Any advice for an amateur? [EXIF data available. Click here

>>2964759
git gud

No offense, but the subject of the picture is just uninteresting. The model, the pose, everything. It's a clichéd style (not necessarily a bad thing) that's just boring at this point.

>>2964768
This is probably one of the more interesting photos posted on /p/.

>>2964773

get out
rEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>2964759
Nice job OP, don't stop! I agree with >>2964773

>>2964773
It's an average attractive girl, laying in grass. the only interesting part of it is the flower is on her forehead.

>>2964789
>>2964773
Thank you. It means a lot.

>>2964759
I like the lighting on this shot. It's actually quite good. Figures the framing also is chosen well enough.

Not happy with the image quality. It's not really detailed enough in many places (hairs, skin texture, ...). Needs a better lens and/or more light, IDK.

Also, I don't really find the photo particularly appealing or striking from an artistic point of view.

>>2964812
Thank you for your thoughts.

The quality is much better in the original picture but I had to decrease it to be able to post it under 4chan's 1mb limit.

I would love to hear what you would have done with it or your ideas for it from an artistic standpoint.

>more pictures of nothing

should be /p/'s tagline

You know, if you had a set of many different persons having their picture taken in this pose, on that grass, trying to convey some concept, I would buy the conceptual art angle and looking at the whole set would be interesting. But this is a singular, artsy-contrived boring fuck of an image.

>>2964827
also I want to emphasize that conceptual art needs to have a CONCEPT. and how good that concept and its execution is determines the value of your set. it's not just artsy pics for artsy's sake

>>2964759
Step 1: stop being a hipster
Step 2: buy a Sony camera

Leave /p/ before it's too late

File: 0101010101.jpg (852KB, 1000x665px) Image search: [Google]

852KB, 1000x665px

>>2964759
OP, the picture is not bad, but you need to work on it. You should also be careful with details, such as the grass in her hair and the wrinkles in her jersey (you can fix them with Photoshop, though).

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

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

>>2964759
this is actually pretty good op

>>2964850
I'd love to have a mirrorless Sony trust me.

Underexpose a little more. I'd like to see no detail in the image if possible.
Only then can you go all out in shooting absolutely fucking nothing of interest with your kit lens.

>>2964791
That's not all that interesting

>>2964942
It's quite easy to talk shit over the internet isn't it.

File: lookout the internet photo police are here ablooobloobloobllobllbollboooo QQ.png (42KB, 300x268px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 300x268px

>>2964946
It's also quite easy to fuck up exposure and take shots of a girl with a flower on her head. The only challenging things there is getting a flower on a girls head without getting arrested.

Sorry your shot is bland, boring and underexposed. Want me to shit on the other photos you posted?

>>2964759
It's nothing special.

It lacks contrast between her top and the ground.

The ground itself is boring, not even the best spot of the grassland.

The flower on her face may looks nice in the first place, but it doesn't really work here to make the picture unique.

Don't take this as insults, these are just observations. If you get some of these points right (that's the art of photgraphing, not having a DSLR) you are going to have unique picture which is worth a look which tells kind of a story.

Maybe this picture is part of a series, that would be way to make it a little bit interesting.

>>2964819
>I would love to hear what you would have done with it or your ideas for it from an artistic standpoint.
Not easy to answer.

I personally generally would either see if the model or background might make some use of the most interesting features in the environment (stuff that not everyone will feel like they see it every week).

Or just make the situation and person more odd (one eye open with a fancy iris lens, a hint of some goth-panda makeup, simulated nose bleed...).
This will look initially ridiculous most of the time, but if you can make specific corrections to the makeup/accessories and maybe lighting, you'll get something interesting soon.

Capturing the model's beauty and/or sex appeal also usually works if you do it well enough.

It's a laughably tacky photo. I'd your really young like 16 it's fine. But if your older and this is what you consider thinking outside the box then you should go back to brick laying.

>>2965134
I'm 18. This photo wasn't part of a planned shoot so I understand it isn't very good. It was more like I wana try something different and see how it turns out. I just recently got a DSLR and have just been playing around with it in my free time.
Just posted it to see what others would have done and get advice for future pictures so hopefully they don't turn out as boring.

>>2965139
Ah that's plenty young still. You'll look back and laugh at how bad this is.

Watch some good movies listen to some good music. Go get a drug habit and try again at photography when your 25. Also don't go to art school

>>2964827
>pictures of nothing
Is not inherently bad. However, if there is no purpose and no emotion to the photo, I agree that it's pointless.
The OP's photo is nicely composed and has some very nice PP job imo, but does it convey anything? Maybe, but it conveys nothing to me. It's just an exercise in aesthetics, and at that I can say that the OP has done a good job, but it's not a photo you would spend time admiring.

>>2965174
>nicely composed and has some very nice PP job imo
I know I should be impressed that you can post your opinion on the internet while being blind but Daredevil taught me that even blind people have screenreaders and can type.

The photo's underexposed and lacks no contrast. A completely centred composition with little to no thought placed into it. You don't have to try and make the OP feel better, you can just criticise it like a normal person. Fuck, you even tailed it off with >it's not a photo you would spend time admiring.
Just go ahead and say that it could be sent out on social media and float away into nothingness if based entirely on it's own merits. No-one's going to come around and beat you with soap stuffed into socks for telling the truth online.

>>2965179
>The photo's underexposed and lacks no contrast
I don't give a fuck, I like this aesthetic.
>A completely centred composition with little to no thought placed into it.
It serves to put the viewer's attention squarely on the girl and the flowers on her head.

