File :-(, x, )
Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
A few new ones from tonight. Posting them as I edit them.

USM Tree and Vignettedog welcomed.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
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 01:06:30Exposure Time1/500 secF-Numberf/1.8Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/1.8Exposure Bias0.7 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width576Image Height864RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
Nothing special. Seriously, it's a semi-attractive girl standing under a pier. There's absolutely nothing requiring effort around it, you're only getting by with comments (read: internet blowjobs) from your circle of friends because it's a of a girl that isn't dressed like a puritan. Sage.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
     File :-(, x)


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 01:12:35Exposure Time1/800 secF-Numberf/1.8Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/1.8Exposure Bias0.7 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width576Image Height864RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>192998
lol. you couldn't sound like a more jealousfag if you tried.
>> $19.99 !OSYhGye6hY
>>192992
is much better than
>>192999

I really like the composition in the first one, and i'm a sucker for narrow dof.
>> Anonymous
So sick of this shit. Do you take pictures of anything else?
>> $19.99 !OSYhGye6hY
>>193006
continued: (accidentally pressed submit)

Second one's lighting isn't as nice. Bright highlights around the head are distracting. But first one is still pretty win.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
     File :-(, x)
A few head closeups. To the guy who told me to ditch the 85mm for the 50mm - thanks, it feels so much more comfortable now.

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 01:17:51Exposure Time1/500 secF-Numberf/1.8Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/1.8Exposure Bias0.7 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width576Image Height864RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
>>192998

you might be right...
>> Anonymous
I see you shot these in the nicer light hours, kudos for that.

I'm honestly not sure about the pictures themselves, though. Even though she's kinda cute, she doesnt look all too comfortable in front of the lens. She looks a little awkward.

As I've said before, I don't hate your way of processing pictures (actually like it), but I think the actual pictures this time around aren't quite your best. Keep shootin'! And I want to see more of this group, I might like another one.
>> Anonymous
>>193009

You're welcome. I rather like your work and style, so, yeah. (In before "samefag," "slurp, slurp," or any of that bullshit.)

This one doesn't really play out, though. Like, tight headshots are good and because they're sort of the best view one can get of a person can say a lot about them, and your friend's expression and everything is good, but it could've been so much better with a different background. "OOF sea" doesn't carry much information or add to the composition.

>>192999
I actually really like this one and dislike the first one. Not sure why; it should be the more candid, more composed first one, but this one just seems more lively and I don't know... whimsical, I guess.
>> Anonymous
your subject looks uncomfortable in every photo
>> Anonymous
>>193017
maybe because he doesnt actually know her.
but i do like the colours.
>> Anonymous
>>193020
He doesn't? I'd assume she's a friend of his...
>> $19.99 !OSYhGye6hY
>>193020
noob, lurk moar.
>> Anonymous
Girl would be hotter if she lost 10lb.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
     File :-(, x)


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 01:25:13Exposure Time1/160 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
I like this series because I have a thing for girls in sundresses. Post some moar, DC. BTW, is this the gf?
>> Anonymous
is that just onboard flash?
>> Anonymous
>>193026
more of the shadow would have been nice, but good light balancing.
>> Anonymous
>>193029
Nope, look at the shadow.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
     File :-(, x)


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 01:55:14Exposure Time1/80 secF-Numberf/3.2Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/3.2Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width864Image Height576RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
     File :-(, x)
>>193028
no this is>>193035

yeah, first time using on-location strobes. they weren't mine. kind of hard to operate, but I'll get the hang of them over the weekend.

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 01:36:22Exposure Time1/160 secF-Numberf/1.8Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/1.8Exposure Bias0.7 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width864Image Height576RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
>>193035
She's looking much better there. I feel you might have darkened this one a bit too much. It looks a little underexposed.
>> Anonymous
>>193035
Oh wait... they're not the same person, doh.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
     File :-(, x)


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 01:28:45Exposure Time1/160 secF-Numberf/3.2Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/3.2Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width549Image Height824RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
     File :-(, x)
Focus was a little off ... had a hard time in the dark.

