File :-(, x, )
Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
what makes you RAAAAAAAAAGEEE about photography or other photogs?

for me it's Lensbabies. pic related.
>> Anonymous
Every photographer should have one of those.

In my case? Being blatantly told by ignorant people that know jack shit about photography that "Nikon is better. I don't know why, but Nikon is better."
>> Anonymous
>She's so huge, I had to use a full-frame 1Ds for this shot. You know what that's like? Oh, right, you don't, since you have never used professional equipment.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>210413
You rage'd over that? lol @ butthurt fag.
>> Anonymous
In my journalism class the other day.

Editor: Hey Cute Girl, do you have the SLR.
Cute girl: what's an SLR?
Editor: Do you have the big camera?
Cute girl: yeah, the knee-con?
>> Anonymous
Anyone whining about their JPEGs or some automated function on the camera not being up to a task. It's not? Do it yourself, fucktard. Problem solved.

People who are anal about technical image quality but don't care at all about the content or composition of a picture. (E.g. people who baaaw at noise.)

People who think shallow or empty work is impressive just because it required technical skill or is of a pretty scene or girl.

People who discount any photo that requires an attention span of more than half a second to appreciate that it's good.

>>210413
Everyone does and says stupid stuff. Us hiding behind anonymous just can't get called out on it. If you're going to bitch at tripcode users for stuff they said, man up and get your own tripcode so people can hold every minor misstep against you, too.
>> Anonymous
>>210415
At least she says it right.
>> Anonymous
>>210417
Yeah. Seems generally ignorant about the subject though. You'd think a photographer would actually know what type of camera she's holding, specially since she's talking to an editor.
>> Anonymous
>>210419
You would think, yeah, but I suppose knowing terms isn't the same as knowing how to do something.

Does she know how to do something?
>> Anonymous
Better yet, is she hot?
>> okto !.ZlrOYZhsk
>>210415
How can she know to pronounce it /?n?k?n/ but not know what an SLR is?
KNOWLEDGE INVERSION WTF
>> Anonymous
maybe if he said single lenz reflex the situation would have played out like this

cute girl: oh yeah, wanna fuck mr. editor?
editor: oh yeah baby, your gettin an A this semester!
>> okto !.ZlrOYZhsk
>>210453
Editor: Let's make things a little more smoove. Lemme put on my favorite Barry White record.
Cute Girl: What's a record?
Editor: Well, it's a--
Cute Girl: Who's Barry White?
Editor: Shut your damn mouth and take off your clothes.
>> Anonymous
when someone asks for feedback on a picture, you tell them what's wrong/distracting/could be better about it, and they start telling you all the excuses why they didn't do it right. I don't care. hearing all the excuses doesn't suddenly make it look better.
>> Anonymous
Awww heart shaped bokeh

or as /p/ says borkeh
>> NatureGuy !se3A3TwzdY
Getting asked in class what this photo means to me. Sorry teach but it's a fucking landscape, it means pretty.
>> okto !.ZlrOYZhsk
>>210554
Agreed. If I knew what it meant in words, I would have written it down, wouldn't I?
>> Anonymous
>>210557
>>210554


Very Agreed.
>> Anonymous
>>210550
Borkeh?
I just met her!
>> Anonymous
>>210554
Not that I entirely disagree, but you should at least be able to talk about your work. Even if not "why this particular scene, framing, etc' then at the very least how a particular photograph fits into your overall work.
>> Anonymous
>>210411
- "collector" gearfags, the kind who have tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in equipment and do nothing but snapshots
- "optimal" gearfags e.g.
> nice pic, good composition. Too bad it's on a coolpix and not a 1Ds with a fast prime
- film purists
- bo(r)keh nerds
- flickr awards
- excessive HDR, tilt-shift, technique-of-the-week
>> NatureGuy !se3A3TwzdY
>>210572
My teacher wants ever single photo you bring to class to have meaning or fit greater scheme of meaningful photographs. You can't say: "I took this to be aesthetically pleasing and fulfill your photo quota."
>> Anonymous
>>210411
"How many megapixels is that big camera? 8? Psh. My compact has 12 and a 10x zoom."
>> Anonymous
>>210736
oh gawd

i fucking hate MEGAPIXUL and OPTIKALZEEWWWM faggotry.
>> Anonymous
>>210745
Yeah, so do I. This is another one I hate:

"Oh my god these pictures are fabulous (studio type object photography), your camera is amazing."

These two are two things that have happened to me lately, too:

A girl from school began asking me what camera she should buy for her photography class, and to take wonderful pictures (she did use the word) of her projects for her portfolio, without spending too much.

Tough, I thought. I pointed her towards a 400 buck XT. She considered it way too expensive. I explained why a DSLR has a higher price than a common digicam, and she seemed convinced that it's a better option for work-related assignments, such as taking pics for her portfolio. She then thought otherwise, however, saying that it's too big though, and that she would like something she can take on vacations or to the ocean and stuff. So I pointed her at a Canon A series, or an Olympus Mju (waterproof).

She liked my suggestions, but she found herself having to decide between a work-oriented and much more expensive camera, or a cheapass digi she can use to fuck around or whatever. She came up with a bright idea, though!

"Oh, I know what can be done then, see. You sign up for the same Photography class as me, and we share the DSLR, and that way I can buy a compact digicam for myself."

Bitch was talking about my DSLR right there. No, fucking bitch isn't hot, before you ask.


Now I got another friend asking me if I could take pictures of some lab procedures over the course of next semester for a book, with no word of money involved, or if I can lend him my DSLR. I'm in a bit of a pinch on this one, but I'm inclining towards a double NO.
>> Anonymous
>>210752
In the first case you're right to turn it down, but what sort of douche charges his friends money for taking a few pictures?
>> Anonymous
>>210830
The kind who puts borders and watermarks on myspace/facebook level snapshots.
>> Anonymous
>>210752

I think if she wants to use YOUR digital SLR, she should pay you $20 minimum for a halfway decent session. She can't use your expensive camera for free and buy a shit one for herself. I can't believe she even asked that.
>> Anonymous
>>210830
the other dude is taking pics of anon's lab procedures for a book. a book that he probably intends to sell. he's the douche for trying to scam his friend.

and, douchey overdone post-processing or a post-processing "style" that's applied to all photos makes me raaaage.
>> Anonymous
>>210849
How? FFS, go in, point the camera at the lab procedures, press the button. You don't charge your friends for things like that, ever, no matter what they're doing with it.
>> Anonymous
>>210851
Yeah. It's not like he expects you to exert any real effort into it. By all means, set your camera to auto and point and shoot.
>> Anonymous
Most of /p/ and their uncanny ability to fag up every thread.

Also artfags, black and white, and soulless portraits.
>> Anonymous
>>210853
It doesn't take much effort to shoot someone doing something in a lab.

Also, again, you're a massive douchebag if you charge your friend for doing something simple like this that you presumably enjoy doing.

Friends help each other out. He'll pay him back eventually in some nonmonetary way without either of them ever realizing that's what's going on. It's called friendship, mutuality.
>> Anonymous
Girl: That's a neat camera you got there.
Me: *busy setting up for a shoot* Thanks
Girl: My ex-boyfriend used to do photography stuff
Me: Did he?
Girl: You ever do any HRD pictures?
Me: HRD?
Girl: They're these really colorful, um... cool looking?
Me: You mean HDR?
Girl: Yeah! High...something... resolution or whatever. You ever hear of it?
Me: Dynamic Range ... and no, not really my thing.
Girl: Aww! My ex does a lot of those. They're really cool-looking. he used to fix them on the computer and put them on... Flickr. Ever hear of Flickr? There's a whole group of people who do HDR stuff. You should check it out sometime.
Me: Oh, really? I'll have to take a look...

