>dude window light and blown out and shit lmao will this

>>3083633
>skinny tall white girl with long brown hair in tiny underwear

speaking of memes

>>3083635
with flawed face, but flat lighting blown exposure so all the features fade away and give her meme beauty

>>3083635
>>3083638
look at the meme eyes, guys.

File: 20170510-_DSC4121.jpg (150KB, 667x1000px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 667x1000px

>>3083633
dat heterochromia iridum

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-6300
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.7 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	52 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2017:05:26 15:17:33
Exposure Time	1/160 sec
F-Number	f/1.8
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	640
Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Brightness	2.7 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	35.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>3083650
>dat autism

>>3083633
>gf goes to professional photographer with her nurse colleagues/friends for some "fun friend group portraits"
>gets handed a few 30x24 prints of le white background group shots with brightness over 9000 and contrast to below zero
>"hey you like photography, what do you think of them, anon?"
>"y-yes they look n-nice, a bit on the bright side though"
>"what do you mean? They were taken by a professional, I think he knows what he's doing haha"
>Take me now Lord

>>3083684
this every time.
if i try to argue with my gf about someones shit work theyve done, not even necessarily photography, i am always wrong as i clearly dont know what im talking about as they are the """"""""professionals"""""""".

>>3083684
why werent you the photog?

>>3083716
Because hes not a "professional"

>>3083633
It's called "high key lighting."

It's not a shitty meme. You just have no clue what you are talking about.

>>3083733
>It's not a shitty meme
yes it is, and it's used to death by hacks who don't know anything else.

>>3083742
No, that is simply the narrative and interpretation you want to write, and believe yourself - to hate on others with a different style than your own.

You should be more concerned about yourself, for not being capable of accepting that other people see things, and output things, differently than you, "hack."

>>3083746
nah you're in denial or live under a cave.

>>3083747
Honestly, you're the one who seems to be living under a rock. Either that or with your head up your ass or deep into the sand. you're just a shitty photographer than can't see past their own style choices. Pretty weak.

>>3083733
This guy is right. You're a tool.

>>3083684
>shows my gf a group picture taken at some party which the photographer just crushed the blacks and applied VSCO
>'this photo looks washed out! what the hell happened with the blacks? what about those whites?`
>whatislove.mp3

>>3083746
This.

>>3083746
>calling someone random a hack even though you have never seen their work.
you're as (if not more) retarded, than he is.

>>3083633
>>3083635


post more of this meme

File: IMG_2644.png (231KB, 600x342px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 600x342px

>>3083757
>crushed the blacks

>>3083638
the lighting is not flat on her body

File: 1475091582698.png (10KB, 240x109px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 240x109px

>>3083784

>>3083650
It's fake, her right iris is much bigger, clearly a contact.

Dat bod is bangin but her face is a tad bit derpy

>uglyfatguysayingwouldnotbang.png

But I totally would if her personality wasn't too obnoxious

File: 1495825417611.png (599KB, 647x830px) Image search: [Google]

599KB, 647x830px

>>3083633
Cropped the only good parts and slightly touched up shitty blowout. Removed shitty meme eye face distraction.

So do they just light the front with reflectors in these scenarios?

I really don't like her face, not at all. Body is good but even with those eyes, nah not my thing

File: file.png (674KB, 640x920px) Image search: [Google]

674KB, 640x920px

>>3083633
you're forgetting uncle terry's portraits against white wall with shitty lighting and flash


---

>>3083733
Go back to red dit fuckface

>>3083633
MOAR!!

>>3083633
Model: Sarah Rose McDaniel

Image backtrace led me to it. So it's public knowledge.

Her heterochromia eyes are real, so this picture isn't a fake on the eyes.

File: MOAR.jpg (286KB, 724x1416px) Image search: [Google]

286KB, 724x1416px

>>3083915
>>3083915
reverse search yields pic related


>>3083904
why red dit? just tell him fuck off back to r??e??d??d??i??t

Thank you for introducing me to the endless spank bank that is krotchy, op.

that blue eye is fake as fuck.

