/rpt/ - Recent Portrait Thread

File: 18675161_1425712404116857_266480339_o.jpg (294KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

294KB, 1920x1080px

>>3111246
>start portrait thread with a photo that's not a portrait

No wonder /p/ is so shit these days.

LOOK MA! I POSTED A PORTRAIT!

File: P Vanessa 13.03 (8) (Copier).jpg (78KB, 720x1080px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 720x1080px

Personal work

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 50D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Elements 7.0 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3168
Image Height	4752
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	2010:08:03 20:49:58
Exposure Time	1/20 sec
F-Number	f/5.0
Exposure Program	Portrait Mode
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/5.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	44.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	720
Image Height	1080
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3111249
A portrait is just a picture of a person. It doesn't have to be in portrait orientation. That's like saying a picture isn't a portrait because it wasn't shot in your camera's portrait mode.

File: PORTRAITS.jpg (182KB, 1093x997px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 1093x997px

>>3111252
>A portrait is just a picture of a person.
No, it's not.
>It doesn't have to be in portrait orientation. That's like saying a picture isn't a portrait because it wasn't shot in your camera's portrait mode.
What in the fucking world are you talking about?

MORE PORTRAITS

>>3111255
Enlighten me. What is a portrait.

File: Zanou 19.09 (7) (Copier).jpg (141KB, 653x1080px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 653x1080px

Another

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 50D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Elements 7.0 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2011:09:21 16:40:02
Exposure Time	1/15 sec
F-Number	f/4.5
Exposure Program	Shutter Priority
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/4.6
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	18.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	653
Image Height	1080
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: gct.jpg (73KB, 638x400px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 638x400px

>>3111257
Yeah, god forbid we attempt to educate ourselves with the vast and deep resource that the internet is.

In the meantime another PORTRAIT!
(There's only one person in this image, the rest are lizard people or jews).

>>3111260
I'm asking you, specifically. I'm on /p/ so I'm obviously still learning. What did I do wrong? What makes my picture not a portrait?

>>3111261
And I obviously can't be assed to teach you the basics of the different genres (and how they might not be fully fixed, but something like portraiture is a damn sight more than just "photo of a person"), so either sit there revelling in your ignorance hoping some other anon bothers to spell shit out for you, or be a little fucking proactive in your life for once and goddamn go find out what makes a photo of a person a portrait and why someone like me might mock you for considering it one.

File: P Vanessa 13.03 (23) (Copier).jpg (143KB, 962x1080px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 962x1080px

Check out my work... https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIcI5ooQqcZUKJVQrguRzmA

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 50D
Camera Software	Paint.NET v3.5.5
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3168
Image Height	3558
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	2010:08:13 15:10:42
Exposure Time	1/25 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Landscape Mode
ISO Speed Rating	320
Lens Aperture	f/5.7
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	18.00 mm
Image Width	962
Image Height	1080
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: DSC_0016.jpg (330KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

330KB, 1000x1000px

>>3111263
Ok then. You've just proved you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, so i'm going to stop responding and post more portraits. Here's one last (you) before I go

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D3400
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.10.1 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	4986
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	27 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2017:07:08 12:22:21
Exposure Time	1/30 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Shutter Priority
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	18.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>3111266
Your photos aren't terrible but that youtube channel is fucking cancerous. Upload your pics to instagram or something, there's not reason to hold your portfolio in a bunch of ugly-looking slideshows

>>3111267
>You've just proved you don't know what the fuck you're talking about
Yes, I, the person who knows that portraiture is more than just a "photo of a person" doesn't know what /I'm/ talking about.

>>3111268
yep I know, never been on instagram. I have all pictures on my computer and camera.

>>3111270
You can't explain what portraiture is so I'm going to assume you don't actually know. That's how the world works, kiddo

>>3111246
I feel like I can smell this photo

>>3111274
>You can't explain what portraiture is
I can, just not bothering, especially since there are a ton of excellent pieces on portraiture just a google search away.
>so I'm going to assume you don't actually know.
And remain ignorant yourself. Fuck me, you truly are a passive character in your own life.
>That's how the world works, kiddo
That's how the ignorant remain ignorant. That's how people who never grow in any significant ways behave. GlamourShots will produce "portraits" that are more worthwhile than any shot you ever make with your approach and view on the subject...all because you can't be bothered to learn something on your own. All because someone else refusing to hold your hand means that you're right and they're wrong. Goddamn, you're a worthless human.

>>3111275
Is that good?
I took the pictures in that set to get my girlfriend to take her clothes off before having sex with her. For some reason I think that story reads in her body language.

She isn't a model or an actress or anything, all those emotions you can read on her are real.

>>3111277
>I can
No you can't. I know because you won't. You don't fully understand portraiture either, you can't communicate it, so you're projecting that lack of understanding on to me. I know because I've been in the exact same boat you're in plenty of times.

Seriously. Just try. You won't be able to, I promise.

>>3111280
Keep telling yourself that.

File: (you).jpg (114KB, 1204x680px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 1204x680px

>>3111282
You've been a good (you) farmer, here's one more on the house

>>3111284
I'm curious to hear your justification of how
>>3111246 is a portrait of her.

>>3111282
how have you kept arguing for this long with an idiot it makes me question your mental state

>>3111286
In my picture, the girl is the subject and, thru her, we see a story in her body language, expression, and gesture.

What separates my post from the shitposts you posted is they're all pictures where the subject isn't the person. Some of them feature people, but they're just extras, (props, if you will) and not the main attraction. In the case of that weird 70s ad it's the nightshirts and in the canyon pic it's the canyon.

That's what I mean when I say a portrait is just a picture of a person. No more, no less.

So how am I wrong?

>>3111288
see>>3111294

>>3111267
>>3111246
This is as much a portrait as a photo of a street is street photography, black and white or not.

>>3111298
Then what would you call it? If it's not a portrait what is it?

>>3111299
a snapshit d e s u

>>3111288
Because it's low effort on my part, and I get to keep pointing out how this person is a failure at life. Schadenfreude can be fun, especially when you know that no matter what you say, the person will continue down their path to failure.
>>3111294
>you posted
That wasn't me.

>>3111301
I'm starting to get it. Like I said, I'm still learning, so my technical skills aren't the best. I have a lot to work on, especially in terms of composition. The photo obviously isn't good.

But what makes it not a portrait? Isn't portraiture just a picture where the subject is a person? Where am I wrong?

>>3111308
>Schadenfreude
lol i watch nerdwriter1 too im so smart XD fuq drumpf

Look, if you tell me something worth listening to, i'll admit I'm wrong and walk away. You'll win. But you have to prove me wrong first.

>>3111309
Your girlfriends going out with a faggot

>>3111309
>Isn't portraiture just a picture where the subject is a person
Look, you retard, I already said this >>3111298. If you call any photo of a street street photography, then call this a portrait. The value, thought, end product of the photo is the difference between a :
>look /r9k/ i can take nudes of this girl anytime, i just have to ask
and a photo someone would call a portrait.

