CC please
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /p/ - Photography
You are currently reading a thread in /p/ - Photography
Took a walk with the x100s today, pick a favourite or tell me why they're shit
1/10
2/10
3/10
4/10
5/10
self
6/10
7/10
8/10
>>2768827
?
also, 9/10
10/10
I've just started street photography (obviously) any advice appreciated
you just walk around taking pics of random nogs? what's the deal
>>2768835
he's still alive
>>2768807
Thank you.
I was thinking about getting an x100s but now I don't want one.
These look like shit.
>>2768833
Learn to get things into focus, mate. That's probably the biggest thing for you right now.
The thing about street photography is, it's about patience and agility. Good street photography captures some kind of emotion. You have to be brave enough to actually get the shot you want (i.e. making sure everything looks the way you want it to before you clicking the shutter) while also being quick enough to get the shot before it passes.
Look at more photographs and become more competent with your camera. And obviously, keep shooting.
>>2768807
I like this one the most.
I like your style, the colour, the clutter, the people, but none of these shots really grabbed me.
2,1,5,3 my favs. 7 doesn't look like its from the same set or even the same guy.
I'd like to see more.
>>2768818
Hipster as fuck/10
>>2768807
this one is good
My advice about your photography is that you should lose some fucking weight.
>>2769071
kek
but in all honesty OP, your shots are just "okay".
Keep practicing.
>>2769071
Lol
boring
theres nothing about you going through the buttfuck areas and stores
i know you get to follow the guidelines shown on the viewfinder but it can only do so much
>>2768807
Did you edit these? They look like the clarity and contrast are bumped up.
>>2769213
I'm sorry, I don't understand either of your points?
>>2768889
You know all art is subjective. I think about half the shots are pretty interesting. Some do have too much going on, but that's street photography when you're shooting with a small aperture.
And he didn't say what the subject was so you don't really know what the subject is so you don't know if it's in focus or not when he has such a great depth of focus. But he should try to make the subject more obvious.
>>2769228
Yes, in polarr. Nothing too drastic
>>2769236
Well yeah its not super obvious, but it makes it looks more unnatural. Which is cool if that's what you were going for, but if youre looking for a realist look, I would balance the contrast out more with the highlights, blacks, whites, and shadows, rather than the contrast itself and not even touch the clarity. Also If you're trying to have people critique you're photography skill with a specific camera, don't edit at all.
>>2769242
Thanks for the feedback.
"Also If you're trying to have people critique you're photography skill with a specific camera, don't edit at all."
I've not heard of that
>>2769254
Well once you digitally edit, you're more showing off your editing abilities. With film prints, there were a lot of variables in the development process, but with digital, you end up with a finished image right away so that's exactly what you shot.
If you wanted people to critique your photoshop skills you're not gonna draw on a print with markers.
>>2769262
I see what you're saying, my understanding is that post processing is not always necessary but can accentuate tell features of the image you want to focus on.
I'd avoid practicing street inside stores and stuff while getting started, as people are going to be way more weirded out by you taking pictures of them inside than they are out on the street.
>>2769393
This was from the sidewalk, but yes I see your point.
>>2769393
The gaudy colours inside stores can work nice
>>2768824
this one is rad. what was your shutter speed
>>2769890
1/250
nothing interesting in any of them
it's just people doing standard things in a boring way. walking passed you, shopping etc.
there are no exciting,decisive moments.
also they aren't sharp.
>>2768813
this one is okay, but overexposed. my 2 cents. keep shooting
I was going to get a x100s or x100t but I've noticed that none of the photos taken by them look good.
Is it me, or is the lens unusually soft on these cameras, atleast when considering the price? None of the photos appear sharp to me
>>2769949
same I'm also looking at the x100t. I wish OP had included exif.
the x100t IQ looks great everywhere else I've seen it though.
>>2769949
>>2769949
here are some 'non street' examples
1/3
2/3
>>2769955
looks pretty bad. what ISO are you using?
3/3
>>2769955
The IQ on that is good, but I feel its had a lot of editing to make it appear more contrasty and sharp.
By no mark is the x100s/x100t IQ poor, I just think compared to other cameras in the price range it appears to be inferior
>>2769955
Lmao @everyone talking about IQ. This photo is great.
>>2769961
>its had a lot of editing
All good photos have, bruh.
>>2769990
what's wrong with talking about IQ?
What is up with the image quality? I've shot with the X100S a bit and the pictures didn't look like that at all. Also your editing needs more work, the colors are weird.
None of the shots really grabbed me but keep going. Try to find interesting characters and moments rather than just taking seemingly random shots of strangers. Also work on composition a bit, I feel like you're trying to stuff things into the frame so the subject becomes vague. E.g. >>2768833, the painting could be a cool shot, but you've cut off the painting just to include a bunch of random people's backs and stuff.
