there were a lot of white people, horses, and guns
The midday sun's contrast here is India-chic, y'hear
metas in furs
>>2823399
did you pretend you were from the future?
>>2823399
whats up with you and crashing places
>>2823404
Between their retreats to the left of the frame, I got many comments on how small and rigid the bellows of my camera were. Quite a marvel of engineering.
Unfortunately my feet got stuck in mud and I had to shoot from this one viewpoint thereafter.
Luckily for me, I'm already basically deaf. Wew, lad. Shiver me eardrum.
I thought confederate calvary were supposed to be good at controlling their steeds, but I found little evidence of it.
the snapshit aesthetic was very popular in the 1860s. Scenes meticulously unarranged, an era of no propaganda.
This one is completely shit and you're still looking at it. Get over it, nerd.
It's cinematic til the climax.
mayonnaise fandom
Why don't you ever include your exif data?
>>2823444
why did you waste trips on that question?
>>2823445
cause i'm a fan of your work and i'd like to know more about your settings.
>>2823447
my exif wouldnt help you much there, most of its missing (I mostly use manual lenses)
f8-f11 usually, I shoot hyperfocal a lot, or guess-focus with the scale.
Shots are all between 16mm and 55mm on APS-C, many at 25mm specifically (my most used prime)
>>2823447
isi shoots on auto, its a known fact
Pretty good and cohesive set. Good job not blowing all your highlights like moopco.
what happened to bassackwards?
>>2823509
nigga ded
RIP in peace bass
>>2823420
Why did you include this one? It fits neither stylistically nor quality-wise. It adds nothing to the set. And it looks like one of those facebook event photos, taken by a dude, that the event managers knows, that has an SLR.
Otherwise, interesting set. Feels like two though, with the squares and the cinematic shots. But they're each strong enough on their own. I enjoyed the squares more, especially >>2823400
>>2823580
>Why did you include this one?
Because I wanted to.
>It fits neither stylistically nor quality-wise.
I didn't say it did.
>It adds nothing to the set.
That's because it's not part of the set :^)
> And it looks like one of those facebook event photos, taken by a dude, that the event managers knows, that has an SLR
>a dude
Why's it gotta be a dude? Typical Canon users can be grills too. Pic related.
>Feels like two though, with the squares and the cinematic shots.
It is two sets. Followed by three snapshits.
Consider the last three demonstrations on breaking character with modern mannerism. The goal here was to avoid the crowds, barricades, vendors, and other various immersion breaks (wut up, minivan behind a tent)
Badly framed backs - the collection
This couldn't be a more /p auty neet set, fucking terrible photos, terrible pp, peoples backs from far away.
Your self righteous privileges have been suspended indefinitely.
Good to see you've already started to admit these are awful photos with little cohesion >>2823588
The first one is cool
i get why you did b+w but i feel like a lot of the shots werent done with it in mind
>>2823602
look dad, billy learned his memes!
>>2823605
like the second one to clarify, white dude in the shade infront of a white sheet, it doesn't have enough contrast between them and looks meh. you need the subtle pinks in skin tone to make him stand out
>>2823605
I shot with B&W in mind, and B&W in-camera.
2pm lighting is extremely contrasty with deep shadows, in color, a sea of blinding highlights.
>>2823606
"Isi is fucking awful at photography" isnt a meme, it's just said very frequently and by a lot of people.
>>2823611
A lot of people with shockingly similar IPs. :^)
>>2823613
Isi blaming all criticism on one person also isn't a meme, just very common.
Also, thats not how ips work
>>2823615
Nah, just need to dodge his face some, will at some point.
Color is undesirable here.
>>2823618
Colors undesirable at an alabaman civil war meet. What a surprise.
>>2823623
>>2823399
comp doesn't work
>>2823400
lack of contrast on the subject
>>2823401
wonky, bad cropping of people
>>2823403
A womans back
>>2823405
a mans back
>>2823407
>>2823408
>>2823410
horsebacks
>>2823411
bad timing, bad contrast on subject
>>2823413
>>2823415
faraway backs
>>2823415
>>2823420
pleb tier phone snapshits
You had amazing subjects all around you, and this is what you came home with? Whilst proclaiming that candid & environmental portraiture is what you're good at? At least you have learnt to try and avoid the sea of flat grey your B&W's are known for.
>>2823746
Salty Lil moopco
>>2823746
>Whilst proclaiming that candid & environmental portraiture is what you're good at
When did isi claim this?
>>2823681
>Good lord, those books.
that's our deep south!
>imo do it before you post it. why present unfinished work kinda thing.
4chan isn't a real place of presentation. If y'all wanna be treated as a final destination, you've gotta act like one.
This is more like a cross-country contact sheet inspection group
>>2823746
cc doesnt work, lack of introspective properties, lack of interpretive abilities.
Seems mostly aimed at backs.
>You had amazing subjects all around you
>Civil War reenactors in period-inaccurate costumes
>amazing
Maybe if you don't leave the house much, lmao. It's just a little annual event, dude.
>Whilst proclaiming that candid & environmental portraiture is what you're good at?
I think I'd be down to sample this drug that you're having. It seems strong.
I would never shoot a historical reenactment in black and white. Automatically adds a layer of disingenuity making it feel like you're trying to make the photos feel old timey.
