Welp, I finally got my hands on a camera. This is my first thread

File: 20170601-IMG_1337-min.jpg (1MB, 5184x3456px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 5184x3456px

>>3087909
just adding words to not be span

File: 20170601-IMG_1336-min.jpg (727KB, 5184x3456px) Image search: [Google]

727KB, 5184x3456px

>>3087910
spam*

File: 20170601-IMG_1209-min.jpg (1MB, 5184x3456px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 5184x3456px

>>3087911
4/7

>>3087912
5/7

File: 20170601-IMG_1295-min.jpg (625KB, 5184x3456px) Image search: [Google]

625KB, 5184x3456px

>>3087914
jeeze

File: 20170601-IMG_1264-min.jpg (798KB, 5184x3456px) Image search: [Google]

798KB, 5184x3456px

>>3087915

>>3087910
this one could be in a car magazine

>>3087916

File: 20170601-IMG_1235-min.jpg (1MB, 5184x3456px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 5184x3456px

>>3087917
thanks!

>>3087918

7/7
my campus library

>>3087909
is that your M4? things are sweet.

>>3087909
you have a very homosex shooting style

>>3087909
>>3087910
>>3087911
These are shitty, first-time-shooting shots of a generic car. The lighting sucks. The editing sucks. The composition sucks. The color sucks. Everything about them sucks.
>>3087912
The color here is atrocious. It's a blue mess.
>>3087915
This is a dully-processed shot of nothing. The angle is retarded.
>>3087916
first_test_shots_of_flower.jpg

Basically, these are fucking awful in just about every way. Seriously. Don't kid yourself. They fucking suck. But, do you want to know a secret? Everybody takes these shots when they get their first camera. You're just starting out and trying to learn the basics. Keep going. Practice, practice, practice. You'll get better. I guarantee that 6 months from now, you'll look back and be embarrassed by these. Then you'll realize that you're learning.

>>3090523
>m4
>generic car
my right eye twitched when i read this.

>>3090523
Seconding this. I roasted this guy on /o/ already too.

So I'll do it again: You took mediocre pictures of normal ass cars in a parking lot, covered in dead bugs and dirt, of what are, ultimately, normal cars. Or at least the M4 was. You used light to accentuate the curves and swage lines (good work there), but didn't really do anything I wouldn't have seen in press photos already. And they have clean cars to work with. Also they didn't fuck the white balance.

You didn't focus on why these cars were special. You didn't even have the decency to post that Audi here, what with the intercooler and the piping. At least there, you could have done a shoot: Open up the engine bay, do some slow rolling shots, maybe look at other things that make that car special. Do you see Speedhunters doing articles on your mom's Sentra? Do you see them doing articles on plain jane Carrera S'? No, you don't.

Fess up, did you just find these cars in a parking lot? Because let me tell you, just go to Vancouver and you can find the whole list of supercars and high end sports cars. An M3 ain't shit. If you're going to take pictures of normal cars, at least focus on some aspect of the design. >>3087909 this is probably the best of the lot. >>3087911 You cut off the M badge here, >>3087910 has a great big splotch on the door and could stand to go lower if you're going to cut off the cabin anyways.
>>3090614
It really is, unless you live in a flyover state, in which case a 320i lease special would be absolutely amazing to see.

>>3090693
i live in boston and go to c&c almost every month. im a car guy. m4s are sexy af.

but i am happy to live in a day and age where a rwd 12 second twin turbo i6 widebody could possibly be referred to as 'generic'.

babby's first snapshits. keep going. probably about 50,000 shutter clicks. then post again and see what /p/ says.

>>3090751
>probably about 50,000 shutter clicks.
I don't understand this mentality. Is it because I learned on film and not digital? What's 50000 photos if they're all shit /and/ you didn't improve or seek to improve? I bet you could get the job done in under 10 if you actively looked for inspiration and critically assessed your work.

Not counting sports photography, of course...

>>3090746
>a rwd 12 second twin turbo i6 widebody
Numbers are up, but feels are down, my friend. They look wide, and they certainly are, but just as much from moving up scale and crash regulations, as it is just widening the track of the car.

>>3090752
have you driven one? i dated a girl for a month who had just bought one. couldnt wring it out to redline because it was still in its break-in period, but the feels were definitely there mi amigo. the only thing it lacked was the off the line face-melting torque my big turbo a4 can put down due to the m4's lack of awd.

>>3090752
It's more around 10,000 actually, no matter how good you may think your photos are. Nobody is good starting out no matter what.

>>3087919
The sky is washed out in this one. I am a new to photography too, but I think most camera have modes for multiple exposures. Idk maybe there is a way to get both darklit and bright exposures at the same time...

>>3087909
Not really worth making a thread until you start gaining some traction on understanding photography a little better OP. At this stage, the most sound advice anyone can really offer you is to keep shooting, be your own harshest critic and learn from that critical voice. If there's no sense of deliberation behind these shots, what are we as the critics expected to find?