I really did like the way it looks, while also thinking that it's not worth admiring because it doesn't do anything for me beyond the shallow "it looks nice" level.
It's helpful for OP to know, if he plans on developing his photography further, that a nice aesthetic and clear composition is not enough (and isn't even necessarily required) for a photo to truly be great. It's helpful for him to know that this photo isn't ugly, it's just pointless. Fuck off with that cynicism, I'm not down with spitefully criticizing a guy who just started taking photos as a hobby. I want him to get better.

If it wasn't drab greenish grey, she didn't appear to be glowing like some sort of clarity slider gone wrong, she had a wardrobe, and her hair was better laid out then it wouldn't be the worst thing. The color is really drab, like uncomfortably so. Get some split-toning or something happening, just go or an analogous theme if you want it to be all similarly colored like this.

What if her hair was pulled stright down over her face to hide it and then a larger more substantial flower emerged from her face? I think that'd be similar to what you got with a more interesting look.

File: thesamephotoastheopwithaslightlydifferentsubject.jpg (231KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 1000x667px

>>2965187
You'll love this then.
I even made sure to drag the slider down by 1 stop. In essence, it's the same picture as the OP, instead of a girl with a flower on her head blending into the background. It's an art installation with some stickers as highlights instead of hair.

I have no plans for developing my photography farther than this though.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X70
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.7 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:11:15 14:05:38
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Brightness	-0.4 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	18.50 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Hard
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2965201
That was pretty funny, thanks for the effort. It's a shame that /pol/, /v/, /tv/-like shit-on-others mentality is present on /p/ too.

>>2965201
You forgot to remove the author name

>>2964794
You're welcome OP

>>2965216
Dang. Now I'm going to get swatted.
>>2965207
Not really. It's comments like this that go beyond the rational:
>I don't give a fuck, I like this aesthetic.
>I really did like the way it looks
>while also thinking that it's not worth admiring because it doesn't do anything for me
Those don't really go with each other. Either you like the photo or you don't. If you like the photo for the aesthetic but it does nothing for you, then any dark greenish image with a centred subject will float your boat, yank your crank, spin your wheels, blow your sand around, swing your pendulum, grease your skids, fill your sails, wind your watch, tweaks your twizzler or cream your twinkle.
There's nothing wrong with telling someone that the photo is underexposed or lacking real substance. Handing out compliments because it makes people feel better or makes you feel better isn't necessarily a good way to improve. As it stands, nothing in this photo works for me as a standalone image. It could be an underexposed drab image of a girl with a flower on her forehead or a bottle of soda pop against a bag or jacket. Not every person can be a winner.
If the shit on others mentality was really present on /p/ then every single photo in the RPT would have 4-5 replies at least shitting on someones photos with a good bit of light bullying.

>>2965187
>I'm not down with spitefully criticizing a guy who just started taking photos as a hobby. I want him to get better.

It's nice to see 4chan isn't entirely cancerous.

>>2964883
literally made it worse. stop trying so hard

>>2965247
>If you like the photo for the aesthetic but it does nothing for you, then any dark greenish image with a centred subject will float your boat, yank your crank, spin your wheels, blow your sand around, swing your pendulum, grease your skids, fill your sails, wind your watch, tweaks your twizzler or cream your twinkle.
Wrong. Where do you get this retarded assumption?

>There's nothing wrong with telling someone that the photo is underexposed or lacking real substance.
True. I never said the photo being underexposed does not matter.

>Handing out compliments because it makes people feel better or makes you feel better isn't necessarily a good way to improve.
I didn't hand out compliments, I don't know why you're thinking this. I said what I really thought. Are you searching for deception in every post that you read through?

I'm not responding to the rest, because it's more irrelevant shit. I wish people like you fucked off, but this is 4chan, you're here to stay and to wave your dick.

File: frantic-photoshopping.jpg (242KB, 557x557px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 557x557px

If I could just get rid of that stupid fucking sweat shirt.

File: nigger.jpg (276KB, 888x617px) Image search: [Google]

276KB, 888x617px

>>2964759
need to expose for her skin better, it's slightly under. learn some toning too, colors don't look too bad but a lil boring

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D3200
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.4 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.1
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	45 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	1 dpi
Vertical Resolution	1 dpi
Image Created	2016-11-15T18:59:29
Exposure Time	1/250 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	30.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	888
Image Height	617
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2965321
garbage

>>2964759
Take more pictures. That's it. Keep doing it and don't stop. Analyze what you like best and why. Read stuff (photography related obviously) along the way, but don't let that be your main focus.

>>2965381
awesome edit although still a little underexposed

>>2964759
ah good, let me add amateur to my filter list

>>2967294
Let the thread die instead of bumping it two days later you fucking idiot.

>>2967302
Why? It´s a great thread

>>2964759
I actually like this one. /p/ newbie here ;)

>>2965321
I've seen way worse clothes being photographed
OP's is acceptable, yours is not

File: 14791562233442.jpg (851KB, 1000x665px) Image search: [Google]

851KB, 1000x665px

I hope you don't mind I took it into photoshop for about a minute and a half, just out of curiosity. You have a good eye just keep working with it. There are a ton of little trick that you can learn in PS that will help but before any of that just have fun and it will be reflected in the images.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D3200
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.1
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	906
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	45 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1000
Image Height	665
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	1 dpi
Vertical Resolution	1 dpi
Image Created	2016:11:26 00:21:34
Exposure Time	1/250 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	30.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	665
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: blind.jpg (54KB, 1300x866px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 1300x866px

>>2972200
>"I took it into photoshop for about a minute and a half"

>>2972200
Why are you giving photoshop advice?