>>2823905
You must shoot for publication a lot, anonymous. :^)
>>2823907
Then that's the photo editor's decision, not mine...unless you're doing prospective work which rarely works out well, and I still think it's a poor choice.
>>2823909
That's a really odd way of responding to that. Like timid posturing.
>>2823910
I don't see how it's timid or posturing. Granted, I am making the assumption that you're not actually writing a story covering this event, so in light of that assumption, every time I've been given an assignment, the photo editor also generally tells me what kind of look they're looking for along with the precis of the piece the shots will accompany. It's a pretty straight forward process. I guess it might be a little unfamiliar if you only work with publications that are just happy to get a picture of something, but for the life of me I can't see why you'd find stating such odd, timid, or posturing? After all, you're the one that brought up publication in this context...
>>2823917
This time's less timid, but the pose's still rigid.
Keep working at it, tiger.
>>2823920
You are completely out of your mind
>>2823936
You're a mediocre porkrind.
>>2823939
Wasn't me, but I seriously don't get you...do you not want comments on what you post or do you just post so you can be a cunt to anyone who does post?
Yeah, I won't claim to be the best photographer or even necessarily have the capacity to be a great one, but I do stand by what I said.
Yes, I understand the whole "b&w is a layer of abstraction" and "b&w is an aesthetic choice", but at the same time, with this subject matter, the semiotics of the choice are confounded (or co-opted by, whichever phrasing you prefer) by the kitschy old west photos you get at Dollywood, Gatlinburg, Deadwood, Disney, Theme Parks, etc. The lack of sepia toning doesn't affect this in any way as it ends up looking like you were trying to go for that look and failing to get there, akin to someone trying for a dutch angle shot, but only tilting the camera a couple of degrees off center making them look more like they can't frame a straight horizon than anything intentional.
In this specific situation, a defense of black and white is similar to that handful of actually nonracists who do believe in Southern Heritage misguidedly arguing for the battle flag; it's too little too late, and is powerless against the bigots who rally around that flag.
Black and white of reenactors just screams "I want these to look like old civil war photos but I don't know how to actually achieve that look" irrespective of your intent.
>>2823946
>The lack of sepia toning doesn't affect this in any way as it ends up looking like you were trying to go for that look and failing to get there
It simply doesn't, though. You really wanna argue this talking point, but stylistically, nah man. Cameras in the 1860s were SLOW. This kind of photography was not possible. Anyone with visual literacy and a history book tends to know that.
It comes off more as you reaching for a really shallow reason to question the choice of B&W.
>by the kitschy old west photos you get at Dollywood, Gatlinburg, Deadwood, Disney, Theme Parks, etc
The only relation here is the one you've made based on assumptions about subject matter. For starters, most of these photos aren't just "people standing still looking into a camera" as that genre (of tourist photos) or era (of actual photos) would be.
>In this specific situation, a defense of black and white is similar to that handful of actually nonracists who do believe in Southern Heritage misguidedly arguing for the battle flag; it's too little too late, and is powerless against the bigots who rally around that flag.
Now that's what I call reaching.
>Black and white of reenactors just screams "I want these to look like old civil war photos but I don't know how to actually achieve that look" irrespective of your intent.
>My interpretations and beliefs are shared by all!
Funny that you're the first one to mention it, irrespective of how widely held that belief is.
If you don't understand why high contrast noon lighting begets black and white work, then there's a lot in my work that's not going to make sense to you. It's not 2deep4u, it's just 2aesthetic4u.
>>2823610
> I shot with B&W in mind
What does that entail? How do you approach it differently than you would color?
>>2823956
I tend to 'underexpose' a lot more with black and white, for one thing.
What I meant by that though, is I was shooting black and white jpegs in camera, with a black and white preview (when using the evf/backscreen, obviously my ovf doesn't go black and white as well)
I find I frame things pretty differently with a B&W preview, simply because my vision is very easily drawn towards or distracted by color.
>>2823901
>This is more like a cross-country contact sheet inspection group
I smiled.
>>2823946
>cunt to anyone who does post?
>>2823404
>do you not want comments on what you post or do you just post so you can be a cunt to anyone who does post?
>STOP REBUTTING ME, I DO TOO KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT, I CAN DISCUSS PHOTOGRAPHY, I AM RIGHT NOW! SEMIOTICS SEMIOTICS SEMIOTICS SYMBOLOGY I DO TOO KNOW WHAT IM TALKING ABOUT
Translated by Bing!
>>2823955
>It simply doesn't, though. You really wanna argue this talking point, but stylistically, nah man. Cameras in the 1860s were SLOW. This kind of photography was not possible. Anyone with visual literacy and a history book tends to know that.
>implying that matters
>The only relation here is the one you've made based on assumptions about subject matter. For starters, most of these photos aren't just "people standing still looking into a camera" as that genre (of tourist photos) or era (of actual photos) would be.
You're assuming a level of competency and knowledge that your audience does not necessarily have.
>Funny that you're the first one to mention it, irrespective of how widely held that belief is.
>My interpretations and beliefs are shared by all
>If you don't understand why high contrast noon lighting begets black and white work, then there's a lot in my work that's not going to make sense to you. It's not 2deep4u, it's just 2aesthetic4u.