File: 2000px-Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement-en.svg.png (360KB, 2000x1499px) Image search: [Google]

360KB, 2000x1499px

>>3111312
lol your so smart you don't even have to think

>>3111313
So you're positing the difference between true art and some random shit I shot with some chick I'm fucking.

I posit that no such difference exists. A portrait is just a picture where the subject is a person.

To be clear, I'm not saying that picture is art. I'm far too inexperienced to create true art. I know this. But it is a portrait, if you take that to be a technical term.

>>3111309
>lol i watch nerdwriter1 too im so smart XD fuq drumpf
Who? It's called having a not-retard's vocabulary. That whole being as precise and concise as possible thing? Maybe once you get past your freshman year you'll learn something about that.
>Look, if you tell me something worth listening to, i'll admit I'm wrong and walk away. You'll win. But you have to prove me wrong first.
I've said it over and over again. Your idea of portraiture is idiotically simplistic. A new thing that I'll throw in for free is that you see shit in these snapshits that just isn't there, which is likely caused by you being too close to the subject. It has shit all to do with mechanical technique and everything to do with your choice of when to hit that shutter release, which is all again rooted in your complete and utter lack of understanding of portraiture. I'll even go further with this. You're shit at people. You're shit at finding and drawing out that special something about someone, about someone in a moment, and capturing that. Without dedicated study, which you're showing yourself to be entirely opposed to, you'll continue to fucking fail hard as hell at this. Your ego is fucking you. Your retarded idea that any few snippets I could say here might be of more benefit than the literal volumes you can access via again a quick fucking search or that I should somehow prompt that there might possibly be something more for you to learn about the genre are both telling that you won't ever be more than you are now, which in some ways is sad, but in other ways, there's that perverse pleasure of knowing that 20 years from now, you'll be beating your head against this same wall and blaming everyone else for not appreciating your work.

File: gg.jpg (159KB, 1920x822px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 1920x822px

i just found this portrait online that i like

>>3111316
>you see shit in these snapshits that just isn't there, which is likely caused by you being too close to the subject.
>likely caused by you being too close to the subject.

What you're talking about is violating the aesthetic distance. David Mamet wrote about it.

>everything to do with your choice of when to hit that shutter release, which is all again rooted in your complete and utter lack of understanding of portraiture.

Subconscious technique feeding from conscious, mechanical knowledge. I understand.

>You're shit at people.
Why do you think I'm here? No shit I am

>which you're showing yourself to be entirely opposed to

I'm opposed to that stupid drivel you were spouting before. look at the chart I posted >>3111315. Now that you're actually penetrating to your central point, you've got my attention.

>Your ego is fucking you
Of course it is. But when you resort to name-calling and indirect attacks, you're doing the exact same thing.

>Your retarded idea that any few snippets I could say here might be of more benefit than the literal volumes you can access via again a quick fucking search [etc etc etc] is bad
By taking the time to explain yourself you've already proven yourself wrong.

Overall, you're right. You win, I admit I'm wrong. But projecting, name-calling, and indirectly attacking my work is the cancer of this board. People come here for serious peer-to-peer review, which works far better than studying any one-way textbook or article.

So thank you for taking the time to give me something serious. I understand you. Now try to understand me.

What is portraiture beyond a picture of a person?

File: 1499458573002.jpg (194KB, 900x1200px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 900x1200px

>>3111315
>all selfies, nudes, and similar are portrait photography and should be included in this thread
Contributing with a portrait I found that I like.

>>3111246
You may refer to this as a nude without fear of reproach.

it's still deeply problematic as a nude, but hey.

>>3111323
Yes, that photo is terrible. It's certainly not "art." But how is it not a portrait?

>>3111325
Isn't a nude just a subgenre of portraiture? A portrait is a picture of a person, and a nude is just when that person is nude.

Can you take a nude of a car? Of a landscape? Of an animal? Animals are always nude. Why don't we categorize nature photography under "nude?"

File: 1601560789_69bdc43941_b.jpg (306KB, 807x1024px) Image search: [Google]

306KB, 807x1024px

>>3111326
Who's saying it's not? It's clearly portrait photography.
Here's another.

>>3111328
>>3111326
>>3111322
>>3111315
You can be as deluded as you want, but no one else will look at your photos and think it's nothing more than a couple of pics from /b/.

>>3111263
>spending all this energy yelling at people for not being enlightened
>not spending the energy enlightening them

>>3111329
I get your point. Now quit with the sarcasm and actually think up something with some substance.

In fact, I don't care to wait anymore, so I'm going to try and create a conclusion on my on (no help from you).

In portraiture, the subject isn't just a picture of a person, being a warm body or collection of cells. That's why these two >>3111329 >>3111323 aren't portraits. In the first, the subject is her flat chest and underwear (her sexuality) and in the second it's the muscle structure of his back (like a medical diagram).

They have the portraiture side down. They're pictures of people, but they fail utterly to penetrate the deep inner core of what portraiture as an art really is. And that's pictures of people that contain a subtle inner truth about what's being viewed. We see a story within the person, something inside them that resonates within ourselves.

I thought my picture had that. but >>3111316 brought up a very excellent point; I'm close to her. I already knew the story behind her, and so I failed to see that the picture doesn't communicate that to anyone who isn't me. What I did is called "violating the aesthetic distance."

In the end, It's just not a good photo. It has little to no artistic merit.

But it is a portrait.

It's a picture of a person. If we use portraiture as a dry, technical term, it agrees. It just isn't good enough to enter the subgrene of portraiture as an art.

>>3111334
See above^

What I'm talking about here is art philosophy. It's funny, people always get mad when I try to bring it up

>>3111336
this this this. thank you anon

File: raindanceonpoint.jpg (134KB, 915x610px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 915x610px

>>3111322
>What is portraiture beyond a picture of a person?
Wrong question:
What use is placing a dividing line at "subject is person"?
If that's a useless distinction and other far more useful distinctions exist, why are we using the useless one?
Next up, what is subject? Is this man the subject of this photo? What exactly is the relationship between abstract and contextual symbolism and the concrete visuals we get in a photograph, especially in regard to the subject and how exactly does this inform us of the greater genre in which we classify a given work in a post hoc analysis?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

For me, portraits are about illustrating some aspect of the subject's personality or character through expression. I don't think a photo needs to adhere to conventions of pose or framing in order to be considered a portrait, but it has to carry a sense of who the person is.

>>3111329
>>3111323
There's no face and no expression in these photos. Not portraits.

>>3111251
Face is facing away from camera. Hard to read the expression. Not a portrait.

These above three examples are more properly of the nude or figure genre.

>>3111246
This clearly shows the expression of the subject, and that expression isn't neutral or passive. I'd say it straddles the line between nude and portrait. And I like this photo a lot.

File: IMG_1358.jpg (3MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4032x3024px

My 12 wk old lil kitty

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Apple
Camera Model	iPhone 7
Camera Software	Snapseed 2.17.150426759
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	28 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:07:06 19:05:45
Exposure Time	1/4 sec
F-Number	f/1.8
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	160
Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Brightness	-2.6 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Spot
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	3.99 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4032
Image Height	3024
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3111342
Sleepy pants

File: Cornell.png (146KB, 705x456px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 705x456px

>>3111338
Next up, is the presence of the person (or people because group portraits are a thing) even necessary in frame for it to be a portrait of that person?