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 02:03:34Exposure Time1/160 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
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
     File :-(, x)


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 02:06:31Exposure Time1/200 secF-Numberf/6.3Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/6.3Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width721Image Height481RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
needs more TITS
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
     File :-(, x)


Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshPhotographerunknownImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:05:30 02:11:41Exposure Time1/500 secF-Numberf/1.8Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/1.8Exposure Bias0.7 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width576Image Height864RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
     File :-(, x)


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 01:39:36Exposure Time1/800 secF-Numberf/1.8Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/1.8Exposure Bias0.7 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width576Image Height864RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
Second one feels a little too posed for me and the third is just plain and boring. The shooping on these is much better and you're still retaining a style all your own without going over the top (which is why people still pick on you).

The technical quality to these are much better and is solid. Now you just gotta find those little creative extras to make them pop!
>> Anonymous
>>193035

Best out of this group.
>> Anonymous
>>193053
seconded
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
     File :-(, x)
That's about it, the rest are just variations of outtakes. Thanks for the critique so far, I'd love to hear more.

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 02:18:05Exposure Time1/500 secF-Numberf/1.8Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/1.8Exposure Bias0.7 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width576Image Height864RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Liquefied !!CF1+3tSFCce
I like these, DC. The last one is my favorite mostly because of the crazy little girl in the background. It'd be nice if you'd get different models for your shots but you gotta work with what you have. Keep it up.
>> Anonymous
>OH YA HEY GUISE OP HERE
>CHECK THIS OUT
http://www.outwar.com/rec/mystikal
>i just signed up and they are sending an IPOD to my house. haha this shit is awsome i jus figured i'd help yall out too. i already got one but ima sell this one
>> Anonymous
>>193041
This is awesome. What is that she's playing with?

>>193036
>>193044

These two, though, are awesome in and of themselves, without the cool flash trick. Very good portraits.

>>193046
This one is also good.

>>193035

This one is pretty good, but she's just a bit overposed, and I think it probably would've been better if you had the background go maybe a stop less dark. Try dodging it brighter in PS, maybe.

The others should've been outtakes, too... not because they're bad, but just because they're really similar to other, superior ones.
>> Anonymous
>>193035
Was this girl a passerby?
>> Anonymous !EAhlGj0Y6Y
dick ass
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>193076
No, that's my girlfriend.

>>193071
>What is that she's playing with?
Just her hands, I suppose. She's kind of goofy. Thanks for the kind words, otherwise. You're right about the one underexposed shot

>>193029
Dark ones are with a 580EX through umbrella with Skyport.
>> sage sage
>>192998

I agree 100%
Most look no better then a casual snapshot from a P&S of a guy dicking around with his girlfriend on the beach.

Akward looking pictures, she is *not* a natural in front of the lens.

And even just the name "Depressed Cheesecake" is faggotry enough for me not like his shit.

You made the call about his cirlce of friends sucking his dick.

Those "photographs" (not photographs, snapshots) are nothing special at all. And I find it disgusting that so many here on /p/ cum to his pictures. It's laughable.
>> Anonymous
Were these pictures taken in Orlando?
>> Anonymous
Depressed Cheesecake
LOL
I bet he has a emo fag myspace and a DA account.
Prolly thinks he's some scene badass.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>193026
>>193041

I really like these two and the OP picture, DC.
>> Anonymous
>>193107
He prolly also has a girlfriend unlike you. At least he has the balls to post something even if he can expect /p/ to spit on him.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>193107
>>193101

o hay guy, lets post our better shots why don't we?
>> Anonymous
i think youve done pretty well with what you had r.e the friend/model
>>193026
>>193041
>>193043
>>193047

are probably the best of the lot, personally i agree with the others in that she just doesnt look comfortable in front of a camera, or perhaps shes just so used to posing for friends as she just seems to have that "myspace" feel about her but not in the scenegirl way, lol are you following me? :S

>>193035
definitely the best, thats a bit biased cos she's HOT but she also seems better in front of the camera and she has a more serious model style look to her face.

personally, id be shooting your g/f more than that other girl, does she not want you to or what?
grats either way :D
>> Anonymous
>>193085
I meant those red things. Up until I looked at it again just now, for some stupid reason I saw them as something thrown out of her hands frozen in different locations with some weird rapid strobing or something. Don't know why. I see they're some sort of tower now.
>> Anonymous
>>193115
>definitely the best, thats a bit biased cos she's HOT but she also seems better in front of the camera and she has a more serious model style look to her face.
>personally, id be shooting your g/f more than that other girl

Seconded. hehe :)
>> Anonymous
i dunno man
i normally dont mind your stuff, i mean.. you're def not a bad photographer
but these are really really plain, also .. the model is too frumpy or chunky for that dress. there's some fat pouring out the top.
no offense to her, i love the way she looks in other shit. and she seems like a nice girl, but that dress isn't good for her.