If I were straight (And the waitress had gotten me my whisky) I might have had a little more interest.
>> Anonymous
>>210872

This never happened.
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
>>210872
*standing outside gig with cam*
TALK = Nightclub. Theres usually like 10k photogs in there.

Girl: You look like one of them people from TALK
Me: er yeah
Girl: Take a photo of me
Me: ok *takes photo*
Girl: Wow your really good

.. this is about as close to a girl as I can get now days. :(
>> Anonymous
I know wholesalers and importers personally so I could buy stuff from them cheap. (local currency converted to USD) That's how I got my Canon A-series P&S for $130 (retail there), which is about $100 cheaper than retail around here. Around this time, I was also saving up really badly for my first dSLR. This guy wanted to buy a camera just like mine from me. I decided to charge a little extra, $150, cheaper than retail but I still get a small profit for my dSLR fund. Before I was able to place an order, he calls up and asks to cancel because he already bought a Sony ultra compact P&S from a mall here for $460 USD, which is heavily marked up from how much I can get it for, worse than my P&S, and is the price of the dSLR I wanted to get.

tldr: FUCKING IGNORANT SONS OF RICHFAGS SPENDING MONEY IRRESPONSIBLY.
>> okto !.ZlrOYZhsk
>>210830
The kind of douche that intends to charge more next time, because he intends to make a living off of it. It's doesn't take YOU any sweat, but somebody who didn't know what he/she was doing would cock it up.
You're not being paid for your time, you're being paid for your expertise, and expertise doesn't come cheap.
>> Anonymous
>>210915
you probably dont have many friends right?
>> okto !.ZlrOYZhsk
>>210929
Yep, only someone with no friends would charge them for professional services.
Do you know any commercial artists? I mean, like, any? We throw favors to our friends all the time, but free work isn't a favor you can afford until you're well enough established that people know who you are.

Artists who give away their work are rarely commercially successful, because people have little enough respect for commercial art as it is. They think of it as "your little drawrings" or "your little pictures", and expect pro-quality results for how much they would take themselves to take bad pictures with a shitty P&S.
Also, this guy is going to be taking pictures for publication. Money is going to be made off his work, it's wrong for him not to make money off of it, ESPECIALLY since his name is going to be on published work.

I'm not saying OG up there should bend his friends over on this, but he should get something in return, ESPECIALLY SINCE IT'S BEING USED COMMERCIALLY.
>> Anonymous
>>210915
Hey, I'm a doctor. My friend comes to me sick. Should I charge him for treatment? Or just, at most, the cost of whatever testing or medication that gets done?

I'm a carpenter. My friend wants some help putting shelves in. He already has the wood, the nails, etc, and I already own a hammer. Do I charge him?

True story: I'm a photographer. One of my friends is a musician, he's playing a concert, I take some pictures. Do I charge him? Hell motherfucking no I don't. I wouldn't even charge him for prints if he wanted those, , he's my friend and I love him, and he's helped me out with stuff a lot more important than some photographs before.

TL;DR stop shoving commerce into interpersonal relationships, you gigantic mangled cock.
>> Anonymous
>>210938
As long as your rent's paid, your fridge is full, and so on, how can you "not afford" to give your friend a favor?
>> Anonymous
>>210938
>Also, this guy is going to be taking pictures for publication. Money is going to be made off his work, it's wrong for him not to make money off of it, ESPECIALLY since his name is going to be on published work.

Also, another true story, I'm a writer. You do realize it's not uncommon for lots of work to be published with a writer starting out getting no more than a credit?
>> NatureGuy !se3A3TwzdY
Protip: Don't do favors for friends or relatives involving photography. It RARELY turns out well.
>> Anonymous
>>210942
This guy must suck.
Back when i was debating on whether or not to get a DSLR I borrowed my friend's Fuji S3 and a couple of lenses for a week or so without any problem. You'd have to be a complete douche to not be there to just take a few snaps of a lab project.
>> Anonymous
>>210942
Exactly.
>> Anonymous
the way my school's journalism class has turned my girlfriend into a douchebag. I do my own stuff with a holga and a leica, and she completely regards anything I take because it's not digital. nevermind that all she does is boring-as-fuck sports photography, anything I do is automatically inferior because it wasn't taken on a D3. oh, and it doesn't help that they made her the photo editor and the editor-in-cheif of the yearbook.
>> okto !.ZlrOYZhsk
>>210949
>>210942
>>210941
Which part of 'published in a book' doesn't Anon understand? That's the hinge of my argument. If it was a "hey can you take some pix of me doing my thing", fine, whatever. But this is commercial work (unless I misunderstood OP and this is a non-commercial book?).

Also, like I said, it's not about profit, it's about not doing work for free. A beer is payment. A burger is payment. More commonly, a return favor is payment, and that's where I take issue. There's nothing worse than a favor owed between friends—unless it's money owed.
>> Anonymous
>>210975
So your girlfriend is a bitch. What does that have to do with anything?
>> Anonymous
>>210975
BAWWWW
>> Anonymous
/p/ 's shitsux patrol.
>> Anonymous
Being a poorfag. I often borrow a friend's dSLR and I've just about learned everything about fiddling with its settings. Then I see people that use AUTO.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>210975

>my school's journalism class
>digital
>sports photography
>yearbook

Your girlfriend is the cliché school "journalist" that every artist in the school secretly (or possibly even openly) abhors.

Hook up with a photo group outside school if you actually want worthy recognition, otherwise you better start following her lead by photographing sports teams, hanging out with the cheerleaders, and taking snapshots of the "popular"' kids.
>> Anonymous
>>210871
>>210853
>>210851
>>210849
>>210832
>>210830

The guy intends to sell the book, and it's not a single session, it's a fuckton over the course of a semester, and he's asking for good pictures. Also, the dilemma arises from the fact that I rather not charge him, because he's a good friend, but SHIT that's a -lot- of pictures/sessions. Additionally, if it's going to be published, wouldnt you guys actually make an effort to make them good?

This isn't just point and shoot. If you don't know there's a difference between a snapshot and commercial photography, you're a little bit ignorant or you're better off staying out of it.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>211033
I would probably do it for him. I might charge a little, but not a whole lot or anything.
>> okto !.ZlrOYZhsk
>>211033
Figure out what you would charge someone who is not your friend, and then discount it however much you feel is necessary. For that much work, you shouldn't feel bad at all charging for your skill.

You should also make sure you're legally protected as far as further use of your images. I'm not talking about royalties, but you want to be sure the publisher doesn't retain rights to use your images for whatever they want without paying you.
>> Anonymous
>>211034
Yeah, I don't want to rip him off or anything, only some minor compensation.

>>211040
Thanks okto, I'll keep that in mind, I hadn't thought about it.


>>210838
>I think if she wants to use YOUR digital SLR, she should pay you $20 minimum for a halfway decent session. She can't use your expensive camera for free and buy a shit one for herself. I can't believe she even asked that.

