File :-(, x, )
sunset Anonymous
so the sun went down last night, just like it always does.
>> beethy !HJGkSBB3Ao
pretty cool

no exif, no comments
>> Anonymous
What if he/she shot film and processed in 1h lab?!
>> Anonymous
>>128142
Douchebag

Can't appreciate a photo without knowing what kind of camera it was taken with? Maybe you don't think OP actually took it? Either way, fuck you.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>128610
People who shoot film know enough to post the film/camera info because they generally scanned it themselves.

NO EXIF = NO CARE
>> Anonymous
I shoot film and intentionally don't post film/camera data. I also strip the exif data from my digital photos. I figure that if you're concerned about what equipment it was shot with, you're missing the point and your comments or critique aren't worth the recycled electrons they're printed on.
>> Sicko !L3HRY/miC.
     File :-(, x)
Hey guise look at this new pic I just took.

Oh don't worry about EXIF, I strip it intentionally because if you want more information on the details of a shot you're missing the point.

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2007:03:30 21:47:19Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width984Image Height652
>> Sicko !L3HRY/miC.
>>128667
Well fuck me, even that has EXIF.
>> beethy !HJGkSBB3Ao
>>128610
Was refering to the rest of /p/ not giving comments
Never doubted OP took this

>pretty cool
>pretty cool
>pretty cool
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>128610
More like, hard to give suggestions for improvement without knowing the technical details. E.g., if you shot it with a Noctilux, "Try using a lens with a wider aperture" isn't a very good criticism.

Of course, that's not really the case with this one. The suggestion for improvement that I'd give is, find a good subject to take a picture of. The sunset's nice, but the silhouette of a random building with a bunch of cars in front of it is pretty lame.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>128883
Thanks guys as for the build I completly agree, but sunsets like that dont always happen when theres a decent subject in reach.
heres the photo with exif data

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakePENTAX CorporationCamera ModelPENTAX K100D SuperCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsSensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)27 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:02:18 19:04:25Exposure Time1/10 secF-Numberf/3.5Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating200Exposure Bias-2 EVMetering ModeSpotFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length18.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3008Image Height2000RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeNight SceneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeClose View
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>128668
No it doesnt (or rather it doesnt have any useful EXIF info). Its probably a nikon.
>> Anonymous
>>129536
>No it doesnt (or rather it doesnt have any useful EXIF info). Its probably a sony.

fix'd
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>129542
You do realise i was talking about the camera in space being a nikon because nikon do that sort of shit. Sony do nothing of the sort.

lrn2troll
>> Anonymous
wow, that's a nice sunset. photo's not half bad, but my advice would be to chop off maybe the bottom third, maybe a bit less, to get rid of that car park and make the building stronger.
>> Anonymous
oh shit

HOT PIXELS
>> Anonymous
Yep you got some hot pixels and a dust speck in the top right.

No matter though.

Everything from the building up is awesome. I would have underexposed more and silhouetted it completely, cause the building has a really ugly front and the cars are terrible.

Also vignetting in the top corners eh - you should stop down for this kind of exposure since it's probably on a tripod anyway.
>> Anonymous
>>130067
took it handheld, but wedged myself onto a lamp post