This leads to the question of what exactly is a person. It also leads to the question, even if we circle back to your simplistic assed definition of "photo with a person as the subject" how we capture this essence of person-ness. The presence of this abstract quality must then be the differentiator, which then speaks to how those images that I posted earlier aren't portraits, not because I dunno whatever asinine reasons you might have wanted to think up, but because they de-individualize the subject. They take away the individualization, the person-ness and replace it with a generic human shaped object. Which is what is going on in your photos.

>>3111336
Because I'm here to entertain me.

>>3111338
Then we're saying the same thing. I'm trying to tell you that portraiture as a definition is just a genre. Like horror or comedy. Are all horror or comedy movies art? That true art, that penetrates us deeply? No. Many of them are terrible. But some of them are good.

Ultimately what I'm trying to figure out is what separates true art from not art. But you're right, that's too big a fish to fry at once. Let's cut it up into small, edible bits.

The man is the subject. But it's not just a picture of a dude standing around. We see his emotion in the piece. So the subject is sadness he's feeling. But there are plenty of pictures of people crying, and many of them fail to arouse the emotion this piece does. What about his environment? He's clearly suffered a great loss. So that's the subject. Loss. But not just loss in general, a great loss, the loss of his home in some terrible natural disaster.

If we chose, we could go even deeper than that, but I think I made my point.

This is what I'm talking about. This piece tells a story and you have to understand very little context to understand it.

The problem with my picture is I already understand the full depth of what I'm creating. I could take a picture of one of the hairs that always fall off her head when we cuddle. That would have great personal meaning to me, but to anyone else it's just some chick's fucking hair. I get that now.

Thank you, anon. This is what happens when you try and help instead of keeping your knowledge to yourself.

>>3111346
Congrats, you are message board cancer

File: DSC_0030.jpg (235KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

235KB, 1000x1000px

>>3111340
>There's no face
You're right, but you're wrong. The face isn't important. It's what the face tells us that's important. In >>3111338 he's covering his face, yet we can still tell the story behind it. Why? For all we know the photographer found him walking by and paid him a little to put his hand over his face and stand still.

What makes us see the full depth of his suffering?

For the record, you're not wrong. The human face is one of the most dynamic things in the universe, to humans at least. We can tell a great deal from them. But they're just a projection of that deep inner meaning.

Thank you, by the way. How about this one? I haven't done any post processing on it yet, so keep that in mind.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D3400
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.10.1 (Windows)
Photographer	TB Johnson (@tbjson)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.6
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	864
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	52 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2017:07:10 13:49:24
Exposure Time	1/30 sec
F-Number	f/4.5
Exposure Program	Shutter Priority
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/4.5
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	35.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>3111351
Good thing I post on an imageboard where it's better for people to locate off-board resources because of the ephemeral nature of posts than some messageboard where such is enshrined for posterity.

Thank you much for your kind words to encourage me staying here. I think I shall.

>>3111246
>no dumpsters
your pic is of a dumpster

>>3111346
This picture is not a portrait. Honestly, for me, it doesn't even penetrate deeply enough to be called art. But that's my subjective opinion.

The subject isn't the band members (the individuals in the band), it's the band itself. And nobody cares about a band itself, unless the music they create arouses something inside them.

That's why I don't like that picture. It's trying to tell the story of the music, an auditory medium, with a picture, a visual medium. It's worthless unless you know the band that it's a picture of.

as anyone even mentioned how shit OP's "portrait" is

>>3111249
no, jimmy, you are the r-tard

File: 227532435025481.jpg (31KB, 413x395px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 413x395px

>>3111356
You're not wrong. Let's just say she's good in bed

>>3111363
Yes, we've actually made a lot of progress on it, but I'd like to hear what you have to say

I'm op btw

>>3111340
Bigger retard than OP appears.

>>3111354
OP attempts to reclaim his place.

File: 2 (20).jpg (3MB, 4752x3168px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4752x3168px

>>3111340
>>3111340

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 50D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Elements 7.0 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2013:01:03 21:57:19
Exposure Time	1/30 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Shutter Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/5.7
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	25.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4752
Image Height	3168
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3111368
Nice name-calling you got there. Now do you actually want to think about something or just stick your tongue out like a little girl?

>>3111367
my opinion
it's not a portrait in any way possible
it's crap
you argue like you are 14

>>3111260
that one is not a portrait

>>3111261
you didn't do anything wrong, he's just retarded

>>3111361
It says volumes more about the person Chris Cornell (there's a much better one for Ronnie Van Zant out there that I can't find) than your poorly lit photos of your cumcatcher.

As for that whole
>It's trying to tell the story of the music, an auditory medium, with a picture, a visual medium. It's worthless unless you know the band that it's a picture of.
Nope, the empty microphone tribute is a visual thing, emphasizing by centering and lighting the spot on stage that's no longer occupied. Similar in form to the missing man formation, end of watch, and military roll calls.

>>3111354
OP, I dislike the lighting in all of your photos. I feel like the lighting is far too hard for pics like these and in the latter two, they draw out her blemishes a little bit. Your original pic of her is my favorite of the bunch, yet I feel like the angle of the shot could be done better. I like the cutesy shy/hiding of the face but from this angle, the focus is definitely more on the body and of the bed.

>>3111370
Resize your fucking photos you godawful moron

Other than that it's pretty good. The placement of the subjects is interesting compositionally, but the emotion of dominance and power created by the background doesn't mix well with the emotion the model is displaying. I'm guessing you either told her to stand like that or this was taken during an inbetween when the model was changing poses.

Either way it's tonally confused.

>>3111374
see>>3111371

why is it crap

>>3111378
Not my fault your internet is too slow to open the picture, or you're too much of a shitbag, anyway, you may think it is a bad picture, or feel confused by what is happenning in it, but I have a photographic award that says otherwise, and a magazine publication of this pic to show the power of emotion in a photo... guess you didn't get the note that said a picture says a thousand words, but to each his opinion

>>3111370
Don't listen to the other guy.
>>3111378 is an idiot.
Boring, shit colors, and shooting that wide made her look like she is a midget with cankles.

Bonus points though for the jug of piss.

>>3111376
Fuck me you're a pretentious cunt.

>>3111346
You know what to do my man.

>>3111376
>It says volumes more about the person Chris Cornell

I don't know who that is. I don't follow music that close.

But you see what you did there? You did exactly what I did. You understand Cronell as an individual, so you projected your understanding on to that picture. It thereby enhanced the meaning for you.

I did the same thing. I know the girl in my pic very personally, so I failed to see that a passerby viewer can't possibly understand the full depth of meaning it carries for me.

Neither picture is objectively good or bad. Both carry different meanings for different people. This is what lies at the heart of all art.

>the empty microphone tribute is a visual thing, emphasizing by centering and lighting the spot on stage that's no longer occupied.
Again, I'm not into music, I don't go to a lot of concerts so I didn't know that. But you did know that, so it carried greater meaning and resonated more deeply with you. I'm guessing this cornell guy died or something? Or just left his band? Again, don't judge me, I know for a fact you know a lot more about music than me, so my lack of knowledge might appear stupid.

