Hey guys, I'm putting together a portfolio for my film school application. One of the components is photography section that has 3 parts.
Portrait, landscape, and event.
5-8 photos of each, all horizontally composed.
I thought maybe you guys could take a look at my photos and tell me what I should use.
Here's a picture I might use for landscapes.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 6D Firmware Version Firmware Version 1.1.3 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:01:12 10:10:26 Exposure Time 1/60 sec F-Number f/0.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 1600 Lens Aperture f/inf Exposure Bias 0 EV Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 0.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 5472 Image Height 3648 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Exposure Mode Manual Focus Type Auto Metering Mode Evaluative Sharpness Unknown Saturation Normal Contrast Normal Shooting Mode Manual Image Size Large Focus Mode Manual Drive Mode Single Flash Mode Off Compression Setting Fine Macro Mode Normal White Balance Auto Exposure Compensation 3 Sensor ISO Speed 288 Color Matrix 135
I'll post more if I get a response. I have different variants of this landscape I shot that are also up for consideration.
damn
what a troll
>5-8 submissions of portraits
>must be horizontally composed
TOPKEK nice fucking film school
"Welcome to art school make sure your art looks like these arts"
>>2749306
>>2749669
it's almost like videos are typically done horizontally
>>2749935
I'm pretty sure a landscape is supposed to be scenery.
Anyone here have anything serious to add?
>>2749306
you're kidding right?
>>2749971
Why do you think I'm kidding?
>>2749306
uh... I don't know what I'm looking at.
But I really can't give you advice. Art schools love weird shit like this. Modern photography is all about weird shit like this these days. Right now only photojournalists are doing the real stuff.
So I personally think it's a bad photo, but the experts might love your photo, so who knows?
>>2750052
do you have any reasoning behind your words?
I feel like I'm talking to a 12 year old
>>2750060
Basically my point is I don't think /p/ will give you the right advice. A lot of what /p/ hates, people actually in professional photography love.
holy shit i thought you shot this on an iphone, but nope you took this with a 6d.
i appreciate that you're trying to do something other than a typical landscape, but the execution was very poor and personally i'm not a fan of the way the photo is composed.
please take the time to learn how to use your equipment properly.
>>2750353
why is the execution very poor, and what about the composition did you not like?
>>2749306
This photo is poorly exposed both too dark & blown. You're edging up to ambiance, but the exposure just kills it.
>>2750975
I have more exposed version of this, but I actually prefer the way the windows jump out from total darkness. I didn't know how to get the trash from getting blown without getting even darker to the point where the windows wouldn't even be visible. Perhaps if I knew how to use HDR it would have been possible. I haven't cropped the photo yet, and expect I'll be taking out a big portion of the top.
>>2750998
The windows don't pop out at all.
10 sec in photoshop
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Macintosh) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:01:22 16:38:48 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 500 Image Height 333
>>2751000
I meant to say I like how they're suspended in the darkness, they're like faint candle light. I haven't touched the photo at all in photoshop yet.
I'll post the more exposed versions in a few hours.
Is the jagginess in that image a result of what you did to get more light, or is it just because it's super low res?
>>2749306
just dump all of them in low resolution
>>2751010
the jaggieness comes from your terrible exposure.
