Shot on my Phase One FX Any criticism? [EXIF data available.

looks like everything else these days

was the signs in the bg accidental?

Seems like a case of good model, good equipment, average photographer.

If you have so much money to spend on photography why don't you take a class on composition and lighting?

>>3054825
looks like it was shot on crop with a bad lens, that bokeh and aberrations on the buildings in the background is gross.

>>3054825

Success : you got a great female model

Failures: everything photography related

Distracting background. Distracting shadow in the foreground. Shot into the light at golden-ish hour, especially on a digital sensor, that's kinda unforgivable. No fill-flash on the model.

Plan your shoots properly; your model sure did. With those failings corrected, and a more wide-open aperture (you don't have to shoot her moving, you know? take your time focusing), this'd look less like a first digital MF rental.

Also, I don't say this often, but you undercooked the processing as well. Maybe PhaseOne turns 'em out neutral as a design choice, but you should really work on processing a bit as well.

File: 31430A4D-BA98-4958-A507-EC94B4EA21C9-9036-0000081D6D08BEF2.jpg (241KB, 682x909px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 682x909px

>>3054825
You should seriously consider booking a place on one of my portrait masterclasses.

t. Jason

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Snapseed 2.17.150426759
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	96 dpi
Vertical Resolution	96 dpi
Image Width	682
Image Height	909

>>3054864
>you undercooked the processing as well. Maybe PhaseOne turns 'em out neutral as a design choice, but you should really work on processing a bit as well.
can you elaborate on this?

File: wpid2032-20120310-DSC_0297.jpg (720KB, 1000x664px) Image search: [Google]

720KB, 1000x664px

>>3054869
jarid poolin here from froooow noes foowtow

today we'll make your portraits looks like shit

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D5000
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4.0 (Windows)
Photographer	Alex Banakas
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.3
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	914
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	123 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2012:03:11 21:33:46
Exposure Time	1/1000 sec
F-Number	f/4.2
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/4.2
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Spot
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	82.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Hard
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: 1478535484652.jpg (293KB, 1641x1231px) Image search: [Google]

293KB, 1641x1231px

OP here, what about this one?

>>3054869
This is how I see real life when I close my eyes

>>3054878
What are you trying to accomplish here. What's your vision?

File: 1491851408949-01.jpg (299KB, 757x1152px) Image search: [Google]

299KB, 757x1152px

>>3054878
For the love of God man...crop!

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Snapseed 2.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2017:04:10 20:21:03
Image Width	757
Image Height	1152

>>3054878

Why are you so far away? What intrigued you enough about the clump of bikes on the right that you wanted to include it?

>>3054878

you need to have a stronger idea in your head for what you want to achieve and where all the elements and lighting need to be in your photo. you have ideas but it is too unrefined.

File: copy (2).jpg (244KB, 719x960px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 719x960px

>>3054869
dude that is a horrid edit..me just spending a minute and no interest i can do a better job.
amd you charge monet for classes?
let me knock you down your high horse.
To the OP ..just spend some time learning editing. any picture has potential if it has some value to you.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.0 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2017:04:10 15:37:06

File: c.jpg (97KB, 804x960px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 804x960px

>>3054825
>pay $15,000 on a camera system
>hire hot model
>take pictures on a boring ass street with a wide angle lens
>boost saturation to dumb levels

What are you doing, anon?

Here's a photo I took with my shitty beat up Pentax 67 that cost maybe $600 for the whole kit.

>>3054901
Those are some truly epic halos senpai

>>3054917
are you trying to show him that he can take shitty pictures on a cheaper system as well?

>>3054917
>posting a shit example to contrast an expensive shit example
u wot?

File: 1137-400120021.jpg (858KB, 812x1000px) Image search: [Google]

858KB, 812x1000px

These are atrocious.

My god you suck. Even I have done better than this and I did it on 6x7 film too with a busted up Mamiya RB. git gud m80

>inb4 kys

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2015:02:07 23:57:22

>>3054945

>busted up

Ahh, so that's why the composition is shitty, the lighting flat, colors washed out, highlights blown, and the subject bland looking.

>nice safety net
>totally the camera

>>3054945
should have just give her a swift kick to the chest my senpai

>>3054950
>>3054948

0/10

here's a (You) for your trouble

File: 149184169714a1.jpg (417KB, 719x960px) Image search: [Google]

417KB, 719x960px

LITERALLY 10 seconds op.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	96 dpi
Vertical Resolution	96 dpi
Image Created	2017:04:10 22:35:50
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	719
Image Height	960

>>3054921
>>3054919
I do think mine is more visually interesting but basically, yeah. Like, mine is obviously not meant to be a paid portrait, it's a candid pic of this girl I go shooting with. I don't think it's amazing by any means but it is at least on par with the stuff he's posting.

