What do you guys think about this pic?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Model GT-I9505 Equipment Make samsung Image-Specific Properties: Image Created 2015:08:13 16:36:26 Flash No Flash ISO Speed Rating 50 F-Number f/2.2 Focal Length 4.20 mm Exposure Bias 0 EV White Balance Auto Exposure Time 1/394 sec
>>2785308
Ass.
Boring.
The camera definitely needs a better photographer.
Honestly, it's terrible. The ISO is too high, so the pic is grainy. You tried going for an Ansel Adams shot, but failed to use the rule of thirds, or even fifths for that matter. The empty space should only be used to create space. It looks like you were trying to hide some stuff under the tree.
>>2785308
Absolute shit.
Nothing is proportional in any way and your "photo" is 80% empty boring sky.
Why the fuck did you create a thread for this? Use the recent photos thread.
>>2785308
photoshop the bird somewhere else and it might graduate from shit-tier. but honestly it's very hard to know what's good when you're just starting out. just keep shooting and you'll eventually get all the shitty ideas out of your system. honestly i'm just starting to dive into more complicated composition and i'm like 2 yrs in
>>2785308
Stop taking random pics. Go to a decent place in your country, find something nice, mountain ranges or whatever, take photos. Compose it accordingly to what looks nice.
If you're posting 1 photo, post to RPT
Meh at best, nice bird but boring as fuck. Maybe get some grass in there for contrast
>>2785308
I'm into it, but I just really like sky photos like that
I like the high quality, but since the tree isn't in focus really, it wouldn't really work as wall paper
Other than that I think it's pretty cool, just keep practicing anon
LOVE the use of negative space. Actually violating the rule of thirds was a good call here as it adds a sense of disturbance in the balance. Fitting considering the subject matter.
Nice use of blue hues (blue is traditionally a sad color), and I love the details of the tree branches. I'd hang a print of this in my wall for sure. GL c:
>that feel when only troll and gear threads get any attention on /p/
feels bad tbqh senpai
>>2785385
omi take your own advice and pls go
>>2785308
aight
Hey guys I'm learning photography what do you think? :^)
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 300D DIGITAL Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1.1 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/4.0 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:03:06 20:23:36 Exposure Time 1/1600 sec F-Number f/5.6 ISO Speed Rating 800 Lens Aperture f/5.6 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash Focal Length 40.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2786188
This one's for you, bro!
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi
>>2785308
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD. Camera Model GR II Camera Software GR Firmware Ver 01.10 Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 28 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 160 Image Height 120 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Compression Scheme Uncompressed Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 237 dpi Vertical Resolution 237 dpi Image Data Arrangement Chunky Format Image Created 2016:03:05 06:37:46 Exposure Time 1/60 sec F-Number f/4.0 Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/4.0 Brightness 4.8 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash Focal Length 18.30 mm Color Space Information sRGB Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Sharpness Normal
>>2786189
>That feel when 90% of /p/ is producing bland voiceless contentless crap and blaming the board for not tripping over themselves to talk about it.
Post some of your "no comments" photos in a thread and next to each photo, express why you think it's worth talking about.
Remember that other people don't get excited about a photo when you manage to get it in focus, manage to press the shutter while being out of the house, and manage to sort of point it at something that might be considered a visual subject (yet certainly not a content subject)
>>2786188
Photo 101 critique where you have learned one term, and one rule, and instantly believe that any photo brave enough to break these is good. Photography is about a lot more than taking whatever stuff is in front of you and putting it in the borders of the image. There is nothing remotely interesting, unique, impressive, attractive, or again, interesting, in any of these images in this thread. It's just "Oh look a thing!" and while that's fine for learning, it's not in any way worth of consumption.
If you're going to share your photos with the outside world, before hitting "submit" you should think to yourself "What is my viewer going to get from this image? Is it beautiful? It is unique? Is it interesting? Does it have anything to tell them? Anything for them to remember, or think about, or be emotionally invested in?" and if the answer is no, then you should keep shooting, and keep being critical of yourself, and keep striving to find things worth sharing, because there are millions of them out there, and none of them are dandelions or the tops of suburban trees.
>>2786268
> it's not in any way worth of consumption.
Nice capitalist consumerism mindset you have there. I'm not defending the shit in this thread, but saying art should be judged by whether it's worthy of being consumed is stupid.
>>2786287
I'd love to know why.
>>2786288
Because treating a piece of art as a commodity that you're meant to consume and move on to consume other commodities in an endless cycle is a shallow way of looking at it, since there is more to it. I'm not saying all of it has a deeper meaning or anything, but the point still stands: try not to think of everything as a thing to be consumed.
>>2786287
Not >>2786288
but I'm curious too.
It seems to me that being worth consumption is really the one true test of art.
Note that consumption and worth aren't $$$ valuations. It's more an idea of is there any societal importance to a piece. It also doesn't presuppose that a work is or will be consumed, just that it has enough import to warrant it (which also doesn't preclude pieces that at first glance are warrantless, but are ironically intended as a statement of that warrantlessness).
