Was playing with lens, took a picture of the corner of a pillow. For some reason I find this picture pleasing.
Pleasing pictures of nothing thread?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D5100 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/4.0 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 802 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 82 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:06:12 18:02:55 Exposure Time 1/160 sec F-Number f/4.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 1000 Lens Aperture f/4.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash Focal Length 55.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 2365 Image Height 1253 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control High Gain Up Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2862090
Now bite it fag
>>2862099
topkek
>>2862090
congrats, you have discovered that subject is not the only thing that can make a picture worth taking, just don't go off the deep end with endless pictures of "texture" and "lines"
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.4 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 326 dpi Vertical Resolution 326 dpi Image Created 2016:06:01 21:31:20
>>2862102
your photo is shit
>>2862154
yeah, its definitely pretty bad technically speaking. But whatevs
>>2862090
>98% of image is out of focus
this meme needs to die
>ISO 1000
that's why it's grainy and noisy, OP
>>2862164
"Was playing with lens..." wasn't composing a photo. I guess no one else has interesting pictures of stuff when they were just testing their equipment? Accidental nice pictures?
>>2862194
We all take those photos, but literally no successful photographer falls in love with those photos. Being surprised by how much you like a photo like this shows that you're surprised by the output of your camera, and in love with unexpected properties of light and bokeh.
Light is a tool. Depth of field is a way of looking at things. Contrast is a tool.
You've bought a new hammer, pounded a bunch of nails into a board to try it out, and then showed that board with nails in it to your local wood-working club saying "I don't know, I just really like now this project turned out"
>>2862197
Yeah, exactly.
Woke up 3 months ago
Found some anthropomorphic figure laying in the bed near mine
Got my cam
Shot the thing
Just a piece of tissus: nothing good
Everything eaten by the mess in the background
Got rid of most background and add gradient fill
Still not good.
Found the OP picture: really like it; powerfull shape
Also not a shitty resolution. Thanks OP
Can I use it to have it shining ?
Went back to my picture. Paint it a little bit to fix the shape
Not so good than the one from OP but a fair nothing.
Everything is nothing anyway :=)
>>2864261
Anyone told you that you're a schizo?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand
>>2864362
Sure You are only the last
>>2862197
Bullshit. Taking test photos you are not necessarily aware of what you are shooting because your attention is fixed elsewhere. Then you might get surprised by what the actual photo ends up looking like.
Like buying a new hammer, trying it quite blindly on some bench you're building, be immersed in how good quality hammer it is and then later find out all the nails you banged hit just the right places intuitively even tho you weren't paying attention.
In the end I agree tho that most these photos lack something to make an actually working composition. Once in a while they turn out great. The end result is>>2862090
an art form, not mathematics
hey i took a photo of a pillow too.
