>got a camera for Christmas >took some photos >have

forgot to close the parenthesis)

Read the sticky

And this is just a photo of a hat

>>2989277
This was a photo taken by me yesterday, just random photos were taken, but I've never had a camera before so any constructive criticism is appreciated

>>2989278
the colors are pretty and stuff but it's not particularly interesting overall.

>>2989278
Dont take pictures of hats unless you own a hat store.

>>2989287
This wouldn't be a particularly good product picture.

But I guess it shows the camera's decent. Go shoot something more interesting...

>>2989278
Resize and compress your snapshits.
Read the sticky, and the first few sections of the pseudosticky that it links.

/p/ will tell you that aesthetics is everything. Do not listen to /p/. INTEREST is everything, and aesthetics are merely a nice bonus.

>>2989337
t. travel photographer with bland photos

>>2989278
>This was a photo taken by me yesterday, just random photos were taken, but I've never had a camera before so any constructive criticism is appreciated

Let's break this down.

>This was a photo
This IS a photo. Do you take us for idiots?

>taken by me
no shit

>just random photos
A good picture takes thought and intent. This one has none. Think of pictures as a way to tell a story.
Here's the story your picture tells:
'I saw someone in a hat today.'
'oh, okay.'
Thats your whole story. Not very interesting, and not worth telling.

>were taken
They weren't taken, you TOOK them. Take responsibility for your actions, including snapshits.

>but I've never had a camera before
You want a pat on the back?

>so any constructive criticism is appreciated
You will take ANY criticism, not just the ones you like.

Now go read the god damned sticky.

Have you tried critiquing it yourself first?

Ask yourself: "Is this a shit photo?"

(the answer is yes)

>>2989274
It's a picture of a fucking hat. What more do you want?

>>2989277
Lol that was exactly what I was thinking. You have taken a picture of a hat. My hats off to you.
Way to not have parkinsons.

>>2989337
this depends on if you are taking pictures for an artistic or a journalistic purpose

>>2989274
It's a shit snapshot of nothing.

I'm gonna break your little heart now, photography is an art, just like painting, sculpting or playing the guitar.

Now imagine you got your first guitar for Christmas, and with zero lessons or proper practice you decide to record a "song" by randomly plucking notes. You then took this "song" and uploaded it to /mu for them to critique. WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU EXPECT THEM TO SAY, "FUCK OFF YOU IRRITATING LITTLE CUNT" is about as positive as it would get.

There's a saying in photography, "your first 100 thousand shots are practice" that's not hyperbole, that's how many shots you should take, interspersed with reading and research, before you should ask anyone for critique.

Lets take 1 second to look at your exif, shutter priority, 1/640, iso 250. What the fuck are you doing, if you were playing guitar for the first time, this would be akin to blowing raspberries on the fretboard, it's wrong and you look like a fucking retard. Shortest Edge 3648 pixels, not only are you a door humping retard, you're also completely fucking illiterate.

Oh, and the rx10 is a shit camera, why have you not gone for a camera with changeable lenses and a sensor larger than your girl penis.

thanks anons for the feedback, like I said, it's all appreciated, even the mean and rude ones ;)

>>2989447
This made my day, I love how salty people are over the internet for no reason
OP it's an aight photo but you have to take photos of more interesting stuff, hats are boring and bland.

>>2989274
I like this shot, colors are comfy, composed really well, sharp as hell, the background is also really nice.

Post more BAKA

>>2989447
Thank you guy who probably doesn't even shoots and looks at camera specs all day

>>2989447

This was nigh on perfect, can we get it stickied or added to the wiki?

>>2989449
Well he isn't wrong

>>2989447
It's 10k. 500 rolls. I wouldn't say that 10 to one is enough considering I can shoot 10+fps now.

>>2989468
10k for film and 100k for digital

>>2989470
As I said 10 to one isn't enough. 1000s is under 20 min at 10fps.

>>2989472
well, it's not about keeping the shutter button pressed down, the 100k is meant to be actual shots more or less

>>2989472
Burst doesn't count.
100k individually considered and edited shots.

>>2989447
>1/640, iso 250, f2.8 on a 130mm equiv.
>what the fuck are you doing
not him, but the grain is nearly unnoticeable and a sharper background wouldve been distracting.
>photography is art
>if you were playing guitar for the first time, this would be akin to blowing raspberries on the fretboard, it's wrong and you look like a fucking retard
>implying blowing rasberries on the fretboards is wrong
>implying artistic choices can be wrong,
shure they can be unsound, not serve the subject well or just be plain bad, but theyre never wrong
>implying theres only one right exposure setting for any given shot.

good luck creating anything meaningful ever with that mindset..

as for ops picture.. its just a hat, but technically speaking, its pretty good, even impressive for someone who has owned a camera in 2 days.

>>2989521
>technically speaking it's good

So is the sick demo beat from my casio keyboard, and all both require is one mindless click. Leave any modern camera on full auto and it will take a technically great shot.

There is no "natural talent" in anything, good photography is built on the exact same foundations as any classical art form.

And let's get back to basics, iso 250 has a stop and a bit less dr than shooting at base, it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the tools being used.

And yep, go ahead and blow raspberries on your fretboard, unless you spend hours and hours practicing you will have zero consistency on the sound being produced. If you WANT to blow raspberries on your fretboard you better make it sound fucking good and can be repeated, or everyone will write you off as a dumb goof.

There's 2 kinds of people on this board,

Those that believe artistic integrity and a "good eye" is all you need for photography
>>2989449
>>2989450
>>2989451
>>2989521

And then there's photographers.
>>2989277
>>2989296
>>2989344
>>2989355
>>2989357
>>2989360
>>2989447
>>2989526

MMP and Ambush will be the first 2 to tell you that photography is a challenging hobby, and only for patient, passionate people prepared to drop the cost of a brand new gaming PC on a small piece of glass.

>>2989532

That's BS. Some people are naturals who have an eye for it right away. I've seen plenty of beginners take great shots. I also recommend cheap gear all the time, and use plenty of kit lenses.

I've seen worse, but this is one of those shitty photos that illustrates how some people are unable or unwilling to judge themselves objectively... what are they looking at that makes them think it might be good? The sharpness of their first real camera is probably the main thing. In other words, they are babby gearfags and need to snap out of it.

I just think OP needs to step back and look at the photo as a whole, from a neutral standpoint, and critique it for himself:

Is this pleasing to look at?
Is it interesting?
Would it be interesting to anyone else?
Would I care if anyone else took it?

