>>2769494
suck my erection, famillama, and squeal like a pig
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
>>2769491
Was underexposing what could have been a good picture part of your plan?
>>2769500
Care to highlight a portion of the image where a shadow is confounding detail meaningful to your interpretation of this scene?
And could you expand on why the specific details of the fourth cup back in a row on a display of identical cups is of more critical concern that it should out-weight decisions made which affect more the entire impression of a mood?
Buzz buzz buzz
>thinking you can underexpose a Foogee in any way other than creative choice
ayy
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
dags 1
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
dagsys 2
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
Dag art
[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:
Oh my fuck, the white borders are evolving.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
high art
like so blazed senpai
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
Did you change the color of your white borders? Seems like they're exactly the same color as this site's background so I can't even see them
>>2769520
why the fuck didn't you center this?
>>2769491
>>2769507
I really do like that shot; it has originality, opportunism, good composition and a good application of color theory. But I also have to agree with anon - it's simply underexposed. Claiming that it was an artistic choice is a deviantart-tier rebuttal. I'm not saying that you did it by accident, and I understand your reasoning behind making it a bit darker than the eye expects. But there are other ways to give a bland feel to the scene without making it look poorly executed. For example you could have aimed a bit lower to crop out the skylight (which is a distracting element anyway) to remove any reference to the outside world. Or in post-processing you could desaturate and/or apply a reverse s-curve to reduce contrast.
I wish you'd post more like this though. The only other shots in this thread that stand out to me are >>2769520 and >>2769528, but I think they're too simple to warrant any further comments. The rest of them are your usual snaps that I'm not sure why you bother posting because I feel like not even you care about them.
>>2769584
You use a lot of words on little desu
>>2769584
Are you from europe?
I ask because I don't think you've been in a walmart before. They're actually that dark.
>>2769595
>They're actually that dark.
What would that have to do with the capture of a photo of the scene? If you take photos at night, do you keep your settings at ISO 100, f/8, and 1/250, so that your viewer can see how dark it is?
>>2769589
fuck off
>>2769598
Why's it too dark? It doesn't seem it to me. What's it determined by?
>>2769634
Nothing but personal taste. Saying it's too dark is pretty dumb, but it's too dark for my taste. I like to have a more traditional looking histogram and contrast range, unless there's a good reason to not have it, and I don't see a good reason here. Less a criticism of her work, and more a statement of my preferences. I'm not the original guy though.
>>2769636
The shots narrative supports darkness because it's dark. She shot it like a crime scene.
>>2769638
You don't get a dark "feel" from under exposure, you get it from dark lighting. Obviously she can't get up to the ceiling and unscrew the bulbs and get some Film Noir stuff going on, but thinking that you can make something feel dark by under-exposing it is like saying you can make something feel cold by making your white balance too blue. It's not that easy. I also don't think that was her reasoning behind it, since I believe she knows that sort of thing. Knowing isi, it's more likely to me that she simply did it to troll us and get this conversation going. (just like the off-center building at night shot)
With isi, if you're arguing about why it's not art, you're missing the meta point that you are the art.
>>2769644
Again why are we calling it underexposed?
>>2769644
>with isi you get bullshit and cuntish behavior
Translated by me
>>2769647
Because there are lots of deep shadows, and no real highlights. The historgam is pushed left, and things that are white in real life look gray and dim in the shot. Isi addressed it above, it's not hurting the read of the image, as you can still identify stuff, it's merely my (and at least one other person's) preference that it be brighter, since I can't see a reason for it to be so dim.
>>2769652
>I can't see a reason for it to be so dim
Because its a poorly lit narrow holiday aisle in a notoriously poorly lit store
The floors and aisles and walls of a wally world are blue grey not white.
>>2769655
And the signs that say "decor" and "partyware"?
When you're there in real life, your eyes adjust to the lighting, and it doesn't look the way it does in the photo. That's the problem with trying to make things look "accurate". People seem to forget that your brain fixes it on the scene.
>>2769658
My brain doesn't expect those to be bright because I can see the only lighting is 20 feet up and sparse. Whites wouldn't be white.
This is the problem with histogram readers.
