Let's admit the things that /p/ will insult and ridicule us for!
>I really like the work of both Lara Jade and Joey L. I'm actually pretty stoked that they hit the success lottery too because they both seem pretty chill and are genuinely passionate about photography.
>>2770236
lara jade makes amazing photos for how utterly clueless about all the technical aspects she is and probably her assistants do most of the planning for her.
joey has a unique style tho
>>2770237
>lara jade makes amazing photos for how utterly clueless about all the technical aspects she is a
kinda goes to show how unimportant the technical stuff can be compared to having a vision
>probably her assistants do most of the planning for her
That's true of basically everyone major so I can't really hold that against her.
>>2770239
Oh, admittedly being in the right place at the right time and being hot doesn't hurt her either...but yeah.
>>2770237
>That successful photographer with a successful career who spends her time shooting models and generally enjoying a fucking awesome life is actually shit at photography and is clearly just running on nothing but pure luck and the work of her assistants. I know this because I'm an internet photography expert with extensive comment history on gear forums. My specialist interests include noise patterns at iso 25600, fuji vs sony, and the 'full-frame effect'. My works include an extensive study of my cat, lens test shots, and experimental street photography images of people's backs, people walking past a billboard, people's backs on an escalator, and reflections in puddles on the street.
>>2770392
Actually there is an exhibition going on in Budapest with photos exclusively about reflections in puddles on the street.
>>2770236
nothing really wrong with liking lara jades work, shes a good photographer with great photos and stuff, she does get a little extra attention because shes hot and that drtv episode but thats about it
>>2770239
>kinda goes to show how unimportant the technical stuff can be compared to having a vision and a pair of tits
FTFY
>>2770236
>Let's admit the things that /p/ will insult and ridicule us for
I use Canon products
>>2770402
I shoot film.
Only film.
>>2770236
I recommend Sony products because they represent a good value and generally offer new interesting innovation/technology that is moving the industry forward. I welcome healthy competition.
>>2770422
That's not /p/ ridicule, the rest of the world looks down on you in disgust.
>>2770423
Nope. Protogs praise sony for what they're doing. It's only /p/lebs who complain about it.
>>2770424
how do you deal with setting up a shot on a sony? I picked one up the other day and you had to go in the menu system to change basic settings
>>2770432
>basic settings
if you have to learn how to use or find basic settings then you are not a protog and you shouldn't be commenting.
>>2770236
I love snapshits and point and shoot cameras.
I also love fine art photography and see no problem with that potato photo selling for so much.
Also, in general, photographers are the whiniest bunch of babies. So many boys with toys, and so many bitter that someone somewhere is making more money than them. There's more to photography than image quality and technical perfection.
As a general point, how many of you who complain that people are using your images for free have pirated music on your hard drive? Or listen to an artists music on youtube that's been uploaded by some fan.
>>2770433
Mate you actually have to set aperture, iso and shutterspeed in a menu. Very fucking professional indeed. DIckhead
>>2770392
Not the person you were replying to, but heres my 2 cents.
There is nothing particularly great about her photos. I rarely read about other photographers so I have never seen her body of work.
I've met girls like her though; one in particular comes to mine. Bought a 5D MKIII and an 85 1.2. Literally not at all shocked to see Lara uses a similar set up. That girl that I met literally shot 95% of her work in Av mode jammed to 1.2.
Not trying to say either Lara or this girl I knew is bad, but so many of her shots are the same wide-open, cross processed, low contrast crap I've seen thousands of times. Sure it looks pretty for a second, but it is superficial and cheap.
Her models are often attractive; a boon to her seeing as her direction of them seems stiff and uninspired. She seems to really benefit from a half-decent HMUA more than anything.
Her lighting setups seem nice but utterly banal. David LaChapelle she is not.
Seriously, I don't think she deserves disdain as her photos aren't bad. They are just the same boring shit I see from any young girl who gets gifted a 5D for Xmas and wants to be 'so artsy'.