File: 20170527_205046.jpg (2MB, 4128x2322px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4128x2322px

>>3083716
>>3083724
I did offer to do a shoot and provide prints. However, I showed her what the "professional" did wrong by opening one of the digital copies of her photos in Photoshop and reducing the brightness by a fuckload, so you could see actual normal skin texture/colour and things like that. Of course, the faces of her and her friends now no longer looked like impeccable white surfaces, so naturally the conclusion was that the photographer did right by increasing the brightness to that of a Saharan midday sun. So I decided not to mention my offer again and she never mentioned it again either.

Truth be told, one of her friends has these weird sunken eyes surrounded by a dark area like she hasn't slept for a week so it would be hard to photograph her to look nice. But that can't be the reason the "professional" did what he did because all of the photos he takes are the same meme (white background, person/group in casual pose, high brightness, low contrast). If I could get used to the taste of my own vomit in my mouth, I should do this too because apparently you can make money with producing that garbage.

>>3083711
>>3083757
It's saddening how easy you can make photos which are liked by normies, compared to how hard it is to make actual good photos which normies won't understand anyways. I even did that thing once as a joke, where I just took one of my photos and applied every shitty meme known to man (le washed out pastel colours, thick white border, VSCO grain etc.) and had friends say "yeah that's what I'm talking about, so you actually can make good photos! Why don't you just do that more often?"

>endmysuffering.exe

Pic related is the only portrait I ever took of my gf which she didn't dislike, so I enlarged and framed it

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	samsung
Camera Model	GT-I9505
Camera Software	I9505XXUHOJ2
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	31 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4128
Image Height	2322
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:05:27 20:50:45
Exposure Time	1/39 sec
F-Number	f/2.2
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	50
Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Brightness	3.6 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	Flash
Focal Length	4.20 mm
Comment	(')*''+'&%&'.,
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4128
Image Height	2322
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Unique Image ID	S13F0SAGK01

File: RtTtcZz.jpg (743KB, 2000x1696px) Image search: [Google]

743KB, 2000x1696px

>>3083920
>Her heterochromia eyes are real, so this picture isn't a fake on the eyes.

>I want to believe everything on the internet.

You can see it being misaligned in this pic.

>>3083633
>window light and blown out

....good thing it's not a photo of the window....

>>3084260
bitch looks like she has a goatee, good job

File: aidsandstaleoreos.jpg (560KB, 667x1001px) Image search: [Google]

560KB, 667x1001px

>>3084260
I know that feel, bro. I think we all know that feel at least a little. You have moved me to post this glorious piece of cringe from my past that haunts me at least every couple months. My girl at the time (twas 2010, a dark year) would not accept anything but the most garishly airbrushed 80stastic crap completely devoid of taste and any semblance of what's actually there. But I must've deleted that at some point so here's the retardedly edited but not yet airbrushed and niptucked version with a dumbtarded background. Tear me asunder /p/hrends and enjoy.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS REBEL T2i
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2017:05:27 21:27:50
Exposure Time	1/50 sec
F-Number	f/6.3
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/6.3
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Subject Distance	1.45 m
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	24.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	667
Image Height	1001
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3083633
um meme? that's a proper exposure. You don't expose for the window and leave the face in darkness.

>>3084502
umm, no sweetie, you're just retarded.

>>3083633
> Why would I want to look at a model's face when I can look at specks of dust on the window behind her?
> muh histogram is not perfectly distributed

I think the problem is you're looking at everything too technically. And we see several posts in this thread that say the same. Some guy shit on a pro photog cause he was overexposing, but his gf was the client and she liked it because it made her lookmore attractive.

There are more purposes to photography. Sometimes white balance might be off, or you might have a darker or a lighter photo to fit the purpose of the picture. That some of you don't seem to understand this suggests that you likely fall pretty far along the autism spectrum, and should reconsider your approach.

>>3083633
All critiques aside, does anyone know who makes that underwear? I would like to buy a pair.

>>3084706
he's right though

>>3083633
newfag here

what do /p/ fags consider to be good nude/semi nude modeling and how can a newfag like me do it?

>>3085021
You're asking about advice on nudes on 4chan, where 85% of the population comes here strictly to jack off to porn. Maybe reconsider where to ask that question.

The 4chan obvious response would be "Whatever gets the dick hard".

>>3085027
I think there's plenty of gearfags here that researched the subject thoroughly in case they ever got a female model to enter their dens.

>>3085027
>You're asking about advice on nudes on 4chan, where 85% of the population comes here strictly to jack off to porn.
yeah, so they're experts on nudes. idiot.