Bitch is cheap like that. She tried to scam me into working for her as a photographer all the time throughout summer. When I asked how much she was considering paying, she stopped responding. I really rather not make any business with her, let alone lend her my equipment.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>210411
>>210411

but, OP, i loves me some selective focus!

Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Pixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Width655Image Height994
>> Anonymous
had my rolleiflex 3.5 in detroit, and was assaulted by comments like:

wait, you can actually get good pictures with that weird square thing? looks so old...

DON'T OPEN YOUR FUCKING MOUTH!
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>211080
lmao that reminds me... in the latest family meeting, I was taking pics as I always do, but this time I brought with me my Yashica MAT. So after taking a pic of my cousin, she comes runnin' at me screaming "can I see it, can I see?" me and another photographer started cracking up.

Damn kids don't know about film nowadays.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D70Camera SoftwareVer.2.00Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.4Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern824Focal Length (35mm Equiv)75 mmSerial Number-100017dImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2008:06:14 20:21:13Exposure Time1/50 secF-Numberf/1.4Exposure ProgramManualExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3008Image Height2000RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastHardSharpnessHardSubject Distance RangeUnknownISO Speed Used320Image QualityBASICWhite BalanceAUTOImage SharpeningHIGHFocus ModeAF-SFlash SettingNORMALFlash Compensation0.0 EVISO Speed Requested320Flash Bracket Compensation0.0 EVAE Bracket Compensation0.0 EVTone CompensationMID.HLens TypeUnknownLens Range50.0 mm; f/1.4Auto FocusSingle Area, Center Selected, Top FocusedShooting/Bracketing ModeSingle Frame/OffColor ModePortrait sRGBLighting TypeNATURALNoise ReductionOFFCamera Actuations11832Image OptimizationCUSTOMSaturation 2NORMAL
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>211080
>>211087

I have a Minox B (pic related), which shoots on 9.5mm microfilm. Takes pretty decent shots actually....using Agfapan 25 I can get about the equivalent of a 4 megapixel image from the negative, which is the size of your smallest fingernail.

Anyway, every time I pull it out to shoot with the first comment is "wow, nice cell phone". When I tell them it's a camera, the next questions are "how many megapixels" and "where's the screen?".

Then, when I tell them it shoots film, the responses are either "Bullshit" or "why don't you just get a digital camera, they're like 200 bucks".

Oh well.
>> Anonymous
>>211087
>>211121
>>211080

And that shit's going to keep happening more and more every time. :[
>> Anonymous
>>211087
haha do you realy expect a little kid to know if your cam is digital or film?
jesus, youre a cocksucker
>> okto !.ZlrOYZhsk
>>211080
lol not digital how does it took pic

Fucking idiots. Everyone except scientists and gadgetfiend PJs was still shooting film, what, seven years ago? Most people still were up to about four years ago.
Nobody's attention span is that fucking short. With kids I think it's kinda cute and a bit of a mindfuck, since these people have never not known digital, but it's the people in their forties who I just want to strangle.
>> Anonymous
>>211134
he didn't say anything about kids

L2READ
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>211136
"damn kids", and he posted a picture of a kid
>> Anonymous
>>211136
dumb faggot l2read
>> Anonymous
>>211134
Well, she was still born in the film era.

But nowadays there ain't any kind of effort to teach kids the basics... that's why some think milk is produced in factories, and they freak out once they see a real cow being milked. I made my comment because of that, obvisouly a kid doesn't know how cameras work, from a technical point of view.

Maybe a hella smart kid.

But the worst thing is, I got comments like those from adults too.
>> Anonymous
I've gotten the opposite question, don't hate it too much.

"Ahh man, that's a sweet camera, really cool. Oh, shit, it's digital?! wtf!?"
>> Anonymous
The phrase "analog camera" bugs me for some reason.

Particular a reference to a dSLR being interesting because it's a digital camera that "looks like an analog camera"
>> Anonymous
>>210411

People that think a gradient blur is actually accomplishing the same thing as a real tilt-shift lens.
>> Anonymous
I hate when people compliment my camera when they see a picture of mine. What? Yes, I love my camera as well, but apparently I didn't have any control or brain power to make that image... it was the camera. BLAH.
>> Anonymous
>>211228
"Wow, what a nice camera. You must take really good pictures."
>> Anonymous
>>211234

When people ask if my camera can take good photos, I say "it CAN".
>> Anonymous
I had just started doing film but then I noticed my camera might've been messing up so I wasted a roll to check settings and metering and stuff. I only needed to see the negatives so I had it processed and uncut. When my mom sees me holding the long roll of negatives, she gets all pissed "What did you pay for?!" "Where are the photos?!". She apparently thought that film turned into negatives as soon as it's exposed by the camera.

I also hate it when film cameras are referred to as "Analog Cameras". Even though it's technically correct, they're only calling it that because of differentiating it from digital cameras and not because they know what "Analog" means.

Another one, I was at my Univ with the SLR I was referring to in the 1st paragraph covering an event. This girl was there with a Canon 450D (with 55-200 lens) and was bragging about it being 12mp. I said mine can go up to 22 megapixels after scanned then she said, "Even though, you only get, what, 40 pics at a time and have to wait until you're all done to see them." then she proceeded to shoot in continuous mode. I bet she hits her delete button a lot too.

Digital has to be the best and worst thing to ever happen to photography.
>> Anonymous
>>211163
Hah, same here. Yesterday, I was changing lenses on my D70 and a relative comes up and says "what are you doing? Changing the film roll?".

Also, this:
>>211228
>> Anonymous
>then she proceeded to shoot in continuous mode. I bet she hits her delete button a lot too.

Pretentious little fucker. Good shots are all that matter, not the 200000 other wastes of space.

I'll have to agree that -that- part of the digital medium is helpful, but honestly, there's little to admire in firing a lot.
>> Anonymous
Note: I am agreeing with anon, not disagreeing.

>>211390
>>211383

Also props for trying out film for yourself.
>> Anonymous
>>211383
At work, a co-worker got a book which talks about photography becoming a "medium art" mainly because of digital.

I still have to read it, but for what my co-worker told me, it looks like it'll be a book hated by almost everyone on 4chan, since it talks about all this crap digital has brought into photography.
>> Anonymous
>>211397
What exactly does "medium art" mean?
>> Anonymous
>>211398
Hard art = sculpting, painting, shit that takes years to hone
medium art = photography, music, drawing, shit that's picked up easily
easy art = lawl, doodles and haiku

I dunno, I'm just bullshitting
>> Anonymous
I suppose this is the right place for it, but I hate people who still cling onto their film cameras like some kind of retired mathematician clinging onto his first Abacus.

Unless you want a really specific effect, or you want to use a lens that isnt available for digital mounts (pretty rare with many manufacturers using the same mounts for the past 10+ years, unless you want a specific optical effect from some really old glass), why the fuck would you use film?

It still costs money to process, and decent film processing centres are getting rarer by the day.
Digital gives you a fuckton more freedom in what you do with the image you've shot (I know thats scary for some of the people in here, but trust me, its OKAY), and you've got a virtually unlimited number of shots you can take on one camera. Take a shot you dont like? Delete it, free the space for something better.

It frustrates me to no end seeing people refuse to give up shooting on film, just because they're either scared by new technology (like my own mother), or are trying to be "cool" or "different" by bucking the trend and staying with their old piece of crap film camera.
>> Anonymous
>>211397
>>since it talks about all this crap digital has brought into photography.