And this criticism is coming from someone who has shot real estate, models, product photography and hobby shoots. Even if I was a novice though that wouldn't invalidate anything I said. Y'all who like her probably just want to fuck her, just sayin'! Take off the rose tinted glasses and see her uninspired work for what it is.
>>2770444
Hi, I'm OP.
I wouldn't mind fucking her one bit. But that's not what I like about her photography. I'd never argue that she's pushing photography in some new direction, but I will argue that she has
1) a clearly identifiable style
2) a good sense of what successfully makes a commercial image (I'm one of the ones who firmly believes there's little that's artistic about fashion photography and that it's wrong to think about it in those terms)
and most importantly
3) I envy the fuck out of how she can connect with her models.
If you can find any, watch some of the BTS of her shoots. She is fucking amazing at model wrangling and directing.
>>2770498
This. Simply look at what she did with that fucking toy camera on DRTV. I was really impressed after watching said episode.
>>2770444
You sound like an 14 year old angry friendzoned beta. "I've met girls like her before"... cringe. If you're dividing up photographers based on gender then you're a fucking idiot.
Her photography is good and clearly so is her business / promotion skills. If you dropped this whole teen angst bullshit and just looked at what she was doing in a mature way you can actually learn a lot.
>>2770236
i really REALLY love my sony a6000
if i didnt have to buy a new car i'd be buying an a7ii with my tax return.
>>2770236
>Leica makes fucking awesome gear
Thank fuck there's at least one or two companies still around to make non-standard cameras like the M and really niche cameras like the Monochrom rather than just churning out variations on identikit digital cameras.
I got a job at a camera store but now I have zero free time to actually shoot and I don't care. And now I can't stop buying heavily discounted gear.
>>2770554
>>Leica makes fucking awesome gear
I agree, I just wish they'd get away from the boutique thing (which admittedly, would be a retarded business move), and cut their body prices by around half.
>>2770564
People always whine about the prices but forget they're expensive cameras to make (35mm sensor + rangefinder lenses = major engineering challenge). They're also based in Western Europe and have nowhere near the economy of scale that Nikon/Sony/Canon etc have.
When Epson made the RD-1 it was expensive. Avoiding the 'boutique' of the M8 only saved a fraction of costs. It's good proof that most of the cost is in just getting such a camera to market.
In car terms the M is like a Caterham 7 or a Lotus. It's just never going to be the price of a Ford or Honda because economics just doesn't work that way.
Another unpopular opinion --
>I don't think Leica prices aren't actually that bad.
Certainly not when you compare them to medium format digitals and when you look historically at other expensive similar cameras such as the XPan.
Their lenses are expensive but a 50 summicron doesn't suddenly stop being arguably the best 35mm lens ever years down the line.
>>2770585
How about a Leica N, where they just take all the tech they learned to implement over the last 10 years, and stick it in a body assembled by robots, mass produced, so they don't have to pay a bunch of German guys $1000 an hour to gently caress my camera for six hours. Most of the "Leica Heritage" shit doesn't come across to the end user. Hand polishing the top and bottom plates before covering them with paint? Really guys? I get it, you want fags to be able to brag about how much care went into it, but also it's a camera, and you probably want a couple of people to actually own and use it...
>>2770585
Kinda. Leica purposefully does things in an overly expensive manner. You could automate the production in many ways and massively drop the costs per unit.
You're also erroneously linking cost of production to price.
>like Carterham or Lotus
You mean how using modern manufacturing techniques you can make an equivalent version for much cheaper? Yeah. If you're trying to say that there's some sort of amazing additional performance you can get out of one, no, not by a long shot. If we're being real here, then you can purchase many digital bodies that outperform any Leica body you care to name in basically every sense for 1/4 to 1/2 the price. That price difference isn't borne of anything but the name.
I love Leica, but there's no justification outside of name for its price.
And of course prices are similar when you're looking at other boutique style cameras.
I would raid laras tomb
I failed to get three different photo businesses off the ground due to my incompetence at peopling. Legit autism for me.
I have come to the conclusion that, after owning/renting everything from D700, D600, 6D, 1DX, M9, and D3, that my D3300 was the camera that I enjoyed the most, in terms of digital cameras.