>>2769662
>When you're there in real life, your eyes adjust to the lighting
I'm in a room lit by one 60 watt bulb 10 feet away and white things look white to me. I haven't looked at the histogram at all, I was merely expressing why I thought it looked under-exposed.
>>2769667
Underexposed or dark to flatter ugly customerbase
And here?
>>2769669
Because you already know they're white retard holy shit lol are you stoned in your mom's basement
>>2769683
Are you implying that you don't know that the white signs in the OP image are white? Are you feigning ignorance for the sake of winning an argument?
>>2769687
No I'm pointing out that something being white doesn't mean that's the color of the light reflected from it in all consideration.
You're the one arguing light should match your perceptions here.
>>2769702
The white signs in the OP are just gray. There is no colored light being the issue. Were you on the scene, you wouldn't see them as gray, because your brain would adjust. You wouldn't see the scene being this dim, your brain would correct for it. I'm not sure why you're having trouble with this concept, because I'm absolutely certain you can look around wherever you are and see that principle in effect.
I'm not arguing that the room isn't dim. I'm arguing that due to the concepts of your visual systems, you would not see it being this dim on the scene.
Yo peanut gallery, the signs are actually pale pink...
See the walmart price signs in the baxk or the immunizations signs? Those are white.
Carry on.
>>2769589
Classic isi response to constructive criticism.
>>2769726
He didn't provide much of that but I can see how you were mistaken :)
>>2769728
>He didn't provide much
And this attitude is why you never improve. But hey, long as you're happy.
>>2769731
You day that as though it's an objective fact so it's not surprising you'd fail to understand why it wasn't particularly constructive.
Deconstructive or presumptuously reconstructive perhaps but that's the real of could-bes.
>>2769731
>I am art, therefore, what I say you should do, you need to do, always, or you're failing. Your goals and opinions are not important, so they will not even be considered. Only my interpretation of your photos will be used to give you assignments. Do as I say, or resign yourself to failure.
-Translated by Bing!
>>2769731
You day that as though it's an objective fact so it's not surprising you'd fail to understand why it wasn't particularly constructive.
Deconstructive or presumptuously reconstructive perhaps but that's the realm>>2769739
*realm of could-bes
Be sure to check out my website :) jamiewilliams.22slides.com
The picture in the OP is underexposed because he tried to preserve the tiny highlights in the window.
In reality, your eyes adapt to the darkness and with much higher DR. That is why that picture seems unnatural and raised criticism.
>>2769742
Lol fuck I cannot post from a phone today.
>>2769744
My autocorrect on whom i depend in a bumpy car apparently is.
>>2769743
I made no effort to preserve that light tho
It's just a reddish tinted shaded window that's within the parameters of the exposure which is why it's pink you visually daft goob.
>>2769491
I was having fun one day.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon PowerShot G10 Maximum Lens Aperture f/4.5 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 180 dpi Vertical Resolution 180 dpi Image Created 2015:11:10 04:10:41 Exposure Time 2 sec F-Number f/4.5 ISO Speed Rating 80 Lens Aperture f/4.5 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 30.50 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 4416 Image Height 3312 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2769755
>MFW shitty anon mistakes isi's photo thread for the RPT
>>2769746
>whom
I think you only use that for people.
Some of the photos are really nice and others are complete garbage. You know this and do it on purpose. I don't understand why.
>>2769755
I feel u
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
>>2769491
>>2769501
These are nice, rest are babbys first rabal tier
>>2769758
kek
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Macintosh) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 648 Image Height 1025 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:02:15 20:08:43 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 521 Image Height 635
>>2769780
Looks shittier
>>2769780
thank fuck, this simple edit makes the picture so much better
>>2769780
overexposed by 7 stops m8
>>2769784
Not really the little black doll is almost cut out
>>2769787
And the balloons
Accounted for the low light as seen by the eye (shadows are still hard to pick out a lot of the time) and the green fluorescent lights. This isn't "correct" or "isi's vision" at all, but this is the photo as I personally prefer it.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 648 Image Height 1025 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:02:15 15:22:14 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 648 Image Height 1025
>>2769798
Yep. Pink signs.
>>2769810
I'm glad you said it, because I didn't see it originally. Had to paint them this color in this edit, because they stayed pretty gray, especially after adding the touch of green to the whites in selective color.
