File :-(, x, )
My Eye Bytten
Would like some opinions and such.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeEASTMAN KODAK COMPANYCamera ModelKODAK Z650 ZOOM DIGITAL CAMERAMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)38 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution230 dpiVertical Resolution230 dpiExposure Time1/60 secF-Numberf/2.8Exposure ProgramPortrait ModeISO Speed Rating80Lens Aperturef/2.8Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashFlash, AutoFocal Length6.30 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width2128Image Height2832Exposure Index80RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypePortraitGain ControlLow Gain UpContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeMacro
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
Thanks! I'm working on a little "/p/ Bingo" program, and the squares are all going to be the boring and/or annoying things that keep popping up again and again ad infinitum from the poor amateur photographers who post here (myself included, of course).

I had forgotten about pics of one's own eyeball.
>> Anonymous
>>56521

i found a list of such photos on ken rockwells website.

They are:

1. close up of your own eye , or anyone else's.
2. old broken rusted shit.
3. high contrast sunsets.
4. long inner city exposures.
5. your hands or feet.
6. the inside of old shitty buildings.
7. grass.
8. cars.
9. people.
10. your girlfriend.
11. your girlfriends mum.
12. macro shots attempted without a macro lens.

i cant remember what the rest were.
>> Anonymous
>>56526
>9. people.
WTF?
>> elf_man
>>56526
I remember this. Wasn't he being at least a little sarcastic, because if you want to nitpick, everything's been done to death?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>56552
Probably, given that high contrast sunsets and old, broken, rusted shit comprises 90% of Rockwell's oeuvre
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
I fucking love Ken Rockwell, he's such an asshole. But god, he just keeps on going! It's completely amazing!

HAY GUYZ AUTO EXPOSURE IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL AMIRITE?
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>56553
Oh, and seconded. Ken's photos blow. I almost feel bad for the guy. He's so confident.
>> Anonymous
>> all above posts.

god /p/ is your joke sensor not on?

i made all the shit in>>56526up. not a single bit is from rockwells site.

this , however, is:

"im never one to be a spoil sport but bad cameras can really spoil sports. Sports photography that is.....", ken rockwell, 1999 "Birthday Bashes and Sports Clashes.
>> Anonymous
I had just read two or three actually reasonable articles on Rockwell's site before I just went to take a look at it again. Now I want to slap the man.

One article said that photographers should get their prints made at the neighborhood drugstore; another was him saying a Canon A series was better than a 5D because he messed up his exposure on one shot with the 5D.
>> Teus !QbSstcPD6U
KR's pages should be taken with quite a grain of salt, but sometimes he makes an interesting point... most people just tend just to give general opinions
>> elf_man
Like the thing about prints, he hates color negative film, thinks that unless you do it yourself it will never come out right. I'm inclined to agree with that, to an extent. So if you're getting them processed by someone else, it may as well be the neighborhood drug store...dunno if that's the article you meant. Yeah. Grain of salt. Of course, he tells you to use what works for your personal style, so he provides himself with that salt.
>> Anonymous
>>56575

yeah i kind of understand what hes getting at with the film thing.

it made me think about how many ppl have actually processed their own color film. i dont just mean running it through the c-41 processor its self, actual stage by stage , pain in the ass, by hand color neg processing???? anyone here done it????
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>56576
I've seen at least one post here by someone who did it.

(Picture wasn't very interesting, but A for effort)