You have to remove your own personal biases, sentimentality, and experience from the equation to truly judge a shot. What's left over is what others will see, be it a story, slice of time, or just an object.

>>2989532
Is it not true though

I've seen people with thousands of dollars worth of gear and decades of experience who take nothing more than slightly above average photos who were "patient" and "passionate" but just never had a good eye or talent for the hobby

Meanwhile I've seen 25 year olds on Instagram who are just enthusiasts that casually snapshit amazing shit on their way home from work every day

>>2989526
>leave any modern camera on auto and it will take a great shot

Hey ken Rockwell!

>>2989532
So you mean artists and gearfags

>>2989532
>MMP and Ambush will be the first 2 to tell you that photography is a challenging hobby, and only for patient, passionate people prepared to drop the cost of a brand new gaming PC on a small piece of glass.
And I'll be the first to say they're both pretty fucking mediocre so I don't get your point

If you feel the need to lash out and attack photos that are perfectly fine but simply not the peak of your personal interest, I can deduce that you probably don't actually like photography in the first place. You're just fulfilling a role, playing out a hobby you chose in younger, more impressionable years, and trying to posture yourself so that you can convince yourself you enjoy it.

Sad, really.

>>2989532
>And then there's photographers.
Hahaha, it's funny because you've got them backwards.

>>2989653

>And I'll be the first to...

This passive aggressive beta doesn't even know how to Anon correctly.

>>2990308
Wat

>>2990311

Apparently I don't get an opinion or individuality when posting as Anon. Only trips have that luxury.

>>2989447
Wow, just wow. its people like you who give photography a bad name. 100 thousand shots before critique? How the fuck will you know wheather you're doing if you dont ask someone for an opinion? Reading and research? This guy isnt doing a degree in it! He's just got a camera and its a hobby, jesus christ. Not eveyone is an elitist "This is the only way to take photographs" retard like you seem to be.
Lastly, the rx10 is not a shit camera. Its A camera, and it takes photographs. A lot of the big names use fucking point-and-clicks for god sake. Its not about gear, its about intent and usuing what you have to its fullest.

Honestly i like the photo, but there's so much more that can be done w/ a camera than just taking a photo of the back of a guy's head: just fuckin go hog wild w/ ur camera, take pictures u love and pictures u hate bc u can always improve and the best way to do that is by acknowledging your weakest points instead of ignoring them

>>2989274
It's OK for what it is. Focus is good. Good detail on the subject. Framing could be better. I'd either like to completely avoid the out of focus people in the water, or I'd like to see more of them, especially in the top of the frame.

>>2991001
With that said, it's really boring. It's a hat on the head of someone we see basically none of. If it was framed with the people in the background better, it gets a little bit more interesting -- a picture of someone watching other people.


Also, don't start a photo critique thread for a single photo. There are recent photo threads for that. Start a separate thread when you have 24 photos -- a standard amount for a roll of 35mm film -- or more to critique.

>>2989449
They're salty because photography isn't a real art.
it doesn't take 100 thousand shots to be good. You can spend a few hours reading and watching videos about photography and have a good first shot. You can't do that with music, art, or anything but photography.

>>2991031

You can play hot cross buns in a few hours on a piano, recorder or even a guitar.

Your "good first shot" is going to be the photographic equivalent of hot cross buns.

OP you should take most of the criticism to heart and don't get defensive or feed into the plebs that are defending you.

Your photo is fine, honestly IMO a bit underexposed, but it's what you call a snapshit. It's something that has no value, no meaning, no purpose.

Keep posting photos (ideally in the recent photo threads) and think about different items, objects, at different angles.

Read a few guide books on the basics of manual exposure, and then you'll be on the right path.

>>2991037
t. an actual pleb

>>2991033
Not really. If instruments were like cameras, you could pick up a guitar after a couple of days of thinking and play like hendrix.
You might not be able to come up with anything new, but you could play it just as well.

The "skill" with photography is totally not skill based, and instead is just having a good eye for composition and subject matter. And even then, who cares? If you want to make money with photography you won't need that.
Face it, it's easy to be a good photographer, it's easy to be an excellent photographer. Which makes the challenge harder in a way, because if you want to be an amazing photographer, you have to be lightyears ahead of almost everyone.
If you compare it to something like painting, it's hard to paint anything good, but once you can, it gets easier and easier to make progress.

>>2991055

lol nah. you have a real uncritical eye for what a "good photo" is.

>>2991081
Better than faux-critical delusions of the grandeur of your ideals

>>2991081
How could you possibly gauge my taste and "eye" from what I just said?

>>2990988
You can use a box brownie to its fullest, doesn't stop it being a shit camera

And why is it you, along with >>2991031 and >>2991055 think that photography is this magical hobby, that unlike literally every other hobby in the world doesn't require practice to be good. You're deluding yourselves, every famous photographer has taken millions of photos, there is no boy wonder, you can still see people like eric kim and blair bunting improving their photography, despite both of them being at the top of the game. Even those guys on ig that you follow taking over processed, happy lifestyle shots have put in a shit ton of practise, and that's just to nail one aesthetic that's almost completely subject based. There's nothing wrong with being shit, everyone sucks at new hobbies, but the only people that improve are those that go about it in the right mindset.

Let's go back to the very beginning, op posted a photo of a hat, it is completely devoid of anything, the composition is a non starter, the colour theory is non existent, the subject is non interesting. What do you want me to say about it? It's like you walked into a room and played a perfectly fine g chord, and then expect everyone to dissect your artistic genius. No, it's devoid of value. No one has a magic tip to turn you into bruce fucking gilden, The absolute quickest way to improve is to take photos, edit photos and read about photos, your first 100k will be shit, everyone's first 100k will be shit. I'm not saying 100% of the first 100k will be shit, but certainly 99%, anyone can luck out on a single shot playing pool, but quality games come from lots of experience.

>>2991161
It's not a magic hobby, but cameras are easy to operate. If eric kim tells you where to stand and where to point the camera, a beginner can get the same photograph.

My point isn't that it takes practise, just that the tiers of skill are fucked.
If you can't draw anything, you're normal. If you can't take a basic photograph, you're probably actually retarded.
If you're good at drawing, you've practised a ton and it shows. If you're good at photography, you know your camera and take photographs with clear intent (a beginner can do this if he's smart).
If you're excellent at drawing, you're a few years ahead of someone good. If you're excellent at photography, you have a skill level that many will never reach.