I guess if I had to make my point, it would be to learn what you're doing on something cheap instead of posting your shit pics off of your expensive paperweight.

>>3054825
It looks okay, but there is nothing special about it.

>>3054965
can I get her number?

>>3054973
Sure
6165349782

>>3055018
She's from Grand Rapids?

>>3054878
That better be your bike my dude or else that phase one is going to be lodged in your mouth

>>3054825
>Phase One FX
dear god you must be poor

Anyway, your background is shitty, the street signs behind her are distracting, especially the one coming out of her fucking head.

>>3054878
Absolutely godawful composition.

You don't know what you doing.

>>3054869
you made her face orange dude, this isn't Trump
>>3054901
meh

Do the previous two of you have your monitors calibrated?

>>3054963
Good edit colourwise, didn't fix the rest of the problems though.


>>3054889
Not a bad crop, but I would've edited out that distracting shit in the background on the left.

>>3054917
Yeah, still a shit photo buddy. At least straighten your lines and edit that colour blob in the middle out next time. Not that it would've fixed that shot. Your composition sucks, she's almost dead center both vertically and horizontally. There's either too much or too little of the scenery in the background for it to be interesting.

>>3054945
She's slightly out of focus, way too fucking dark to be the subject of the image while the background is way too light. You could've blown the background out in this one since it's shit anyway.

>>3054965
Don't give up though, keep shooting, keep posting.

mickey mouse headass

>>3054945
>can't focus on a static subject
>exposed for the background
This is a classic Sugar post.

File: 1486255536633.jpg (44KB, 960x536px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 960x536px

>>3055092
>dear god you must be poor

>>3055096
I see that you're an expert at spotting sarcasm

>>3055094
Came to say this.

>>3054945
is this satire?

>>3054878
>>3054825
looks like you should haven't spent all your money on a Phase and saved some money on a camera assistant who knows how to light, or at least hold a reflector and some talent that doesn't have fat ass birthing hips.

absolutely haram

>>3054945
Sugar you do about as well (or poorly) as OP. in fact I would have thought they were yours if the location was more american

>>3054963
it's better but those blown highlights, I suspect you could do a lot more with the original file and dot a shitty jpg. still no fixing those thunder thighs

>>3054870
It's underprocessed. Camera defaults rarely communicate an artistic vision. (the newbie will knee-jerk here and go "b-but, camera defaults _are_ my artistic vision [because i'm a bottom bitch to a damn computer]".)

>>3054878

Dutch wanker.

>>3055161
After years of research we're fairly confident that the entire persona is an elaborate parody.

>>3054825
I'm going to assume she was moving (try not to shoot on the move) but always remember that it's the face (eyes especially) are what need to be in focus.

>>3055164
>still no fixing those thunder thighs
Basement dwellers trying this hard to create an online alpha persona

>>3055164
>still no fixing those thunder thighs
how's it feel to be gay?

>>3054917
you didn't even hit focus you fucking mongoloid

File: noidea.jpg (218KB, 550x409px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 550x409px

>>3054917
Well at least this person has more appeal to them over the Ops shots. Still a crappy one though.
OP just wow! Are your parents rich, and they bought you any camera you wanted? You may as well have used a phone to shoot this boring garbage, and that is just the starting point. Have your mum&da pay for some classes for you too.
>>3054945
Oh look it is this boring badly exposed shot again.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	550
Image Height	764
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	2011:12:14 17:33:21
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	550
Image Height	409

>>3054878
where is her fucking arm?

>>3055489
You try hand holding a Pentax 67 at 1/60th a second wide open at 2.8. See if your photo is tac sharp.

>>3055647
Nobody forced you to do it this way. People just comment on the finished product

>>3054825
>focusing on the boobs instead of the face

Why does everybody do this

Is really no-one else bothered by the shot not being level? It's frustrating to look at

>>3055861
bcuz err body wanna nut lil nigga. das wat make |)a worlĐ go round

>>3054872
This asshole lives in my city and I see him frequently at the coffee shop I go to. I want to punch him in the face every time I see him

File: grimace.gif (3KB, 273x386px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 273x386px

>>3055484
>how's it feel to be gay?
god damn I only wish.
not having to put up with stupid bitches asking if I think they are fat or if I think they are pretty and being too tired after work to lie.

my gay friends get to have sex and know that it's just sex with no pretense about actually liking whoever they are fucking.
meanwhile I get in shit for checking out hotter girls than whoever I'm out with but don't really care because I have had to finish myself off for the last 3 months since she put on 20lbs and only really wants to cuddle now and talks about how fat she has gotten looking for me to say it's ok, but it's not ok.when I see a gastley heffer like OP's pic, all I see is McDonald's Grimace.

shit were I gay, I would never again have to lie and say "No your ass doesn't look fat, what are you talking about?" again.

shit would be great

>>3056015
do it pls

>>3056015
the internet sanctions the assault on Fro Knows Shit

>>3054872
Kek I read this in his voice.