>>3085021
I'll list some names. Just like with any other genre, look at lots and lots of photos, figure out what you like, try to figure out why you like it, and replicate that in your own work.

Helmut Newton
Ralph Gibson
Jeanloup Sieff
Jean-Francois Jonvelle
Justin N. Lane
Mercedes Esquivel
Art T/Creative Rehab
Mr Chill/Chill Photographie
Chip Willis
Alveoli Photography
Kesler Tran

>>3085030
most experience with and opinions on nudes around here literally amount to "moar!"

>>3085043
>most experience with and opinions on nudes around here literally amount to "moar!"
only in the context of nude dumps. not in this context

>>3083633
what a qt

>>3083633
This is my ideal girl.

>>3083633
>shooting girls

will this shitty meme ever end?

File: 26367818105_b03ab4e16b_b.jpg (180KB, 1024x835px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 1024x835px

>>3085043
>list some names.
I'm not trying to be condescending by any means, just trying to learn. Is pic related considered better seminude photography by the standards of /p/? It's what I found under Alveoli photography.

I may have shit tier taste, but I think I'd rather photo some girls like OPs pic and I think they would expect photos like that too.

File: jean-francois-jonvelle-untitled.jpg (52KB, 987x659px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 987x659px

>>3085252
>Jean-Francois Jonvelle
Probably what I'm trying to figure out is what makes these photos way better than OPs?

>>3084260
You're friends with my friends it seems. Everything I'm proud of no one cares about, but my snap shots

"damn anon this is good!"

>>3085252
It's an honest portrait with more soul and atmosphere than OP's photo, which to me looks like the intro to a softcore set. It says nothing.

I know that model personally and shot with her last month. She's lovely and I'd rather photograph her again than have a shot at shooting OP model.

>>3085255
That's not my favorite photo of his. He has much better work.

You should find examples of work that you like and learn from them.

>>3085252
I think it depends on what you want to convey. Something arty and 2deep4u or dead inside look hot girl.

Shitjimmyshoots has bridged the softcore porn with the deadinside hot girl while being a narcissist. He sometimes does some cool shit.

>>3085204
Sometimes it's an excuse to see them naked while you act like a "professional"

>>3084260
You're such a shit photographer, your girlfriend doesn't even like your photos.

Incredible accomplishment.

That photo is awful, yet you attempt to criticize others. Too fucking hilarious.

>>3085257
>It's an honest portrait with more soul and atmosphere than OP's photo, which to me looks like the intro to a softcore set. It says nothing.
No it's not "an honest portrait with more soul and atmosphere". It's a shittily lit, shittily framed picture of someone who is average looking. You're like the flip side of people who like photos with really hot people in them just because they have hot people in them. You prop up the mediocre as though that's somehow better than the exceptional. You mistake poor technique for "authenticity".

>>3085551
What shining example of an exceptional photo are you comparing this to, exactly?

I don't give a fuck about your technical perfection. It's meaningless.

>>3085562
>thinks a work must be appraised in relation to other works
>thinks I give a damn about "technical perfection".

The fault isn't so much with the photograph as it is with your ability to judge it. You interject meaning where there is none simply because you worship mediocrity.

>>3085566
Go jack off on a Zeiss or something.

>>3085567
Daww, are you the frumpy girl in that photo? Are you telling me that's a self portrait? If so, it's shit.

>>3083633
thats literally my 10/10. Makes me diamond hard.

File: vlcsnap-9221-04-22-10h15m50s944.jpg (60KB, 720x322px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 720x322px

>>3085551

>>3085568
Bitching about technical issues and whether a model is hot is the kind of armchair quarterbacking any 14-year-old autist can do. The internet is drowning in it, and none of us is any better for it.

>>3085575
Have a problem reading? It's a painfully mediocre shot of a mediocre model that's poorly framed and misuses subject separation and color. The issue here isn't these things. These things just make it exactly like a billion other photographs that are taken. It's seeing this combination and thinking that equates to authenticity, emotion, feels, or some other unquantifiable that somehow makes it "authentic" or more artistically important, or frankly anything other than just a mediocre shot. Both it and the shot in the OP are just meh and boring photographically speaking. OP is just easy mode to get attention/sales in the wider market: hot chick wearing next to nothing in front of a window. The frumpy girl is just easy mode to get attention from muhbodypositivity/hipsters/guys who fetishize "normal" girls because they have no self-esteem. Both are entirely devoid of any heady semantic meaning. Both are entirely devoid of any kind of importance or power.

