to go to the originally planned location, when we got to our location the owner was fucking around with his friends the whole time and it took me 10 minutes to shepherd him into moving the car when I needed it moved, and he got bored and insisted on leaving after 40 minutes of shooting.

>>2968384
>>2968384
I can't argue with you. I know I probably can't convince you of this, but this situation was far from normal. I've done many, many events under normal circumstances and my clients have always been very happy with my work and with my professionalism.

The mistake I made was working with people who I had a long history of bad blood with. I left their company for a reason and it was exactly that situation that reared its ugly head when the event came. On top of that, it was a bad decision to take a last-minute job that relied on people that I know have a history of unprofessionalism and unreliability, and who have no clue about how to deal with press and sponsors. (That was actually MY job while I was there, and they never replaced me.)

On top of all of that, yeah, I should've found a better way to get photos during the event. I should have kept my cool when shit got hot with those guys. I fucked up badly, and made a huge fool of myself, and that's why I get sick to my stomach when I pick up my camera.

>>2968394
>40 minutes of shooting a car

Bro, you sound like a nice person. Probably talented. But you should stick to solo work. You let some random dude throw you off your game during an event saying how he didn't get paid. Also get a cellphone that has data and mobile hotspot it will always have Internet. I don't understand how you couldn't upload photos. And if you got so much shit that your dropping lenses you need to slim down ur load. The guy had every right to be pissed at you leaving an awards ceromony post photo op to find a lense you dropped. I in his situation would be extremely upset as well.


The car team does sound stupid though and I can empathize. But you shouldn't have even been in the situation since you had the foresight to quit originally, no reason to go back.

The project was doomed from the getgo.

>>2968412
Random dude wasn't really the factor, it was already clear that these guys were jerking me around. They were being dodgy about payment from day 1 and I only put up with it because they were a big name I wanted to see my photos on and I was doing a "friend" a favor.

I have a cell phone with mobile hotspot too, but the track was in an LTE deadzone and I only had 2G data, uploads were actually timing out when I tried to do them.

Also, I stayed and shot the awards ceremony, that was long over before I went to go find my lens. The thing I told the guy to wait on was a posed photo of the team and car in front of the big sign with the event's name on it, which could easily have waited 20-30 minutes. (And, by the way, the actual owner of the team agreed with me and apparently chewed the other guy out for being a shitlord after I took off.)

But yeah, I agree, I never should've taken the damn thing. I'm generally fine working with teams, too - I've done plenty with others, and have been a photo editor at a newspaper, so I'm not averse to group work at all. But I should never have gotten involved with these guys again.

I should probably mention that I knew these guys long before I worked with them, and the owner of the shop literally since we were in elementary school, too. Our dumbass squabbling goes back a long, long time, and it's always been particularly bad with the guy I got in the screaming match with.

>>2968395
Cheer up bro, it sounds like you did the best you could under the circumstances, and learned some lessons on the way.
Maybe go out and shoot something completely different just to get back into it.

>>2968379
don't see the point?
if you can measure every pixels value like that over a set time that's comparable to current shutter speeds you will get images where you decide the exposure AFTER you take the shot with zero noise and perfect colour accuracy.

If you combine that with lightfield technology you could add in realistic strobe lighting in post, as an example of how it could be game changing.

Photography would become little more than an exercise in composition for those that wished to embrace the new technology.

>>2968427
okay, i see. All the shutter speeds.

/p/ i have a question. Sugar or isi?

>>2968427
Dude, I had no idea that light field cameras already existed. Auto-contrast when?

>>2968435
ayya

>>2968412
Oh, I missed the >40 minutes thing

I know that doesn't sound like much if you've never done car shoots, but it's really short, especially when the driver is lagging. Imagine shooting with a model and she'll only hold one pose until you repose her, which takes 5 minutes or more every time. That 40 minutes translates into maybe 8 finished shots at best.

A normal car magazine shoot generally takes at least 6 hours, and often as much as two full working days, because it involves multiple locations, lots of angles and car positions, moving and stationary shots, etc. An hour-long car shoot is the equivalent of trying to do a full fashion shoot in 5 minutes.

>>2968419
Yeah, I'll get over it eventually. It just sucks at the moment.

>>2968066
>I think burt gummer was on for like 10 years
>Doesn't come around no more

WHOS THIS COMING DOWN THE RAMP?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95HEryedB6E

>>2968555
Oh bah gawd !

Now over to mean gene in the locker room

File: see you next year.jpg (25KB, 560x407px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 560x407px

This thread gets made every year.

>>2968664

All me desu.

>>2968664
This thread gets made every 5 days.

>>2968418
Interesting story! All you can do is pick yourself up and dust yourself off. Sorry it's dragging on your morale, but dumbshit clients and difficult conditions will never go away.