Another conclusion I've come to; digital is an enormous side step for photography. Compared to film, the images just don't feel as authentic, and people with subpar skills are able to shoot visually impressive photos, without knowing how to do it in anything but P mode. On the other hand, continued operating costs and fully digital workflow far surpasses film's slow and costly methods.
Go ahead and roast me.
>>2770610
>digital is an enormous side step for photography. Compared to film, the images just don't feel as authentic, and people with subpar skills are able to shoot visually impressive photos, without knowing how to do it in anything but P mode.
wat
Film cameras have P mode too you know. Film is actually a lot easier to shoot than digital. Put in a thing, shoot your 36 photos, send the roll to someplace, they mail it back processed, and it's already got its VSCO filter on it. Hand someone the link with the scans, ta-da, you're done. With digital, you actually have to know what you're doing to get good results.
>>2770620
> SOME film cameras have P mode
Fixed. And they're usually the consumer level plastic fantastic modern cameras, or p&s. The manual everything, split prism is your only focusing aid type cameras are way nicer to shoot with. My FM2 is used far more than my F5 or N80.
As far as needing to be good to get good results on digital; what are you smoking, because I need some. A trained chimp (an actual fucking chimpanzee) can be taught to look at a display and what settings to change to make the picture better. With film, you have to go on instinct; whether to trust the camera or yourself with the picture you just took. You can't check that shit instantly, and make changes to settings if it wasn't right. If it comes back screwed up, that shot is permanently missed.
>>2770628
>consumer level plastic fantastic modern cameras
Or you know, the flagship modern film cameras
But let's not pretend this is anything other than you rationalizing your ae1.
>>2770628
>A trained chimp (an actual fucking chimpanzee) can be taught to look at a display and what settings to change to make the picture better. With film, you have to go on instinct; whether to trust the camera or yourself with the picture you just took.
Oh I didn't even read the whole post.
Hoho this joker thinks exposure parameters are deeply artistic.
>>2770632
>Hoho this joker thinks exposure parameters are deeply artistic.
Says the underexposed Walmart girl.
>>2770633
Is this properly exposed?
You just revealed your perpetual wrongitude a bit my dude
>>2770633
The way you say "girl" to her all the time is so English second language. I cringe fully.
>>2770635
nah, it's trash. i don't know why you're afraid of highlights, bb. fuji does so well with them.
I think maybe the borders are throwing off your visual perception and judgment of where to place zone 8.
>>2770637
I think youve made repeated demonstrations of your own idiocy well past the point of potential considerances
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SAMSUNG Camera Model SAMSUNG-SM-N900A Camera Software N900AUCUDNL2 Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.2 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 31 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 3264 Image Height 1836 Image Orientation Right-Hand, Top Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:02:16 12:50:34 Exposure Time 1/682 sec F-Number f/2.2 Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 50 Lens Aperture f/2.2 Brightness 7.7 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Average Light Source Unknown Flash Flash Focal Length 4.13 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 3264 Image Height 1836 Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Unique Image ID C13QSGJ02SB
>>2770594
>you can purchase many digital bodies that outperform any Leica body you care to name in basically every sense for 1/4 to 1/2 the price
I think "basically every sense" is quite a bit too extreme. There are a lot of unique things about the M's and in some cases they legitimately are the best out there, regardless of price.
>>2770643
I don't know why you think you've disproved my point. If anything, you've just dug your hole deeper. The instax borders should be paper white.
>>2770650
In a world without exif data or context perhaps.
In this world it just calls your lack of normal referential &observational abilities into question.
Oh, and instax borders are not pure white. :^)
>>2770630
1: Ok, all modern film cameras have have a P mode. But realistically, how often do you think they were used on the flagship, professional models? Maybe once in in a blue moon, or by some rich kid with no technical prowess with a camera, but mostly in priority or manual modes if they were in professional hands.
2: I don't even own an AE1. I mention in my post what film cameras I typically use, and you are still retarded enough to try and say I'm rationalizing a camera I didn't mention?