Elevating either beyond what they are is little more than personal bias. Asserting either has some level of profundity is wishful thinking. Again, it's not the mediocrity of the photo I'm addressing, it's the lofty esteem it's being held in with no justification.

>>3085578
I like the photo. I don't care what you think. Have a great day.

>>3085579
This is the pinnacle of being a spineless mongoloid. No sort of reasoning, no sort of technical justification, no critical thought about the reasons behind why you like something and what makes it good, just calling people 14 year olds and "I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU SAY I LIKE IT".

>>3085585
>This is the pinnacle of being a spineless mongoloid.
not at all.'

if you deny the wish of the mongoloid masses you're just fucking retarded. learn what the masses wants and tweak it with yours standard.

if you keep pushing some fucking arty piece of shit nudes to someone who want a clean shaved pussy you're the one wh's retarded.

>>3085585
>no critical thought about the reasons behind why you like something and what makes it good
What kills me the most is being unable to separate the ideas of liking something and that something being good. It's entirely possible to like something that's not good by any measure. I have a completely garbage photo of my mother and her parents that I dearly love. Everything about it is bad, but it's one of my connections to them and to the day it was taken. It doesn't matter to me that it's not a good photo. I've no need to justify my cherishing that photo to anyone, and I damn sure wouldn't go insist to others it's a good photo.

>>3085588
You're conflating what I said with "artsy shit is good and you should ignore what the masses want". I was specifically criticizing that anon's retarded lack of reasoning and utter lack of argumentation skills. I agree with you, in terms of getting paid, popular and most practical pursuits appealing to the masses is what you should be doing - but that doesn't mean you have to claim or even believe that what you're doing is "good". Arguing about what is good is completely different from deciding how you should make your photos to make money. I never claimed they were the same thing.

>>3085585
Not that anon, but I agree with everything you've said dude. Me and you are exactly on the same page in terms of how we feel towards both the OP's image, the Alveoli image, and the perception that people seem to have towards both kinds of pictures. My only advice is to not get too heated at this kind of stuff, the other anon may be in the wrong here, but it's not worth getting so heated over.

I also agree with what >>3085590 said, regarding being able to separate one's personal connection to something and the actual quality found within that thing. I wish more people would do this.

I'm the anon above, and I'm new to /p/ and just want to know why everyone here is so hostile towards each other? For example, when posting pictures to be critiqued by others, why do people get so hostile in their critiques? Are we not all just trying to help each other take better pictures? Do we not all love photography here? Why can't you all criticize someone's photos, without insulting them or their pictures at the same time?

>>3085631
Neither of your assumptions are correct.

>>3085631
Before I say anything - lurk moar.

As to why things are the way they are around here, it's just board culture. If you're feeling attacked or you feel like people were being hostile towards you then everything is working as intended - due to the anonymous nature of 4chan it's a lot harder to call out consistently terrible posters across threads, and thus a lot harder to keep board quality high. Thus, a hostile attitude is adopted to keep people unfamiliar with the environment (newfags) who are the most likely to post the lowest quality content (non-resized photos, snapshit, terrible threads, facebook-tier posting, emoticons, etc.) away.

It seems strange to you because you recognize that /p/ both loves photography but seems to hate every photo - what you're failing to realize is that /p/ is so hostile BECAUSE we all love photography. It makes me slightly miffed when I see garbage snapshit get ten thousand likes on instagram, so I come to /p/ and hold people to a high standard because I expect them to be better than the normalfags.

Finally, you have to realize that it's really all in good fun. Someone might call you a sonyfag or compare you to ken rockwall or tell you to kill yourself or call you a faggot or whatever, but the truth is that on an anonymous imageboard nobody really cares about you or hates you that much. (Unless you think gearfag threads are good. In that case, kill yourself.)