>>3054917
Don't listen these other fags, anon thats a decent photo.

>>3056115
No
No it is not

File: 1483335842596.jpg (262KB, 1539x1231px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 1539x1231px

OP here, another one made on my Phase One FX

>>3056250
those legs look like they came straight out of a horror movie

File: 1462327014912.jpg (77KB, 1080x719px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 1080x719px

>>3056250
another one

>>3056250
>>3056252
How much did it sting when you realised you were the weak link in your photography, not your gear?

>>3056254
you guys are just hatig on me because I have an expensive camera?

>>3056255
how did you get the camera? richfag?

>>3056255
Nah, your photos are shit.

Upload your next lot without mentioning what they were shot on and I'm 100% sure you will still get your asshole torn open for being shit at this hobby.

>>3056250
Look at this girls legs ffs, are you fucking blind?

>>3056250
Absolute trash. I have no idea how you could fee comfortable posting these for /p/ublic critique.

>>3055647
should've borrowed her tripod then if you cant even lift and stop your tiny arm from trembling for 1/60th of a second

>>3056255

Make a new thread stating they come from your Fuji X-T1, /p/ loves to circle jerk that camera.

I bet you will get similar criticism, though maybe slightly less harsh.

>>3056255
How's it feel to know that there are millions of "photographers" in this world who have no interest beyond their iPhone and Instagram who have a better sense of style and composition than you?

>>3056076
>when I see a gastley heffer like OP's pic, all I see is McDonald's Grimace

what?

>>3056252
compared to your own stuff this one is the best

>>3056293
Pay no attention- he's a fag and a troll. I wouldn't be surprised if it was actually OP trying to deflect some attention away from the quality of his own images. Either way, it's just bait.

OP you should have spent the money on photo / posing / lighting classes before spending money on anything but a phone or rebel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT6eaBm82bQ

>>3056250
Turn the fucking sharpening down, holy shit.

>>3055647
They are not that heavy. I shot with that, and the 645 which was larger. To me they were no different than using an SLR.

File: lookup.jpg (43KB, 412x450px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 412x450px

>>3055861
>Why does everybody do this
Could be looking at what they want to play with by nature.

>>3056255
No not at all. Your shots are garbage is why.
We are more angry that you take a semi attractive girl, and make her look hideous. Also that you chose to be the ultimate gearfag in your initial post.
Since the EXIFs are totally stripped out you are probably using a cellphone for these, and just trolling.
If I was trolling like this I would write in some false EXIF into the images. But then I am not as smart as you.

At this point, OP gets points for keeping at it. Persistence in experimentation, and subsequent self-review, will eventually pay off in ending up doing things well.

In the meantime, thanks to OP for the MF shots, flawed as they are. I nearly always enjoy seeing formats larger than 35mm, for some reason.

>>3056076
Whale magnet detected.

File: E75623C8-894D-4901-955ECD8667E3188E.jpg (45KB, 590x394px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 590x394px

>>3056418
>>3055647
the problem with the 6x7 is not weight in fact that makes it easier to shoot at slower speeds. the real flaw with it is that massive mirror slap that can be measured most accurately by using the Richter Scale

>>3056255
I'm going to give a quick review of why you got hate.

>You lead by stating what camera you were using instantly outing yourself as a gearfag.
This does not matter, you shouldn't tell us including and especially if it's extremely expensive.

>The pictures are actually very uninteresting and overprocessed
I'm sorry if you can't accept that. I'd be honest if there were anything particularly interesting in them but there isn't. I'm not saying it's impossible for you to get better but you don't seem to have much of a perspective or vision with these shots. Like, any idiot can point a camera at a beautiful woman. That isn't enough to make a picture good.

>You got pissy when people told you the photos were bad
This is probably the most damnable offense. You came to /p/. You know the reputation of this place. It's extremely critical and you need to expect criticism even if you post great pictures

Just learn to take criticism and don't think you're a great photographer just because you get paid or have a big camera.

>>3056555
>the real flaw with it is that massive mirror slap that can be measured most accurately by using the Richter Scale
Really LOL!
Well then you by the sounds of it need to work out a bit, and learn proper technique. Shooting with a camera is like shooting with a rifle at long ranges. With proper technique you hit a target, and capture a good image.

>>3054825
The background looks very familiar, but I can't figure out where... Can you tell me where it was taken?

>>3054825
>>3056250
>Phase One FX
Wait what? The only FX made by Phase is a scanning back from 2000/2002, or do you mean the XF camera body?

>>3056255
Considering you misspelled the model name and there is no exif embedded in the images, I'd wager you don't actually own a Phase, which kind of works in your favor as of this moment.