>>2770632
3: Oh, this explains it. This bitch doesn't even read entire posts before replying to something. No wonder she sounds retarded.
4: When did I ever mention anything about exposure modes being artistic?
>>2770659
Lol dunno how I quoted leicaphile there
>>2770659
Again, you go with the justification/rationalization argument, even though I haven't done either.
I've said which cameras I enjoyed, or used more often, but I haven't said anything about how one of them is the best and the others suck, or how I think one its better than the other because of X, Y, or Z.
So, no. There's been no moment of clarity inspired by you.
>>2770671
Self awareness of mi pet rock Rocky
>>2770675
I'm assuming that was supposed to be an insult, of which you forgot to add several critical components of the English language.
>>2770677
Top tipping topher
>>2770392
her shots are not horrible, but nothing special. most of the shit she does is arranged by her team. if you wanna look at early lara jades where she was on her own, it's all deviantart-tier garbage
a big part of her success is that she's a real hot fucking woman. say whatever you want
I used a rabal with the 50 1.8 exclusively for about a year straight (loved the crop factor) and never touched the kit lens after I put on the 50mm and almost always shot wide open on full manual mode
as horrid as it sounds I enjoyed it and it forced me to learn a lot about composition, even if I was pants on head retarded.
>>2770795
Made them out to be? Cell phone.
Autism critical.
>>2770795
Btw they actually are a very neutral white but thank you for the continued demonstration of barking and that agreeman 'tude laddy :^)
so...uh...you guys like fighting?
>>2770610
>>d3300>d700
So you like your viewfinder to be the same size as your penis?
I only enjoy photography when I'm on assignment for a client or editor. I have basically no artistic or creative drive of my own, and the satisfaction I get out of photography is completely derived from the challenge of working for somebody else, and from providing them with images that blow them away.
I pretty much never take my gear out for my own purposes, aside from using it for basic social media snaps, and when I try I just feel bored, awkward, and stupid.
I actually went to college for photography (Brooks, right before the corporate buyout), topped my class for the first few semesters, and then dropped to the bottom and washed out when we got to a class that revolved around making a personal "photo story" project. I sat there for weeks trying to figure out something to do that I didn't feel was cliche and stupid but was feasible, and ran out of time to do anything. (I've since built up a much better network and learned to bullshit stuff a lot more, so I could do it now, though my heart wouldn't really be in it.)
From the time I was in high school, all I ever wanted to be was a staff photojournalist at a magazine or newspaper, and when that world fell apart, I never really recovered. I have a career now, one where I even get to shoot every day, but it doesn't hold a candle to the brief taste of the magazine industry that I got just before everything went to hell.
>>2770543
Shut the fuck up.
He was saying he's met people that act similarly to her. Women fall into patterns just like men.
>>2770516
because you are easily impressed
>>2770590
>you probably want a couple of people to actually own and use it
>and use it
you completely misunderstand their business model. as long as rich chinese oligarchs buy the products, not a single fuck is given
>>2770610
from the gearfag shit and muh film shit you wrote I'm willing to beleive it wasn't just your people skills that sucked
>>2770547
holy fucking shiet. are you me?
>tfw $5,500 tax return
>>2770823
>magazine industry that I got just before everything went to hell.
Newfag here. Explain this pls.
>>2770866
Magazines and newspapers don't really take on staff photographers anymore. Most work is freelance or contract work.
>>2770516
There are thousands of photographers around the world who are just as good, there are thousands more that are even better. She gets attention because she a marketable product herself. If it was a 30-year-old, slightly overweight, guy taking the same pictures no-one would give a shit
>>2770866
Pretty much what >>2770869 said.
In addition, the magazine industry collapsed badly around 2007 or so. In my market niche, there are only about 1/3 as many magazines now as there were when I started.
I got an entry level position at a mid-tier magazine, loved it for about a year, and then the magazine got shut down. I tried to go freelance, only to find out that the market was completely flooded with guys in the same boat as me. A job that would've had 3 photogs bidding on it in 2006 had 20 trying to get it in 2009, and 3 or 4 of those guys were veterans who'd been shooting for 20 years, had all the pro gear you could want, and already knew all of the editors, art directors, etc.