>>3111388
>Fuck me you're a pretentious cunt.
Except everything I've said is spot on correct.

>You know what to do my man.
Continue to enjoy my life and my diversions? I shall friend. Thank you for your encouragement.

File: 1552311895751.png (932KB, 825x991px) Image search: [Google]

932KB, 825x991px

>>3111387
>i know everything, everyone else is objectively wrong

File: Acros004.jpg (286KB, 2000x1281px) Image search: [Google]

286KB, 2000x1281px

Just developed a roll

1/3

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3223
Image Height	2064
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	2400 dpi
Vertical Resolution	2400 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2017:07:10 20:18:16
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2000
Image Height	1281

>>3111381
the face is out of focus
you stop on a joint
the messy bed covers draw your eye away from the shot

File: Acros022.jpg (393KB, 2000x1263px) Image search: [Google]

393KB, 2000x1263px

>>3111394
2/3

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3295
Image Height	2080
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	2400 dpi
Vertical Resolution	2400 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2017:07:10 20:18:26
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2000
Image Height	1263

File: Acros059.jpg (268KB, 2000x1326px) Image search: [Google]

268KB, 2000x1326px

>>3111397
3/3

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2631
Image Height	3840
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	2400 dpi
Vertical Resolution	2400 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2017:07:10 20:18:36
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2000
Image Height	1326

>>3111246
I like this photo. It really tells a story. And that story is:
>anon, stop being such a creep and put away that camera

>>3111388
I agree with you but you're just name-calling. Stop.

>>3111391
>everything I've said is spot on correct

Correct based on things you already knew. I didn't know those things so I didn't understand the piece as well as you.

But the converse is also true. I'm guessing you don't have much experience when it comes to intimate relationships with other people. I'm not talking about sex, you could have had sex before, and I'm not talking about having a girlfriend, you've probably had plenty of those in your life. I'm talking about the feeling of closeness that can only be shared between two individuals who truly understand each other on a very deep level.

For me, my picture communicates love.

>>3111395
Thank you. You're right about the face, but what does "I stop on a joint" mean?

As for the covers I feel they subtly communicate the sexual dimension of our relationship. But you're right, I should find a way to communicate that a little more subtly.

>>3111401
Maybe that's the story she'd tell you if you tried taking them. But for me, she allowed me inside her :^)

File: flag.jpg (142KB, 479x382px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 479x382px

>>3111390
Nah, there's more and more real distinction there. I'll admit that it's not a universally understood image (generally only done after someone dies), but it's one general enough that more can understand than what you saw beyond naked ginger.

I mean, take pic related as an example. If someone didn't know that presenting a flag to the survivors of those killed in the military was a tradition, they'd be confused as fuck by this image. With that bit of info, you know that this kid is at one of his parent's funeral. Using cultural (and subcultural) specific imagery doesn't eliminate the generalizability, just narrows it (without explanation) to those who know that particular subculture.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS3 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2008:08:04 16:14:09
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	479
Image Height	382

>>3111394
>>3111397
>>3111399
I think I see what you're trying to do here. You're trying to communicate the feelings of old age and decrepitude. This is perfect for shooting on film, as film is a medium that, despite it's many benefits, is going the way of the dodo.

Overall it fails to create any lasting impact on me. All I see is a picture of a bunch of random old people. You should find more ways to communicate their stories to the viewer.

Sorry if that's not that helpful. Shooting on film is a good first step though

>>3111402
>she allowed me inside her :^)
She's a random chick with self esteem low enough that she's willing to let you take nudes of her to post online.

Chick's like that are a dime a dozen. You can find a new chick like that every day of the week in any random bar in any random college town or big city. You've accomplished nothing.

And the photo sucks. There's no apparent thought to lighting, composition, processing, or anything.

>>3111392
You know, if you stop assuming you know what people mean and just go by what they say, you'll find yourself far less angry and actually manage to communicate.

>>3111402
>I'm guessing you don't have much experience when it comes to intimate relationships with other people.[snip]
>For me, my picture communicates love.
Not true at all, and that's you seeing what isn't there.

>>3111403
>general enough

Wasn't general enough for me. I didn't have enough context to fully absorb it. Now that I do, I consciously understand it a little better, but it still fails to achieve that subconscious affect we seek out when we create art. I still don't care about anything in the pic.

>If someone didn't know that presenting a flag to the survivors of those killed in the military was a tradition,

I didn't know that. And that picture still arouses meaning for me. Because even without knowing that little detail, I understand the great feelings of loss connected with the military, especially for children.

What I'm trying to say is, these are details. Little things that allow us to see things more clearly. But they only serve to create within us that deep inner feeling, that subconscious emotion we're looking for, not just in art but in life itself.

You can spend you whole life trying to gain conscious control of the technical aspects of your medium, only to find at the end of it you still had so much further to go. So much more to learn. This is what drives some artists to create the greatest pieces of their generation only to put a bullet in their heads the very next day.

>>3111406
I know.

I know all of these things. I knew them going into her. I knew from the moment I saw her that our relationship can never truly penetrate into the very fiber of our being.

But I did it anyway. Cause I wanted to know what it's like to feel love.

Subject yourself to the negative, to the evil, to the bad, for the extend of our suffering is only ever as extreme as the intensity of our joy.

>>3111409
>if you stop assuming you know what people mean and just go by what they say

I can't help it, sorry. When you already understand everything it's difficult to create the patience to deal with people who don't.

That's why /p/ is filled with assholes who would rather call you a retarded teenager than try to help you get better.

>>3111409
>that's you seeing what isn't there
>what isn't there

No, that's me seeing something you can't see. Something you lack the prerequisite knowledge to see.
The converse is true for that picture of the band; you saw something I couldn't see because I don't know jack shit about music.

In the end, admitting you don't really know something is the first step into really knowing something. And not knowing something is one of the worst feelings in the world for people like you and me.

>>3111402
the 2 rules i go by are always have the eyes crystal clear (unless deliberate) and never finish a pic on a joint ankle elbow knee etc (unless deliberate)

>>3111415
Both those were deliberate though. I wanted to deny the viewer her eyes so they'd have trouble reading her emotion, and thus gain a deeper subconscious understanding based on other details.

If by "finish a pic on a joint" you mean making the focal point her knee, I did that for a reason too. I communicates to the viewer she's still guarded, despite her nudity and retaliative openness. That sort of duality between being open and being guarded is exactly why that pic speaks to me so much.

>>3111417
no i mean cutting the pic off at the ankle joint and not further down the foot

>>3111417
>>3111418
it's one of those pics that you think is very good but when you get better it will make you cringe, for all the right reasons

>>3111347
>I'm trying to tell you that portraiture as a definition is just a genre.
and everyone else is trying to tell you your definition is wrong.

https://www.google.com/search?q=portrait&tbm=isch

you see anything that even vaguely resembles the OP?

>>3111354
hey, you posted a portrait. it's not good, but A+ for effort!

File: DSC_0211.jpg (173KB, 1000x562px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 1000x562px

>>3111418
Ah, no, you're right. I see what you mean. Yeah, I decided to crop that out because my shutter speed wasn't the best and her foot turned out blurry.