>>2989274
>i want to be critiqued
>52 replies
>only image in the entire thread is OP

>>2989274
I'm sure this has been said 20 times in this thread already, but it doesn't hurt to reiterate it. You don't have a bad start. It looks like you've got a good camera to learn the basics of photography, and that's exactly what you need to do. Read/watch youtube on videos about the basic functions of the camera and learn how to use the camera as a tool. Learn what different shutter speeds look like, learn what different apertures look like. Learn some basic composition like the rule of thirds. when you start understanding that (should only take a week to understand the basic concepts) just put your camera in manual mode and just go on walks shooting everything. Learn how to change the exposure properly and take visually appealing images. Once you master the basics of your camera you can move on from there, but it takes time. Also, be aware that /p/ is incredibly harsh, so be ready for a good whipping here.

other than that, hope you enjoy photography!

>>2991304
It's Christmas holidays

>>2991087

>how can you tell i'm stupid from all the stupid things i said stupidly

>>2989274
It's been three days. Did you only take one photo?

>>2991339
Saying I'm stupid doesn't make me look stupid, it only looks like you can't prove me wrong.

Everyone is mad because OP's first picture is better than everything they have ever posted.

literally lmaoing

>>2991503
Hi OP

>>2991519
not op

and theres a reason you dont see triptards in recent photo threads. its because theyre all clueless gearfags.

>>2991524
What about isi?

>>2991524

You're making me cringe.

>>2991524

You do realize that RPTs are a recent cancer, right? That they have severely dropped the quality of the board? No theme, no consistency, just garbage. Trips tend to dump sets, which is what is supposed to happen. Not the forum games you see today.

At least 5 trips here make their living, or at least good money, from photography... yet here you are bragging about posting daily snapshits in the RPT.

>>2991533

Which 5 trips?

P.S. 100% of the trips on this board post in the rpt, which is a tripfag invention itself.

>>2991549
Isi doesn't post in rpt.

>>2991554

Like 90% of her photos ever posted here were posted in an rpt. Her photo threads are a fairly recent thing that she adopted because I have such tremendous influence over this board.

File: 1248470_large.jpg (313KB, 940x1249px) Image search: [Google]

313KB, 940x1249px

>>2991031
>few hours you can take a good photo

yeah nah
attached is a good photo, I can't imagine anyone taking this without years of practice.

File: Chenman-Beauty-300.jpg (4MB, 2040x2640px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 2040x2640px

>>2991031
what are you even doing here if you don't know anything about photography nor respect it as the art it very clearly is?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2040
Image Height	2640

>>2991573
Zhang Jingna is overrated

File: 2478893361_b4a09a2abb_o.jpg (824KB, 800x1060px) Image search: [Google]

824KB, 800x1060px

>>2991580
k.
she still takes great photos
photos that very clearly refute the argument that photography isn't an art

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Google
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	800
Image Height	1060

>>2991583

It was just lazy bait.

>>2991585
hope so
I do agree that taking an acceptable photo is obviously easier than painting an acceptable painting, but the skill ceiling for both art forms is equally limitless and while the artistic integrity of a simple snapshot can be debated, there's no debate that there are many artistic photographers with high degrees of skill and decades of experience that can't be replicated by watching tutorials

>>2991031
Ayyyy

First of all you're right: photography isn't an art. But the whole way you approach the concept of art in general kinda shows you don't know anything about it. Sculpture isn't an art, and painting isn't an art. These, my dear, are what we call, and get out your notebook for this one, 'crafts'.

Fun fact, did you know any craft out there can be used to create art?! This includes photography! While just like painting a sign - just because you picked up a brush and dipped it into paint doesn't make it art - photography isn't automatically art either. However, all of these crafts can become an artistic 'medium'. I'm sure you've heard the word 'medium' used in the creative sphere once or twice, haven't ya lad? And this is why! Just like water is a medium for electricity, and air is a medium for sound, crafts can be a medium for artistic expression, and when they mediate artistic expression, that's when it becomes art!

Now I got one more pointer for you, little guy! Just because Art is a great thing, doesn't mean all art is good! This means something that is baaad can be art too.

I hope you learned something today, you little faggot, and that is this: you're stupid and you're wrong,

>>2991591
damn,
thanks for the perfect response to copy and paste whenever I see that shit

>>2991591
Shut the fuck up isi
No one likes your "art"

>>2991607
Am not isi, also prove me wrong or choke on cum

File: 356371.jpg (249KB, 2000x1126px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 2000x1126px

>photography isn't art

to be fair, OP's pic isn't art but artistic photography is art

OP post more fucking photos and get this shit back on track

>>2991591
I'm well aware of what art is, and have never considered it to be a measure of quality.
All those modern art things people get bent out of shape about? I've always known they were art, even though I've been told different.

And just like I told them, I'll tell you. You're wrong.
Take a photograph of a building, maybe zoom in on an angle, pump up the contrast, heck maybe it could even be in black and white. But all that gives you is a photograph of someone else's work.
Maybe you'll take a portrait. Well, that's just a person's face.
A photo of a lake with a mountain behind it? God did that, not you for crying out loud!

What about "artistic photography" like
>>2991616
Well, it's a lovely photograph... OF A FORM OF SCULPTURE! Tableau vivant is what you call that, and that is a form of artistic expression. But the photograph isn't.

>>2991583
Now this is art. You take a crummy photograph and add some artistic expression over the top, and you have yourself some grade A art my friend.

>>2991530
Literally the worst of the gear fags.
>oh i have a special camera that means i can forego editing
No, you're just reallllllly bad at editing, so you try and make other people think your photos look ok by default, they don't, they look disgusting.

>>2991549
I'm not sure any trips post in the rpt, it's just a containment thread for noobs.

>>2991591
>painting isn't art
When you're so facetious you just come across as dumb. But if you want an example of how stupid it comes across, let's give an example.
>any craft can be used to create art
Locksmithing, rope making, upholstery, book binding, shoe making.
>oh you unlocked my car so good, it's art
Nope
>Oh what an artistically significant piece of rope
Nope
>oh you recovered my sofa with my choice of fabric, to the louvre we go.
Nope
>wow, your talent at gluing paper into a book rivals the steady hand of michaelangelo
Nope

You fucking moron, fun fact, 100% of people associate painting and sculpture with art.

Also
>water is a medium for electricity
NOPE, water doesn't conduct electricity you fucking moron. Metallic Impurities in water allow it to (inefficiently) carry a current.