I have a digital camera but I only have old manual lenses. Any tips to master the focus?
>>2770008
Just admit it, the x100s/t lens sucks delicious sony/ricoh dick
>>2770036
I won't deny that. Thinking of getting the new a6300, personally.
>>2770040
I fell for the a6000 meme and bought it. As gay as it sounds, I realised a camera that doesn't fit in my jacket pocket isn't for me.
May wasted opportunities
>>2770045
Many*
>>2770045
Huh? It should fit in your pocket.
>>2770049
Trust me, it doesn't.
If you put the 27mm pancake on it (which isn't a good lens) then it will fit in a roomy coat pocket, but it is still bulky and annoying.
If you put any good glass on it, then most of the E mount lenses are large, and it will not fit in a pocket.
>>2769949
Maybe look somewhere that isnt full of teenage retards like this board is. The X series is capable creating fantastic images.
>>2770058
But that is precisely the point.
A great photographer can produce fantastic images from any camera. Whereas me, I am more the generic photographer, as are you, and most other photographers on /p/.
Thus, I trust in the most generic samples of the x100t images, and not images captured by the most skillful of professionals . Because I know, a professional photographers images are far beyond my grasp, or atleast in the time being.
>>2769956
holy shit who shot this? can i get your instagram?
>>2770063
If you think this site is a valid representation of a camera's capabilities, I feel sorry for you.
>>2770060
this. i've talked to countless people but gearfagging doesn't get you anywhere.
If you're doing something professional... yes get that top notch lens and body with a hi speed card. BUt if were doing this as a hobby, an interest, something to do because we want to create, stop arguing and putting people down about gears.
also the shot is composed. it's good
>>2770070
this. there are so many talents out there that does not use /p/.
got out and explore
>>2770063
The photos have been edited, if youre really going to let this thread convince you not to buy something you are a retard.
>>2770028
it does matter if I'm asking about IQ though.
whether or not it's a 'good' photo is irrelevant when I am specifically asking about the IQ of the camera.
>>2770076
Here's some photos taken by someone else if youre actually interested in a larger sampling of the camera's IQ.
http://m.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/0027384734/fujifilm-x100t-real-world-samples
>>2770070
/p/ is merely a representation of the generic photographer. Thats the point im trying to make. Thats why we're all here. I trust in the samples taken by the generic photographer, because I am like them. Good, experienced photographers would not waste their time on this board
>>2770080
For a camera that costs £700+ they suck dick
>>2770086
Kek
Show me amateur images from a competitor camera you like.
>>2770066
It's mine (OP), I'm pretty proud of it.
Flickr: kevinoconnor1000
Insta: kevin_1000x
>>2770086
I paid £500 for it
>>2770060
Yes, I see that now
>>2770111
https://www.flickr.com/cameras/sony/a6000/
>>2770056
fuji xf27mm is a great tack sharp lens.
there is no 27mm on sony.
all are 100% shit except:
>>2769955
closest to being good. good subjects, easy colours to work with, not enough emphasis on the crowd (squat lower).
>>2769956
lady and chair in the foreground completely throw you off. also the piece of clothing hanging on the chair with the tag showing takes away the feeling of modesty. they dont match the surroundings. would have been very good otherwise.
>>2770374
If a barely noticeable tag on an apron is ruining a candid pic for you, then you need a reality check.
>>2770357
>Sonyfags
Insufferable
>>2770385
imagine your own a/b test of the original photo and a photo with my suggestions. if you dont think the photo would improve then i guess im a pleb
>>2770430
Maybe so, but it's a candid shot, not posed. Personally I love the framing.
>>2769956
play around with the colours in pp. this is your best because of its symmetry and the subjects look "natural."
>>2770354
I know, thats what im saying. In reality, the future choice for me will be a ricoh gr
>>2770431
candid only implies spur of the moment shutter actuation, nothing to do with the limitless amount of time to process the photo after the fact
it doesn't protect the photo from this criticism
>>2770362
Sorry, I meant to say the sony 20mm
>>2769022
Why? The woman isn't even in focus. Sorry, not trying to pretend I'm better at this than you are. I'm just curious why.
>>2770374
Shut the fuck up you fucking prat. Thanks for the reminder why I never go on boards like these
>>2770522
Not him, but I like the colours and juxtaposition of the art to the surroundings
>>2770471
Never heard of it
>>2770465
I do like the natural look
>>2770530
but you're here right now?
>>2768807
your pics are pretty good imo, your photo set has consistency. 4th pic probably wasn't the best due to the lack of light in the casino and 5th pic white balance is a little fucky because of those bulbs in the store
>>2770901
When you say WB, do you mean the slightly blue hue?
>>2771037
Yes
These suck, sell your camera
>>2770328
lol took the bait