Is this any better?

Thanks for the crit though. Sorry if a seem oppositional, I'm not trying to be, I just want to fully understand what I did wrong.

>>3111420
Maybe. But right now I like it. I'm trying to figure out why I shouldn't.

>>3111421
If we're going by consensus definition here then I'll do you one better

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/portrait

>a pictorial representation of a person usually showing the face
>usually
Meaning not necessarily. The only definite the definition gives is that it's a picture of a person.

But that's not my point. My point is that portrait is just a symbol we've created to represent something more complex than it can describe. If you lurk on /ic/ at all, this relates to that "symbol drawing" thing they're always nagging people about in beginner threads.

So, what's the deeper meaning? What separates true portraiture from some selfie a slut takes on snapchat?

By this definition both are portraits.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D3400
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.10.1 (Windows)
Photographer	TB Johnson (@tbjson)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.7
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	864
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	31 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2017:07:10 14:59:15
Exposure Time	1/30 sec
F-Number	f/3.8
Exposure Program	Shutter Priority
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/3.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	21.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>3111422
>my shutter speed wasn't the best and her foot turned out blurry

File: Untitled.jpg (294KB, 1429x897px) Image search: [Google]

294KB, 1429x897px

>>3111424
Oh fuck I looked like motion blur to me, I never bothered zooming in on it.

Does it look better with the foot now though?

File: DSC_0211.jpg (173KB, 1000x562px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 1000x562px

>>3111422
Added a little extra breathing room to the pic. I was afraid of showing too much of the shit under my bed, but I feel like I did a good job of minimizing it.

Any better?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D3400
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.10.1 (Windows)
Photographer	TB Johnson (@tbjson)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.7
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	864
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	31 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2017:07:10 15:13:55
Exposure Time	1/30 sec
F-Number	f/3.8
Exposure Program	Shutter Priority
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/3.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	21.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>3111422
i prefer this but you could of also cut it half way up the foot,
overall it is very bland i think you was wrong to not hightlight her face by making it in focus it would of forced the viewer to see the girl before the body, now i just keep zooming in on the cellulite on her thigh

also the lesser elbow and other foot look awkwardly placed

File: 111235112455.jpg (378KB, 776x519px) Image search: [Google]

378KB, 776x519px

is this also a portrait?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: 453.jpg (152KB, 529x366px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 529x366px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D3400
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Photographer	TB Johnson (@tbjson)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.7
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	946
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	31 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1000
Image Height	562
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2017:07:10 20:27:59
Exposure Time	1/30 sec
F-Number	f/3.8
Exposure Program	Shutter Priority
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/3.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	21.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	529
Image Height	366
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: DSC_0005.jpg (165KB, 1000x480px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 1000x480px

>>3111430
I see what you mean but making you see her as a sexual object before a human is part of the point. Her bottom half draws the eye in, trying to find that crevice between her legs she's guarding.

Then as the viewer's eye wanders with his conscious focusing on "I want to fuck her," his subconscious mind sees the gaurdedness, the hidden face, her arms covering her chest and core.

To an experienced photographer, it just looks like my model gave a bad pose or that I'm shitty at focusing or something (which I am, but I still took plenty of shots where her eyes are in sharp focus, and none of them spoke to me as much as that one.)

But to someone who isn't aware of these "rules" we've set in place, it impacts him so much more.

I think that's what they mean when they say nobody can really teach you photography or any art. You can't learn it consciously, it's far too complex. All you can do is try to learn as much as you can so you know when to break the rules long since established.

Here's another one. I'd love your input.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D3400
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.10.1 (Windows)
Photographer	TB Johnson (@tbjson)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	864
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	37 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2017:07:10 15:30:30
Exposure Time	1/30 sec
F-Number	f/5.0
Exposure Program	Shutter Priority
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/5.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	25.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>3111434
Ugh. That looks terrible. Please don't mess with my pics like that.

Thanks to your crop, the balance of the piece is totally lost; the dark bedsheets on one half have a nice conflict with the whites underneath and the white of her skin.

You also fucked with the white balance. Her skin is too orange, she looks like fucking Snookie.

Mainly the crop tho. It gives too much attention to her face. I hate that crop.

>>3111433
Her face and hand don't tell a story. This is just a picture of a sexy girl.

>>3111436
>But to someone who isn't aware of these "rules" we've set in place, it impacts him so much more.
Damn you have your head up your ass.

The "rules" which you so derisively scare quote, are a distillation of how people in general react to compositional techniques and symbolism--nothing more, nothing less. Learning them and the perceptual mechanisms at play doesn't somehow make you proof against them. It just allows you to better manipulate how you use them and predict reactions if you choose not to use them or to subvert them.

Jesus, you talk about them like they were made up by some white haired guy shouting at others in Rome and everyone since has just played along because that's how they were taught and not that they're a logical extension of how our perceptual systems are hardwired.

>>3111433
looks like a girl deliberating between letting you cum early or ending up with cum all over her face

>>3111436
i just don't like you photography
you seem to want to break all the rules like you are that good
you have to understand rules to break them successfully

>>3111399
>>3111397
>>3111394
Passing through. While Acros is my favourite emulsion, probably give it a rest. You're not cut out for this.

>>3111436
MOAR

>>3111456
i hear /r/ calling you

god you fucking nerds don't know shit about portrait photography

and homeboy who started this thread is an idiot who just can't face the fact that his photo stinks

>>3111461
dude i'm worn out after this idiot i haven't got the energy for another

>>3111464
You sound just like your mum.

>>3111465
aww at least you're more playful

Cool it Tyrone.

>>3111444
That's what I'm doing

>>3111442
But that's exactly what I'm saying. I'm trying to find that which is not taught to us, that is inherent to all existence.

I see where I'm going wrong, though. Trying to communicate that directly is like trying to whittle a mountain down to a thumbprint with an icepick.

>>3111422
>By this definition both are portraits.

Because they are both portraits. It doesn't matter if you think otherwise and try to assign some mystical and arbitrary criteria to evaluate what a portrait is.

You're just masturbating in public at this point.

File: picasso_quote_by_roberlan-d5xleyq.jpg (194KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 600x600px

>>3111481
you must understand what the rules are you are breaking before you can break them successfully otherwise its just bad photography and a photographer to blinded by self worth rather than any talent

>>3111483
Then we're both saying the same thing and have no reason to continue talking

>>3111484
yes

>>3111456
>>3111460
Last one. If you liked the others you'll hate this one.

I like it because, just when your dick thinks she's hiding her pussy, you notice the tampon she has and are immediately disgusted by the sexuality displayed in the previous. It looks like shit on purpose.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D3400
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.10.1 (Windows)
Photographer	TB Johnson (@tbjson)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.4
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	864
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	48 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2017:07:10 16:47:09
Exposure Time	1/30 sec
F-Number	f/4.5
Exposure Program	Shutter Priority
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/4.5
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	32.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>3111491
>It looks like shit on purpose
you are your own worst enemy

I wonder what Angelica would think about how her token high yellow cock talks about her.