>air is a medium for sound
LOLLLL NOPE, sound is the effect of a complex pressure wave on a device designed to convert the pressure wave into an audible signal, be it ear or microphone. Air is a medium for pressure waves, not sound. What are you, a complete fucking moron? Have you never heard "If atree fallsin a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make asound?" the answer is "no" btw.

>something that is bad can be art too
But why would you want it to be, unless you're trying to justify your own work.

Congratulations on fucking up 100% of your example arguments tho, that takes commitment. Only a true fucking moron could manage.

>>2991732
>when you out autism isi.

Feels good Bro.

>>2991732
That was beautiful. Masterful.

File: Pressure Wave.webm (2MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1280x720px

>>2991732

>>2991732
>Oh what an artistically significant piece of rope
>Nope
Here's an idea for some rope art. Tie yourself a fancy noose and use it to hang yourself from the fucking ceiling, faggot.

>>2991732
ISI GET REKT

>>2991746
>shit rebuttal is shit
The peanut gallery respectfully requests that you apply yourself.

>>2991732
>No, you're just reallllllly bad at editing
http://m3.22slides.com/jamiewilliams/foto1801v1-copy-1639600.jpg
http://m3.22slides.com/jamiewilliams/foto0052v2-1639614.jpg
http://m3.22slides.com/jamiewilliams/fuji7736-copy-1639610.jpg
These all look both edited (not sooc) and nice.
are you sure you're not just autistic?

>>2991768
Not the person you were responding to, but, all 3 of these photos look very flat and the color doesn't have enough balance or rhythm.

They're snapshots with a dodgy filter thrown on top.

>>2991773
>look very flat
all of those look the opposite of flat, they're very contrasty

>color doesn't have enough balance or rhythm
This doesn't even mean anything.

>>2991780
Contrast != depth
Anyone with any level of art education could have told you this.

>this doesn't even mean anything
Well, no, it wouldn't to someone uneducated in art, just like if i told you to add a zobel to your high pass filter - absolutely meaningless unless you have experience in electrical engineering, then it makes perfect sense.

>>2991732
>Wakes up to see Anon soil himself. Looks like it's time to change some diapers.

LMAO Okay, okay. If you knew anything about art, you would have realized that Duchamp gave it context when he created artwork with his readymades. These is art that has been ACCEPTED by anyone who has ANY idea of what they're talking about regarding art across the world. And guess what, it was done without ANY craftwork what so ever. Anything can be art, it's already been accepted, whether YOU cry about it or not.

Does that make someone doing you a service ART? Does that make a surgical performance, done on the daily, art? NOPE. Little guy, listen here, the only GIVEN throughout ALL ART, throughout ALL of HISTORY, is that every artwork is done PRIMARILY AS AN EXPRESSIVE COMMUNICATION, and that the ARTWORK EMBODIES AN IDEA.

Could I make a food and submit it to an art gallery as art? WHOOPS IT'S BEEN DONE. PEOPLE HAVE TAKEN LITERAL POOP AND HAVE HAD EXHIBITIONS IN HIGHLY ESTABLISHED AND RENOWNED GALLERIES.

You literally have no idea what art is, do you? Tell me, what's art? What is its standard? Being beautiful? LMFAO okay.

You'll get it when you grow up.

>>2991706
You're not even trying, m8. Btw, when someone comes in to paint the walls of your house with white paint on a roller brush, is it art?
>DURR DURR I MEANT ART PAINTING
OH SO THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PAINTING AND ART PAINTING. HUH. MAYBE THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PHOTOGRAPHY AND ART PHOTOGRAPHY TOO

>>2991798
To clarify, if a surgeon and a patient came together to have a surgery done primarily as performance art, to express some kind of meaning to an audience (all art has an audience and it can be defined as loosely as the artist being the singular audience as well) then it is art.

If a locksmith decided to unlock a bunch of locks as a meaningful act of performance art, then it can be done.

Does the dissenting anon even know what performance art is? A guy had someone shoot him in the arm and it became a work of art, accepted and written about in art history books. Dear Anon, just because you don't know what art is or don't accept something as art, doesn't mean it isn't. You don't know anything about the qualifiers for an artwork, so choke on your own chode, little man. Shouldn't have expected every /p/tard to know.

>>2991732

>Locksmithing, rope making, upholstery, book binding, shoe making.

Hey bub, you're making the common mistake of assuming that the craft itself is the qualifier for what art is, and it's probably because you think painting and sculpting are automatically art. If you think painting a wall or making a perfect lifelike sculpture of a historical figure to use as a marker at a park are both acts of artwork, you'd be wrong, and yet they're both still done through paint or sculpture.

Anything can be art. A performance artist can use locksmithing, rope making, upholstery, book binding, or shoe making to express an idea or a feeling to an audience. Someone who made or even found a lock or a rope, for example, could display it as art if they really wanted to.

Your argument that the craft itself defines whether or not is art is not only simplistic, but it would fail immensely if we brought it over to the literary world. What is the medium for great literature or poetry? Language. Does that mean just because I wrote an article for Wikipedia mean that I created literature or poetry? Nope. But I used the exact same medium - language! And here's why: context.

It just feels fairly obvious to the rest of us that you haven't thought critically about art at all, but have just accepted your view of it through what was handed down to you by your parents and that you've made your argument based entirely upon assumptions, which is not a good thing.

>OP gets a camera, posts a snapshot, and the snapshot starts an argument between strangers regarding the very meaning of art itself.

Job well done, OP. Keep shooting.

>>2991798
Let's do a little journey through your mind

>>2991591
>Painting and photography aren't art, all crafts are art
>>2991732
>Here's some proof of you being wrong
>>2991798
>EVERYTHING is now art
>photography and art photography are completely different but locksmithing and doing a piece of performance art based around locksmithing are the same.

Let's dig a little further into individual statements

>all art has an audience and it can be defined as loosely as the artist being the singular audience as well

Please tell me more about these non art services with zero human involvement. Moron.

> ARTWORK EMBODIES AN IDEA.
Wow, let's just dissect this a little bit. Can you name anything that's not naturally occurring that isn't the embodiment of an idea? You may as well have shouted in caps "ALL ART IS SOMETHING" unintended philosophical depth aside, you're a moron.

>You literally have no idea what art is... Being beautiful? LMFAO okay.

Let's take a little look at what the OED defines as art
>the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.

Huh, would you look at that, typically painting or sculpture, appreciated primarily for their beauty.