>>2770498
I've watched some more of her work in the interim since posting and I have this to say; she did pretty well on the 'toy camera' shoot. However, I cannot say that her style is 'clearly identifiable'.
Your second point about her having a commercial eye is pretty spot on. She seems like someone who has read lots of beauty magazines and is great at emulating that look.
>>2770543
Sorry about coming across like a cringe faggot but I am stating facts; the only shooters I've met who have a similar approach to her are females. Not all females shoot like this mind you and I have met many talented ones. But all of the utterly clueless 'aesthetic' photographers I have met have been women.
I never said her photography is 'bad', it is pretty good. But as I said, being 'good' doesn't really mean much to me.
Photography is more than just shameless self promotion of business and fashion. Maybe my dislike of her touches on my disdain for the shallow nature of much of fashion photography.
My main critique of her work is that it is uninspired, boring and seems more concerned with looking 'good' without being very interesting.
Her shots are very marketable, but is the value of photography how well we can sell our images? Not saying that value is meaningless, but commercial value is very different to artistic value (of which I find her work to be lacking).
>there are people in this thread shitting on Lara Jade for her work
You goofs need to realize that there's more to photography (hell, any artistic medium for that matter) than just the technicality behind it.
Just look at this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDAnNjRJxOQ
Lara clearly has a vision in her mind at all times and tries her best to capture it. Sometimes that, along with good marketability, will separate you from the pack of autistic fucks who yap on about technicalities.
>>2771030
As I said earlier, I find her work boring and uninspired. Her lack of technical ability (if she claims to not know about cameras it is an act to seem cute and airheaded as per >>2770879
).
She benefits from some half decent lighting, a half decent HMUA and passable camera skills. Get a couple of soft boxes, speedlights and almost anyone can mimic her shots.
Her connection with her models is somewhat decent but it seemingly leads to lots of shots of doe-eyed gals staring into the distance.
I haven't seen her entire body of work but most of it is plain, vapid, vain crap. Maybe this is true of much of the fashion industry.
But please, to all supporters of her please post a couple of images where she really executes a creative vision that aren't of the category I describe.
LaChapelle (who I mentioned earlier) isn't my favourite photographer. But compare his body of work with Lara's. Compare their use of colour, composition, theme and setting. Then you come back and tell me that you think she is anything but a pretty face with a pricey camera and a half decent portfolio.
>>2771048
To add to my post, I don't find her alleged lack of technical ability to necessarily limit her shots. But I feel that photographers owe so much to the creative engineering and technical genius of innovators of the past.
In honour of these people's immense work I try hard to understand everything about my tools. Does it make my photos better? Probably not by much if at all. But the earliest Dark-room Davinci's like Daguerre devoted so much passion to the art that I feel as though I would spit in their face not to be enamored by every aspect of photography.
And then we have Lara's attitude. I just find it shallow (much like her work). There is so much to dislike about her:
" “I don’t like big, bulky cameras because I work a lot on location. The 5D is easy to carry around. For instance, I’ve just got back from New York and on the flight home I carried it on as hand luggage in my handbag. I have a lot of camera bags but I prefer to be fashionable, and there aren’t a lot of fashionable camera bags out there.”
Literally, the only redeemable feature I can find about her or her work is that she would look great stark naked. She should get some self portraits like that out!
>>2771048
>>2771050
>All those photographers enjoying successful careers, having a great time, mixing with amazing people, making a career for themselves, enjoying living in great cities in the world, living the dream being the 0.01% who get to make money these days are talentless fucks who only succeed through luck and a pair of tits. Seriously, I know my shit, I'm actually a pretty big deal on /p/. I even own a full frame camera so I know what I'm talking about. I could easily do what they do because it's super simple basic shit that's really cliche. It's probably because she's a girl. When girls menstruate it literally causes lenses to backfocus. It's a fact - read up on it at dpreview if you don't believe me (that's a forum full of pros - you've probably never heard of it as you're not a protog). Sometimes I get really jaded about the super bad quality of photographers working today. I spot flaws in nearly all of their work. Standards are so low. This is one of the reasons I'm moving to Japan as soon as I've finished school. You just don't get amateur bullshit like that over there. You have to train for years to be a master of anything. I've been studying katanas for 6 months.........