>>3111491

jesus fucking christ

you are fucking terrible. you are reaching so hard for all these meaning and shit you don't even bother to see if it's actually there

go study some more dude, none of these photos has remotely any of the meaning that you are after-the-fact placing into them

File: 1.png (2MB, 904x1352px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 904x1352px

1

File: 4.png (2MB, 1064x1600px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1064x1600px

>>3111517

2

>>3111517
nice pic bit heavy on the noise tho

File: 2.png (2MB, 1072x1600px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1072x1600px

>>3111518
3

>>3111520

>nice pic
>nICE PIC
>NICE

the only reason I even posted in this thread was for more embittered responses like this

>>3111405
>>3111445

>>3111518
don't like the crop and i think the nosie takes away from this rather than adds to it

>>3111521
love this wish it was better focused in some places but i suppose that's just one of the things about this kind of shot

>>3111263
My god you are a douche. Leave this forum and never come back.

Instead of worrying what is and what isn't a portrait (because newsflash, nobody gives a fuck) just worry about if the photo is good or not.

>>3111531
it's neither a portrait or good

but then again this guys breaking boundaries so what do i know
lol

>>3111531
You do realize that one of the measures of if a photo is good or not is whether or not it achieves its intended purpose, right? Which means that a photo that's intended as a portrait, but isn't a portrait fails to fulfill its intent, and is thus a bad photo.

Something like Op's picture isn't a portrait. It's a slice of life shot, candid, or somesuch other thing. It fails at its most basic task as a portrait photo.

Discussing images in terms of their genres help lead the discussion and give a baseline for what is and isn't good. So yeah, that guy was more right than you.

>>3111541
No. Stop this sperging.

If an famous photographer gave an exhibition with 30 photos, and half were strict portraits and half were blurring the lines, but were great photos, where the subject was a person, nobody would give a fuck.

As it is, OP's photo may be good or not, and the reasons it is good or not, may or may not have to do with how he framed the subject, and whether he captured a mood or story in the photo. But there are so many examples of shitty photos that are very strictly portriats, and great photos of human subjects that are not quite portraits, that to say that his photo succeeds or fails based upon the extent to which it fits in some manmade box, is unbelievably obtuse. You're completely missing the point, and this extremely rigid thinking is likely holding you back in your own photography.

Colour outside the lines, my friend.

>>3111491
Is that a tampon string?

>>3111544
>No. Stop this sperging.
See, you'd have a point if this drivel was posted in the recent photo thread entirely devoid of context.

Op's shot was used as the opening shot in a recent PORTRAIT thread which means Op considers it a portrait and wants it judged as a portrait, otherwise why stick it in a genre on your own like that?

>If an famous photographer gave an exhibition with 30 photos, and half were strict portraits and half were blurring the lines, but were great photos, where the subject was a person, nobody would give a fuck.
Whether or not anyone would give a fuck would depend on how it was done. As for "blurring the lines" this is like having someone say that they're presenting a collection of shots featuring Sarah Jessica Parker, and then when you get to the exhibit, there's nothing but horse cocks.

>As it is...missing the point, and this extremely rigid thinking is likely holding you back in your own photography.
Notice how earlier how I said
>one of the measures
as in there are more than one way to judge the merits of a photograph? Formalistic analysis and assessment of fulfilment of authorial intent are by no means the end all be all of judging the merits of an image, or any work. That said, they are useful points to begin from and facilitate discussion of the work.

>>3111491
Why did you ruin my fap on purpose?

All the other photos of her are better exposed. Do you have more nudes of her or other girls?

Why did you buy the D3400 the D3300 is the same thing and cheaper.

>>3111544
the real point is you have to understand the lines you are blurring in order to succeed and this guy obviously doesn't, he makes up the rules after the pic is taken rather than having a clear defining idea

>>3111546
Yeah, read my post

>>3111553
I want you to subconsciously associate sex with disgust and nastiness. I'm inherently sadistic, my art reflects that.

And yeah that's what I've learned about the camera body. It also has no audio jack input so when i do video I have to use a separate device that records stuff from my microphone.

Honestly I only bought it because I didn't know what I was doing and that one was the cheapest that came with the best lenses. Now I figure it's better to just cope than to stress about gear.

It's not about the tool, it's about the craftsman, all that shit.

>>3111580
Or does he already understand the rule, realize he prefers it broken, and so stop doing it the traditional way?

The answer is a little bit of both.

In the end all we can do is stop focusing on semantics and start focusing on getting our pics better. And what's the only way to do that? Take more pics, and post them for review.

in other words, STOP FUCKING ARGUING AND POST SHIT YOU NIGGERS.

File: 1499701619290-01.jpg (198KB, 653x1080px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 653x1080px

>>3111259

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 50D
Camera Software	Snapseed 2.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:07:11 01:10:07
Exposure Time	1/15 sec
F-Number	f/4.5
Exposure Program	Shutter Priority
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/4.6
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	18.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	653
Image Height	1080
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3111600
Damn, I didn't see it before, but this works so much better in BW. Completely changes the feel of it, and makes it so goddamn creepy. Feels like something out of The Ring.

File: 1496668614604.png (123KB, 577x603px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 577x603px

>>3111249
Why do these threads always seem to start with someone insulting the OP? Twice in a row the first post has always been an attack on how absolutely, irredeemably terrible the OP is.

The point doesn't seem to be to make the OP get better, it's to defeat him so that he'll realize how worthless his struggle is and give up. It teeters between constructive criticism and outright bashing.

If I didn't know how the mind of 4chan works i'd say it's the same guy

>>3111601
>>3111600
Yeah, that sort of conflict between sexuality and horror really draws you in. This pic definitely works better in B & W

>>3111602
Generals outside of the gear, video, and film generals are pretty damn cancerous, so it follows that anyone who starts a general outside of these three is terrible and worthy of derision.

Also, OP didn't start the portrait thread with a portrait. Pretty insult worthy.

>>3111328
Street photography is also about people, but they (mostly) aren't portraits. Portraits are posed and have their face as subject, usualy portraying some kind of charachteristic.

File: 1415554418936.jpg (217KB, 1000x625px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 1000x625px

>>3111607
>Street photography is also about people

Is it? But some of the best street photos are of empty streets.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

>>3111594
>I want you to subconsciously associate sex with disgust and nastiness. I'm inherently sadistic, my art reflects that

you've started to believe your own shit, pity your photography wasn't slightly any good to back your stupid reasons for each pic

>>3111597
you are a first class knobhead

>>3111629
fuck off you ugly nigger, either post a pic, post a crit of a pic, or leave

>>3111259
i didnt notice this before nice pic

>>3111600
she looks dirty and the hair looks to black for this sort of pic

>>3111630
only about 2 or 3 people made any good comments in this thread the rest are just narcissistic idiots that believe every pic and word from their mouth is brilliant

>fuck off you ugly nigger
>STOP FUCKING ARGUING AND POST SHIT YOU NIGGERS.

do these quotes back up what you say or just make you look more stupid

Seems like we got a new Alphon round here.

>>3111437
>ugh
>>>>tumblr

>>3111633
By making that post you took time and energy out of your day that could be spent doing things much more important than arguing with brick walls. Stop doing that and go take some fucking photos.