It's cute how you had to strawman there, but nah, go ahead and believe that these will be viewed in any other way. There's not enough value in them to warrant a second glance by those who actually know photography (I'm terribly sure that you're rushing to stick these in your portfolio because you believe so strongly in any of these images), so the only remaining possible audience is the unwashed masses.
As for the "if you don't understand", you seem to be the one who can't possibly understand that an aesthetic choice can result in different interpretations from what you intend or that there are layers of meaning both connotative and denotative.
>>2823962
I didn't read/write that post, but sure friend, keep making /p/ great.
>>2823963
>You're assuming a level of competency and knowledge that your audience does not necessarily have.
You're assuming Enter The Void was colorful because it was meant to draw in the curiosity of adolescent viewers.
>It's cute how you had to strawman there, but nah, go ahead and believe that these will be viewed in any other way.
They already have been, in this thread. Perhaps you only read your own posts and those with (you)'s
>There's not enough value in them to warrant a second glance by those who actually know photography
An ironic no true scotsman given you opened this post indirectly throwing the same accusation. :^)
>As for the "if you don't understand", you seem to be the one who can't possibly understand that an aesthetic choice can result in different interpretations from what you intend or that there are layers of meaning both connotative and denotative.
Oh, I understand that. Unfortunately, if you understood it better, you'd know how irrelevant your comment of "they're black and white so that they seem old" truly, truly is.
Exit stage left, homie. :^)
>>2823959
Thanks for clarifying.
>>2823681
>It's usually a creepy bearded dude taking all shots at f5.6 and 200mm though.
You forgot the ready-to-deploy-at-a-moments-notice-even-though-its-fucking-2-in-the-afternoon mobile strike tripod.
Stability is KEY
>>2823969
>You're assuming Enter The Void was colorful because it was meant to draw in the curiosity of adolescent viewers.
Not in the slightest.
>They already have been, in this thread
Cool, so /p/ is a representative sample. Gotcha.
>ironic no true scotsman
Nope. I opened by saying that the only conceivable audience for these is one that won't get what you intend, or are you saying that you are going to put these in your portfolio?
>irrelevant
>muh artistic vision is so profound I needn't consider audience reaction
To begin with, that's not remotely what I said, but sure, run with it, and of course, your reply is vacuous hinting at some grand purpose that's so great that wee little minds cannot possibly begin to comprehend, but not actually outright stating anything because there isn't anything. You were at a civil war reenactment. You thought it looked better in black and white. Upon being questioned about this choice, you now attempt to imply there's far more at play here.
>>2823975
>Not in the slightest.
Solid rebuttal, you've got a lot of stamina in you yet.
>Cool, so /p/ is a representative sample. Gotcha.
If /p/ *isn't* a representative sample, and you're still the minority cum vitriol, doesn't that actually make your opinion less relevant?
A gotcha indeed :^)
>Nope. I opened by saying that the only conceivable audience for these is one that won't get what you intend, or are you saying that you are going to put these in your portfolio?
What do you consider my "portfolio", even? Lmao.
>To begin with, that's not remotely what I said, but sure, run with it, and of course, your reply is vacuous hinting at some grand purpose that's so great that wee little minds cannot possibly begin to comprehend, but not actually outright stating anything because there isn't anything
That was a whole lot of words to say so very little. What were you actually trying to express, besides root anger and frustration?
> You were at a civil war reenactment.
No, this was actually a skirmish, not a reenactment. :^)
>You thought it looked better in black and white.
I think most things look better in black and white. I think just about *all* things look better in black and white when the suns directly overhead.
>Upon being questioned about this choice, you now attempt to imply there's far more at play here.
I never implied that. The only symbolism I'm referencing that you make little show of awareness to is to deal with orientation, not saturation.
You, however, tacitly implied a *failure* at "more at play here" because of your ridiculous assumption that black and white = trying to look "vintage."
It helps if you remember what threads of argument originated with me, and which originated with you, little homie. :3
>>2823979
>your ridiculous assumption that black and white = trying to look "vintage."
Quote exactly where I've said that.
>>2823982
Put a trip on so you can argue properly champ.
>>2823982
right here
>Black and white of reenactors just screams "I want these to look like old civil war photos but I don't know how to actually achieve that look" irrespective of your intent.
If you're going to argue that I've misconstrued you by paraphrasing you, welcome to the irony that is your existence.
Exit. Stage. Left.
>>2823987
By paraphrasing, no. Entirely mischaracterizing, yes. There is a difference you know.
These are not good.
No high detail close-ups to convey gravity.
No in-the-action/moment wide shots to bring the viewer into the scene.
Everything is from around the same height, no variety to angles or lens choice.
Black and white is a terrible option- if you wanted to make an old timey effect at least watch a youtube video and do it right.
The only thing that would justify a use of a tripod in broad daylight would be capturing motion, which you didn't.
No face + no clear or meaningful action in a shot = not a select.
You need to take a course or read some books
>>2823991
Yes, anon. I've mischaracterized you deeply by using the word "vintage" instead of "old" to paraphrase your notions.
Stay blown out.
>>2823996
>thinking that's the mischaracterization
Fuck me you're bad at actually processing language.