>>3085631
I'm the long-winded asshole.
>just want to know why everyone here is so hostile towards each other?
It's fun and generally not to be taken personally. You're on 4chan. Acerbic is the default tone. Also, friendo, the creative world is a nasty, catty place. You have to have thick skin to put your work out there because your feelings won't be spared in the real world, i.e. not internet circlejerks.
>For example, when posting pictures to be critiqued by others, why do people get so hostile in their critiques?
You have to learn to what's actually being communicated to you. Hell, even someone calling a shot a "snapshit" and nothing more speaks volumes. Getting no reply says quite a bit as well...whether or not what's being said to you is worthwhile, well, that's for you to decide. Some of the feedback here is amazing, a lot of it is low-effort shitposting, and other bits of it are as wrong as is possible to be.
>Are we not all just trying to help each other take better pictures?
All of us? Nah. I'm a pretty helpful anon, but even I shitpost from time to time.
>Do we not all love photography here?
Nah, too many Sony shooters here.
>Why can't you all criticize someone's photos, without insulting them or their pictures at the same time?
Why are you taking internet stranger's insults personally? But to not answer a question with a question, there's a variety of reasons. Maybe it's a poster with a known history who has made enemies. We're a small enough board that you don't have to trip to be recognized. Maybe someone just likes working various insults into their very legitimate feedback. Maybe anon's cat just died and he needed to vent. Who knows, who cares? Take anything posted here as you would some random walking up and talking to you about your shot: it's another perspective. Entertain it, see if you agree with it, if not, discard it. If you're new to the whole photography thing...

>>3085662
(continued)
you'll likely not be able to sort out the good from the bad, but in time that'll happen. Find your voice, find what appeals to you, and most importantly get out there and shoot. Keep trying new shit, keep refining what you do, keep questioning why you like what you like, what draws you to it, how to fit it into your work, or maybe how to not ape it while still appreciating it. Nothing is set in stone. People will always have opinions, and in a place like this, people will always have very strong opinions. Either you can deal with it or you can't. If you can't, have a great life. If you can, fucking start a thread faggot.

>>3085643
>>3085662
>>3085667

Thank you for the response guys, much appreciated. I've only been on 4chan for about 2 months now but I'm pretty familiar with the overall board culture at this point, and am aware of how 4chan's "personality" does well to ward away people that don't belong on this site, but that isn't really what I was referring to with my question regarding "hostility". What I meant was, for a board based around creating and evaluating art, why are people so unnecessarily rude to each other? I haven't seen such a thing on other boards I frequent, like /lit/ or /tv/, where the former consists of anons ironically acting like pseuds, and the latter consists of mostly good-old-fashioned shitposting, but in both cases there is a friendly quality to the boards and it's clear that any insults thrown are not serious. But on /p/, which is arguably one of the most productive boards on here ("productive" meaning that you guys are "actively" dedicated to creating and critiquing stuff, and not just shitposting like a "passive" board like /tv/) it doesn't make sense to me that there needs to be so much hostility when sharing work with eachother, you guys could all easily critique the work in an "objective" fashion and not be so personal and vicious about it.

But perhaps I've misread the "tone", and you guys are being just as non-serious as the other boards with your insults towards each other. I also really understand what you mean regarding people who post Facebook-tier stuff thinking it's good, hence why I migrated here from r/Plebography. Anyways thanks a lot for the welcome guys, I hope to learn a lot from you all (like why Sony users are, apparently, faggots) and will begin posting some of my own "stuff" (they're pretty bad, I understand very little about cameras thus far) here when I'm reunited with my camera. Would you guys recommend I use a trip while on this board, given the practical benefit that would come from doing so?

File: eyes-wide-shut.jpg (21KB, 585x331px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 585x331px

>>3085772
Also do you guys discuss cinematography here at all? I'd love to share and discuss some of my favorite shots from film with you all.

Like pic related, from Eyes Wide Shut. That shot is simply otherwordly to me, I'm speechless whenever I look at it. Wish I could find a higher-resolution version of it.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	plasq skitch
Image-Specific Properties:

File: Eyes Wide Shut.jpg (421KB, 1140x380px) Image search: [Google]

421KB, 1140x380px

>>3085785
This one is better resolution but it's cropped. Still, it's simply surreal to look at.

>>3085772
>(like why Sony users are, apparently, faggots)
It's mostly just one faggot.

He is also responsible for provoking a lot of the hostility.

It won't take long for you to find out who

File: ingmar bergman.png (2MB, 1898x1074px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1898x1074px

>>3085785
>>3085787

ya totally the peak of kino! xd

>>3085643
> the most likely to post the lowest quality content (non-resized photos, snapshit, terrible threads, facebook-tier posting, emoticons, etc.) away.