I learned soon after I got financially grounded that it's not worth it to work with people you really hate, even if the money is good. Costs you so much more, and exposes you to real clusterfucks that shake up your confidence.

>>2968427
That would be a weird world... leaving all that to post production.

I think there'd still be a lot of jobs where they don't use much of those tools, or just make small tweaks. When you look at the expense of extensive retouching, adding more to that process seems insane. I mean, unless you're doing something that can no longer even be called photography.

Perhaps it would expand the range of jobs that can get something "good enough" by sending out an intern with the equivalent of a point and shoot camera?

I mostly work in the video world, and there are tons of jobs, including national spots, where nobody can be bothered to even shoot raw because it adds money and time to post production. They hire a director of photography who can get it right in camera.

>>2968086
>Trying to make distinctions
Not all art is the same. Arguing this is silly.

>To the artist such distinctions are just twaddle
Whether or not individual artists care doesn't make it irrelevant.

>If you must try to label different types of art
>try
There's that word again, nobody's "trying" anything. Not all art tries to accomplish the same thing, hence the distinctions. In fact, not every photographer even wants to be called an artist in the first place.

>All this shit about intent and message is just masturbation
No, it really isn't. *Some* photographers DO have a "message" they're trying to send by photographing certain things, and others just photograph what they find interesting for enjoyment, or for pay or whatever without thinking much of it. The guy doing extensive documentation on war torn areas in eastern Europe for a project/essay does not have the same intent as the guy shooting a weddings on the weekends, and arguing this is honestly pretty silly.

>>2968284
I honestly think around the time that you did the first /p/ book was the height of this board. I know a lot of the older trips like to romanticize a few years before that, but I really think that was kind of a high water mark. We had a good mix of great, established photographers with distinct styles, and there were enough new people coming in and trying new stuff and learning that it kept it fresh. The year preceding that first /p/ book I actually learned a shit ton here.

>>2968878
Were you new to photography at that time? I mean, maybe nothing has changed here.
I can't judge /p/ because my knowledge grew through trial and error, friends, my father, handbooks and online articles. /p/ feels lame to me because I hardly get response to image posts and questions, be it where I'm noobish or where I'm halfway experienced/successful.

>>2968086
>All this shit about intent and message is just masturbation
Photos follow a common topic in most of the photo exhibitions. Likewise, a subject is often given in photography competitions, as this allows a comparison between submissions.

For me it is inconceivable that you do not masturbate..

>>2969041
Yeah - I wish your experience was different. Really all you can do is try to give twice before you take.

If more people had that approach - it would be pretty swell.

>tfw will never have anal intercourse with isi
why even live :^(

>>2963320
Yea this is kinda it, but it's the same with all types of amateur creative forums. On music forums you have the same, just lots of people posting shit and noone listening to each others shit. At least this place is anonymous so you don't get people who give feedback just for the sake of getting feedback in return (which is good imo).

Also we should just get rid of the recent photo threads at this point. Make your own thread or make a theme thread that anyone can post int, this rpt catch-all is really not encouraging any kind of thoughtful interaction.

>>2968676
then there would be 10 in the catalog at once

>>2969625
>posted 1 minute after isi's last post in her thread.

>mfwihnf

Honestly think /p/ is more enjoyable now than in 2012.

>>2969682
How do you justify this?

>>2969041
>I mean, maybe nothing has changed here.
I think it's changed pretty dramatically. Whether you think it was better or worse back then, it was definitely qualitatively different than it is now. For better or for worse, there was a much more cohesive culture to the board with a much more established group of stylistically consistent regular posters. Maybe you hated them. Maybe you loved them. But it's not something we don't have right now, and the few regulars who post here now war with each other more than anything else.

>>2969041
>>2969213
It wasn't /p/ as a whole, but there were several really helpful trips who gave a bunch of great advice when I first got here. I learned a ton about skin editing from 5hoe. (Honestly, I found him more helpful than Photoshop(r). P(r) was talented, but his advice and techniques were less useful on a large scale.) I learned some great stuff about lighting and some really basic Ps functions from Bart. I learned a lot about film from Alex.

Fuck, I also learned some decent stuff from Big Red himself. Sure, everything he touched turn in to a dumpster fire, but he was good at what he did and when he wasn't losing him goddamned mind he posted some good information.

>>2969682
you are everything that is wrong with the world

I miss Sloth.

>>2969780
Alphon was a magical time for /p/. I've never seen the board more unified than it was in hating that guy

I'm new. Who is the Alphon? Tell me about the tripfags of yore.

What's going on here?

>>2970189
You telling me the history of the p tripfags

>>2963440
no youre not

>>2969785
He wasnt a true trip - real trips can handle prolonged criticism and keep coming back. He rage quit because he received a mere months worth of abuse. 5hoe did the same thing but he took half decent photos.