>>2823993
>The only thing that would justify a use of a tripod in broad daylight would be capturing motion, which you didn't.
Lost it at this one. 8/10 effort.
>>2823959
You were shooting jpegs? Why ?
>>2823998
Perhaps you greatly overestimate your skills of rhetoric expression.
>>2824005
Maybe in general, but in this instance, I've been pretty clear.
>>2823999
Why? Your ISO should be bottomed out, and your shutter can't be any slower than 1/2000, and a civil war reenactment site should have tons of god-pods on site.
The only reason you need a tripod is to be still enough to capture motion or use a heavy zoom lens.
I shot a two hour military retirement ceremony attended by admirals two days ago in a dimly lit chapel at 1/40th ss, no flash no tripod. You made awful black and white jpegs OUTSIDE with a tripod. Who are you trying to look down on? i would love to shoot your reenactment site, they deserve better covrerage
>>2824000
>the innocence
Because I shoot a Fujifilm camera, which has extreme control over jpeg conditions, allowing me to set up the camera before I shoot very closely to the look I want to get in post.
I shoot raw+jpeg. Some of these are SOOC jpegs, some of them are processed raw files.
As a rule, I always shoot raw+jpeg anyway, due to certain limitations with my camera. It's necessary if you want to be able to zoom in to check focus on playback.
>>2823993
>jumps into an isi thread head first
Get out while you still can kid (or at least read the thread before mashing away at the keyboard).
>>2824009
>Why?
I thought you were memeing, not actually stupid. My mistake. :^)
>Your ISO should be bottomed out
It is. My base iso is 200, though.
>and your shutter can't be any slower than 1/2000
Yeah. What are you talking about with freezing motion, again?
>and a civil war reenactment site should have tons of god-pods on site.
ur mums a god-pod
(jk ur not a god)
>The only reason you need a tripod is to be still enough to capture motion or use a heavy zoom lens.
Why do you think I had a tripod?
>I shot a two hour military retirement ceremony attended by admirals two days ago in a dimly lit chapel at 1/40th ss, no flash no tripod
There is nothing technically demanding or interesting about this. That's a preferable shooting situation to noon-light (not in terms of shutter speed to freeze motion at base iso, sure, but...photography is about light. Noon light is a particularly ugly kind of it.)
>You made awful black and white jpegs OUTSIDE with a tripod.
You're actually an idiot. :^)
>Who are you trying to look down on? i would love to shoot your reenactment site, they deserve better covrerage
Could I see some of your work? I can suggest your name to some people. :^)
>>2824012
No you may not have my name. My photos are actually in wide circulation and captioned, making me too identifiable. I am a military photogtapher, we're not allowed to suck this bad. That should suffice. And who are you ? You seem to know settings, terms and theory well enough but that's these terrible photos being presented is so puzzling
>>2823993
I'll entertain this post now as an actual post and not memes, though I'm still pretty sure you're low-key memetic
>No high detail close-ups to convey gravity.
That's because it's not a real war. There is no gravity to this situation. There is no thousand yard stare. These aren't professional actors, they're just dudes in old military regalia.
>No in-the-action/moment wide shots to bring the viewer into the scene.
That's because spectator events like reenactments don't tend to allow photographers to roam the field during the battle, for obvious safety and immersion reasons.
>Everything is from around the same height, no variety to angles or lens choice.
Everything about this is actually incorrect, which reflects poorly on your visual literacy.
>Black and white is a terrible option- if you wanted to make an old timey effect at least watch a youtube video and do it right.
"Watch a youtube video" sums up a generation
You need to take an exit to stage left.
>>2824013
I am not isi and neither is my wife.
>>2824013
16 posters. 81 posts. 15 images. 37 isi posts.
The amount of time you spend on me is incredible. Wow. :^)
>>2824016
Out of curiosity, do you even intend for bait like this to work? Or is it just one of those "MAKE IT OBVIOUS AS A LAST RESORT" sorta measures?
Why don't you just go take photos today, anon?
>>2823407
>>2823408
>>2823410
>pics of horse asses
Is there something we should know, isi?
>>2824017
Weoooooooowwww, did you just say the people/event werent important enough to do a good job ???? There's a story in every event, every person. A good photographer can make a person eating a sandwich make you hungry, or a kid dropping a toy make you sad.
Why would you even post these if you don't think the event was good enough ????
>>2824020
I don't even know what you're talking about now? And i get one day a week i don't have to shoot. You're the one who needs practice anyways.
I title this one "Gravity" for the memetics
>>2824022
Mate, there's a reason she spends all of her time posting here and not actually doing anything of merit.
>>2824026
lel
>>2824021
I'ma make a real mare out of you, boi
>>2824027
Fair enough. I forget where I am. Thank you for saving me from my tunneling frustration
>>2824026
finally, much better!
>>2824028
>>2824027
This week she's "crashed" a Rainbow Gathering thingy and a Civil War thingy.
>anything of merit
I suppose that's for you to decide.
>>2824050
so? anyone can do that. theyre open to the public.
shes not special.
>>2824054
I find public scary.
>>2824050
>This week she's "crashed" a Rainbow Gathering thingy and a Civil War thingy.