BAWWW, photography has been made more accessable, and my shitty work has been drowned out by more talented people!
>> Anonymous
>>211401
obvious troll is obvious.
>> Anonymous
>>211400
Hum... medium arts are the arts produced by the general public, by people who aren't artists.
>>211401
Get ready for the shitstorm.

Saying that makes me think you know little about photography.
>>211402
So tonemapping is talent now? Using photoshop filters is talent?

P&S are cameras any serious photographer should use?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>pic related.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>211401
>> Anonymous
gay ppl make me rage
>> Anonymous
>>211401
It doesn't bother me, but this guy is right: unless you want the specific look of film (or really, the specific look of a specific film), or you prefer an old body design, or you've got some great ass-weird lens that can't be adapted to a digital body, there's no reason to still be shooting film.

But it's so obvious and meaningless at the same time it just isn't worth saying or getting bothered about at someone who still shoots film.
>> okto !.ZlrOYZhsk
>>211401
BAWWWW other people's preferences make me feel bad
>> Anonymous
>>210411
Faggots that say photogs.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>211426
Same as how it's pointless to restore vintage automobiles because newer cars can get you from A to B just the same.
Same as how people should stop collecting antique guns because new guns are better in every way.
>> Anonymous
>>211463

L2/reading comphrehension.

>or you prefer an old body design

Film is not worth it for it's own sake. It's a tool, not a Piece of the True Cross or whatever bullshit you think it is.

If someone works better or likes working with film, or a Colt SAA, or a Model T, more power to them, they should. If not, they shouldn't.
>> Anonymous
>>210752
Asshole. He's your friend :/
>> Anonymous
>>211483
While I agree, the only proper response to this post is "here we go again..."
>> Anonymous
1. Photoshop filters(instant art)
2. Shitty composition
3. Pointless B&W work
4. Gearfags
5. Filmfags that don't appreciate digital
6. Photographers that think the only good shots happen at sunrise & sunset
7. BORING SUBJECTS
8. Pictures of animals taken from a standing position looking down at them.
9. Posed pictures with fake smiles.
10. Pictures of eyeballs
11. Landscape photos with no central subject or point of interest.
12. Shitty pictures of the ocean.
13. Pictures of waterfalls taken with long exposures.
14. People that praise bad nudes because they are nudes.
15. Photographers that think a shitty background doesn't matter because they are shooting with a large aperture.
16. Compositions pieced together from several sources(that isn't a photograph).
17. Douchebags that need 20 flashes to take a picture in the MIDDLE OF THE FUCKING DAY
18. Pictures with shitty focusing
19. Digitalfags that disrespect film
20. Cliche pictures of abandoned buildings
>> Anonymous
>>211401

How dare I use my film slr because I can't afford a digital. I should just leave. And how dare I enjoy the nice tonalities, shadow details, and grain from Tri-x.
>> Anonymous
All of these are true. I'll add:
* People giving lists of 30 groups they want a photo in on Flickr
* Tags on Flickr for awards
* Watermarked, framed 'art' photographs
* The girl who just got an XTi, brings it to school every day and uses it with the stock lens on full-auto to take snapshots of her friends with the built in flash
* taking a photo and having the focus just wrong
* ruined photos that you only get one chance at
* people that look at you suspicious because oh gods, you have a camera with a long lens, you must be a pædophile!
>> Anonymous
]People who call the Nikon D40/50/60, Canon Rebel's, or similar camera's "professional" camera's.
]People who call them "Mega-pickle's" (I work in a camera store, and this happens more than you'd believe)
]Calling a DSLR a "35mm Digital"
]Or people that refuse to believe that DSLR's don't (for the most part) have a live-view. I mean c'mon, do you really want to hold this big ass, sometimes heavy, camera a foot and a half away from your face?
>> Anonymous
>>210736
I HATE THAT! In addition to that, when they go "so an 18-55&55-200mm only equals 11.11x zoom? but this little (brand x) zooms 15x! This is better, and has more mega-pickles.
>> Anonymous
>>211514
>3. Pointless B&W work
>20. Cliche pictures of abandoned buildings

FUCKING SIGNED
every fucking one of my friends who has a semi-decent camera thinks it's cool to get into random abandoned buildings, take pictures and then post them, usually in B&W, on the internets. Some of them even pose in gasmasks and other faux-S.T.A.L.K.E.R gear for even more retardation.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
People who think my silver lens is awesome (its utter shite)

People who think that because my 11-18 is lolxboxhueg it must be really zoomy and procede to try and stand back when i take a photo.
>> Anonymous
I was walking around school with a D70s and 70-300 f/4-5.6 which looked massive and phallic with the hood on backwards. A guy mocked me: "Aren't you trying too hard to overcompensate?". Insecure penisfags....
>> Anonymous
uppity filmfags that dont consider digital to be "real" photography
>> Anonymous
People who have a DSLR, use it on full auto and are annoyed every time the built-in flash pops up.

People with a large telezoom with hood and attempt to use the built-in flash.

People who drop their camera gear or bump into everything a million times with their huge tele zoom and don't seem to be bothered by it (IT HURTS TO SEE!)
>> Qonfused !!ziHVWcW6bcF
>>211228
This is me, I'm back for a one more.

My friend's mom does weddings with her husband (her with a new D80 and him with a D70). She knows absolutely nothing about photography. She brags to me about her Quantaray 18-200mm. I haven't looked this up, but if the Nikkor lens of the same length has distortion, rofl, I can't imagine the distortion on that. I brought over my newly acquired D200 to show her and she's like, "WHAT'S WITH THIS PUNY LENS?!" (I had the nifty fifty on.) I facepalm'd her. She uses her SB 600 outside, full power straight on (not fill flash, not bounced, no bounce card). Fuck I hate her. So I explained that it's a prime. "WHAT'S A PRIME?" ...WHAT THE FUCK? So yeah, she does one wedding a week which I'm sure nets "alright" cash. Her husband makes fucktons of money running his own business, so it's not like she has to worry. Also, I picked up her D80, just to compare and guess what the mode dial was set on.

Auto.
>> Anonymous
A friend of mine was recently at a wedding, there was a woman photographer there with a D300 and a Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8. I think she was alright actually, but it turned out she made all photos on JPEG medium on a 2 GB card. When he mentioned she should probably look into picking up a 8 GB mem card and shooting in raw, she was like "nuh uh, this way I can put more pictures on it and they don't need them any larger anyway."

Your wedding on medium JPEG. :(
>> Anonymous
>>211569
RAAAAAAAAGEEEEEEEEEE
>> Anonymous
People who are terrified of damaging their camera at the expense of usability or functionality, which leads me to:
-People who stick a cheap UV filter on the front of every lens and keep it there all the time
-People who use those stupid camera armor things
-People who carry their cameras around in Pelican cases (and are not checking them with airline baggage)
-People who won't shoot in the rain, or insist on huge underwater enclosures to do so.

People who carry on about the superiority of one brand or another, particularly with respect to DSLRs.

People who think something (film, handheld meters, etc) is stupid and useless despite the fact that they've never used it.

People who keep close tabs on the specifications of every camera on the market, even if they're not looking for a new camera.

People who pay $50 for a toy camera that prior to the hipster bullshit boom cost less than $2.

People who approach me in public to criticize my choice to shoot with film/digital/big cameras/small cameras/new cameras/old cameras. I've heard it all.

