File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
earlier i posted a photo very similar to this, minus the model. thoughts, ideas?
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTiCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsPhotographerunknownMaximum Lens Aperturef/3.5Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution94 dpcmVertical Resolution94 dpcmImage Created2008:04:21 09:06:59Exposure Time1/15 secF-Numberf/4.5Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/4.5Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length18.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1136Image Height757RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
Seriously, man.

Seriously.

Seriously, those pants.

Seriously.
>> Anonymous
>>166338
Yeah, I want a pair too.

and yeap, it's much more interesting now
>> Anonymous
>>166334

Those pants really are distracting tbh
>> Anonymous
What a fuckin' wanker...
>> Anonymous
>>166346
No, I think he was saying they're disracting, stupid, and mismatched as all get out.
>> Anonymous
The model absolutely ruins it.
>> Anonymous
So forced. So, so forced.
>> Anonymous
LOOKIT MAH PLAID PANTS AND MAH SEATBELT-BUCKLE BELT AND MY SHITTY BEARD.

I'M SO FUCKING EDGY MAN.
YOU SQUARES CAN'T UNDERSTAND HOW AWESOME ME AND MY COLLEGE BUDIES ARE.

OH FUCK YEAH.
LIVIN' A LIFE OF RESPONSIBILITY-FREE PRIVILEGE, ALL FULL OF ARROGANCE AND IGNORANCE, THINKIN' I'M SO COOL.

FUCK YEAH MAN LET'S GO GET HIGH AND PROTEST THE GOVERNMENT.
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
>>166334

Apart from everyones comments to the shorts, I really like this photo. The lighting on the model is perfect. Nice and dark.

(Ps op: Are you the guy I spoke to before?)
>> Anonymous
>>166448
not really, actually. :P
i told him to sit comfortably and do whatever, and i just went around and snapped shots, five minutes and we were done.

>>166451
i'll give you an A for enthusiasm, but you couldn't be further from the truth. thanks, though. :)

>>166465
thanks man, and yes i believe so. my ideal model for this shot would be a female in a big frilly victorian outfit our something. i was under time constraint but i'm definitely happy with the result.

other than that, not really sure what the whole deal with the shorts is, guys. nobody's trying to be "edgy" or anything, just trying to broaden my perspectives on portrait photography. thanks for the comments guys! :D
>> Anonymous
>>166475
>ther than that, not really sure what the whole deal with the shorts is, guys.

They're distracting and seem out of place. Either a photo works or it doesn't.

>my ideal model for this shot would be a female in a big frilly victorian outfit our something. i was under time constraint

Go back.
>> Anonymous
>>166484
I won't lie, I don't see how shorts ever ruined any picture.

but yes, I do intend to go back and try the shot with various other people.
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
>>166484

>They're distracting and seem out of place.
In my opinion, the whole subject looks slightly forced and out of place, yet he still fits in somehow.
Depending on the intentions of the composition - if it were used to advertise the clothing, then this is almost perfect.
But I can see where your coming from.
>> Anonymous
>>166486
>I won't lie, I don't see how shorts ever ruined any picture.

Then you're a fucking moron.
>> hatefag
>>166488
>if it were used to advertise the clothing, then this is almost perfect.

1) Stop being such a fucking apologist for a mediocre photo.

2) I work in the clothing biz. This shit would NEVER be in an ad. You'd need a much tighter crop, a lot more emphasis on the clothes, and no faggoty umbrella. The kinds of skater guys that you'd market those kinds of clothes to would be totally turned off by seeing a model with a bad beard holding a big queer umbrella like some sort of gothic princess.
>> Anonymous
>>166488

Advertising photography usually sucks.
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
>>166492

>totally turned off

Well, considering 75% of all the posts in this thread are about the SHORTS, i think its got the point of them across..

A user has even said they want the shorts.. surely this tells you something? Get over your self.
>> hatefag
>>166502

Just because the shorts are the first thing people see in the photo doesn't mean viewers are going to have A POSITIVE REACTION to them you thundering faggot.

Sorry that I work in the industry and know more about the subject than you do, you fucking moron, but anybody with half a brain should be able to understand that this shit isn't the kind of thing you see in clothing ads.

Pick up a fucking magazine and look at the pictures you see in the ads. Do you see any pictures like this one? No? IT'S BECAUSE THEY DON'T FUCKING WORK.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>166513
While I completely agree with your points, your ZOMFGANGRY screeds really don't help bring anyone over to your way of thinking.
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
>>166513

just what is a thundering faggot anyway?
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
>>166513
hatefag, what publications have you had a party in exactly?
Looking through VICE (which if your in the industry then i'm sure you'll know) they're advertisement style is somewhat close to the original photo style that op has chosen..
>> Anonymous
I'm not a big fan of this image. I saw your first post of the stairs alone with the tree stump, and I liked that image a lot more. There's something about this image that seems too pushed, not to mention the guy is way too distracting. Just not a huge fan of it compared to what was posted before.
>> Anonymous
>>166522
>While I completely agree with your points, your ZOMFGANGRY screeds really don't help bring anyone over to your way of thinking.

I'm not really trying to win the hearts and minds of a couple of whiny faggots on 4chan who keep kissing eachother's asses and praising mediocre images. There are some good posters on here whose opinions I think are worthwhile, but anybody who thinks this looks like a magazine ad isn't one of them.

>>166526
1) VICE isn't the industry. Vice is the anti-industry. Even so, the CLOTHING ADS in VICE don't look like this. If there were some fucking tits or if this was a tighter shot on some guy who looked like a badass (and was probably in color) then maaaaaaybe you'd have something.