>>3111655
>He's been on 4chan so long he connects commonly used exclamations with rival websites

At least you didn't say reddit. I spend more than enough time on /tv/

>>3111246
>>3111267
>>3111354
>>3111422
>>3111428
>>3111436
>>3111491
Literal fucking cp. That bitch is 16. Holy shit you're one massive faggot.

>>3111790
Based on what?

>>3111602
>it's the same guy
Themost vitriolic and extended argument I've witnessed here turned out to be anon arguing with himself, but there was a deliberate reveal at the end.

>>3111811
Pull up dude's instagram (you know, the one he drops in his exif) he tags angelica77712 thanking her. Her insta is private, but the bio makes mention of a summer dance program (http://www.abt.org/education/sites.asp) with a fucking upper age limit of 17 years old (google also shows the word "sophomore" in there, which would be right if it's high school sophomore).

If you scroll down a bit, you can find her comments on one of her classmate's insta (@bethanylatham) who is also 16.

So, congrats to everyone who saved that. You saved cp. Also, in addition to being a retard, OP is either underageb& or so inept at pulling tail he has to troll for underaged girls visiting NYC for the summer.

>>3111926
Beth is hot as fuck.

>>3111926
Lol so OP is a CP producer who sucks at photography.

To OP: just stop with the bullshit about a deeper meaning, nobody is buying it and it is cringe worthy.

Second tip, if >>3111926 is right. Look up how much shit you can get into for making and spreading CP

>>3111926
Underage nudes is wrong, but I think there are exceptions for art. For example, google David Hamilton's work.

Secondly, you're quick to act like the moral police as you post all this girl's personal information. What's worse: an anonymous photo of a girl who is 12 months too young to be legal, or exposing her identity to thousands of people?

Hope you feel really good about yourself, champ.

And yes, OP's explanations behind his photos are awful. It all makes sense now that he is probably 17 or 18 years old.

Still, better to post photos and act like a douche, than to post no photos at all.

>>3111926
but that's not CP, artistic presentation of nudity below 18 is allowed in the US of A you purist

File: 1.png (412KB, 937x608px) Image search: [Google]

412KB, 937x608px

>>3111935
>>3111934
The information was already out there. It wasn't anonymous.

>I took the pictures in that set to get my girlfriend to take her clothes off before having sex with her.
That's not "artistic"

File: 2.png (67KB, 939x404px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 939x404px

>>3111936
Yes, I'm too lazy to bother making a collage.

File: 3.png (66KB, 965x248px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 965x248px

>>3111937

File: 4.png (43KB, 972x423px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 972x423px

>>3111939

File: 5.png (274KB, 931x537px) Image search: [Google]

274KB, 931x537px

>>3111940

>>3111936
>That's not "artistic"

how so? Why are you the arbiter of what defines art and what doesn't?

File: 6.png (76KB, 997x556px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 997x556px

>>3111941
linking those two

>not having age of consent of 13 like glorious Japanese empire.

Why even live, puritan cucks?

If the internet detective in here really gave a fuck, he would quietly report the post, or DM the photog on insta. Instead he's histrionically posting all her info in a desperate attempt to troll.

Not falling for it, sorry.

Cute girl, not the best photo, don't really care to snoop into her private business, as I sure wouldn't want someone to do to me if some photog accidentally included info to find me in his EXIF.

>>3111944
pedophile detected

>>3111950
>If the internet detective in here really gave a fuck, he would quietly report the post,
You don't know how reporting works, do you? Janitors/mods don't see the entire thread. They only see the reported post. The image could easily be of someone of legal age.
>or DM the photog on insta.
Which would accomplish nothing.
>Instead he's histrionically posting all her info in a desperate attempt to troll.
All her info? Nope. Enough to show that I'm not talking out of my ass saying she's underage, definitely.
>Not falling for it, sorry.
Falling for what? You can do the search yourself. Bitch is underage. That's all there really is to it.
>Cute girl, not the best photo, don't really care to snoop into her private business,
Her "private" business isn't private when you have Mr. Johnson throwing her picture on the internet.
>as I sure wouldn't want someone to do to me if some photog accidentally included info to find me in his EXIF.
Maybe more don't do shit you'd worry about catching up to you later on.

>>3111953

gtfo, you douchebag. you're either a fucking idiot, or trolling.

>>3111954
Yes, the person who is calling out the guy who took advantage of the girl visiting the big city for the summer to get noods of her (which both know are illegal) and posts them online, on 4chan of all places, along with enough info that it takes no effort to identify her, which even assumes that she's ok with the nudes being shared in the first place, is the one who is the douchebag and not the one who treated his "girlfriend" so shady.

>>3111957
>posting nudes to 4chan is bad because there are a lot of internet nerds who will snoop and make connections to find her identity
>i only snooped and posted all her personal info in the thread to prevent any other of those bad guys from snooping and finding her personal info

last response you'll get from me troll. well done, i guess, but now let's go back to posting portraits.

>>3111960
It's not a fucking portrait

>>3111960
Posting smut to a blue board is bad.
Violating the trust of a model and associating him or her with this site without their consent is a bad thing.

I never claimed to be doing it so other people couldn't. That's some seriously stupid thinking. It's the internet. Anything posted to it is there for good. I did it to fucking warn anyone who even thought about saving that shit.

As for snooping, it wasn't so much even that. I saw dude's insta/twitter handle in the exif and was curious what other kind of stuff he shot. I saw the link to her which I just tapped on because why not. That's when I saw the '17 which threw up red fucking flags, so I dug just a bit deeper and found out yeah, this bitch is underage.

Also, you sound a lot like OP desperately trying to do some damage control. Don't worry, while I did skip over reporting to mods, I did report to the FBI.

>>3111966
>As for snooping, it wasn't so much even that. I saw dude's insta/twitter handle in the exif and was curious what other kind of stuff he shot. I saw the link to her which I just tapped on because why not. That's when I saw the '17 which threw up red fucking flags, so I dug just a bit deeper and found out yeah, this bitch is underage.

it would have been enough to point this out without going into an autistic fit of posting pictures with personal information you tard

kys my man

>>3111969
>it would have been enough to point this out without going into an autistic fit of posting pictures with personal information you tard
except it wasn't.
>>3111811

>>3111969

Information stops being personal and starts being public the fucking second its owner posts it on publicly available googlable social media sites, you fucking moron. It's people's own responsibility to control what becomes public and what doesn't, you are literally buttmad about someone's freedom to spend 5 minutes on google.com

Good on you "doxxing" anon, cringe shit like this should be pointed out. I hope you really reported it.