Yeah, I don't think your photos are bad Isi, you should stop calling it CRASHING AN EVENT as long you're not into some Hunter S Thomson level shit - which you clearly aren't.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS Macintosh Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 150 dpi Vertical Resolution 150 dpi Image Created 2007:05:15 02:52:39 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 680 Image Height 451
>>2824064
that's anon not isi :^)
>you should stop calling it CRASHING AN EVENT
make me swaggot
Shit thread
god, how can isi be this cuck? Seriously, at first I was thinking you were just Ok, but now >>2824074
your "make me" just showed us how cuck you are.
Stop trying to make /p/ buy your idea, at first. black and white snaps with white border is not that a e s t h e t i c s you think it's, learn more about black and white, because your black and white photography is boring as shit.
BW can make even some one's ball look nice, and you just killed it with people's back because you don't know even how to approach people, nor how to be a creepy with high tele lens and shoot'em
>19 posters, all of this
You guys are really pathetic. Is this that facebook circlejerk again?
Man I just remembered I went to a re-enactment a long time ago when I was a child
I'd love to shoot one now there's some real melodramatic cinematic shit I could snap
>>2824088
Probably
>>2823993
>You need to take a course or read some books
Oh lawd. 7/10 shitpost.
>>2824088
No. No one's even mentioned the thread on there.
>>2824124
So you made a new chat because someone informed on you? Haha!
Nice back shots. Are you suffering from crippling social anxiety? I bet all of these people would have gladly posed for portraits.
>>2824134
>Are you suffering from crippling social anxiety?
Nope.
> I bet all of these people would have gladly posed for portraits.
Well, when you're *not* suffering from crippling social anxiety, you don't really idolize portraiture the way you seem to be.
I didn't do portraiture here because most of these people aren't particularly good period actors, and portraits of them would actively work against my stated goal of obscuring modern elements/immersion breaks.
Back shots are only a stigma on /p/ because most of you *do* have crippling social anxiety. Not because taking a photo of someones back is actually a bad thing.
I'll leave the bokeh headshots to the grandfathers with the 2 foot white lenses. Low hanging fruit and all that.
>>2824137
>Back shots are only a stigma on /p/ because most of you *do* have crippling social anxiety. Not because taking a photo of someones back is actually a bad thing.
This to be honest family
>>2824141
>Y-yeah!
now i get it
>>2823465
isi shoots photos, its a known fact
>>2824148
Am not.
>>2824130
Wat?
I thought Isi was good at black and white desaturated jpegs
>>2824175
>isi
>good at
>>2823399
Don't know if you mentioned it in this thread already, but was this in held Wisconsin by any chance?
>>2824205
Nah, Alabama
These have a very cinematic feel to them, especially the cavalry shots. Good stuff.
Jesus christ isi, this thread is just a showcase of what a whiney little cunt you are.
You almost had me fooled into thinking you were good at photography with how much shit you chat.
But no, you bad.
Jesus christ isi, this thread is just a showcase of what a whiney little cunt you are.
You almost had me fooled into thinking you were good at photography with how much shit you chat.
But no, you bad.
>I'm trying to not break immersion
>I'm not going for vintage or to make these feel old in any way
>As I stated, I'm trying to not break immersion.
>No really, every one but me is broken here and has been for years!
You're a sad person who relies on sophistry, meanness, and attention. I wonder just how broken you have to be to spend so much time here, courting this kind of attention so often.
>>2824485
Projection
I don't understand why your threads get shitposted so hard
tfw isi takes more photos in a week than you do in a decade
>>2824585
Because /p/ doesn't separate the art from the artist, and isi spends a great deal of time arguing with people, being pedantic, being frustrating, trolling, and otherwise going out of her way to piss people off, so when she posts a photo thread with good and bad photos in it, people aren't critiquing the photos, they're using the photos as a bucket to dump all their anger at her past behavior into.
Happens to every trip who dips their toes into the "let's fight about inane shit and piss people off" waters. MoopCo's thread was a great example. Lots of okay photos, and a couple of good ones, but the thread still gets filled with tons of references to his personal retardedness and bullshit insanity.
It's happened to many trips over the years. It's notable that it's happening to isi right now because the number of trips who actively argue with /p/ and ALSO post a lot of photos, is exactly 1 person.
>>2824609
>isi spends a great deal of time arguing with people, being pedantic, being frustrating, trolling, and otherwise going out of her way to piss people off
that sounds like the entire board
are you sure you're not particularly triggered by her gender?
>>2824609
so you're saying isi has become the alphon we need?
>>2824613
It is the entire board, but she has a trip that she uses when she's posting photos and (most of the time) when arguing/trolling. The anons don't carry all the bitterness with them.
>are you sure you're not particularly triggered by her gender?
I'm not feeling triggered at all. Do you disagree with something I said?
>>2824615
Nah, alphon was just angry at everything.
>>2824617
>Do you disagree with something I said?
I disagree with victim-blaming behavior.
>>2824615
We never needed or wanted alphon. Isi's whatever. She's been posting here for ages but has only recently become the worst trip on the board.
Personally, I think she's languishing in the ennui of her mid-twenties and is lashing out because she hates her potential and failure to live up to it.
>>2824619
>She's been posting here for ages but has only recently become the worst trip on the board.