>>3058136
duh I meant the XF

>muh exif
I'm just posting the jpegs I put on my facebook. not gonna export shit specially for /p/

>>3058166
Upload one with an exif, if you can ;)

>>3058220
>not gonna export shit specially for /p/

;^)

>>3057452
>Shooting with a camera is like shooting with a rifle at long ranges.

sure but not all rifles are created equal, you cant compare a .308 Winchester to a SKS.

I can hand hold my Hasselblad at 1/30 with usable results but when I ran a test roll through a 67 a few years back I got noticeable motion blur with every shot below 1/250
Though I don't know how the Pentax would perform with a waist level finder. Might help.

>>3058222
Nah mike, it's because these were shot on your shitty little nikon and lenses you borrowed off school, this is cringey as fuck, your family is poor as shit.

>>3054825
Please tell me you fucked her

>>3058391
Mike couldn't fuck a hooker, this is a paid model.

>>3058392
Kek

Am I missing something with the "Mike" thing though?

>>3058395
That's the guy who shot these, I go to school with him. Dude's a fucking creepy weirdo.

>>3054825
>>3054878
>>3056252
>>3056250
How the fuck do you get so far into photography that you buy a professional system camera but still haven't learned how to properly compose and post-process.

Fuck pal, I'd say go back to square one. Sell your insane gear and buy something cheap. If you're going to art school I'd probably stop going because it's clearly not working, but as your choice of camera shows you love wasting money

File: 7534774F-DAC2-44F8-98A2-DDB0C47D0811-10790-00000A03ADC3069B.jpg (361KB, 1539x1231px) Image search: [Google]

361KB, 1539x1231px

>>3056250
Why do her skin tones look like ass here but not here
>>3056252
Seriously, it's like someone's been beating her legs with a hammer.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1539
Image Height	1231

>>3058398
>Dude's a fucking creepy weirdo.

That's not very nice of you to say, anon.

>>3058408
Mike, stop being such a faggot and post your "phase one"/d3100

>>3058417
Who is this? Can you please leave my thread.

>>3058136
>>3058166
>>3058222
>>3058368
>>3058392
>>3058398
>>3058408
>>3058417
>>3058427
People being called out on their bullshit makes me warm inside

Get fucked Mike

File: 1472739045052.jpg (250KB, 1851x1234px) Image search: [Google]

250KB, 1851x1234px

OP here, time to come clean, these are really shot on a Phase One XF, but they were shot by one of my teachers at the university. I just wanted to make sure that he really sucked and that these weren't just bad in my eyes.

I got it off of his fb, and he makes even worse pics with his XF (pic related) , which I purposefully didn't cherry pick

>>3058398
>That's the guy who shot these
op here, are you claiming to know me?
>mike
literally who? you know these aren't even shot in the US, right?

>>3058433
No one said anything about the us mike.
These are your shots and you've been caught out being an insecure, poor little faggot.

>>3058434
I literally came clean you retard. read my post.
>being this autistic that you think you recognize your friend
your friend shoots dutch models in the netherlands?

>>3056252
Her sclera are the same color as her skin. This looks like it was shot on an xtrans sensor.

>>3058436
>came clean
>heh, trolled you guys, I was pretending to be someone else, heh

Nah famm, you've just been outed.
>>3056255
Look how personally you took it, too delusional mang.

>>3058433
Hahahaha wat en lekker 'baitje'.

>>3058433
Still a faggot.

>>3054869
Your edit makes her look photoshopped into a background she isn't a part of, good job faggot. What the hell is with the clarity? there's a setting below 100 on the slider, you should try it.

File: 1488496002755.png (863KB, 725x868px) Image search: [Google]

863KB, 725x868px

>>3058439
>you've just been outed.
you still think I'm your friend mike? are you schizo? go ask him then you tard.

>>3058442
haha ja toch

>>3058577
that´s definately your facebook page, mike. Who are you trying to fool

>>3058683
alright, you are clearly trying to bait now. too obvious

>>3058577
Great photos. Please link your facebook page so i can like favorite and subscribe

How is it possible to take such shitty pictures with a medium format camera? You have to be fucking blind.

>>3058800
Even if it has a huge sensor and a lot of megapixels at the end of the day it's still digital. Digital medium format doesn't look much different than a digital compact camera resolution aside. You need to have VERY good lighting/color and editing skills to make digital look passable.

>>3058433
yeah they really are bad gj

>>3058433
Looks like a caustics test for a render engine, and not a pretty one.

I thought they were awesome, until I learned that we've been tricked.

>>3058805
in other words you fucking suck at editing and lighting

File: 1464568565781.jpg (536KB, 1994x1329px) Image search: [Google]

536KB, 1994x1329px

another one shot with his Phase One
>take clarity slider
>max it out

>>3056250
Did you give her a shiner for that flat chest? Should have covered it up better in post

>>3058166
The fuck not? It takes a second