also, she shots really lack any variety. they're all so samey.
pretty much all photos you take are taken by you standing upright pointing the camera straight ahead. this results in every photo looking almost the same.
try different angles, let go .. let loose. you're too stiff.

no hard feelings, like i said.. i like your work. i just wanna see you improve
>> Anonymous
>>193109

You really think so? I personally don't like the goofy one where she's pretending she's shooting with her fingers or whatever. The background, whether there intentionally or not, is too distracting for that kind of shot, the scene's atmosphere doesn't match the goofy mood she's conveying and her doing that kissy face that all the goddamn guidos do makes me want to fucking smack her.
>> Anonymous
What city and state where these photos taken in?
>> Anonymous
>>193121
>>193125
fully agree with these 2 posts
>> Anonymous
>>193125
Sorry what's a guido?

>>193126
Does it really matter much?

>>193128
>>193121
>>193125
I agree with these three posts.
>> Anonymous
>>193121
>there's some fat pouring out the top.

Manuel Puig described that once as "tits served on a platter," and I don't see how that is something to be complained about.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>193125
that's where I'm different, I guess. "Normal" portraits have their place, definately, but I really think stuff like that is more expressive of the person's character and that's really what a portrait is supposed to be, isn't it?

Either way, the background is sort of distracting, but I kind of like it at the same time. Personal taste, I guess?
>> Anonymous
>>193131
it's not her boobs that are spilling out, it's just armpit fat or general fat. ... or whatever the fuck, either way.. it's not flattering

see
>>193046
>> Anonymous
>>193134
A) It's the start of the breast, up towards the top.
B) I disagree.
>> Anonymous
This really looks like the Santa Cruz, CA Boardwalk? Where was this shot?
>> Anonymous
>>193130
< These fucking douches. Those are guidos.


>>193132
Yes, Sage, of course you want to capture a person's expressions, personality in a portrait. But this doesn't tell me, "Oh she's a goofy kid with a good sense of humor, etc." This tells me, "Wow, she's kinda bored and uncomfortable and really doesn't know what else to do." Also, if the mood's to be lighter like that, the whole atmosphere doesn't go with it. It needs a lot more lighting to fit that, maybe actually go to the little carnival there in the background.

Maybe if she wasn't afraid to get a little dirty and toss some sand in the air, kick at the water, lay back in the sand and give us a big goofy open mouth yell with the hand motions! That's what you want, DC! I know it's tough working with someone uncomfortable who doesn't know what to do. Maybe you need to go out with less of a "Let's do a photoshoot" attitude and something more like, "Hey, let's run down to the beach and hang out, maybe shoot a little, have some fun." Maybe if you put the camera down for a little and just chatted or shot a little while talking it would help. Maybe give her the camera for a little (if you can muster up the courage) and let her shoot you in Auto mode?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>193143Here. Forgot the pic.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeOLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.Camera ModelFE190/X750Camera SoftwareVersion 1.0Maximum Lens Aperturef/3.1Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:03:24 02:19:12Exposure Time1/30 secF-Numberf/3.1Exposure ProgramCreativeISO Speed Rating125Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashFlash, AutoFocal Length6.30 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width2816Image Height2112RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlLow Gain UpContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalCompression SettingSQMacro ModeNormal
>> Anonymous
>>193144
Douches they do look like, indeed.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>193143
I get more of an impression of her just goofing off with her friends, one of whom just happens to be DC with his camera. That's the same impression I've always gotten with most of his pictures of her. I don't see contrasting moods to the settings to really be a bad thing, it seems backwards yes, but it can be a good thing too. It's refreshing.

>>193136
>>193134
it's probably a little of both, thats really common with those kinds of tops and dresses.