So it's an elitist circlejerk then

>what you're failing to realize is that /p/ is so hostile BECAUSE we all love photography.
If you read the posts here you'll pick up on the fact that there are many individuals who are vocal about the photography styles/genres/techniques they either love or hate. If anon doesn't like it it's cliche, boring, snapshit etc....if he does like it it's praised beyond belief. In the end the most important opinion is going to be that of the photographer, following all the feedback received. "Take it with a grain of salt" could not be any more applicable here than it is already.

>It makes me slightly miffed when I see garbage snapshit get ten thousand likes on instagram,
Miffed, or jealous? I'm not trying to make a personal attack but maybe stop and consider that 1.) photography is subjective and 2.) if you're struggling to get followers on social media while others don't, your photos may not be as great as you think.

>so I come to /p/ and hold people to a high standard because I expect them to be better than the normalfags.
Funny you say that. I don't think photography is incredibly hard, but it does require effort to "get good". Most people don't bother to learn about things like color balancing or the art of creating an engaging composition which is why their images are weaker, but they don't care.

>>3085643
>>3085643
It seems to me that /p/ users post very little work that is up to the level of the standards you seem to think we're all aiming for.

In the short time I've been here, what I see is that people with experience mostly post their "real" work elsewhere and simply come here to shitpost or find fault. Maybe they think they're offering some service to the world, and newbies seem to have the idea that they're going to learn a lot from the anons here. Maybe newbies do learn, but they're going through typical bullshit hazing in the process.

The same "patrician" God's gift mindset that you see infect boards like /mu/ is no different here. It's just gatekeeping as usual.

>>3085818
imma plebman.png*

>>3085257
>I know that model personally and shot with her last month. She's lovely and I'd rather photograph her again than have a shot at shooting OP model.
Sorry, I did not mean to compare the models by appearance. I am just trying to figure out what makes the photograph technically better or worse.

>looks like the intro to a softcore set. It says nothing.
>>3085258
>dead inside look hot girl.
I'm a professional in a different field of art and can understand the hate towards plebs. But I consider what OP is posting more or less basics skills that I want to learn before moving on to anything more 'artsy'.

Thanks for replies. I think I understand how /p/ works better now.

>>3084260
I was empathising right up until I opened that attached image

>>3083711
Dump that bitch NOW; she'll ruin you.

>>3083825
Much better

>>3085877
>In the short time I've been here, what I see is that people with experience mostly post their "real" work elsewhere and simply come here to shitpost or find fault.

That's funny, I tend to drop by here from the sanest board of 4chan (which I visit daily) but I'd never post my work here. I don't like to be geotagged by 4chan. As I run a photography business this is not the place I want to be recognized in.

But on the other hand, 99,99% of my images get posted only on my website, in my customers private password protected galleries.

>>3088057
things that you made up for no particular reason before hitting the bottle again for 10, Alex

>>3083920
From her Wikipedia entry:
"Sarah is always seen wearing a blue contact lens (Solotica Quartzo hidrocor, or Cristal) to fake the look of having heterochromia."

>>3088104
>Sarah Rose McDaniel
If you're not colorblind and look closely as the "proof", you can see traces of blue in one eye still.
She fakes the severity of it, not the condition itself. Most heterochromia doesn't affect the entire eye, just pieces of it.

And all of that aside, eye color changes with age. Lots of childrens eyes change color before puberty. Same with hair color. Eye injuries can also cause similar appearances, see David Bowie.

>>3088116
>that 2nd paragraph of random eye trivia
lmfaooooooooooooo

are you some sort of neckbeard fan of that fake whore?

kys dude, youre a waste of space irl and waste of board space too.

>>3088119
No, I've never heard about her til now.
I also weep for your education that you consider what I typed to be two "paragraphs."

Are you old enough to be using this site?

File: 1495487694463.jpg (39KB, 641x491px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 641x491px

Can't believe none of your virgins asked who that model is…

>>3088191
Do you even read??? Half the fucking thread is about her and her fake eye color, and her name was mentioned quite a while ago...

>>3088191
1. reverse image search is a thing
2. I'm enough of a perv to know that she was the first featured model in Playboy after they went nonnude, so I recognized her.

>>3083825
>that weird stomach distention
Might as well crop the whole thing out.