People that insist, and publicly announce at any opportunity, that *insert product here* is the greatest thing ever, but can't actually produce a reason why.

Any HDR that can be identified as HDR at first glance.

Selective saturation/desaturation.

People who reference Ansel Adams or Cartier-Bresson in any discussion pertaining to photography in any way, usually because they're the only photographers whose names they know.

Almost anyone under the age of 25 who owns one camera, which is an entry-level DSLR, has been seriously involved in photography for less than five years, and feels that they are an expert on all things photographic.

People who put vertical grips on compact DSLRs because it looks more "pro"

People who will only buy black cameras because they look more "pro"
>> Anonymous
>>211581
Hey, I use a Pelican case for my stuff wherever I go ... there's nothing wrong with it. Better than cloth bags, especially when I got in a car wreck and my case went flying through the window.
>> Anonymous
>>211581

i use a camera bag (lowepro) and NEVER check it with the airlines.. those niggers toss bags around so haphazardly
>> Anonymous
>>211581People who keep close tabs on the specifications of every camera on the market, even if they're not looking for a new camera.

Because having an interest in the latest technology of your hobby or profession is dumb, amirite?
>> Anonymous
>>211581
>People who will only buy black cameras because they look more "pro"

Lol, I buy only black cameras. There are only like 2 DSLRs in existence that come in colors other than black.
>> Anonymous
>>211483
Whatever, it's a lot of work, I'll be busy as hell, and he's making money out of it. Enjoy working for free.
>> Anonymous
>>211581
TLDR:
I DON'T LIKE IT WHEN PEOPLE AREN'T JUST LIKE ME, WHEN THEY CARE ABOUT THEIR GEAR, WHEN THEY ARE BETTER THAN I, WHEN THEY HAPPEN TO LIKE CERTAIN WELL-KNOWN PHOTOGRAPHERS BECAUSE THAT'S SO NOT INDIE-CRED, WHEN THEY DO ANYTHING THAT ISN'T...
LOOOOOOOOOOOK
ATTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
MEEEEEEEEEEEE
>> Anonymous
>>211607
You got trolled, bud.
>> Anonymous
>>211551

I've seen people like that. They hold their hand in front of the pop-up flash sometimes.
>> NatureGuy !se3A3TwzdY
     File :-(, x)
bwaaahahahahahahaahgbl
>> Anonymous
>People who will only buy black cameras because they look more "pro"

I only buy black cameras, because they match the black dildos I'm going to be cramming up your pretentious ass.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
This thread is now about silver 5D's.
>> Anonymous
>>211614
0/10
>> Anonymous
>>211614

A+++ would read again
>> Anonymous
>>211614
Yeah, I'm the pretentious one because I don't care what color my camera is.
>> NatureGuy !se3A3TwzdY
     File :-(, x)
>>211617
>> Anonymous
>>211617

;_;
>> Anonymous
i honestly don't understand how people could forget about film so quickly, i'm still a young guy (19) and didn't even TOUCH a digital camera before 2002. and even as a little kid i took pictures for fun with a minolta p/s from the '80s.
>> Anonymous
>>211578

That one really makes me cringe.
>> Anonymous
>>211623
>>211622

Hehe. It's an unpainted 5D. Canon used it to advertise the 5D's metal body.
>> Anonymous
>>211581

I have to admit I have UV filters on some of my lenses largely because of this. When the situation calls for it, I remove the filter and place it in my bag.
>> Anonymous
>>211617
lol I remember a thread when someone was making fun of the silver Rebel, because it had "silver paint on it"
>> Anonymous
>>211635
It does. Rebel is plastic.
>> okto !.ZlrOYZhsk
>>211617
God DAMN that's hot! Canon is fucktarded for not doing a special edition limited run of those.
>> Anonymous
It's a magnesium frame, isn't it?
I can see why they might just cover it up.
>> Anonymous
>>211639
Because all plastic is automatically black, right?
>> Anonymous
>>211551
>People who drop their camera gear or bump into everything a million times with their huge tele zoom and don't seem to be bothered by it (IT HURTS TO SEE!)

Google "camera insurance", "deductible expenses", and "photojournalist".
>> Anonymous
>>211401

I shoot film because I like the look of Plus-X (noise != grain), I enjoy developing film myself, and I have some really nice wide angle lenses that aren't any use on a crop body, and I don't have a 5D yet.

When I'm not feeling arty and I can accept the quality of my rebel kit lens* for wide stuff, I shoot digital. I also shoot just about all tele stuff, and all work-related stuff (product shots) digitally.

* I'm not going to buy any wide EF-S lenses because I'm planning on a FF body, and a 15mm lens for a full-frame body is too long on a crop and OVER 9000 dollars.
>> NatureGuy !se3A3TwzdY
>>211657
or they could be relying on that they make cameras not to explode when you drop them

O man you should see my camera and lenses if that bothers. I've got parts of rocks embedded in my a few of lens caps from that Maine trip.
>> okto !.ZlrOYZhsk
>>211662
lol. My F3 has seen similar abuse and is brassed to shit. I'm kind of proud of that, actually.
>> Anonymous
>>211578
There's nothing wrong with shooting JPEG. You would expect that a wedding photographer would be using RAW because (1) they have the skills to get increased quality from that file type and (2) part of their job is to process the images, but JPEG can make pictures that are just as good.

I RAAAAAAAAAAGE over digitalfags who say "wtfzomg you shoot JPEG? You must be a n00bfag because my images are four times larger than yours and cannot be viewed without a special application"

>>211581
I have UV filters on my lenses. Guess what -- they're essentially clear multicoated glass. If I'm shooting into the light I take them off for flare reasons, but otherwise they stay on 24/7. My LCS has a wall of cracked UV filters with tags below them giving the name and price of the lens they saved from a rock, drop, passing cyclist, etc. My favorite is a $6000 image-stabilized superzoom (older nikon I think) that was saved by an ultra-cheapo $25.99 filter.
>> Anonymous
>>211665
Yeh, a friend of a friend ran over his Spotmatic with a pickup truck. Wiped off the mud and it still shoots to this day. I haven't been quite so bad to mine, but it's got some hella dents on the prism and still works beautifully...
They just don't make cameras from cast brass anymore. :(
>> Anonymous
>>211666
>a $6000 image-stabilized superzoom (older nikon I think) that was saved by an ultra-cheapo $25.99 filter

No such thing as a $6,000 image-stabilized superzoom or a $26 filter that would fit such a beast.
>> Anonymous
>>211666they're essentially clear multicoated glass

Actually the cheap ones are essentially clear, uncoated glass. Often clear, uncoated non-optical grade glass with a plastic layer sandwiched inside to provide the requisite filtration. Some are even entirely made of plastic or resin. My point is that by sticking a $25 UV filter on a high end lens, you're reducing the optical quality of that lens to that of a $25 UV filter. Might as well just buy a $150 lens and throw it away if it breaks. High quality multicoated filters made from ground (not float) optical glass cost hundreds of dollars.

There was a discussion about this on the Photo.net boards many years ago, and someone produced a table with replacement costs for the front element of many of Canon and Nikon's high end zooms. As it turns out, in many cases it's only slightly more than the cost of a high quality multicoated UV filter, especially on lenses with big filter sizes. Given that I've been shooting seriously for more than ten years and have never significantly damaged a front element or a UV filter, I feel pretty comfortable shooting without one. Even if I kill a lens tomorrow, one in ten years is a pretty acceptable ratio to me.