>>2771048
>>2771050
Did you ever stop to think that maybe as a commercial photographer, she isn't even trying to achieve the goals for which you're judging her?
Photography isn't about technical ability. Also, you said it yourself
> I don't find her alleged lack of technical ability to necessarily limit her shots.
So why bring it up? Do you give a guy a bad review for painting your house when he doesn't know seven semi-famous artistic painters from the 1400s? She clearly knows plenty about technique to get camera settings, light, and framing down. In photography, the end result is all that matters. In commercial photography, even more so.
It really really seems like you're just upset that she manages to produce good photos without enormous knowledge of the history of photography, because you've spent a long time getting to know everything there is about photography other than how to take photos, and hope that it somehow makes you good.
>>2771156
And it sounds like you're just mad that not everyone likes the same photographers that you do.
I haven't taken really gone out to shoot since Christmas
>>2771250
Where did I say that I like her?
>>2770444
This. Someone said something about her having a vision. What vision? I don't see any.
Pic related. It's a fashion photographer with a vision. His name is Bruno Dayan.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1300 Image Height 975
>>2771277
>It's a fashion photographer with a vision
It's a girl hugging a tree. Why is that more vision than something like this?
You're mistaking your interpretation of her goals and your personal taste for factual comparison. Just pointing it out.
>>2771287
>>2771289
>>2771291
>>2771294
Look this one is even mostly naked like yours
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 489 Image Height 717
>>2770442
Shutter - shutter wheel
Aperture - aperture dial
ISO - press the thing labelled "ISO"
This is how it is out of the box. You can change the function of almost every dial and button, so you were probably using one that had been setup with the white balance and focus area select on dominant dials.
Either that or you're lying.
>>2771379
i used the rx100 M3
>>2770236
I don't even own a camera, I just come here to shitpost and rustle people.
>>2771383
Oh right. You were complaining that this compact cyber-shot doesn't have full DSLR controls.
Thanks for posting.
>>2771401
>DSLR controls
you are joking right? Top fucking sony shills
>>2770610
At least you tried, repeatedly, to do what many never event begin to attempt seriously. D3300 being your fav makes sense if you value small size and weight and you didn't shoot any action. Because the D3 and 1DX AF tracking, speed, and accuracy shits all over the D3300.
>>2771405
This fucking place man. Jump on the anti-Sony train you be called a shill. Please get a better comeback.
Dedicated shutter/aperture/iso controls aren't exclusively DSLR territory but you know what I was getting at. The rx100 is a high-end compact, I'd prefer it if they went for somethng closer to what Fuji are doing but the rx100 isn't made for people like me.
>>2771298
Sure, albeit much cheaper.
>>2771291
Also tell me why this isn't something a rich girl with a 5D and pretty friends can do any day of the week.
>>2771482
That applies to literally any photo... Literally ANY photo.
>>2771485
I guess you've never watched out for anything that isn't bland fashion photography then. The best work is the ones that have traces of other disciplines. I'm so sorry but Jade doesn't reinvent anything in particular. Not color, not editing, not cropping/framing.
I think sony makes the best cameras. There i said it. I know this isn't the rest of the world where it is an accepted fact but i wish /p/ would catch up.
>>2771494
>I think sony makes the best cameras.
For sitting on a shelf next to your computer where you look up test charts and feature leaks? Maybe. For photography? Nah.
Sort of like, yeah, the 0-1000 time on the space shuttle is pretty great. It also has tons of features and technology you can't get anywhere else. It's top of the line, head if the field by far. But I'd still rather have a Honda Civic for getting to work, and to the mall, and to places to take photos.
>>2771502
So you are saying sony is too unwieldy/advance for your baboon brain?
No wonder Canikon is still making money, they sell to the lowest common denominator.
