Could some of you critique my work please? This is my favorite one so far. Iv only been doing photography since Christmas
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SONY Camera Model DSC-HX50 Camera Software Snapseed 2.0 Maximum Lens Aperture f/3.5 Image-Specific Properties: Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Horizontal Resolution 350 dpi Vertical Resolution 350 dpi Image Created 2016:02:25 22:01:27 Exposure Time 1/80 sec F-Number f/3.5 Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 80 Lens Aperture f/3.5 Brightness 6.7 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 4.30 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 3127 Image Height 1310 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal
>>2787233
Pretty boring.
Also, please resize.
>>2787233
Eh. The reflected objects are cut off and the area above the horizon line seems way too short. It just isnt that great of a scene to be taking a picture of.
There really wasnt a need to create an entire thread for this image; you can post in the Recent Photos Thread like everyone else.
And this one
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SONY Camera Model DSC-HX50 Camera Software Snapseed 2.0 Maximum Lens Aperture f/3.5 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 350 dpi Vertical Resolution 350 dpi Image Created 2016:01:14 12:51:23 Exposure Time 1/50 sec F-Number f/3.5 Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 80 Brightness 5.5 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 4.30 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 4751 Image Height 3563 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal
>>2787242
just stop
Post more but please resize it like it says in the sticky.
>>2787242
you need to get in there and clean up the scene, like pull the trash off the crab's head
it hasn't even got a claw to snip you with
i think that it would look better straight-forward and centred, maybe even lower to get a nice crab-angled view of the crab, and either bokeh out the background or stop-down the aperture to get the background sharper and give the crab some context
if you had a light maybe you could have reflected light up underneath the crab a little bit so there's less shadow and you can get a good view of the crab's mouth. maybe a diffused flash on low low low power
unless you were just going for the aesthetic of going out and crabbing and less trying to crabture the look of a crab, because then the shadows seem like they would be more acceptable
The title of it was "crab carcass" basically its just the exo of the body. The bit on the top was toake it look a bit less set up. Like I deliberately put it there. And the reason the background is blurred is because it was for a "macro" or "close up" assignment using different aperture levels
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SONY Camera Model DSC-HX50 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2014 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/3.5 Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 4585 Image Height 3059 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 350 dpi Vertical Resolution 350 dpi Image Created 2016:03:07 18:23:04 Exposure Time 1/320 sec F-Number f/3.5 Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 80 Lens Aperture f/3.5 Brightness 8.6 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 4.30 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1000 Image Height 667 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal
The bike was for a friend. I have now rescaled it thanks for reminding im not on my computer. The bike was simply for a bike photo and this one is just a landscape. There is not supposed to be any main "subject" in my landscapes as I want the landscapes to be simply just a landscape and not distracting by a human
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SONY Camera Model DSC-HX50 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2014 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/5.6 Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 5163 Image Height 3872 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 350 dpi Vertical Resolution 350 dpi Image Created 2016:03:07 18:24:23 Exposure Time 1/160 sec F-Number f/8.0 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 80 Lens Aperture f/8.0 Brightness 9.7 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 18.14 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1200 Image Height 900 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal
I will admit it was hard for me to regain this image. It was a beautiful day and the photo I got of this bridge was not great. I tried black and whiting it but whenever I increased the contrast the background fucked with everything else. My college tutor liked it though but you guys are more savage and honest when it comes to this shit
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SONY Camera Model DSC-HX50 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2014 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/3.5 Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 4575 Image Height 2807 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 350 dpi Vertical Resolution 350 dpi Image Created 2016:03:07 18:32:16 Exposure Time 1/320 sec F-Number f/8.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 200 Lens Aperture f/8.0 Brightness 8.2 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 4.30 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1400 Image Height 859 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal
>>2787340
You'd be well served by getting a proper camera, I think you have a lot of potential, I particularly like the crab (I think it's a crab)
>>2787353 Yeah i'm buying a d3300 in Summer or Spring. I have the money i'm just going out with a friend soon and seeing if id prefer a canon over it. But iv found a good deal on a D3300 and with all my stuff it will cost £430 ($600 ish) so yeah ill probably mess with filters and stuff and lower apertures first then move onto more things. Then its just a case of getting my driving license (I'm 17) so I can go places to take better shots easier and cheaper :)
>>2787361
Fair play. I definitely recommend Nikon over Canon, Canon's entry level cameras and lenses are a pile of crap. I'm another Brit so I feel compelled to say you shouldn't be paying that much for a D3300 and kit unless you're getting plenty of lenses besides. John Lewis do it with a 2 year guarantee for about £250, you could probably easily pick up a 35mm and a macro for another £200. Never buy camera gear from currys they're awful. I shouldn't bother with filters for the minute, get used to your camera first! Also random but don't bother reducing the aperture on your Sony, diffraction sets in way earlier and everything is always in focus anyways so just leave it wide open.