They do have their place though. If I were shooting something where there is a high likelihood of encountering flying high-velocity chunks of pointy shit, like motocross, it would make sense to use one. Just not for what 99% of people shoot 99% of the time, professionals included.
>> Anonymous
>>211673
>you're reducing the optical quality of that lens to that of a $25 UV filter.
Not true, l2lens design.
>> Anonymous
>>211673
why would they have a plastic layer to provide filtration? Glass cuts out 100% of UV light.

Also there was a discussion here a while back with 100% crops of shots taken with an L lens with: no filter, cheap UV, expensive UV. The difference in image quality was somewhere between negligible and non-existent.
>> Rad !!IpQSryGvPPO
>>211569

I lol'd
>> Anonymous
Don't forget, lenses have that delicious multicoating fungus love. If you continuously wipe your lens with your tshirt or something like that (like I'm always doing) a cheap UV is nice for keeping that shit from wearing away. We have some of those nice Canon 85mm 1.8 USM lenses in our pressroom that are shit now because of all the scratches and wear on the front element. One of them is so bad, I can't even stand to look through the viewfinder because it's so soft now.
>> Anonymous
>>211686
So if glass blocks 100% of UV light, why again do DSLRs have a UV filter in front of the sensor? Why do UV filters even exist in the first place?

As far as your test is concerned, I can see a difference in my photos.
>> Anonymous
>>211703
Cleaning scratches will not cause softness. Wearing the multicoating will not cause softness. It could cause flare, but even that is only going to be an issue in bad lighting conditions.
>> Anonymous
>>211626

Why don't they make this? I'd still get a black one if I had a 5D, just like I'd just get a black one of the attached camera (laugh on, people obsessed with silver cameras sucking), but I cn imagine quite a few people wanting one that looks like a classic SLR.

Me? If I had a silver-only classic SLR, I would've black taped that bitch like Cartier-Bresson with his Leica. But lots of people like it, which is perfectly valid. I like it. I just prefer black.

>>211666

No, shooting JPEG is doing it wrong. Shooting medium JPEG is just completely worthy of being thwopped upside the head

It shows whoever is doing it doesn't really care about their pictures, either in look (JPEG limits post-processing flexibility and reduces the quality of what can be done), image quality (raw is better, of course), or just generally.

>>211681

L2/recognize rhetorical hyperbole.

Even if there's little difference (the shots I've seen show so) it's stupid. First of all, it should be insured anyway. Second of all, while this is a superficial concern, it marks the user as an anal idiot; people should be raaaageing at people who use protective filters, not people with silver bodies: one bespeaks a bad mindset, the other a different aesthetic taste. (IMO, the Rebel actually looks better in silver, but it's one of the few cameras to do so. And no, I don't own any Rebel, film or digital, silver or black.)

Third, it's just a waste of $25 and there's no reason to degrade optical quality at all. Even if it doesn't cut down on resolution much, and even if it's "oh hai! Mulitcoating? Umm... yeah, I molticooted!" putting more glass in front of a lens will always increase flare relative to using it without.
>> Anonymous
>>211713
Trust me, these cause softness. It comes from a lot of wear that has worn down the coating and gotten into the front element's glass.
>> okto !.ZlrOYZhsk
>>211666
>cannot be viewed without a special application
That's what you get for using Windows. Anything that displays images can render the majority of RAW formats on my Mac.
>My LCS has a wall of cracked UV filters
So you're a klutz. That doesn't mean UV filters are good, it means you're no good at keeping a grip on your gear.

>>211686
That's half the truth. Glass transmits light to about 350nm wavelength, so it blocks deep UV (UVB & UVC), but it transmits UVA, which accounts for something like 98% of the UV light from the Sun that reaches Earth's surface.
So yes, glass blocks a lot of UV light, but it doesn't block the UV light encountered on bright clear days.
>> Anonymous
>>211722
>bespeaks
Haha, oh wow.
>> Anonymous
>>211726
He's right, cleaning marks do cause softness. When you have enough of them it's just like putting a very thin coat of vaseline on the lens.

>>211722
>>211673
No. Putting a crappy filter over the lens does not make it have "the optical quality of a $25 filter". The filter doesn't refract the light (to a noticeable degree), so it doesn't cause chromatic aberrations or distortion unless the filter is physically deformed. It won't reduce resolution. The only things a filter might affect are contrast (valid concern but I'd bet it's almost unnoticeable) or color accuracy (which is...gasp...its intended function).

Finally, since all *REAL* photographers shoot RAW (fap fap) anyway, you should be able to bump up the saturation and contrast by 0.1 and get back any supposed loss in image quality.
>> Anonymous
>>211722
I use UV filters on all my lenses, only while outdoors, because it protects from dust and dirt. Does it come off? Sure! But sometimes if that dust is something like sand, it can scratch the lens while cleaning it off. Having a UV filter on while shooting outside makes more sense than spending money on "photographer's insurance" lmao.
>> Anonymous
>>211735
My G5 can also display all the RAW formats. Too bad that 93% of the world uses Windows computers. Are the only REAL photographers the ones with Macs?

Also, LCS = local camera shop. It's not some personal collection of broken filters, moron.

>>211740
He speaks the truth; I'd much rather have sand scratches on my UV filter than my front element.
>> GOOGLE
>>211741
http://www.microsoft.com/prophoto/downloads/raw.aspx
what
>> Anonymous
>>211709
There is no UV filter in front of the sensor. only IR.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>211665
>>211662
Fuck yeah, brassing is badass (if your camera can take it, that is, but that only happens on cameras built like tanks). Pic related!

>>211741
>Are the only REAL photographers the ones with Macs?
0/10. You're not a photographer either.

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:06:03 10:42:14Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width750Image Height600
>> Anonymous
>>211803
Fuck yes, if your camera doesn't look like that you're doing it wrong.
>> Anonymous
>>211803
Oh, and can anyone (Serenar?) ID the lens, or at least the focal length, of that?
>> Anonymous
>>210411
About lensbabies, I had to google what they were. They do sound pretty faggy.

On the other hand I kind of like the OP pic. It's not going to win any fine art prizes, but the heart shaped borkeh is sweet.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>211815
please to leave the interwebs now
>> Anonymous
People who buy ring lights, especially the overpriced Canon ones just so they can have that stupid ring catchlight in the model's eyes.

As for that matter, buying anything from Canon that you don't have to, like battery grips which cost twice more than the third party's but are identical, or lens caps for $30, or hoods for $50.
>> Anonymous
>>211810
50mm f/2 Summicron
>> Anonymous
>>211803

>you're not a photographer either
Maybe, but I did make the M4 motivational that you posted :p
>> Anonymous
>>211823
You can get a third-party battery grip? How about for a 5D? Are they decent quality? Metal or plastic?
I want a battery grip because I tend to run out of power before I run out of memory, but Canon charges so damn much. I built my remote switch myself (woooo 2 dollar cell phone headset and a switch from rat shack).

>>211803
What does it look like when a new camera like the D3 or 1Ds wears? Anyone have a pic?
>> Einta !!MWv3ICYobCM
>>211848
Uh...you can't switch batteries midway? It shouldn't take more than a maximum of 15 seconds to swap batteries.
>> Anonymous
>>211823
I can understand Canon grips, but who the hell would pay $30 for a lens cap or $50 for a hood?

