hills
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
zx spent some time in the foggy hills again, so here are a few photos
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
>>2803829
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
a couple of these might end up being reposts
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
>>2803828
love the first one. You should try to do it with a lo-fi camera and bw film
>>2803838
thanks, but nah
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
shoot the fucking brumbies
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
comfy 1
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
>>2803829
Lurking. Looks like the fog is coming from the ground like a volcano here
comfy 2
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
comfy 3
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
>>2803828
Really love this shot. Your greens are so delicious.
>>2803868
currently living near chicago
It's pretty shit currently but soon it's going to be rainy and foggy on and off for a month or two
Good work bruh,
Do you mind posting your gear? The Exif data isn't coming up.
Good god these are awful. Just so, so derivative and yet poorly executed.
>>2803938
Your opinion is worthless. You're like the guys that stand on the corners in Las Vegas and hand out hooker flyers. Nobody wants it. Stop trying to hand it out.
>>2803938
god damn dude, you came all the way from rpt to flame even further. get some positivity in your life before you get an ulcer.
Less is more blood, I think removing the following from the set would add a lot more weight to the rest of the images, these ones are just dragging the rest of the set down
>>2803832
>>2803834
>>2803835
>>2803836
>>2803837
>>2803842
>>2803843
>>2803846
>>2803854
>>2803855
Otherwise the rest of them are really pleasant. The PP is obviously what makes them pop. I'd argue the border is too thick though, it comes across as crude and a bit gaudy
feels like ive seen those a hundred times. boring ass shit.
>>2803828
>upgrades to ipon 6
>still leans hard on thick border resolution crutch
Maybe OP should have said "Only positive opinions, pretty pretty please"
>>2804175
strange comment tbqh m8
>>2803877
Hope the cloud and fog rolls in soon for you
>>2803922
My gear isn't that important
>>2803938
care to elaborate?
>>2803981
Thanks cob
I did post some to just fill up the thread and to get opinions on photos that I don't necessarily like myself. These are also a mixed bag and not really a 'set' - a few of these photos will work their way into other sets I've been working on. You seem to think most of the "foggy-nothing" ones are worth dropping, whats the main reason you think that?
>>2804164
what can I say, I'm a leaner not a lifter
(sorry Mr Hockey)
>>2804278
>My gear isn't that important
Of course it is, people wont talk about your artistry or narrative skills or ability to unfold a theme, because there isnt any. All your photos have of interest is gear and software related.
your borders are too thick
2/10 for photos
I am only kidding anon, I love these from the bottom of my heart.
>>2804294
>/p/ foaming at the chops for a chance to gearfag in a thread of photos
>>2803851
this one is fantastic but pls get more into the foreground and give up some of that fog. in this case i guess its ok bc you have the two branches on the sides. but others less fog more foreground.
>>2803828
Do you spend a lot of time here and just luck out with fog or?
>>2804453
Shit. How do I hide my name?
>>2804455
When you go to post a reply you need to delete the name from the top box
>>2803828
>>2803829
>>2803832
>>2803842
>>2803856
>>2803857
>>2803861
my faves, Especially >>2803845
you do a superb job at establishing serenity and isolation in your photos at the same time. My fave part of these photos is the awesome texture you managed to take back form the grass/moss/rocks/trees.
i wanna say have more human subjects? but i also think these hold up on their own very well
>>2803877
>lives in one of the most photogenic cities in the US
>complains that there is nothing to shoot
ayyyy m'lmao.
>>2804481
I never complained about having nothing to shoot but I did complain about not being able to shoot something I want to shoot
Where in SA is this? I'm from there and would love to check it out.
wheres all the victbros
>>2804619
hi
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 700D Camera Software GIMP 2.8.14 Lens Size 18.00 - 55.00 mm Firmware Version Firmware Version 1.1.3 Lens Name EF-S18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:03:30 23:31:16 Exposure Time 1/3200 sec F-Number f/5.6 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 400 Lens Aperture f/5.7 Exposure Bias 0 EV Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 18.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Exposure Mode Av-Priority Focus Type Auto Metering Mode Evaluative Sharpness Unknown Saturation Normal Contrast Normal Shooting Mode Manual Image Size Unknown Focus Mode One-Shot Drive Mode Single Flash Mode Off Compression Setting Unknown Macro Mode Normal White Balance Auto Exposure Compensation 3 Sensor ISO Speed 224 Color Matrix 129
>>2804452
>but others less fog more foreground.
how much more foreground? because the excessive fog is kind of the point
>>2804453
Combination of spending a lot of time in the high country and luck
>>2804477
Thanks. I do enjoy shooting human subjects, especially from a distance and a bit lost in the scene, however I think I prefer my shots without them (which may be just me rationalising the fact that 95% of the time I can't get any human subjects into the shot)
>>2804614
Highlands in North Eastern Victoria. Worth a camping trip
>>2804278
>My gear isn't that important
YES IT FUCKING IS, TELL MEEEEEE!!!!
The white borders kill it for me. Too distracting.
>>2803845
I love this. Very comfortable.
>>2805752
I'm already looking at a shitty snapshit, the white borders are too much.
>>2803828
White borders are very tacky when used to present images on the web. Its on par with watermarks.
It makes your photos look gimicky and instagramy.
edgy
These photographs don't do it for me, sorry OP, but I just like to say good on you with the borders. In reality, the borders isolates the images from any other distracting elements and colours on users browsers; the image is actually being contained. People will cry it's tacky, distracting, etc but it's what they do in galleries, books, and any other form of professional presentation. Please continue with it.
>>2807385
Thanks for the support m8. I started doing in late 2012/ early 2013 iirc, because I liked the separation from the background; whether viewing on /p/, tumblr, or just on my computer - I preferred how it looked. There is also the added bonus of lols each thread as people cant seem to comment on the content of photos due to the borders. I think it does a good job of weeding out the standard /p/-level critique to ignore (for example >>2805377 >>2805774)
>>2805915
>Its on par with watermarks.
Nah, watermarks are shit because its an added element within the frame of the photo. These are somewhat gaudy but arent messing with the elements or composition of the photos as watermarks do. But hey, each to their own m8t
>>2805915
>White borders are very tacky when used to present images on the web. Its on par with watermarks.
Literally retarded.
>It makes your photos look gimicky and instagramy.
Eliminate these words from your vocabulary immediately. It will do wonders for your ability to discuss, well most anything.
As to why you're wrong: it's literally the same thing as choosing a matting for your image.
>>2803828
Why do you call yourself zx, and why do you refer to people as cob?
Every time I try to look at your photos I just can't get over how much of a pompous wanker you sound, its very distracting
>>2807687
cmon cobber, cool ya jets. if yr ever in SE Aus then lets grab a beer, I promise I'm not a pompous wanker
>>2807743
I am sorry