How'd that occur? By the recent increase in photos she posts? lol
>Personally, I think she's languishing in the ennui of her mid-twenties and is lashing out because she hates her potential and failure to live up to it.
I don't get the impression she takes much about life very seriously. Reading her posts, I get the impression she smirks a lot.
>>2824620
>How'd that occur? By the recent increase in photos she posts? lol
By shitposting constantly, kiddo.
>>2824621
Can you show me where? participation or shitposting?
>>2824618
>I disagree with victim-blaming behavior.
Not sure which party would be considered the victim here. isi abuses, and isi gets abused.
>>2824625
>isi abuses
where?
>>2824626
Oh, you're new. Okay good to know.
>>2824631
>but who hide behind anonymity to do so.
You know that pretty much every trip shitposts anonymously and then trips up when they want attention or affiliation with their e-persona, right?
>>2824640
Of course I do.
It seems like isi prefers to keep hers on and weather the "abuse" for the honesty though.
I guess that's why everyone hates her. She's honest, and she takes photos, two things you admittedly struggle with doing yourself.
I guess that wraps this up nicely.
>>2824642
I never admitted that. You're talking to more than one person. You do know that, right? >>2824619 is my first post in this thread.
I hide most isi threads after looking at the photos because of the unnecessary shitstorm that follows her and poisons the rest of the board. This one slipped by me, and look at me now.
>>2824642
>he thinks isi doesn't constantly drop her trip
You know she was banned just a few months ago for dropping her trip to stoke shit in her own thread?
>>2824648
Are you anon? yes
Are you a former trip? yes
You didn't have to admit it. Your need to argue you're not proves you are.
Real anons do not identity politic.
>>2824649
>oh no someone shitposts in their own threads this is major evidence of them being the worst poster on the board
>>2824666
>That's pretty fucking bad. How could you possibly defend that?
Because I idle in the IRC and remember what actually happened then was that someone contacted a 4chan mod directly via the IRC moderation channel, reported a ton of posts in her thread, and got her banned for "stoking the flames" along with the anons she was arguing with.
I don't remember any proof of samefagging.
>>2824672
kek, who made this
>>2824658
Nice strawman dude
>>2824677
isi made it, lol
>>2824680
that wasn't a strawman. do you know what a strawman is?
>>2824526
Lolno
>>2824485
>photos can't be immersive and timeless without being vintage
literally retarded
>30 posters
>156 posts
>>2824785
It's what isi wants.
>>2824793
you sound like a man who rapes girls for wearing skirts
>>2824807
If the girl has a rape fetish, what's the harm?
>>2824609
This is mostly an anonymous board. The advantage of posting as anonymous is that when you ask for critique of your photos people are going to judge them on their own and are not going to be affected by the vomit you smeared all over the gear thread last night. Using a trip was her own choice ad she got what she asked for. Many people on /p/ actually welcome harsh criticism and understand that it's part of the board culture, but she always has to argue about how making the photos look like shit was her stated intent and so on, which makes her an easy trolling target.
Also, her pictures look like the pictures of someone who was just coming through and didn't even bother to make two steps aside to get better framing.
>>2824810
>this is mostly an anonymous board
then why are almost all of the memorable photographers except for Alex trips?
This board was originally almost entirely trips being friendly with each other with casual banter.
You anonymous-enforcers from /b/, bullied children really, are what brought that down.
>>2824822
Fuck you.
>>2824822
>then why are almost all of the memorable photographers except for Alex trips?
They aren't? Trips are easier to remember because they have names, but the best photographers have always been anonymous.
>This board was originally almost entirely trips being friendly with each other with casual banter.
Also not true. Six or seven years ago when I was doing the flickr phone book, anonymous still outnumbered the trips by a huge number. You've got a very handy case of selective memory.
>>2824851
Six years ago is newfag
>>2824890
I've been here for 9. ;)
>>2824895
If you say so newfag
>>2824822
>then why are almost all of the memorable photographers except for Alex trips?
Recent photo and critique threads are full of photos by anonymous.
>>2824851
>They aren't? Trips are easier to remember because they have names, but the best photographers have always been anonymous.
Laff evry time
>>2824896
liska
eku
jens
iprod
>>2824897
A lot of memorable photographs in there?
>>2824897
Memorable?
>>2824900
>names
>anon
>>2824905
what?
>>2824900
Not anonymous?
>>2824916
I don't understand your question.
Eh.
>>2824632
>going out of her way to piss people off
What, like tracking people down on Facebook and sending over 1000 messages in 3 days?
Girls bored as fuck, can't blame her, she lives in the middle of nowhere, with no friends, no employment and a fuck ton of mental health issues. I'd probably be an abhorrent prick if i was in a similar situation.
>>2824642
No, she doesn't, her anon posts are easy as fuck to spot if you spend any time on irc.
>>2824672
>>2824677
>>2824682
Here's a great example of her tripdropping.
>>2824897
>rpt
>anything but newfag trash
>>2825281
>What, like tracking people down on Facebook and sending over 1000 messages in 3 days?
moopco, everyone knows you sent just as many back
>fuck ton of mental health issues. I'd probably be an abhorrent prick if i was in a similar situation.
You are, and you're projecting.
Look at what you're doing with your life right now.
>>2825281
>What, like tracking people down on Facebook and sending over 1000 messages in 3 days?