Really, who?
>> Anonymous
I have one for my XTi from Opteka.

The reviews say they are identical and I have not had any problems for mine.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=xt+battery+grip&x
=0&y=0

Canon grip: $140 + $50 for each battery = $240

Opteka: $80 with two batteries.
>> Einta !!MWv3ICYobCM
Well, brand-name batteries are just stupid in most cases. Seriously - it's not that hard to make lithium-ion batteries.
>> Anonymous
>>211850
I could certainly do that. I'm a bit of a gearfag, that's all...just a cheap one. I don't give a shit about having the most expensive stuff but I do like to buy cool stuff when I see it. That's why all but one of my lenses are at least 35 years old and I have cameras that shoot on film that doesn't exist any more.
>> Anonymous
>>211850
...You do know that extra battery capacity isn't the main point of a vertical grip, right?
>> Anonymous
>>211872

Making it look more like a 1D is.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
For the record, I've been using a third-party battery grip on my 400d for a while now and it's been absolutely fine, no problems with it. And guess who made the version I have? One hint, they also make a $10 CPL.

Honestly, it seems pretty much exactly like the OEM version, it just lacks the "Canon" emblazened on it and the screw seems to be slightly more plastic-y.

I don't really have any option but to use a battery grip at the moment, though. My original battery door is broken and I don't have a replacement. I don't mind the grip, though, it counterbalances the lens well.
>> Anonymous
>>211522
* ruined photos that you only get one chance at

All my rage, forever, more than anything else mentioned/
>> Anonymous
this:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1034&thread=28385925
>> TheThirstyRetard !!n0M6Xo80DQh
What makes me rage?

-People who obsess over various technical aspects while completely ignoring the fact that the most important part of photography is the photographer, not the equipment. (Hell, don't take it from me, take it from Ansel himself. Oh wait, I'm a fag for quoting him. Then take it from any pro photographer who's been doing it for 15+ years) I admit, I am guilty of this at times.

-People who tell me film is dead and that I need to go digital. When digital looks as good as my Velvia 50 and costs less (~6 dollars per roll, 10 for processing per roll, 4 for scanning because I can't buy my own scanner) then I'll go digital.

-Shutterbug. (the retail chain) fuckers are condescending.
>> Anonymous
>>211886
I've been thinking about getting a battery grip, only because I have really big hands, so when I hold my 350D my little finger hangs off the end, and it really annoys me. Everytime I take photos I wish I had something to rest it on.
>> Anonymous
>>211975
It's a personal decision, so who cares? You'll get trolled either way.
>> Anonymous
>>211973
>When digital looks as good as my Velvia 50

Umm, low dynamic range/high contrast is not hard to mimic on digital,

>and costs less (~6 dollars per roll, 10 for processing per roll, 4 for scanning because I can't buy my own scanner) then I'll go digital.

I'm pretty sure that you just proved that digital cost less, if you bother to even check out your math. For you, it's $20 for 36 pictures. Digital has high entry costs (ie. 400d setup = $500) That only 25 rolls. I bet you shoot less than 25 rolls of velvia a year, but you sure as hell will be shooting much more digital.

You can't compare the two mediums, as they have different strenghts and weakness. Who gives a fuck if people say film is dead? People will spout garbage until the end of time. Shoot what you want, when you want, and fuck everybody else.
>> Anonymous
Main reason I still shoot film now is just discipline anyway. 36 good shots are of course better than a thousand repetitive trigger happy pointless shots.
>> Anonymous
>>212002
>Umm, low dynamic range/high contrast is not hard to mimic on digital,

I do not even shoot film and I know the look of Velvia is almost impossible to emulate on digital. There's a lot more to it than +Contrast, +Saturation.
>> Anonymous
Not really a RAAAGE thing...more of a "why" thing.

Canon EF-S IS 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 L Do USM II ....
Also,
1D
1Ds
1D and 1Ds Mk II and III
D1
D30
30D
300D
D300
40D
D40
D40x

Seriously, guys? There are more than just those numbers that you can use on your camera bodies.
>> Anonymous
>>212010
I shot velvia for many years, but about four years ago the bulk of my work shifted to digital. Last month I started shooting some velvia on 4x5 as a change of pace, and I have to say I forgot how great that film looks. I've been trying to mimic the look digitally, but haven't come anywhere close.
>> Qonfused !!ziHVWcW6bcF
>>211975
I got one for my D200, since I'm a sucker for portrait orientation. The extra battery power is nice too. I'd say go for it, why not?
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
     File :-(, x)
Some good RAAAAGE in here, guys.
>> Anonymous
>>212024
Try processing your RAW files in Capture One. There are some pretty amazing presets built in that get you really, really close to certain film looks. I believe there's one that's rather like Velvia. Really, really good software.
>> Anonymous
>>212119
Oh? It has closer control over how color is rendered, similar to picture styles?
>> Anonymous
>>212123
It actually has presets to mimic specific films from AGFA, Kodak, and others. I'm still using an older version, so my presets are limited, but the newest version comes with a fuckton of film presets. You can customize them or just use them as a starting place to get ideas for processing your raw files. Also still the best software out there if you're shooting tethered, which I know probably nobody on /p/ is doing, but the point remains.
>> DC = arrogant idiot DC = arrogant idiot
>She's so huge, I had to use a full-frame 1Ds for this shot. You know what that's like? Oh, right, you don't, since you have never used professional equipment.

>She's so huge, I had to use a full-frame 1Ds for this shot. You know what that's like? Oh, right, you don't, since you have never used professional equipment.

>She's so huge, I had to use a full-frame 1Ds for this shot. You know what that's like? Oh, right, you don't, since you have never used professional equipment.

>She's so huge, I had to use a full-frame 1Ds for this shot. You know what that's like? Oh, right, you don't, since you have never used professional equipment.

>She's so huge, I had to use a full-frame 1Ds for this shot. You know what that's like? Oh, right, you don't, since you have never used professional equipment.

>She's so huge, I had to use a full-frame 1Ds for this shot. You know what that's like? Oh, right, you don't, since you have never used professional equipment.
>> Anonymous
I really hate it when shitty photographers post a bunch of pics that have too much vignetting, USM, and burning, and then get all butthurt and pissed off when anyone criticizes them.

I mean, why post the fucking pics and ask for C&C if you're just going to be an enormous butthurt Russian faggot in Florida with a fat girlfriend?
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>212128
You're such a little faggot.
>> Anonymous
>>212131
the true fag here is DC and any one who supports him
he is one of the most arrogant posters on this board
and often he is wrong but will not admit it

DC makes this board worse than any of the trolls
>> Anonymous
>>212132
So fucking ignore him already. That's what I do, and I'd rather not have to wade through your shitty posts bitching about him too.
>> Anonymous
>>212127
>It actually has presets to mimic specific films from AGFA, Kodak, and others. I'm still using an older version, so my presets are limited, but the newest version comes with a fuckton of film presets. You can customize them or just use them as a starting place to get ideas for processing your raw files.
DO WANT.


>Also still the best software out there if you're shooting tethered, which I know probably nobody on /p/ is doing, but the point remains.
By tethered you mean "remote shooting", as in operating the camera from the computer while it's on a tripod etc etc? Cause I do that, and if so, this is relevant to my interests.
>> Anonymous
>>212136
When I say shooting tethered, I mean shooting with the camera hooked up to a computer and the files being written directly to the camera via firewire cable, rather than to your CF card. Standard practice with high res backs and most digital studio work.
>> Anonymous
>>210411
>what makes you RAAAAAAAAAGEEE about photography or other photogs?
>for me it's Lensbabies. pic related.