>>2786297
"consumed" is a word that you said. If you apply it to what I said, you're saying "Don't think of art being presented for viewing as something that's meant for viewing" which is ridiculous.
>>2786266
>might be considered a visual subject (yet certainly not a content subject)
what is the content subject of your postings
>>2786326
Do you disagree with the content of the post? Or are you just starting your daily trawl for random people to argue with over semantics and other non-photography related bullshit?
Are you encouraging people to post photos with nothing to offer their viewer? If so, speak up as to why. If not, find another board to miss the forest for the trees on.
>>2786326
>>2786339
>Do you disagree with the content of the post? Or are you just starting your daily trawl for random people to argue with over semantics and other non-photography related bullshit?
I'm just mocking your use of meaningless puffed up language, like "a visual subject yet certainly not a content subject"
You are terribly unconvincing is all.
>Are you encouraging people to post photos with nothing to offer their viewer? If so, speak up as to why. If not, find another board to miss the forest for the trees on.
No, I'm just discouraging you from dribbling out words with nothing to offer the reader.
You seem to be trying to assert yourself as the inquisitor of the arts lately, but it's just getting repetitive and further in the realm of strawmen.
>>2785308
Sky
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make samsung Camera Model SM-J500FN Camera Software J500FNXXU1AOL4 Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.9 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 28 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 4128 Image Height 2322 Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:02:15 09:32:53 Exposure Time 1/2754 sec F-Number f/1.9 Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 64 Lens Aperture f/1.9 Brightness 9.8 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash Focal Length 3.70 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 4128 Image Height 2322 Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Unique Image ID T13QLIF01SA
>>2786372
>You seem to be trying to assert yourself as the inquisitor of the arts lately, but it's just getting repetitive and further in the realm of strawmen.
Pot, meet kettle.
Tip: Don't ask /p/ what they think of the photos.
Instead, study what you think makes a good photo, then emulate it yourself.
You're only going to get a bunch of anonymous, loud-mouthed opinions here, some of who don't know the world of photography outside this board.
>>2786420
I see you making implications but I don't see where I've done as implied.
Unless of course you think your *words* are art. They are not.
>>2786455
fuck off
>>2786548
You tell me to fuck off, but thats basically just a description of your own actions.
You fucked off.
thanks, yo. :^)
>>2786603
Nah, that's a different person from me.
I didn't notice your reply.
No, I don't think words are art. I do think you've asserted yourself as the inquisitor of /p/ and that shit is old. I should have employed the TFTFY meme, but laziness.
>>2786607
in what way have I asserted myself so, other than simply because you say I've asserted such?
Unless you think I'm imposing myself against folks that think talking about art means namedropping artists and books and never posting your own photos...in that case, I'll totally accept the charge.
>>2786649
Nah, I'm talking about how you're a cunt who objectively makes posting here worse through derailments, horrible attitude, and just generally being a shitty human being.
>>2786651
>objectively
You are objectively less useful to the board than I, not to mention far less cordial.
>>2786689
>You are objectively less useful to the board than I, not to mention far less cordial.
Which is hilariously untrue, on both counts.
>>2786690
[citation needed]
>>2786268
I have no intention to learn any of those so called rules that you are referring to. I don't want to be defined as a photographer. I don't want to learn the thing you call photography there, nor it's rules. I have no interest to achieve these skills that come with becoming a photographer, to grow up to it. Don't feel like striving to please others' expectations, to produce for them.
I have done so far and will continue to take my snapshits the way I take them. One by one precisely in the pace and about the subjects that I prefer. Mostly just for the sake of taking them, to please only myself with the process.
And then I will share the ones I like with whoever I like and possibly with as many people as I can in the format that I prefer whether you like it or not.
>>2787378
lol u lil rebel
>>2787378
>clipper
>clipped highlights
>>2787378
yuck
>>2787378
Fucking kill yourself
>>2787564
No no, you kill yourself
>>2787378
that's cool and all but your photos are still objectively shit. you're doing yourself a massive disservice by not evening attempting to learn photographic theory.
but hey, that's your problem
>>2787378
You have the right to do just that. But remember, your viewers have just as much right to tell you that your work is shit, so prepare yourself for it.
>>2787378
It's good that you take photos the way you want to, but nobody can deny the benefits of "learning the rules". Once you get used to them and learn how to use them, you can learn how to use them and break them (or remix them) at the same time, which expands the reaches of your photography greatly. In other words, you're using the tools other people use... but the way you want to: a hammer not to strike a nail, but to make music or sculpture.
But if you don't care, carry on.
>>2785308
fuck it, i like it. Yes, it's a bit basic but it's not a bad composition. i think it needs something though, maybe more color or something, but it needs something. Still, not bad
>7/10
>>2785308
I like the bird. I also like how half the tree is lit and half is dark. Makes me think of good/evil for some reason.
>>2786188
I bet you love modern art too.