Though technically, boobs are fat anyway so you're both arguing the same thing. =p
>> Anonymous
Everyone wants to know. Where did you shoot this?
>> Anonymous
tits or gtfo.
>> Anonymous
>>193150
lol no, you want to know.

does it really matter anyway? find a nice beach with a pier and shoot away.

also, someone suggested santa monica.
>> Anonymous
>>193159
Well. I want to know because, it reminds me of my summer trip with my girlfriend down in
Orlando. I'm this fagg ---->>>193105

However the rest aren't me:

>>193126
>>193142
etc
>> Anonymous
it's definitely santa cruz boardwalk

>>193035
this one is best
>> Anonymous
>>193179
Lurk more, unless this is DC using the free tickets he mentioned to fly to another beach city than the one he lives in.
>> Anonymous
DAMN IT THAT BITCH AGAIN I THOUGHT YOU DROPPED HER FUCK YOU OP


ALSO WHEN ARE THE NAKED SHOTS


ITS GETTING SHORTER AND SHORTER
>> Anonymous
I dislike it badly
>> small car models in india atom models sex-porn-lesbian
[url=http://www.google.com/notebook/public/01801228875410309102/BDQG0SwoQn666r6Mj]amanda wagner model[/url]
http://www.google.com/notebook/public/01801228875410309102/BDQ7XSgoQrPS8r6Mj
[url=http://www.google.com/notebook/public/01801228875410309102/BDQyCSwoQ1va3r6Mj]non nude pre teen models[/url]
http://www.google.com/notebook/public/01801228875410309102/BDR4xSwoQ-4S7r6Mj
[url=http://www.google.com/notebook/public/01801228875410309102/BDRt3SgoQmra1r6Mj]beautiful lingerie models[/url]
http://www.google.com/notebook/public/01801228875410309102/BDSeqSgoQr5-2r6Mj
[url=http://www.google.com/notebook/public/01801228875410309102/BDQcjSgoQ5Ze0r6Mj]ls magazines us[/url]
http://www.google.com/notebook/public/01801228875410309102/BDQfxSgoQzIO_r6Mj
[url=http://www.google.com/notebook/public/01801228875410309102/BDQ7XSgoQrPS8r6Mj]petite models com[/url]
http://www.google.com/notebook/public/01801228875410309102/BDRt3SgoQwLOzr6Mj

youngest models
german teen models
little models central
young model toplist
ls models com
tori model webe
nonnude model toplist
little nude models
amanda adams model
russian preeteen models
http://www.google.com/notebook/user/01801228875410309102
>> Anonymous
>>193203
FUCK YEAH I CLICKED THEM
THEN I RECEIVED VIRUESSES
>> Anonymous
>>192992
Bitch looks like a marionette in this picture.
>> Anonymous
>>193143
listen to this guy, DC
good advice
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>193143
This is some great advice, I'll have to try out this attitude for the next time I shoot. I agree they usually come out pretty rigid, maybe I'm too intimidating when I'm just shooting? Also, they're both photography students, so I wouldn't have a problem giving either one my camera, haha.

>>193142
These were shot in Daytona Beach, Florida.

>>193115
You're probably right. I spend so much time with her, maybe I take her good looks for granted.

>>193121
I don't worry about looks. They're enough to be pleasing, but I don't expect her or anyone else I shoot to be a supermodel. It's the best I can do right now.

Thanks to everyone else for the (constructive) criticism, I'll have to revisit the pier this weekend and do another shoot.
>> Anonymous
I would have both of them in some of the pics.
>> Anonymous
>>193085
Huuuh? Ohhh shit dude, I had you confused with somebody else, damn. Yeah, she's cute, and appears a bit more comfortable for the camera hehe
>> Anonymous
Hey DC, how come you have a lot more shots of the other chick and not the gf? The gf is way hotter.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>192992
>>193046

Those two are my favourites. I think this batch does suffer because of the apparent discomfort or confusion of the subject in front of the lens. The excellent advice already given by the previous poster on relaxing everyone and getting into the flow of it should help next time.
>> Anonymous
I'd bang ya
>> Anonymous
do u dick her?
>> Anonymous
>OP here sign up http://www.outwar.com/rec/mystikal its good shit
>> Anonymous
I would love to cum on her face -

But since she is yours - I can't and i have no clue where she is at

If i knew - i'd pay her some money and simply tell her - I would like to cum on your face, here is some money! Can i please...yes or no

Well depending on how much i gave her, She probably would let me and i'd enjoy every second of it

I got horny just looking at her - So i had to let this off my shoulders

And op - I would fucking murder you and make mince meat out of your face
>> Anonymous
>>193542
The hell?
>> Anonymous
>>193542
/p/ - perverts
>> Anonymous
Although the actual quality of your photos are nice, from an artistic standpoint, the images are very 'blah', and lack balance. Experiment with different angles, and try to put your subject on one side, not slightly left or right of the middle.
>> Anonymous
>>193542

best post
>> Anonymous
>>193542
i lold so hard
>> Hatefag
>>192992
Other than the overuse of the USM, this is nice.