Suddenly everyone on /p/ starts using Lensbabies just to piss DC off.
>> Anonymous
>>212141
I can't type, apparently. I meant shooting hooked up to the computer so that the files write directly to the COMPUTER instead of a memory card.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>212132
mandatory "lol @ butthurt fag" reply
>> Anonymous
>>212141
Then I do that as well, specially when shooting 'studio'/macro work.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
     File :-(, x)
>>212132
>he is one of the most arrogant posters on this board

LOLWUT

LOLWUT

LOLWUT

LOLWUT
>> Anonymous
>>212148
I fucking lol'd
>> Anonymous
>>212117
http://www.flickr.com/groups/canonxt/discuss/72157605765913685/

also, this is what I call really funny :
>She's so huge, I had to use a full-frame 1Ds for this shot. You know what that's like? Oh, right, you don't, since you have never used professional equipment.
Too bad anon doesn't understand irony.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>212152
Too bad you fags don't understand sarcasm.
>> Anonymous
>>212148
ROFL what in the fuck
>> 212152
>>212153
Too bad you fag don't know irony and sarcasm are quite the same thing
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>212155
stupid AND wrong.
>> Anonymous
>>212157

What was that, DC?
I can't hear you over your girlfriend's mooing.
>> Anonymous
>>212155
I think you meant to say that irony and sarcasm are not mutually exclusive, or at least that irony and sarcasm >are NOT quite the same thing
>> Anonymous
Why aren't we all just fucking saging this thread now?
>> Anonymous
>>212146
>mandatory "lol @ butthurt fag" reply

Why do you make posts like this?
Do you just like filling the front page up with your juvenile bullshit?
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>212158
I get it. Because she's as large as a cow, right? Is that why it's funny? I think I get it. Except it doesn't make sense, because she weighs less than I do. So, basically what I'm trying to say is lol @ butthurt fag.
>> 212152
>>212159
nvm, I just meant to say that >She's so huge, I had to use a full-frame 1Ds for this shot. You know what that's like? Oh, right, you don't, since you have never used professional equipment.
was funny.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !Ep8pui8Vw2
LOL @ all the jealous virgins in this thread.

Sorry my GF is not a "PRO MODEL" or whatever but she is better than any of you will ever do.
>> Anonymous
This is why every DC thread should be auto-archived.
>> CAPSLOCK = CRUISE CONTROL
>>212163
>I think I get it. Except it doesn't make sense, because she weighs less than I do

OH WELL CLEARLY THAT MEANS SHE ISN'T FAT, BECAUSE LORD KNOWS YOU ARE THE PINNACLE OF MALE BEAUTY AND ALSO WOMEN ARE GENERALLY COMPARED TO MEN IN TERMS OF WEIGHT BECAUSE THEIR PHYSIQUES ARE SO SIMILAR.

OH WAIT NO THEY AREN'T.

SAGE FOR MORE IGNORANCE ON THE PART OF DC.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
     File :-(, x)
>>212167
LOL @ MEGA RAGE
>> Anonymous
>>212165
>LOL @ all the jealous virgins in this thread.

We have standards.
>> Anonymous
>>212166

if someone made one of those "wall of rage" images for /p/ the entire picture would just be a huge picture of DC
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
/p/'s wall of rage

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshPhotographerunknownImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:03:20 20:39:07Exposure Time1/4000 secF-Numberf/1.8Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/1.8Exposure Bias1/3 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1000Image Height1500RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>212172
>We have standards.

clearly

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshPhotographerunknownMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.8Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:05:30 02:29:00Exposure Time1/80 secF-Numberf/3.2Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/3.2Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width576Image Height864RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
>>212175
That's not his girlfriend.
>> Anonymous
Everybody: DC's girlfriend isn't fat. Stop it, and stop trolling him, when he's not feeding you mounds of troll lard he's one of the best posters on the board.

DC: STOP FUCKING FEEDING THE GODDAMN TROLLS YOU RUIN YOUR OTHERWISE GOOD-TO-GREAT THREADS AND THE WHOLE BOARD WITH IT PLEASE. I like you, I like your work, but seriously, please please please stop feeding the trolls.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>212176
Sadly, he's right. As of this weekend, she is my ex-girlfriend :(((
>> okto !.ZlrOYZhsk
>>212165
lol u dint have sex n i did so ur a hueg fag loser

-100/10 for trying to convince people on the Internet that you are the modern-day John Shaft.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>212179
>!Ep8pui8Vw2
>!wFh1Fw9wBU
>> Anonymous
/p/ !

I am in love!
>> Anonymous
>>212175
This is not DC's girlfriend.

>>209976
This is DC's girlfriend.
>> Anonymous
>>212175

Here's another picture of his girlfriend, which is also where the >She's so huge, I had to use a full-frame 1Ds for this shot. You know what that's like? Oh, right, you don't, since you have never used professional equipment.
quote came from:

>>210101
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
Just curious, why do you assume that's my girlfriend?
>> Anonymous
>>212192

Because you said it was in a previous thread, and because it makes sense since she's in 99% of your photographs.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>212197
I don't remember that. Also, sage doesn't do anything since the thread is about to get pruned anyway.
>> Anonymous
sage as a matter of principle. This shit's just getting stupid.
>> Anonymous
>>212200

Sage just to annoy you.
>> Anonymous
DC, be proud. You ruined one of the few fun/good threads of mutual /p/ has had in a while.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>212207
Doesn't really annoy me. It's all the jealous butthurt fags, fagging up the place and whining about my photography that really ruin /p/.
>> Anonymous
>>212200
You mistakenly clicked on and uploaded a photo of your friend when you meant to upload a picture of your girlfriend in a post saying "this is my girlfriend."

Trolls jumped on it. Remember?
>> Anonymous
God I hate DC so much.
His bullshit scares away more good photographers than any amount of trolling ever done.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>212215
Uh oh someone's jealous!! LOL
>> Anonymous
>>212223
You have to be stupid to think complaining that you're the cancer that's ruining /p/ means being jealous.
>> Anonymous
>>212209
lol DC started the thread
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>212224
If I'm so cancerous, why did this thread get over 200 replies? Oh that's right, because you are a butthurt faggot.
>> Anonymous
>>212227
DC, I'm not one of the butthurt faggots. You just feed the trolls too much as that guy said up there. This thread was awesome, but it was ruined by the faggotry you summon by just -being there-. :[
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>212230
:[

Oops
>> Anonymous
>>212227
>If I'm so cancerous, why did this thread get over 200 replies? Oh that's right, because you are a butthurt faggot.

The majority of the replies in this thread were people telling you to shut the fuck up and get the fuck out.

Nobody is jealous of you, you're a terrible poster and all of your threads are troll bait.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>212238
You also fail at counting.
>> Anonymous
Oh lawd the drama
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Shame ... DC, you are like some sort of giant lighting rod for dumbass.
>> Anonymous
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
If ever there was a time for your foot to be in someone's bottom, Red Foreman, it's now!
>> Anonymous
>>212034
I might try to dig up a cheap one.

Thanks!
>> Anonymous
>>212244

BUTTHURT BUTTURT BUTTHURT IS BUTTHURT