And no, I'm not going to tell you who I work for, but I will tell you that I work for a clothing company, not a publication, and that if a photographer came back from a shoot with a bunch of images like this we'd fire them on the spot.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>166533
>I'm not really trying to win the hearts and minds of a couple of whiny faggots on 4chan who keep kissing eachother's asses and praising mediocre images.
Then why post at all?

Why not just write your angry screed in Notepad if you really want to get it out?
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
>>166533
I see your points;

With a few changes, OP's photo has the potential to be used in an ad. (more lighting on the subject) and obviously a tighter shot/crop - as you said.

Stop being a troll, lighten up abit - read more Vice ;)
>> hatefag
>>166535

I normally like you, so stop being a dipshit, AC.
I answer that in the sentence directly after the one you quoted.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>166538
I.e.,:
>There are some good posters on here whose opinions I think are worthwhile, but anybody who thinks this looks like a magazine ad isn't one of them.
?

Basically, you're saying that you're ranting at this guy, despite the fact that you don't think his opinion is worthwhile, despite the fact that everyone whose opinion you do feel is worthwhile already agrees with you, despite the fact that you don't have any intention or desire to change his opinion. So... why do it? Why not just ignore this thread and move on to another? Just a personal goal to increase the overall unhappiness in the world?
>> Anonymous
>>166533
The "anti-industry" is just another part of the industry.

>>166536
Vice sucks. "OH WOW WE DON'T LIKE THIS GUY'S CLOTHES LETS MAKE SNARKY COMMENTS GAIZ."
>> hatefag
>>166539

Someone needs to let him know that he's an idiot, otherwise this is going to turn into just another board where everyone pats everyone else on the back for shitty photos.

>>166545
>The "anti-industry" is just another part of the industry.

Absolutely, but the images in their rag aren't really representative of what 95% of clothing ad photography looks like.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>166553
Yeah, but there's a difference between telling him his photos suck in an angry rant and explaining why his photos suck. You're throwing around "fucking"s and "faggot"s and "queer"s like you're an angry 14 year old boy and you keep repeating that you work in the fashion industry like it makes you the King of Pants when, for all we know, you're a provisional intern in the mailroom of a law firm that handles the speeding tickets for an aspiring fashion model.

You just come across as a tremendous tool, is my point.

Nothing wrong with making someone feel bad about themselves on 4chan, but the goal should be to get them to realize what they're doing wrong so they'll do better in the future. All you're doing is RAGEing to hear yourself RAGE.
>> hatefag
>>166565
But I am the King of Pants. Stop being a fucking faggot.
>> Anonymous
>>166565
>the goal should be to get them to realize what they're doing wrong so they'll do better in the future.

no, the goal is to make them become an hero
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>166576
I totally will if you go from Hatefag to KingOfPants and stay that way forever.
>> dislikehomosexual
     File :-(, x)
>>166586

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeEASTMAN KODAK COMPANYCamera ModelKODAK EASYSHARE C643 ZOOM DIGITAL CAMERACamera SoftwareVersion 1.2000Focal Length (35mm Equiv)36 mmMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.7Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution230 dpiVertical Resolution230 dpiRenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknownExposure Time1/64 secF-Numberf/2.7Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating80Lens Aperturef/2.7Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageFlashFlash, AutoFocal Length6.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1200Image Height899Exposure Index80
>> Anonymous
>>166614
Sure, why not.
>> washer !pccK1ruMqc
>>166614

lol internet.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)


Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeEASTMAN KODAK COMPANYCamera ModelKODAK EASYSHARE C643 ZOOM DIGITAL CAMERACamera SoftwareVersion 1.2000Focal Length (35mm Equiv)36 mmMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.7Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution230 dpiVertical Resolution230 dpiRenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknownExposure Time1/64 secF-Numberf/2.7Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating80Lens Aperturef/2.7Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageFlashFlash, AutoFocal Length6.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width768Image Height1024Exposure Index80
>> Anonymous
>>166614

I do not like the composition and the white on the girls top is distrac.... oh fuck it, more.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)


Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeEASTMAN KODAK COMPANYCamera ModelKODAK EASYSHARE C643 ZOOM DIGITAL CAMERACamera SoftwareVersion 1.2000Focal Length (35mm Equiv)36 mmMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.7Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution230 dpiVertical Resolution230 dpiRenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknownExposure Time1/64 secF-Numberf/2.7Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating80Lens Aperturef/2.7Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageFlashFlash, AutoFocal Length6.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1200Image Height899Exposure Index80
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
pic is me btw

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeEASTMAN KODAK COMPANYCamera ModelKODAK EASYSHARE C643 ZOOM DIGITAL CAMERACamera SoftwareVersion 1.2000Focal Length (35mm Equiv)36 mmMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.7Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution230 dpiVertical Resolution230 dpiRenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknownExposure Time1/64 secF-Numberf/2.7Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating80Lens Aperturef/2.7Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageFlashFlash, AutoFocal Length6.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width768Image Height1024Exposure Index80
>> Anonymous
>008_anonib.jpg
uh huh
>> Anonymous
>>166635

moar
>> Anonymous
>>166635
gtfo and gb2mysapace
>> Anonymous
>>166635
>pic is me btw
I REFUSE TO BELIEVE
>> t00t
>>166635

M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-MOAR!!!!!!!!!
>> Anonymous
>>166654

despite the fetish theme this is actually a really nice photograph.
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
>>166666
her stuff tends to be more tasteful. At least, the series like this are.
Sage, nsfw.
>> Anonymous
>>166664


Never in the amount of time (a long time.) i've been browsing /p/ have i seen flat out porn on here, except for about the 5 minutes it was the other day.


blue boards bitches :(
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>166672
So what, you load it once a week? People post porn here with upsetting frequency. Usually when I'm at work and can't enjoy it.
>> Anonymous
>>166675


i've never seen it.

I'm here for hours on end, generally looking when i take a break from my school work.