Just a casual reminder that it doesn't matter how sharp

^this^

>>3124832
You're just a moral fag that hates brand and gear discussions. Also you're cucked by your camera brand by several statements which are easy to find on several threads on this boards page one.
Get a life and off my /p/.

>>3124840
fak off niba

>>3124832
>Muh gearfagging
>jus take more photos bro XD
Gear discussion isn't bad. It's when it takes precedence over actually taking photos that it becomes a problem, and although /p/ always seems to have more gear discussion threads than photo discussion threads I seriously doubt anyone cares more about what gear they have than how good their photos are.
What this board needs are some dedicated gear discussion generals a la recent photos or video generals. That way the catalog isn't filled with 5 different threads of people talking about the same DSLR or lens at any given moment.

>>3124847
Problem is, it's not gear discussion. It's pure brand fagging. Slapping silly arguments around some others.
There are a few people, I wouldn't be surprised if they were only 3 to 5, who are open for mud-slinging in the name of their silly system or brand. Just follow the posts of one brand fagging thread and you'll see how ridiculous and cirle-jerking the discussions are.

Report my posts for delaying the situation for another day.

>>3124849
Yeah, I can't really speak for the discussions themselves, I usually don't tread into gear threads. I just scroll through the catalog and it seems like there's a glut of gear discussion devoted to every individual camera and lens ever produced, and meanwhile 75% of the posts in question and recent photo generals gets ignored.
Also are you my brother

>>3124840
I collect cameras, shoot film/digital, own more lenses than most on here but I very rarely will post about gear because lets face it, it doesn't make a difference. Give me a Canon 10d and a kit lens and I'll still go shoot, it what its about.

>>3124855
this this this.
Same thing with film, a lot of people (hipsters) on this board think they *have* to shoot on film for their shots to look good. Film def has a "look" (that may be good or bad, depending on the photographer) but in the end what's more important is strong subject choice and a strong understanding of composition. And, I'm sorry hipsters, but from my experience lurking on /fgt/ a good chunk of 'em don't got it.

>>3124853
I just hide every thread that doesn't interest me. That would include all gear threads including both the obvious sony v the world threads but also, flim, video and Pentax threads, any thread that asks "what do you think of xxx self-appointed youtube expert.

I'd rather look at pictures, original photos. And when the wander into my sphere of interest/knowledge/expertise I will offer a comment or some advice, if it has been asked for.

It makes /p/ a much pleasanter experience

>>3124832
> it doesn't matter how sharp your lenses are or how much dynamic range your camera has
Once you go out and take photos and care about the result, these things start to matter.

You get a higher fraction of good results with good gear so you use good gear. Simple as that.

>>3124960
>You get a higher fraction of good results with good gear so you use good gear.
Good gear won't make you a good photographer but it might help you spit-shine turds

>>3124960
But at that point what are you improving on?
The art or the finish? Some of the greatest photographs of all time are blurry, dark and grainy because they mean something, not because the new g-master has the best optical coating or something.

>>3124832
Most /p/fags here go out. Have you seen the /rpt/ ?

>>3124832
>ansel adams should have used a half-frame, his work would still be as good.

No, this is what poor people tell themselves to make them feel like they have the same opportunities as non poorfags. If it were true, brooklyn Beckham wouldn't have the best selling photo book of the year.

Being rich and shooting bad gear ironically isn't in the same league as being poor and making do with bad gear.

>>3124997
Completely missed the point, you don't need to cuck yourself with bad gear, just take what you have and do it.

>>3124866
Obvious digicuck spotted

>>3124847
>I seriously doubt anyone cares more about what gear they have than how good their photos are.
what is consumerism?

>>3125028
If I ever run into a scenario where film would work better than digital I'll gladly shell out the cash to buy stock

>>3124847
>I seriously doubt anyone cares more about what gear they have than how good their photos are.
You'd be wrong about that.

>>3125076
>>3125186
I guess I'm being idealistic. I've had enough people insult me for my Nikon without even addressing my pics to know otherwise

>>3124968
> Good gear won't make you a good photographer
It still contributes to the quality of your photos.

It's not really due to your very own skill but the one of skilled camera engineers, right. So what? Better tools for the job are usually the reason why we did anything better.

>>3124973
> But at that point what are you improving on?
Your photo's quality, unless you happen to do one of the few types of photography that really doesn't need any kind of accurate representation of the world. Which isn't most kinds by a huge margin.

> Some of the greatest photographs of all time are blurry, dark and grainy
If the Hindenburg travelled through time to perform its crash in a fiery inferno again, you'd likely be shit out of luck with your blurry, dark, grainy B&W photo if an array of good modern high resolution colour cameras was also present and each of them snapped 30+ perfectly sharp shots in the time it took you to do one.

>>3125257
Your pics are shit. They are: b&w, not interesting, creepshots, some badly captured legs or ass of ugly girls your nigger side finds attractive because primal monkey genes, no merit, a person being in a photo doesn't make a photo good.

>>3125341
>b&w=not interesting
Your pleb is showing. Tarkovsky was right, color film is a consumer gimmick

And what "nigger" side are you talking about? I'm white

>>3125365
The nigger side is the one that makes you think a comma is an equals sign, you fucking retard. You should seriously consider kicking the chair.
Also, I don't shoot film.

Sill missing the point here retards, it doesn't matter if you have entry level or professional gear, go out and shoot instead of arguing. This thread has desolved into exactly what I was trying point to...

>>3125524
>This thread has desolved into exactly what I was trying point to.
Don't act all surprised, you knew it would

>>3124851

>new tripfag can't handle the bantz

Someday you will learn my young Padawan.

>>3125700
>bantz
laughinggirlsfacepalm.jpg

>>3125702

Nigga pls if anyone on this board is a fucking master expert at handling bantz it's me.

Probably not in ancient history I'm sure you have shit screencapped and locked away for posts like these you fucking creep

>>3125706
No, that would be isi. You're the guy that is a walking mental breakdown waiting to happen. Automation is coming.

I'm sure you don't need a fast car to win a race either, but it sure helps

>>3125700
>>3125706
>it's all just da bantz hahaha
no sugar, you have a legitimately caustic presence and humanity would be better without you

>>3124832
What does showering have to do with going outside?

>>3125706
>Nigga
>bantz

While the insults may roll off you like water off a ducks back all you really do in response is repeat the same juvenile buzz words, call them memes if you like, that echo all over 4chan. If an original thought ever entered you head it would die of loneliness.

(and yes, I know that line is as old as the hills, but it is very relevant in your case)

>>3125744
No shit Sherlock. Nobody is disputing that. Jesus fucking Christ. Like FUCK.

>>3125020
The gear is just as important as the subject, that's what you, and other poor people, don't "get".

>>3126199
But once you've got the gear it's time to shut the fuck up and take photographs. That's what you and other gear faggots don't "get"

>>3126199
You are a fucking moron, its not about gear, its about taking photographs.

>>3125365
>Tarkovsky was right, colour film is a consumer gimmick
the most retarded opinion
we see in colour, and it's often necessary for it to be present to capture a scene properly
just as b&w doesn't make photos boring, it doesn't automatically make them great either
shit photos are shit photos whether woth colour or not

>>3126199
>gear is just as important as the subject
again, wrong
as long as the gear functions and allows you to capture what you need to capture within reasonable accuracy, the rest is icing on the cake
>>3126226
>>3126311
these guys get it