Huh, that's odd, it seems to be perfectly at odds to what you implied, that painting and sculpture were not associated with art and beauty wasn't an important factor. Hmmmm.

Well, let's see what merriam webster says
>the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects.

Hmmm, still doesn't fit your narative
let's look at dictionary.com
>the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.

Wow, another one that agrees with little ol' me.

>>2991818
Oh, and what happened to your stance on mediums, now that you know air isn't a medium for sound and water isn't a medium for electricity.

>>2991815
lmao for real, of all the threads on /p/ that could have easily started this argument, the one that did it was a snapshit of a hat

>>2991812
>anything can be art!

Jesus fucking christ, I feel like I'm back in my first year of college. Your thinking is as naive as it is wrong.

File: download.png (6KB, 224x225px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 224x225px

>>2991818
>>2991732

>>2991818
>Painting and photography aren't art, all crafts are art

WRONG. No craft is art; anything has potential to be art, but nothing is automatically art.

>Here's some proof of you being wrong

Successfully rebutted.

>EVERYTHING is now art

Wrong about my point again, so while I'm reading this I'm going to assume you're probably going to be wrong.

>Please tell me more about these non art services with zero human involvement. Moron.

Wut?

>Can you name anything that's not naturally occurring that isn't the embodiment of an idea?

Like a rock? Or a tree? We might have an idea of what they are as human beings, but they are not embodiments of meaning. They do not exist for the sole purpose to communicate or express something to us. Your approach to thinking is symptomatic of the medieval mindset that can't separate the nature of a thing from what it means to us.

>Let's take a little look at what the OED defines as art
Have fun looking up the definition of a controversial subject quickly in a dictionary. Did you know definitions change all the time? Or are you not old enough? Even most philosophers can't agree on what art is. Trust me, I've studied art history and read journals on aesthetics. You? You've gone to dictionary.com and made an appeal to an authority who you don't even know.

>cites the words "typically painting or sculpture" as proof that painting and sculpture are automatically art.

Everything you've written so far has no weight in the eyes of philosophers nor artists. I'm sure I could break down your argument into simple bits to help you understand. Maybe I could hand hold you through a logical and critical look on why skill and creative imagination doesn't automatically equate to art, or that art isn't meant to be an aesthetically pleasing object (protip: there is art out there that is anti-aesthetic, and it actually contributed more than a painting by Bob Ross did.)

>>2991819
My stance on mediums? Just because I got those two wrong doesn't change my argument. I still see crafts as a medium for art, just like metal is a medium for electricity, and air is a medium for pressure waves. You had to get autistic about the specificities, but it doesn't change my argument or make it less valid. Thanks for correcting me, now my argument will be stronger in discussions with people who actually matter.

P.S. Based on your knowledge of Art derived from dictionary definitions and Wikipedia pages, I'm sure you know a lot about science too, based on all those posts you saw on Reddit and the stuff you read on Wikipedia.

>>2991824
You think I'm wrong? Okay. Tell me why. Let's see if you actually know anything about art. :)

>>2991829
>Can you name anything that's not naturally occurring that isn't the embodiment of an idea?
>Like a rock? Or a tree?

You heard it here first, rocks and trees aren't naturally occurring.

>Wut?
You said art requires an audience, even if it's only the artist themselves. So I was looking for examples of things that have been made without human involvement, as that's the only way by your definition NOT to have an audience. I was poking fun at yet another of your sentences completely void of meaning.

>Wrong about my point again, so while I'm reading this I'm going to assume you're probably going to be wrong.

You're missing my point, it was merely to show your lack of continuity. But if we're going to get onto that subject, in my opinion EVERYTHING designed by human is art and that's where your argument falls down, the basis on whether or not something is art is subjective and ones opinion has zero bearing on whether or not the item in question is or is in fact art.

college first years would cite this as "anything is art", artists clarify it as "this, to me, is art"

>>2991818
>Can you name anything that's not naturally occurring that isn't the embodiment of an idea?

You mean like an eating utensil? We had ideas to create those, but they are not embodiments of an idea, objects whose primary purpose is to express something by the author. They're pieces of material made so we can pick up food and place it in our mouths cleanly and efficiently. PLEASE, Please do yourself a favor and don't confuse an object's purpose with what it means to you.
Now take a fork and put it into a different context where the author indicates that we ought to look at for some contemplative purpose and that it expresses himself in someway? Then it's art! It doesn't mean it's good, and it's very pretentious, but it's actually art. I'm sorry if this doesn't fit into your fluffy concept of what art is. Maybe you should start reading about art. Duchamp and successors have done. Contemporary and modern art gave a whole new context to what art is. If you think painting your bedroom wall is art JUST because it's painting, you're fucking wrong, kid.

>>2991838
>You heard it here first, rocks and trees aren't naturally occurring.

Whoops I misread you because I was seeing red over your assertion of the meaning of art when you obviously know very little about it. See the last post >>2991839 At least I can correct myself.

>You said art requires an audience, even if it's only the artist themselves.

Am I... wrong? Can you show me where I'm wrong? I'd love to be corrected with truth. But so far you haven't pointed out where I'm wrong in this.

>in my opinion EVERYTHING designed by human is art and that's where your argument falls down

You think EVERYTHING is art? Lol, okay.

>the basis on whether or not something is art is subjective and ones opinion has zero bearing on whether or not the item in question is or is in fact art.

You think it's impossible to define art? That's just being lazy. It is very well for us to come upon a closed concept of art. Once we have a solid concept of art, arguments like this won't have to occur.

Also, why'd you change your argument? You went from asserting that painting and sculpture HAVE to be ART, and that ART has to be BEAUTIFUL and SKILLFULLY done, to saying that EVERYTHING is ART and the idea of art is what the individual makes of it.

I think you're wrong.

I think:
A. Art can exist with or without craft.
B. No practice of any single craft - such as painting or sculpture - automatically make it art.
C. Art is always an expression of something by the person who presented the artwork as such (an embodiment of an idea.)
D. Things that are not automatically art, even things that weren't made by the artist himself, can be repurposed and presented as art. See the last 100 years of art history for reference.

ITT: moopco and isi shit up another good thread
although I have to admit of the two isi's photos are far better

File: 1399906719473.jpg (55KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 1280x720px

>>2991798
>>2991818
>ARTWORK EMBODIES AN IDEA

Le smug hegel face

both of you are treading water, btw, by misconstruing each others' arguments (whether deliberately or not). "Art" is a disciplinary term, and a historical category. It's not a philosophical concept or an aesthetic category.

