holy shit
this board if filled with awful and boring photography
why do you retards keep spending money on expensive gear, when you're shit
>it's a hobby
well get a new one, because you suck
i am most likely half of age of an average /p/erson
and yet i am incomparably better and i don't even own a dslr
>pic related
seriously people
fucking stop
pulling out all the stops in the OP, eh?
it lacks subtlety, but you'll get genuine replies from retards for some awful reason.
>>2736561
I'm pretty good, you don't have to be a dick.
>>2736566
how do you rate my stuff OP?
>i am most likely half of age of an average /p/erson
So you are 6?
Underageb&
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS REBEL T1i Camera Software Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 220 dpi Vertical Resolution 220 dpi Image Created 2015:12:27 15:09:24 Exposure Time 1/160 sec F-Number f/4.0 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/4.0 Exposure Bias -1/3 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 24.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1500 Image Height 1000 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2736565
genuine replies for a genuine post
I am dead serious
>>2736566
nice tones but a bit bland
I can imagine you have emotional connection to this photo
as it's a place you've actually been to, it means something to you - but the photo doesn't connect us to your world
>>2736567
crisp focus, nice lightning
the fence and the top right corner ruin it for me though
>>2736569
whoa, high contrast photo with manipulated shadows of people at a tube station
real deep man
never seen that before
>>2736571
>high contrast photo with manipulated shadows of people at a tube station
You say that like it's a bad thing.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP. Camera Model E-P5 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.0 (Windows) Photographer MUHMEGAPICKLES Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.5 Color Filter Array Pattern 842 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 28 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2015:11:11 13:03:03 Exposure Time 1/200 sec F-Number f/8.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 400 Lens Aperture f/8.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 14.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control High Gain Up Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal
>>2736571
top left*
>>2736574
on a materialistic level
there are millions of photos like that
nothing new, nothing unique about it
not to mention the composition in the photo above is kind of shit, it's very one dimensional
>>2736581
thank you
Shit photos OP.
I don't know why you're gonna come hard talking game like that and then post weak snapshits to back it up.
OP is just mad that his photo's aren't as good as mine. My dad shot 20 years ago on film.
>>2736596
because it's better than anything posted here
please proceed to post yours so you can "back it up"
>>2736606
impressive genetics
>>2736612
Why would I help you in your severely lazy trolling?
>>2736636
just as i thought
no one has any valid arguments to back up their point so you're going to call it "trolling"
>>2736636
>falling this hard for a bait
>>2736650
Uh, I'm pretty sure I'm the only one in this thread who didn't fall for the bait.
Yo OP rate my photography
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Nokia Camera Model Nokia 800 Camera Software Windows Phone 7.5 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Unknown Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Exposure Time 1/16949 sec F-Number f/2.2 Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Flash No Flash, Auto Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 3264 Image Height 2448 Unique Image ID C0447BA9E5E8ACC511D43790CF924528 Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Flash No Flash, Auto
>>2736669
>Exposure Time 1/16949 sec
Damn.
>>2736673
Yeah, but not too bad for a phone cam right?
Silhouette effects on purpose by the way
>>2736677
How did any light get in to that phone's sensor?
>>2736687
Oh I thought you were dissing the lack of visibilty in the photograph. I just my read the EXIF data, dafuq.
I tried taking the picture before the sensor auto adjusted to the light. but that fast? isn't that close to the speed of light?
But yeah what do you think of the image?
>>2736697
It's alright, I suppose. I'm butt at actual critique, so I can't be of much help, but it looks nice otherwise.
>>2736561
OP, your work is better than mine. In the same way a warm dog shit sandwich tastes nicer than a cold dog shit sandwich.
>>2736561
Shit color reproduction.
Boring composition.
Distracting components. (Is focal point legs? Dragonfly?)
I've seen lots of bad and only some good here. Yours fits in the bad column, kid.
>>2736561
This is the 17th best photo I have ever seen of blue pool vinyl. Well done!!
>>2736669
the only thing that is impressive about it is that it was taken by a phone
>>2736697
>isn't that close to the speed of light?
now it becomes quite apparent what kind of people visit this god forsaken website
>>2736809
>shit color reproduction
the colors look great - borderline unrealistic with the recogniziable film tones
>boring composition
really? i honestly don't see it
the legs were taken at a flattering angle, the carpet edge cuts the left side quite nicely and the light bonds the subject with the area outside of the carpet
you find lightning strikes boring? no problem, there's so much more going in that photo, the old lady wearing purple in a pink building in the back creates a syzygy with the girl and the dog, the tree on the top left is twisting due to the wind not bokeh distortion as if it wasn't clear from the colors already there is a storm approaching
>distracting components. (Is focal point legs? Dragonfly?)
well i don't know about you but i'd look at those legs any day over the firefly
the firefly gives it away that she actually is by a pool
what else is distracting?
>>2736818
>17th
you keep a mental list?
but thank you
>>2736842
> Borderline unrealistic with recognizable film tones.
Is that what you call light leaked shit? The color in the legs changes from orange to white, the water changes from blue to white, and the top edge is faded to nothing. The diagonal strip of bold color in the bottom right ruins the faded out colors and vice versa. So yeah, shit color reproduction.
> Don't see boring composition.
Any single component coming directly out of a corner, with nothing else to lend context to what is happening makes a photo dead. There's no sense of movement, no sense of moment. It's just a pair of legs.
> lightning strikes and zyzygys.
What? Did I accidentally critique two pictures in one post, or are you that retarded?
> Don't know about you but...
