Judge me
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
I almost never show my photos to anybody so I'm not sure how bad (or good) I really am; what should I change or whatever.
I guess, it's time.
>>2861420
Without the EXIF, we cant give you shit about the camera that you use :(
>>2861429
I use fuji x100. EXIF got lost during resize for some reason (have no idea why).
>>2861434
Frankly, fuji is the best camera of all that I owned (and by far the most expensive). I'm used to _so much worse_.
And I don't think that I need to change the camera.
>>2861442
You're easily impressed. Try an A6000/300 for a change.
>>2861448
Plushies fetish... oh boy here we go /p/ things are about to get weird...
>>2861420
You are getting close to the idea of composition here. Maybe frame the alarm clock entirely by the window behind it. We dont need to see that much of the tub to the right. The red thing sticking out the top adds an unnecessary extra color tone to the mix.
>>2861422
the shelves divide the scene up nicely into 9 sections, as per the rule of thirds. The face sticking out adds variety, and works well. Something about the location of the face is a bit bothersome though. Nice shadows.
>>2861424
I like what you are doing here with haze, minimalist look, and light falloff.
>>2861426
Again: I like what you are doing with the overall haziness of the image, and minimalism.
>>2861427
Great foundation, but there is something missing in the location where the tree line and sidewalk lead the eyes to.
>>2861428
Probably does not need to take up the space on this server, your hard drive, or the 817mm^2 of plastic and emulsion that the image is made on.
>>2861437
goog 'n' colorful, nice framing. Although it looks busy, the clutter frames the subject nicely, and it is quite apparent that the subject is the cone hatted doll.
>>2861420
underexposed, just kinda meh
>>2861422
really digging this
>>2861424
nah
>>2861426
this is pretty good photo made into a really good photo with that one tilting tree
>>2861427
not really interesting.
>>2861428
underexposed but kinda like it. good mood but a little boring
>>2861437
i'm torn between thinking it's too crowded and really liking it
>>2861444
what the fuck is this
>>2861448
i'm noticing a downhill trend in quality...
>>2861451
is that a mirror or just an opening in the wall? if the latter, there's more that can be done with this.
>>2861422
>>2861426
are your best by far imo
>>2861451
Pretty good framing, and basically all around good in general. Exposure is pretty legit, and the depth created by the open frame window, and then another scene behind that does a lot for you.
>>2861420
I dont think you should be embarrassed to show these off. Most people should just never show anybody their garbage photos, but these are actually quite good.
>>2861461
When a tool gets in the way of doing your job then you need to get a new tool. Fuji is a blunt rusted axe.
>>2861454
Thank you! Can you please explain what's the problem with >>2861428?
>>2861455
Thank you too!
>>2861451 is an opening in the wall but I'm not sure what else could be done here. I tried 4 or 5 times around it and I think that's the least worst one.
Could you please be more explicit with problems of >>2861444?
>>2861463
I seriously doubt that the camera is my biggest problem right now.
>>2861463
Honest question, like meta, above the character you're playing here: what is your deal? Seriously.
>>2861471
no it's half your problem. skill is the other. you've been gimped so much by the fuji that you can't take good photos. it's what happens to most fujifags.
I personally consider this one my best. Probably.
>>2861481
I don't have some kind of religious affect for a fuji, it's just an instrument and I think it's good enough for me right now. I'm not sure what exactly you don't like about it apart from the noise, which I think is pretty tolerable up to ISO 800.
>>2861480
What's your deal? Offended that your system is mediocre?
>>2861487
poor dynamic range as always. not even RAF can save this.
>>2861471
>>2861454
Sure:
>Probably does not need to take up the space on this server, your hard drive, or the 817mm^2 of plastic and emulsion that the image is made on.
May be hard to verbalize in a productive way, but Ill try. It might have a lot to do with the cropping. It is pretty underexposed, although it does give it that dreary effect that I assume you are intending when making the image. What about cropping it as shown in the attachment? What I see wrong is that there is too much area of the photo that is blurred out and is not adding very much storyline to the photo. It does have the relatively bright water drops on the branches which is a positive. What if you crouched down a bit more, made the distant trees be the subject, and still had the branches as a top framing element to the photo? Then, the bright water drops would make a nice bokeh, and the branches would put something into the otherwise uniformly overcast sky...
I guess in summary, too much meaningless, seemingly unnecessary unfocused space, taking up the majority of the image.
>>2861481
oh my fuck. are you... no. JUST
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows Photographer Gordon Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 852 Image Height 578 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 96 dpi Vertical Resolution 96 dpi Image Created 2016:06:11 16:24:25 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 852 Image Height 578
>>2861508
Either that, or entirely fill the frame with the water-droppy branches.
>>2861512
Have you considered simply acquiring more money?
>>2861515
yeah, really. All you have to do is just go acquire it. Once you add the word 'just', it becomes just that simple...
>>2861508
Thank you for clarification!
I think I didn't crop the image as you show because I liked the reflection of the trees at the back but didn't want to make it the priority.
Right now I think cropping would indeed improve it.
Water droplets were only visible with dark background so putting them in the sky would just make some blurry branches..
I'm not a big fan of bokeh on the 'front' of the image, feels like I've got something in my eye.
>>2861522
Too fat.
I would also like some kind of general advice. Like what should I do to get better?
I think my 'minimalistic' photos are my best - mainly because they are simpler to balance and to adjust colors - but I'm struggling when there are a lot of details on the photo ( this one, for example).
Portraits of the living things are the worst.
I think I really like about 3-4% of all my photos and that number seems really low.