File: hegel022.png (277KB, 496x505px) Image search: [Google]

277KB, 496x505px

>>2991847
shit, that's not my smug hegel face (please don't confuse this for an endorsement of hegel's aesthetics though)

File: FOTO4364.gif (2MB, 999x666px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 999x666px

>>2991846
Don't pin this autism on me, sailor.

>>2991847
What is Art?

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

74KB, 300x256px

>>2991846
>another good thread

File: Derrida's free range sign farm.jpg (242KB, 500x480px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 500x480px

>>2991855
step it up senpai

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2012:03:02 17:43:15
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	500
Image Height	480

>>2991857
I'm not contesting against you, I want to know what it is, or at least what you think it is.

>>2991847
There's a whole branch of philosophy revolving around art, and there's an institutional debate on whether or not art can be defined. There are people who devote large portions of their life on this topic. Closing the concept of art can help educate large swathes of society and give greater access to the appreciation of art to a larger audience. If you don't think art is important, then I guess the definition of art is moot. But European and Asian cultures have had a long, long history of promoting Art, and Art itself has been held to the same level of importance as philosophy and literature in many societies for centuries.

File: 1364249747668.jpg (55KB, 559x558px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 559x558px

>>2991859
Art is first of all a discipline-specific term. That means it loses any determinate meaning outside of particular institutionally legitimated discursive conventions that have contextualized it in the past.

It also exists as an overdetermined mass-cultural word or phrase, i.e. as a contemporary ideological form, which is the way that it is being used ITT.

Art finally refers to an attribute used to categorize cultural activity in the past. In other words, as a strictly HISTORICAL (past-tense) predicate that is used in the construction of historical narratives.

>>2991865
You have that the wrong way around, there's a form of epistemology revolving around a whole branch of philosophy (aesthetics), which itself is a historically grounded (i.e. socio-economically and geopolitically contingent) phenomenon. "Art" is always an a posteriori assumption.

>But European and Asian cultures have had a long, long history of promoting Art
you're making a gross error in judgment by casually conflating european and asian cultures like that. And the appeal to historicity belies the point you're trying to make regarding the conceptual cohesiveness of "art"; 美術 was a thoroughly modern invention after all.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Microsoft Windows Photo Gallery 6.0.6001.18000
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2013:03:15 10:42:52
Unique Image ID	0375632191014CE181F24F420D2A6090

>>2991872
>epistemology
noob here. is this like the difference between know that something is art and knowing how something is art?

>>2991872
>"Art" is always an a posteriori assumption.
Explain your reasoning plz, I'm on /p/ to learn today.

File: potte.jpg (202KB, 900x600px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 900x600px

>>2991901
sure. at its most basic "art" in itself is an epistemological operation concerned with creating non-linguistic/non-logocentric forms of representation. The word--"art"--is simply the place-holding name or moniker that provides the entry-point of this initial activity into the (linguistic) realm of general intelligibility. In this way it involves two simultaneous functions: the emergence of a discrete "work" or "object or "piece" of art, a tangible thing; and the determination of whether or not this specific thing is (or isn't) art. Thus by simple virtue of the fact that it is capable of being recognized as such, "art" (as realized in a specific, objective instance or example) necessarily presupposes (posits as its own precondition) the particular epistemological parameters which only came into existence with their concrete embodiment in the artwork or -object itself. (Note here the a posteriori character of "art" as a concept.) Obviously this is a tautology in linguistic terms--but in linguistic terms only...

>>2991907
that's great but the last thing I wanna come to /p/ to do is teach.. Also this isn't reasoning per se, I'm talking from experience of how artwork is made, sold and written about.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Elements 3.0 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	360 dpi
Vertical Resolution	360 dpi
Image Created	2010:12:02 02:03:08
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	900
Image Height	600

File: taigamad1.jpg (54KB, 503x516px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 503x516px

>>2992267
>Obviously this is a tautology in linguistic terms--but in linguistic terms only...

Perhaps this is too gnomic for the uninitiated. let me rephrase in a less self-indulgent way.

Historically (in European bourgeois society) "Art" has been the privileged object of aesthetic theory, theory derived from the continent's (inherently theological) metaphysical tradition. The decisive emergence of aesthetics in the 19th century marked the culmination of a socio-political and economic development beginning as early as the 14th century and characterized by phenomenology and secular humanism; the theoretical formulation of aesthetics was concomitant with actual material changes resulting from the hypostatization of these politicized belief- or value-systems (ideologies). The objects it treated on ("artwork"--paintings, sculptures, and *actual plundered loot*) were thus quite literally the concentrated, fetishized embodiments of wealth--movable/transportable, unique, anthropomorphic (in scale and totalizing conceit), and reserved for the most privileged or elite. (Consider that our present-day museum, first seen in the Louvre, is the bastard offspring of the church/temple and the private galleries of royalty.) In this sense, aesthetic theory was an attempt to differentiate "art" from the rest of the world by defining its intrinsic properties and locating them in the concrete presence of the "artwork" itself (which was otherwise just one object among others). However, this differentiation produced the aforementioned tautology in the form of the frame (and pedestal, proscenium, etc.--things which mark the separation between the artwork and the world where it appears) whose necessary physical co-presence with the artwork had to be disavowed or denigrated for it to be conceptually functional. In so far as the frame conditions our viewing experience of the "artwork" (i.e. structures its aesthetic autonomy), it reproduces the metaphysical fetish on an individual scale.

File: bery_dereeshus.jpg (34KB, 300x291px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 300x291px

>>2992465
So, despite being a physical thing, the frame's objective presence (with all its experiential or sensory effects) is subsumed by the abstract function it serves as a sign that delimits meaning, circumscribes context. (It's outgrowth into the institutional "frame" perfectly shadows the disciplinary divisions of academia.) This is the basic "postmodern" critique of modern art in the 20th century. (A critique which was moreover impelled by the appearance of photography--photography transformed "Art" in a historically-significant way twice: first with its emergence in the late 19th century, and with its institutional legitimization as a commercially and ideologically valuable "art form" in the 1970s--also as an aside, this is why it's cancerous to put white frames around your photos when posting them online like isi does). As an "epistemological operation," "art" thus comprises the artwork and its frame (now understood more broadly as the contextual conditions of its appearance). In so far as the relationship between these two elements witnesses a formal reflexivity (i.e. each aspect exerts an influence over the other) that is contingent and specific, it cannot be reduced to a linguistic "closed concept."