>>2788023
>hurr durr 3 years ago
every time. The problem is not the bandwidth usage, but 4chan's shitty servers it is running on. Opening a picture still takes a relatively long time and even longer if it's bigger
>>2788023
In those 3 years, my data cap has gone down, not up.
>>2788029
>>2788031
We really need to remove that shit from the sticky, it's ruining this board that you can't get decent comments on photos because there's too many people shouting inane shit about resizing your photos
>>2788236
Or you could just stop being a "rebel faggot" and just do as the board asks, because the two responses you're replying to are very good reasons to follow it, and you're essentially saying "I don't want to, and also, you shouldn't be allowed to bring it up because you telling me that I'm bothering you bothers me"
pics too big
can't be bothered to even look beyond thumbnail
resize
>>2788236
For me it's about IQ.
I post pics at 800px vertical, because I want people to see the whole image on their screen when they open it.
Making it bigger is pointless if they have to scroll around inside the image to look at it.
I don't want their internet browser to be responsible for scaling and sharpening my picture.
Nobody who understands photography would even want to post larger pics, unless it's to show off a particularly sharp lense, or they happen to be browsing /p/ on a 5K Apple display.
>>2788298
It can even be 0x0, and I can tell.
Your photography is fucking trash, anon.
>>2788295
>For me it's about IQ.
>I post pics at 800px vertical
>>2788305
y-your's too
>>2788236
You're missing that if everyone posted 100% crops, we'd get nothing but shitposting from pixel peepers.
Hell, and frankly, I'd never again use /p/ on mobile. I have 12 gigs, but I'm not wasting any of that on a 1-5 meg snapshit.
>>2788312
>100% crops
I don't think those words mean what you think they mean, anon
>>2788317
>argues for less rigorous definition in one thread
>argues for more rigorous definition in another
I actually hope you get cervical cancer.
>>2788312
>we'd get nothing but shitposting from pixel peepers.
As someone who was here before the 1000px rule, I can confirm. You'd get more comments on your photos, but all of those comments would be "What lens is this?" and "you should have used a tripod" and "Those aberrations completely ruin the photo"
You don't get more comments on content now than you did then, because the same faggots are still the only ones here, circling the water like sharks looking for nothing but technical imperfections to comment on, but at least you get less obnoxious irrelevant stuff.
It's like setting up a lemonade stand outside your house, and having six guys come up separately and try to buy the card table you're using, but nobody wants the lemonade.
>>2788326
>"you should have used a tripod" and "Those aberrations completely ruin the photo"
FUCK YEAH I HATE VALID CONSTRUCTIVE CRITIQUE
I WOULD MUCH RATHER HAVE PEOPLE ENDLESSLY BITCHING ABOUT FILE SIZES INSTEAD
>>2788023
>It's 20 fucking 16 now
I've noticed that larger files often fail to load properly here even on a good connection. the resized ones never have that problem, even in the CURRENT YEAR.
>>2788327
See what I mean?
>>2788331
Mean what i see? Good tread so far, would read again
>>2788321
this isn't an example of degree, senpai
a 100% full size photo is literally uncropped, not cropped.
'crop' means 'cut from'.