The way you word that is much more cringe-worthy than the action, from my perspective.
Especially the way you repeatedly word it in the same way.
>>2824785
>come back to check on thread a day later
>7 more posters
>over 30 new posts
Sometimes you gotta be prepared for the facebook mob desu
>>2825296
Makes me wonder how many of them were bullied, you know?
>>2825281
>she lives in the middle of nowhere, with no friends, no employment and a fuck ton of mental health issues
Says the mentally ill guy who paid to fly overseas to roam around in the middle of nowhere to take pictures, with no friends, and no job.
>>2825298
Makes me wonder if they ever take any fucking photos when they spend a day adding 50+ posts to a thread of someone they think is bad. At least isi seems to actually take photos and provides content for the board.
With that, I'm out to take photos now and shitpost in the RPT if someone posts a picture of a bird.
>>2825302
if its the same facebook clique Im thinking of, most of them have now tried and failed to make photography their profession multiple times. People whose portfolios have like 5 photos in them.
>>2825302
>Makes me wonder if they ever take any fucking photos when they spend a day adding 50+ posts to a thread of someone they think is bad. At least isi seems to actually take photos and provides content for the board.
They only take photos when they travel, and then they all take the same photo because they're ass-to-cock on one another. Seen it happen time and again.
L O N D O N
O
N
D
O
N
>You are, and you're projecting.
>Look at what you're doing with your life right now.
>>2825293
Living with my girlfriend, decorating our city centre flat, deciding what to do with £7k i've just made and playing with our tiny, cute dog.
Pretty far removed from going to civil war re-enactments on your own, to try and impress strangers on the internet that don't like you.
>>2825311
No one believes in your imaginary girlfriend blayner
>>2825311
>mfw moopco has more money than me, a gf and his own place.
Should i just an hero now, or take comfort that his gf probably looks like a fat isi.
>>2825350
She's a junkie after his cannabis
Sad affair
>>2825311
>Living with my girlfriend, decorating our city centre flat, deciding what to do with £7k i've just made and playing with our tiny, cute dog.
You forgot shitposting on 4chan. Why you here and not living your precious life
>>2825354
Can't move, cute puppy sleeping on me
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Model ASUS_Z00ED Equipment Make ASUS Image-Specific Properties: Image Created 2016:04:26 10:47:04 Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Time (UTC) 09:14:18 Date (UTC) 2016:04:26 Color Space Information sRGB Exposure Index 280 Focal Length 3.16 mm Lens Aperture f/2.0 Image Width 1944 Gain Control High Gain Up Image Height 2592 Flash No Flash Function Exposure Bias 0 EV ISO Speed Rating 100 Exposure Time 1/50 sec
>>2825359
While you're immobilized could u address the mental breakdown that occurred here https://fgts.jp/p/thread/2695800/
>>2825363
>could u address the mental breakdown that occurred here
Certainly, isi got very triggered by her own shitposting, then even more triggered by my trolling. Glad to see she hasn't become less salty six months later.
>>2825368
>your trolling
>that
>not a meltdown
Well I found the delusional one guys haha
>>2825350
>tfw moopco lives in my country
I feel ashamed that he's even on the same continent as me, never mind the same island.
>>2823891
previous threads
>>2825363
What a great thread, especially enjoyed isi not understanding the word literary and getting schooled on it.
>not trolling
>using a screenshot from a seal video
Pick one
>>2825382
interesting gif, yet you keep coming back to post for the 5th time already
>>2825363
>I'm sorry that you were so jealous you had to imply you had sent a nasty private message about me to the girl I'm seeing.
Holy shit this can't be real.
>>2825432
The cunt is straight up cancer in every sense of the word and has been since she got here. I honestly can't understand how anyone could see her behavior in any significant amounts and not think she should be permabanned.
>>2825432
But she didn't message her did she
Is that why you got mad? Youbfid damage control but no damage was done?
>>2825432
I'm more concerned with how messages from a year ago are still recent to you
Guess you really were projecting that no friends bit
>>2825432
I have no idea what's going on here. Is that supposed to be isi?
>>2825550
Yeah. He left out that she messages him because he spammed two or her threads to bump limit in a row. He's also leaving out all his own autism.
He has so few friends that one of his most recent fb messages is from a year ago :(
I see is give thus moopco guy real feedback every time he posts threads
Moopco on the other hand seems to just outright shitpost in hers.
I guess his perspectives different than mine.
>>2825555
I see isi give this*
>>2825432
Seems like she did you a favor by providing some rare interpersonal interaction.
Did you call your girl and tell her not to listen to her? Haha.
>>2825551
>He has so few friends that one of his most recent fb messages is from a year ago :(
You realize that list is scrolled down don't you?
Anyway, newfag here so how did all this start? Can anybody explain what's with these two?
>>2825568
isi is a dramaqueen who uses the internet for little more than stirring up shit.
There's nothing more or less you need to understand.
>>2825568
Some anon are obsessed with the op of this thread and feel insecure about how often she takes photos compared to them.
Yes the fb friends list scrolls down. A message he received last year is still close to the top. No friendships.
>>2825432
It looks like she was trying to let you know you were texting her while she was on a date bro
My god you're clueless!