Not everyone is a perverted basement dweller that gets excited over the sight of some leg. This picture was presented as an artistically and technically superior work that attempts to prove that the OP is better than every single photographer who has ever posted on /p/. As such, the mere fact that there are legs in the picture could have worked well as a beach or poolside stock photo, but then the dragonfly is there, which isn't especially common around beaches or most people's pools. It makes a distraction. There's a question as to why the dragonfly is there. Is it landing on the legs? We're you trying to take a picture of the dragonfly by itself and it flew over the legs? Did it fly into the frame as you were taking the picture of the legs, and you thought it looked good?
However you want to explain it, it's a distraction from the focal point, and in such a minimalist photo, distractions ruin the image.
>>2737026
>The color in the legs changes from orange to white, the water changes from blue to white
i'm going to go out on a limb and suggest the bottom right is a shadow
>>2737026
"Any single component coming directly out of a corner, with nothing else to lend context to what is happening makes a photo dead. There's no sense of movement, no sense of moment. It's just a pair of legs."
This is ridiculous. Photography is not about creating a sense of movement or moment, nor is it about creating context. OP is not a photojournalist, he's evidently an art photographer (a very arrogant one at that).
If you ever go to a photography museum or read a book, you're likely to come across a photographed praised for its ambiguity, or its ability to portray an ever-changing or moving object as static or immovable, or its ability to make the every-day provocative, or its lack of a clear focal point, or its strange colors. This is because these elements, which are for some reason judged as inherently bad on /p/, are able to be explored and used in art with a purpose.
The confusion you experience by looking at OP's photo may be intentional, either in the sense that the artist wants you to be confused or maybe he wants the viewer to consider their own experience of the work (such as with "Casie and Dresie"). For me, the problem with the OP's picture is that the intention is not clear. I can get something out of it, but is it what the artist wants?
Any way, this is why it's hard to take critique on /p/ seriously. It's always from the perspective of a composition 101 book and hardly ever bothers to inquire into the photographer's intention, the "critique" thus limiting itself to a shallow opinion. It's no wonder why many /p/hotogs are insecure and why some tend to be so angry at /p/ — nobody gives them a chance to have an imperfect photo and photos are judged by low and superficial standards; an "interesting" photo seems to only be deemed "interesting" on /p/ because it makes the viewer look for more than 5 seconds.
OPs picture is just boring o.O
5/10 you made people reply.
>>2737049
If it's a shadow, it's combining with the vignette in a terrible way.
>>2737230
You should study some classical paintings sometime. Even the most minimal of great paintings show some kind of movement or moment. That technique isn't just for photo-j's, sports, or weddings. Fine art, minimalistic, macro, and other genres can all benefit by including something seemingly dynamic that draws you into the photo.
> Artist Intent
Normally, those photos you are talking about have a placard explaining the details of the photo, and what the artist is conveying. Here on /p/ we get OP's "I'm god, revel in my flawless work!" bullshit. I've never seen someone here explain the what they are showing us. It's up to each viewer to decide, and each viewer is different. This leads to:
> Interesting only if someone can look at it for 5 seconds
Well, yeah. Without any explanation of what I should be looking at in art photos, if I can't pick out something interesting, I have no need to continue looking at it, because whatever the artist wanted to convey is done poorly.
>>2736842
Cleo is fat and a shit cat.
I took a picture today.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
>>2736561
Sweet instagram post bro. You forgot the hashtags though. Also yeah, your color composition sucks ass. Try not using a flatbed scanner.
Don't be such a bully, Iggyboy, not everybody has your obvious talent. I mean, using film grain, subdued colors and missed focus to evoke nostalgia and suggest authenticity? You're clearly a genius, and we would all do well to bow before you.
PS your friends look like insufferable twats
>>2737667
>Get it? My clothes don't fit and it's not a very good photo. I'm so fucking ironic. Does anyone love me yet?
I took a picture of my dicks and it was more intesting than any other picture in this board, it had such composition hard on and texture in the image, it had to be a b&w it was so crisp and had such expression of human condition that my mother was crying and they made it best picture in the whole castle and i got a nobel in peace for that like obama
>>2737698
If say it got you laid as well, whereas OP's shitty work doesn't even do that. Girls love a crisp B+W dick pick.
LOL at all the try hards desperately proving how shit op image is
I remember now why I don't come here any more.
It's a fucking cesspool of constant fucking abuse and knocking each other down
You ain't no better op.
Why do you guys insist on fucking each other up all the time.
>>2737741
Namefags/trip gags?
R u just jelly of my circlejerk friends?
I bet you're the kind of guy that looses at soggy biscuit on purpose just so you can eat that delicious cum covered digestive.
>>2736606
r u Turkish
>>2736844
no its written..
>>2736566
>>2736567
>>2736571
These are nice.
>>2736561
>>2736569
>>2736574
>>2736579
>>2736669
>>2736842
>>2737026
>>2737621
These are so-so at most.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Microtek Camera Model ScanMaker i800 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2013:05:28 18:36:43 Image Width 2933 Image Height 3000
>>2737944
My friends are cool.
But I was banished from there.
>>2738992
>you deserve better
>>2736561
You're so much better than me OP, wow.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SONY Camera Model ILCE-6000 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.3 (Macintosh) Maximum Lens Aperture f/3.5 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 24 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:01:10 17:30:28 Exposure Time 1.3 sec F-Number f/14.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 1000 Lens Aperture f/14.0 Brightness -0.4 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 16.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal
>>2741919
Shit, that sounded sarcastic. Didn't mean it to be.