>>3111249
>>3111255
>>3111260
fuck you're dyslexic, op didn't say portraits. You're the other half of the same reason that op unconsciously arose that ruined /p/ for the good

More portraits less autism please

>>3111993
it's too late. The best we can do is let this thread reach autosage and restart

File: DSC03790.jpg (335KB, 722x800px) Image search: [Google]

335KB, 722x800px

How's my crop here? I have some space at the bottom that I cropped off because I thought her shirt is a little distracting.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7R
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1.1 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	55 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2017:07:11 14:43:46
Exposure Time	1/400 sec
F-Number	f/2.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	5000
Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Brightness	0.3 EV
Exposure Bias	0.7 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Other
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	55.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>3111249
>Mazda 6
You have shit taste

>>3111399
>>3111397
I don't think you should stop. These two are nice because it's framed better. Don't give up

File: fapfapfapfap.jpg (259KB, 2000x1920px) Image search: [Google]

259KB, 2000x1920px

>>3111491
Generally I would say whats missing here is the effort.
You got a womanly looking subject, but instead of thinking up a setting and do something about it, you produced photos like I have of my ex's in my home porn archive.

>>3111491
>It looks like shit on purpose.
AHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA

If you are disgusted by periods or tampons, you should consider growing the fuck up.

>>3111991
>/rpt/ - Recent Portrait Thread

Jesus. Never post pictures of people you know to 4chin.

I love how there are apparently a lot of people defending someone who Terry Richardson'd an under aged girl.

>>3112085
he raped her?

>>3112095
In his own words, he used her posing nude as a route to fucking her. If not full on coercion, the worst of GWC behavior.

Why /p/ has to ruin everything?

OP is posting fresh puccie and everyone is hating. /p/ must be 90% fat girls and faggots.

>>3112102
Because /p/ isn't a repository for low effort, low grade smut. The bullshit posted here is not remotely work safe, it's got no artistic merit (please, someone make an argument otherwise), it's uninteresting beyond the whole naked woman thing that shouldn't be quite as titillating or special to you once you've finally got some, but I'm forced to assume you've not gotten any because you say "puccie". It's going to be a long hard road for you until you become a Wizard, but I hear it's worth it, so keep on keeping on.

>>3111246
ahahaha literally cp the thread.

What about this is art? All the photos looks sexually suggestive to me and clearly the product of child exploitation.

>Shooting a still subject in shutter priority
Did OP think she was gonna get away quickly and wanted to make sure he could chase her without getting any motion blur?

the 'artist' here obviously put more effort into luring her than he did on how he was gonna actually shoot photographs. Glad mom's 500$ investment in a camera is paying off. brb, emailing the girl's school so they can get in contact with the family.

>>3112104
KEK. That's what I'm saying, /p/ is full of faggots like you.

>>3111635
seems like there are no oldfags around anymore

>>3112218
You're so hard up to see a naked girl you can't roll over to /b/ /hc/ /gif/ /s/, etc?

You're pretty sad mate.

>>3111438
A portrait don't need to tell a history, mate.

>>3112223
I want fresh puccie m8.

File: oPiUrHy2.jpg (375KB, 756x1366px) Image search: [Google]

375KB, 756x1366px

>>3112372
And one more

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300
Vertical Resolution	300
Image Created	2017:07:11 18:12:42
Image Width	756
Image Height	1366

File: IMG_8148.jpg (323KB, 1365x2048px) Image search: [Google]

323KB, 1365x2048px

Oops new thread lol
Just had some fun putting make up on my friend ~ still learning how to post process n such.
Lmk what ya think

File: portrait.jpg (181KB, 559x750px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 559x750px

>>3111340
a portrait doesn't need a face. it doesn't need a person.
A portrait is an accurate representation of a person at that particular time.
In many cases, I think a photo of someones desk is a better portrait of them then a photo of their face...
Here is a very famous portrait from one of the most famous portrait photographers of the 20th century

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2017 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1123
Image Height	750
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	2017:07:12 01:34:57
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	559
Image Height	750

>>3112385
>john cougar, john deere, john 3:16

File: bir-d013697r.jpg (39KB, 540x359px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 540x359px

>>3112473
here's a portrait of op

File: rampling.jpg (82KB, 615x800px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 615x800px

>>3112473
Before I google this image that I'm not familiar with, I'll tell you that it tells me nothing about the person featured in it. Without context, it looks like a conceptual or fashion piece with some fairly obvious themes combining bondage and luxury. The woman is faceless and anonymous. There is no person being described.

A portrait should stand on its own as a photographic description of a person without additional context.

I had a feeling the photo was by Helmut Newton, judging by the style, and it looks like I was right. He certainly made a lot of portraits in his time, but I don't really think of him as a portrait photographer. But pic related is closer to what I think of as a portrait.

>>3112385
nice shot
the hands a distracts rather than adds to the pic

>>3112484
Hahahahaha damn bro you got him good!

>>3111946
>>3111941
>>3111940
>>3111939
>>3111937
>>3111936
THE FIRE RISES

>>3112485
>luxury
what is luxurious about it?

>>3112405
makes me feel uncomfortable and it arouses pity, so in that sense, well done. facial expression is good, has a strong mood to it.

it's just too soft, imo. looks like film.

>>3112001
Any feedback here? Usually no feedback means it's very boring and worthless. Is the concept at least worthwhile, and possible to save by doing something a little different?

I'm thinking it might be a little more interesting if she was angled differently. Either facing directly at the camera, or if it was a side profile, but with her turned slightly more towards the camera so you could see her closer eye. Thoughts on why this version sucks, and how I could improve it?

>>3112638
>luxury
Long gold chain, slicked-back hair (a 70s/80s signifier of wealth)

What the fuck mods there has been cp in this thread for days

>>3112741
>CP

dumb americunt

>>3112741
fucking idiot

File: grin.jpg (922KB, 691x1037px) Image search: [Google]

922KB, 691x1037px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS REBEL T3i
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.10.1 (Windows)
Photographer	Erick Diaz
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2017:07:12 14:51:27
Exposure Time	1/320 sec
F-Number	f/2.5
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	250
Lens Aperture	f/2.5
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3112001
I like this
I think
The eye could be slightly more open
The action area ie the gloss stick should also be in focus
The green on the neck makes her look dirty

But apart from the green everything else is forgivable and I really like it

>>3112761
When I open this on my phone and zoom till she fills the shot it looks so much better

File: D9510714-4F04-46D6-9E90-AA9D98BB2CF6-5895-0000071CCABDD1D9.jpg (272KB, 691x1037px) Image search: [Google]

272KB, 691x1037px

>>3112761
Fabulous shot but you've taken it in completely the wrong direction in post.

Looks weirdly flat, background needs to be burnt in and your colours need taming and grading. There's also what looks like a hint of CA on the tree trunk and bench, but it could just be oddly toned shadows.

Saved as pic related for the time being. Title is spot on.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS REBEL T3i
Camera Software	Snapseed 2.17.150426759
Photographer	Erick Diaz
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2017:07:12 14:51:27
Exposure Time	1/320 sec
F-Number	f/2.5
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	250
Lens Aperture	f/2.5
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Image Width	691
Image Height	1037
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3112818
damn good, need to brush up my pp, was going to upload it to my IG account but i'm going to upload your's rather. btw, any course you could recommend me to get better at editing?

File: 54520004.jpg (273KB, 760x1000px) Image search: [Google]

273KB, 760x1000px

this one came out nice

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NORITSU KOKI
Camera Model	QSS-32_33
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.10 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2017:07:12 17:23:46
Color Space Information	sRGB