To recapitulate the basic point, the meaning or definition of "art" cannot be disentangled or distinguished from the real-world conditions that sustain its representational function, and as such any attempt to fix its universal definition is naive and foolish.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1280
Image Height	720
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2012:02:10 17:48:54
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	300
Image Height	291

>>2991820

I posted here because I was curious to see how lazy the mods were.

Pretty lazy, it seems. They only act on personal vendettas.

>>2992465
>The decisive emergence of aesthetics in the 19th century
18th century*

>>2992483

Can you expound a bit on why the consequence of this is that putting white borders around your photo's is cancerous? Has it to do with the viewing conditions, namely: online?

>>2989344
Fking edgelord do you even english
Do you actually read the sentence
"This was a photo taken by me" as
"This was a photo. Taken by me."
OP means the photo was taken by him sometime before right now you retard, and it's not quite obvious he took it until he said it. There are many threads discussing the works of others and if you didn't know will you just say "oh fuck this is obviously yours!"

You bag of shit
Fucking pretentious cunt
Kys

>>2993588
Lol, shutup faggot.

>>2989343
>guy says interest is everything
>bland photos
wut
interesting is the opposite of bland. Is english not your first languge?

File: mamimi.jpg (41KB, 720x480px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 720x480px

>>2993581
that is certainly part of it, there is a profound--some might say ontological--difference between a physically printed image and a digital file displayed on a screen. however the distaste for the practice which I voiced above is founded more on historical and political grounds.

At risk of oversimplifying: The "indiscriminately" indexical and democratizing quality of the first photographs in the 19th century (e.g. the daguerrotype, collodion process, gelatin dry plate) marked the decisive breakdown of the frame's function as an ideological bulwark against changes to or criticisms of the dominant (class-based) social order. The transformation of art effected by photography in this way had to do with the ingress of formerly excluded elements into the representational space sustained by the frame (which photographs afforded). (At least, that's what Walter Benjamin claims.) In other words, less the frame's simple elimination than its sudden, accelerated expansion to encompass all aspects of life, warts and all. However, this move's "emancipatory potential" (that's the shibboleth of pretty much all political commentary on art) depended on the discrete status of the image as an aesthetic object; which is to say, the coherence of its critique depended on the coherence of the bourgeois social institutions it critiqued. (This can be seen in modernist photography's enduring interest in the physical, medium-specific qualities of the photographic image.) [cont...]

File: tamayura.jpg (77KB, 500x393px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 500x393px

>>2993634
Once this isomorphism broke down (with the spectacular rise of mass-produced, commodified images in the mid-20th century, the increasing detachment of the visual signifier from its referent and of the referent from reality), the frame was figuratively re-incorporated in the image as, essentially, one more type of contents among others. Because it now belied the determining conditions of representation which avant-garde photography had historically sought to transcend, the self-referentiality of the frame became inadequate as a critical or aesthetic strategy for representing society, reality, and/or the individual outside of the predetermined possibilities provided by late modern capitalism. Formally speaking, this tension between reactionary commercialism and contemporary photography (to borrow from Benjamin again, the issue is not to think of *photography as being art* but rather of **art as being photography**) manifested in the 1970s as the increasing imbrication of conceptual- and performance-art with photography, film and video, on the one hand, and the increasing presence of photographs in galleries and exhibitions, on the other. The latter privileged the typical presentation of the photograph in a thin black or metal frame, centred by a white matte that covers over the edges of the actual print--a gesture which suppressed the specific representational potential of photographs in this moment, namely their seriality, ephemerality, and ubiquitous presence in and as the world beyond the gallery. The appropriation of mass-mediated images and cultural tropes by photography in the 1980s and 1990s indicated a renewed avant-garde attempt at representing (rather than merely reiterating or reproducing) the inherent abstractions of modern reality. [cont.]

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Paint.NET v3.36
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	96 dpi
Vertical Resolution	96 dpi

File: canaan.jpg (68KB, 1262x743px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 1262x743px

>>2993637
Thus in so far as the white border connotes the materiality of a medium which no longer necessarily exists as such, it now belongs to a semiotic structure of representation that exerts a counterproductive, overdetermining effect on the photographic image and asserts an obsolete aesthetic paradigm as the condition governing its consumption. That is to say, it now possesses an allure that is less aesthetic than it is fetishistic, in the sense of the commodity-fetish. It neglects the vocation of committed photography which in [>CURRENT YEAR] is to foreground a type of frame that is not something complete, coherent, and infinitely inclusive, but rather reticulated, involuted, and absolutely atomizing; these effects surface in the ever-more proficient means and mechanisms for staging, constructing, and altering images, the near total subversion of conventional (renaissance-perspective) pictorial naturalism to veristic truth-claims and the increasing abolition of chance and uncertainty from the representational procedures underlying (digital) photography and international commerce alike.

This all isn't to say that white borders are bad, full stop. They're just a sign and a device that is especially loaded with historical-political significance and which I think as such must be handled with care and attention in any photographic endeavour.

>>2993644
>pictorial naturalism to veristic truth-claims

pictorial naturalism's veristic truth-claims*

holy shit. Not OP but you guys are all really autistic.

All this over a hat.

>>2993890
welcome to /p/

>>2993644

Thanks for the write up, you know your stuff! I'm really surprised to see such a well thought out piece on /p/.

I'm interested to know more on your stance.

What would be a passable use of white border for you? Does a black border carry the same commodity-fetishist connotation?

Photography as "reticulated, involuted, and absolutely atomizing", is this what photography IS as such, or rather, what it should aim to be? (to accurately represent the reticulated nature of reality, and to not hide the element of chance that is inherent to the capture -- hiding this would make of the photographer the genial artist or author, and represent reality ultimately as manipulable/malleable).

As I don't usually read philosophy in English, your write up might have been too dense for me, but really interesting nonetheless.

File: van_gogh_shoes.jpg (2MB, 3000x2484px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3000x2484px

>>2994267

>What would be a passable use of white border for you?

I think that that would depend on the work in question, although I am hard-pressed to think of a specifically *digital/online* context where white borders appeared around photographs without becoming instant kitsch. I'm not suggesting that we simply do away with the conventional gallery presentation that adorns photos with all the trappings of "fine-art" (and hence do away with the white border in its "natural habitat" as it were), since that would be impossible; although I invariably find such images boring, bourgeois and collectible.