>>2771503
No, I'm saying it's a whole bunch of advancements in places that don't matter at ALL for people who take photos, and very few advancements that actually help. For instance, ergonomics.
>>2771418
You are right. Honestly the guy who borrowed me the camera had it put on greenbox mode and like you said its probably aimed at that type of photographer.
>>2771523
I honestly shoot on P 90% of the time when using "advanced" P&S cameras, which isn't that far from greenbox aside from manually selecting ISO. DoF is so big with those things that aperture is basically irrelevant for most shots, and modern meters generally do a pretty good job of exposing properly.
>>2771531
I'm always shooting in low-light and no camera yet (I haven't used a lot) has managed properly so I'm in manual all the time.
I want to say to my camera
Don't go above ISO 6400, unless you've maxed everything else out, then go for your life.
Never go below 1/30, I'd rather have dark than blurred.
I'd be quite happy to spend hours customising a super P if I knew I could train it to do exactly what I wanted.
I want you guys to like me
>>2771879
I'm not sure what you're shooting with, but higher-end Nikons let you do exactly that. You can set the auto-ISO range and shutter speed ranges for P or priority modes.
When I use my DSLR, I don't use P, but I'm in either Aperture or Shutter priority at least 90% of the time. I only bother with manual if the camera refuses to meter a scene properly, if I know I'm going to pan across changing light, or when working with strobes.
>>2771892
I do anon. I do.
I basically only come to /p/ because it's the only place where I'm allowed to call gearfag circlejerkers the fucking autists that they are.
I have a huge case of seller's remorse over letting my D3S go.
When I finally admitted to myself that I wasn't going to make a decent living shooting sports and got a "real" job, I decided that I'd sell the D3 and my 24-70, get a D610 and a nice prime for casual shooting, and pay off some bills with the couple of grand in extra cash I'd end up with.
That's exactly what I did, and the D610 and Sigma 35 Art that I bought are a great little setup, but man, I miss the feeling I'd get when I held that beast of a setup in my hands and knew that there was no action too fast, no weather too harsh, and no light too dim to stop me from getting the shot.
>>2771998
Feels ban man.
>A 600D is just fine for my needs
>>2770562
Theoria Apophasis? Is that you?
>>2770236
Admit things that /p/ will insult and ridicule for....
Hmmmm. I got a camera as a teenager so I could take pictures of girlfriends. Then progressed to any pretty girls. Now I rarely find inspiration to shoot anything else. Seems everyone else here likes landscapes, architecture, or cars.
>>2776812
I don't think you're alone, most of /p/ is just too autistic to make shoots with pretty girls happen.
Shooting landscape and architecture doesn't really require interacting with people at all, and most of the car photography on /p/ barely involves it, since it's mostly shots from car shows or random cars parked on the street.
>>2776942
>this much projecting
Maybe we just don't have a lot of respect for glamour photography? I know I don't.
>>2776944
Neither is true for me. I don't have anything to project, pretty much all of my photography involves a ton of interaction with people, and I like glamour photography. (And do a decent amount of its retarded cousin, cosplay photoshoots.)
>>2776812
How do you get to shoot them pretty girls? Through model sites or just through hunting local talent? (bulletin boards at universities, what not)
>>2777026
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
>>2777026
I could write a primer on meeting pretty girls, but for me it has likely been easier than most. Be attractive, athletic, intelligent, educated, most-eligible-bachelor type. So I shot girlfriends and acquaintances for fifteen years (beauty contestants and homecoming queens). Also confident and skillful enough to approach strangers and start a conversation leading to an invitation to take some snapshots, etc. "You miss one hundred percent of the shots you don't take." - Wayne Gretsky
Married a very beautiful model. Had two daughters who became professional models. They became friends or acquaintances with other young models and they all grew up into beautiful young women (some even relatively famous now). So I have never had to resort to model sites or university bulletin boards, etc. To be honest, the single greatest source of extraordinary beauties was my younger daughter's elementary school class, as they have grown up and presently.
>>2771277
Isn't that the tree rape scene from Evil Dead?
>>2777420
Shut up Ken Rockwell no one cares.