>>2825576
It must be painful having a gf that's browsing a 4chan archive while you are on a date with her t b h
If that's not mental illness
>>2825594
did you know that sometimes couples shitpost together?
>>2825432
If I'm the one that's obsessed, why are you the one trying to imply that our participation in that conversation wasn't equal?
There's probably a good reason why you only included that part of the conversation, like...maybe this one that immediately came before it. :^)
Bonus conversation about narrative free of charge!
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:04:26 13:30:55 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1368 Image Height 2976
>>2825622
This is my favorite interaction though, personally.
Never have I ever cringed like that.
And here are a couple of photos unrelated to thread topic.
From yesterday, just hit 80 looking for backroad fields.
>tripfagging
l
m
a
o
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Macintosh) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 96 dpi Vertical Resolution 96 dpi Image Created 2016:04:22 14:50:37 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 584 Image Height 588
>>2825626
d u s t s p o t
>>2825629
e n v i r o n m e n t a l c o n t a m i n a n t s
b i g a g r i
>>2825630
Be sure to critique the white balance of these clouds, btw. They're green. :^)
>>2825625
so when are they gonna fuck
>>2825633
You fucked up now cunt
>>2825634
For sure. This here's a dangerous board to be lettin' people know your deets on, y'hear.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
>>2825635
photo on the left: highschool girl with a rebel tier
middle photo: not bad
right photo: great shot
>>2825635
>moopco
>british
>drawn to teenage girls on the street in heavy makeup
what is with pedophiles and the UK
>>2825637
He wouldn't be the first to get swatted.
>>2825415
I cum bach for photos man
>>2825622
Lol @ isi not blurring the date from his recent messages so everyone knows she's got a ton of friends
What the fuck is it about isi that makes people come completely unhinged?
Pretty impressive.
>>2825681
Intelligent, capable women with confidence are 4chanian kryptonite. The better she gets, the more hateful we'll get.
>>2825681
>people
>237 posts
>45 IP's
A vocal minority is not representative of a whole.
>>2825692
How many of those IPs are the same 4-5 individuals posting from their phones across the city, too?
We already know at least one of them does that regularly.
I bet most of this is fewer than 10 people including isi herself.
>>2825681
Beats me man. Her photos aren't the greatest, but they're definitely far enough above the board average not to deserve this vitriol.
I think the culture of the board changed a lot a few years ago when /b/ and /r9k/ became more popular and well known because of news coverage. I do see a lot of use of the word "attentionwhore"
>>2825683
People never reacted to aang this way.
Because she wasn't openly cuntish at every opportunity.
>>2825683
No, people who purposefully fuck with boards for pleasure are kryptonite. She gets what she wants.
>>2825681
>>2825704
It's simple:
Be a fucking dickhole to basically everyone for a few years and decently often and you too can have this same reaction.
>impressive
Only in the sense that it takes a few years of dedication to being an awful human being. When you consider how often she posts here, how vitriolic it always is, and for how long she's been doing it (isi isn't even her first trip), it's actually really sad and speaks much to how fucked in the head she is.
>>2825711
^nailed it. She actively does everything she can to ensure that /p/ is never a good place to post.
>>2825709
Aang was harassed so much she dropped trip despite being submissive and happy to downplay her own intelligence and ability. Despite not acting back as isi does.
>>2825717
Aren't you actively fucking with the board RIGHT NOW? Hypocritical beta faggot.
>>2825721
Calling out cancer for what it is is not a bad thing. The bitch has openly admitted on more than one occasion that all she does is troll this board.
>>2825725
Prove it.
This thread is evidence she doesn't only troll. Every photo she posts and every real comment she responds to.
You're the cancer if she argues with you. You were shot posting and got called out.
>>2825728
You do realize that she literally proves it every time she posts with her trip and posts photos with that white border, right?
Lol let's repost these since the sadboi reported my posts despite starting the screenshots. Names now censored.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 2304 Image Height 1136 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 2016:04:26 16:33:37 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 2304 Image Height 1136
:)
He likes to overlook his own thousands of messages.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 1368 Image Height 2976 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 2016:04:26 16:32:55 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1368 Image Height 2976
>>2825732
Lel. Missed one.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 2304 Image Height 1136 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 2016:04:26 16:40:38 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 2304 Image Height 1136
I take it back, I already know why there's so much hate.
It's not just jealousy, although there will inevitably be some of that if you take good photos. Not just her attitude, because this is 4chan, and being a snippy cunt is a given.
It's because she defends her positions... something I have a lot of experience with here. When you do that as Anon, you are lost in the ether. Do it as a trip, you are a beacon.
TL;DR: It's an illusion.
Alternate TL;DR: Anons are pussies.
>>2825740
Except she rarely defends her choices. She attacks the person who made the comment...I mean unless you include "you can't possibly understand" as a defense, but that's a but of a stretch.
>>2825747
This thread began with her defending her work by explaining her goals. You're so blinded by hatred that you don't even realize this thread is full of proof that all it takes to get isi to treat you well is to post constructively.
If she attacks you personally, maybe it's the way you talk to people.
>>2825756
>suck her dick and she's nice to you
>>2824009
God you're as much of a nitwit as isi.
>>2825683
But she's not that good. But I guess on a board like /p/, that means something.