>>2788356
>implying everyone only ever displays in 4:3
>implying that the idea being communicated wasn't still successfully communicated even using the incorrect term
>being so ignorant as to think a 1:1 crop isn't possible
Never took enough math to discover division by one is a thing?
>>2788361
I literally thought he was taking about 100% crops at first and didn't understand, so it was not successful communication.
I'm not isi btw.
>>2788331
Sorry, homegirl, but you're going to have to accept that sometimes you really ought to have used a tripod, and that you probably should have fixed that chromatic aberration. it's not hard! the button's right there!
Technical critique can help you learn just as much as artistic criticism.
Yeah I might go for the £250 one from john lewis then. This is the kit I was going to get ad a novice. Like it might be helpful a little and the price of the items alone are worth more than £100. I know the "macro" and "telephoto" lenses are pretty shit and have major vignetting but it'd be cool to mess with. As for the case of image sizes I would prefer it to be 2000px because then its midway between being able to zoom in and see the sharpness and its also easy on data and load speeds :)
>>2788392
The thing is, often we're not looking for technical, we're looking for artistic.
It's easy as fuck to do technical so it's everywhere. You can even find it on the likes of flickr/IG/whatever. Most of us can do it on our own as well. I don't need another perspective to tell me that if I use a tripod I can get a sharper shot during a longer exposure or whatever. I need someone to talk to me about how they respond intellectually and emotionally to some of my shots.
Yeah, there's a place for technical commentary, but that's literally all you can find on the internet.
>>2788394
please don't buy a kit like that.
Everything but the kit lens and body are abject trash and sometimes they dick around with those (like sending you a gray market one) in such a way that you don't get a warranty.
So just go with the john lewis £250 and then buy the stuff I need afterwards? Like I do want a wide angle adapter and will need a bag and stuff and a remote shutter etc. So I don't know. It was a case of a d3300 or a Sony a58 and I don't know anymore aha
£280 is the cheapest I can see for the body and lens. Like another £70 isn't much for a bag and stuff considering a bag and a shutter release will be £30 alone :/ like would it be worth it if there was a warranty?
>>2788415
Holy fuck kid. You're a retard. It's your money, throw it away if you want. Just know that the accessories will all be cheap garbage, probably not even worth 70 bongbux on their own.
>>2788412
>So just go with the john lewis £250 and then buy the stuff I need afterwards?
Yes. Start off with the body and then whatever kit lens gives you a decent zoom range. Buy a lens pen and a decent memory card. Then go shoot.
Dick around with that for a bit and you'll start figuring out what kind of gear you actually need for how you shoot. You might not need to bother with a tripod for years, or you may decide you need a rock steady one for multiple minute exposures, but you can't figure this stuff out until you get out there and see what kind of stuff you're shooting.
In lightroom, you can even see what focal lengths you typically shoot at which'll help inform you of what your next lens purchase should be.
As for a bag, fuck it. get a shoulder sling and carry that fucker everywhere. Bags are for when you've got multiple lenses you might be swapping between or are travelling in such a way that you know you won't need access to your camera...and even then, you can wrap the body up in some shirts in your luggage or some such.
As for remotes -- if you're looking at a camera with wifi capability, odds are you can control your camera with your smart phone. No need to purchase another little doodad.
Never ever think about using a "wide angle adapter". You get a fucking wide angle lens.
But seriously, stay away from those kits.
Think I'll go ahead with that then and get a sturdy tripod. Long exposures kinda intrigue me so I might try that with a little astrophotography if I can haha :P
>>2787242
This could have done with a larger depth of field, so the whole crab is in focus. The first image you posted is just meh
>>2787337
try do this one at a different time of the day, half of the image is the sky, and the sky is boring, the sky tends to be less boring in inclement weather, an hour around sun set and sun rise, and at night. That said, this pic has a lot going for it too.
Also, my two cents on resizing, it is just the polite thing to do. A lot of people are browsing on their phones or using shitty wifi and by posting photos with larger file size than needed you are wasting their time. You can do that, but they can (and in my case frequently do) ignore your photos, which, if you want to generate a discussion on them is counterproductive.