In a significant way my problem with the white border has to do with the difference between analog or physical and digital photography, because this is a difference that resolves primarily in the way the images are processed and displayed (rather than how they are initially rendered by the camera via the lens). So if I had to prescribe something I'd say that any use of the white border in contemporary photography must conceive of it first of all as a plastic (rather than conceptual or structural) object. Something much easier said than done.

>Photography as "reticulated, involuted, and absolutely atomizing"
That is a description of the predominant conditions of photography's existence in [>current year] and as such refers to a reality that photography-based art should at least take into account.

Also--maybe there is something to OP's image. At least it made me think of pic related.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2013:11:23 14:25:09
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	3000
Image Height	2484

>>2994553
really the only reason to have a white border is for signing, numbering, and handling

>>2994573
fucking THIS!

>>2991161
maybe the artistic genius is the fact that it had the power to cause such a debate.

File: tree.jpg (1MB, 3785x2217px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3785x2217px

Another "snapshit" from OP here

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	DSC-RX10
Camera Software	Windows Photo Editor 10.0.10011.16384
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	24 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2017:01:04 19:45:47
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Shutter Priority
ISO Speed Rating	250
Brightness	5.7 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	8.80 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	5472
Image Height	3648
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

File: 02748.jpg (3MB, 4502x3366px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4502x3366px

>>2994730
and last one

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	DSC-RX10
Camera Software	Windows Photo Editor 10.0.10011.16384
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	24 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2017:01:04 19:53:00
Exposure Time	1/400 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	160
Brightness	10.2 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	8.81 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	5472
Image Height	3648
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>2994598
You admitted in your last thread you don't do art.

Borders have a purpose other than signing, if you don't know it, go read a book you uneducated plebs.

>>2989532
>MMP and Ambush will be the first 2 to tell you that photography is a challenging hobby, and only for patient, passionate people
Correct

>prepared to drop the cost of a brand new gaming PC on a small piece of glass.
Absolute bullshit. I've seen great photos taken with an iPhone.

>>2991745
The drone footage from Syria has been really awesome. Amazing how almost every invention gets used for warfare eventually.

File: CzL--cNVEAEJgz8.jpg large.jpg (108KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 960x720px

>>2994730
>>2994733
These are technically fine (if the shallow depth of field was on purpose, if not read up about f-stops). They're the kind of thing most of us took when we started out, stuff that looks sort of pretty but without a huge amount of thought behind them. If you're just starting out there's nothing wrong with that. It's good practice to get the basic techniques.

Something that helped me was "tell a story". Anyone can get a flower head in focus and press the shutter button, but there's not much to engage the viewer, it's just a flower in the center of the frame. Some of the best photos have technical flaws but are very well composed and have interesting subjects.

So, the flower. It's dead centre with everything else out of focus (except for two stalks on the right, I'm assuming that's not intentional). Where is the viewer's eye supposed to go? There's no incentive to look around the frame, because the subject is right in the middle with everything around it not being of interest. Is there anything special about that flower? We've all seen a flower like it, there's nothing to keep us engaged.

I'd say the photo to the left an example of a very strong subject, it's a Syrian soldier seeing his father's shop for the first time in 4 years as it was in a rebel-occupied zone. I think it's a powerful photo that tells an instantly arresting story about family, war, and Aleppo in particular.

Obviously you're not going to be a war photographer off the bat, it's just an example of how a subject draws one into a photo. More so than something that looks sort of nice but has been done by everyone and doesn't have a story to tell.

>>2994857

>correct

For wildlife photography, absolutely.

File: sea-idyll-1908.jpg (268KB, 1255x948px) Image search: [Google]

268KB, 1255x948px

>>2994553

Yes, thought the same. There is something about op's pic, even if it's not intentional. It reminded me of >pic related

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS4 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	400 dpi
Vertical Resolution	400 dpi
Image Created	2010:07:26 11:07:43
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1255
Image Height	948

>>2989274
It's not a terrible photo. It's not amazing and it's not going to win any awards but I've seen far worse. You actually bothered to isolate the subject from invasive distractions and the light is reasonable. The hat itself looks kind of interesting, and I'm curious because you can tell somebody's wearing it but I don't know who. My only real problem with this shot is the out of focus object on the upper left, whatever it is.

File: gleaners_of_hyper_oats.jpg (1MB, 1710x1258px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1710x1258px

>>2994553
From OP's photo we cannot even even tell where this hat stands. There is nothing surrounding the ranch-hand's hat in or to which it might belong--only an out of focus space. There is not even dust from the drive or the cattle-trail sticking to it, which would at least hint at its use. A cowboy's hat and nothing more. And yet--

From the dark emptiness of the shaded underside of the brim the toilsome trot of the worker stares forth. In the stiffly rugged heaviness of the hat there is the accumulated tenacity of his slow ride through the far-spreading and ever-uniform steppes of the prairie swept by a hot wind. On the leather lie the softness and richness of the herdbeast. Under the crown sits the loneliness of the cattle-path as evening falls. In the hat vibrates the silent call of the range, its quiet gift of the burgeoning calf and its unexplained self-refusal in the fallow destitution of the aging heifer. This equipment is pervaded by uncomplaining anxiety as to the certainty of work, the wordless joy of having once more withstood want, the trembling before the impending childbed and shivering at the surrounding menace of death. This equipment belongs to the *range* and it is protected in the *world* of the cowhand. From out of this protected belonging the equipment itself rises to its resting-within-itself.

>>2995023
Makes you think what the real purpose of this image was........

>>2995286
OP confirmed for best photographer on /p/

>>2989274
that looks like my fucking hat,

HAVE YOU BEEN FOLLOWING ME!!!

>>2997018
Yes dubs, I have

>>2995023
A+

>>2991732
>NOPE, water doesn't conduct electricity you fucking moron. Metallic Impurities in water allow it to (inefficiently) carry a current.

ahem. water is a polar molecule. js.

>>2991732
>LOLLLL NOPE, sound is the effect of a complex pressure wave on a device designed to convert the pressure wave into an audible signal, be it ear or microphone. Air is a medium for pressure waves, not sound. What are you, a complete fucking moron? Have you never heard "If atree fallsin a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make asound?" the answer is "no" btw.

how does it feel to be extremely retardedly wrong?
we perceive pressure waves as sound. end of story. there is no "conversion of pressure waves to an audible signal". just try listening to electrical impulses... the signal is just a way of transmitting information. and then you get into the whole muddle of how the brain works, so I won't go there.