>>192999
Really bad lighting. The blown out whateverthefuckitis on the upper left is totally distracting.

>>193009
She looks really horrible here. Her features look uneven and lumpy.

>>193026
Lighting is too theatrical.

>>193035
Boring. Background feels too dark. Her face looks weirdly pinched. Don't ever have a model look DIRECTLY at the camera unless she has perfectly even features. A slight angle to her face would have helped a lot.

>>193036
Looks like a snapshot.

>>193041
The lights in the background, horrible pose, and stupid facial expression make this mega-fail.

>>193043
Even with the small size and USM, this still looks blurry.

>>193044
Horrible pose. She looks like she's taking a shit.

>>193046
Other than her retarded expression and the over-use of vignetting at the bottom, this one is pretty nice.

>>193047
Model is too close to center. Also I'd like to have her feet in the picture. Levels are OK thought there could be more light on her. But I do really like the blurry kid in the background.
>> Anonymous
Backchat; 3rd of November, 2001; 3/5.

Hello Everyone

Facts about me:

Name: Depressed Cheesecake
Age: 16 (almost 17!)
Last girlfriend: Never- hence the depressed bit
Favourite food: Cheesecake
Favourite bands: Muse, Travis, Manics
Life condition: Absolutely shocking
TV show: The Weakest Link- I think more women should turn
all d*min*trix
>> Anonymous
>>193041
this is the only semi-interesting one, but that stupid facial expression ruins it.
>> Anonymous
>>193628

Holy LOL, Batman!
Depressed Cheesecake is a secret emo/indie fag!
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>193646
>>193628
>>193626

See pic, get life. You probably don't even own a camera or ever taken a picture worth two shits.
>> Anonymous
>>193649
Wow how many times are you going to ditch your tripcode and post that same exact image? You're such a faggot.
>> Anonymous
>>193649

rofl, can't post under his own name, good stuff
>> Anonymous
>>193653
samefag that hassles DC, Beethy, Sage, etc. all the time.
>> Anonymous
>>193656
>>193653
samefag, like most of the anonymous posting useless garbage to this forum.
>> Anonymous
>>193649

Hi there, Depressed Cheesecake.
Nice to see you posting as Anonymous for once.
You know, if you ditched the shitty trip people might like your pictures better.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>193664
>>193656
>>193653

Oh, the jolly S word!
>> Anonymous
ITT: some good advice and mostly jealousfags.
>> Hatefag
>>193667

Sorry, Sage.
>>193664was actually me, though none of the rest were.
I originally posted a much longer comment further addressing DC's photos, lack of ability to take critique, and foolishness in posting pictures of his girlfriend on here (particularly after the whole Beethy thing) but LOL 4CHAN ERROR ate it and I am too lazy to re-type it.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>193669
Exception noted for that, then. I'm still totally calling those other two, though.
>> Hatefag
>>193671
You're probably right, but that totally was DC posting as Anon, which is fucking pathetic, especially when I was fairly positive about this set.

If DC had a decent model at least half of these photos would be pretty good. Unfortunately her awkwardness and fat head wreck most of the images.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>193674
Personal taste on a model's apperance shouldn't really dictate how you critique something.

I also doubt that was DC posting as Anonymous, this is like the pot calling the kettle black though...you accuse namefags of calling "samefag" all the time and yet you're doing the same thing, lol.

Not trying to be snarky, but I'm genuinely curious, have you posted any pictures recently? I'm interested in seeing something you've taken.
>> Anonymous
>>193674
I'm not DC, but I am another tripfag on here. Just because you lack the equipment or ability to make good photographs doesn't mean you can bash other people's stuff, fag. You lack any critique, other than "shit sucks", so just leave.
>> Anonymous
>>192992

TITS PLZ
>> Hatefag
>>193677
>a model's apperance shouldn't really dictate how you critique something.

That's funny, because I thought the model's appearance was part of the photograph, which is what we're critiquing here.
In case you didn't notice, my critiques primarily about appearance were about posing and angles. I may not like the way these girls look, but almost anyone can be made to look good if they're shot correctly. These photos show the models in unflattering poses from unflattering angles. The technical aspects of many of the shots are quite good, but the overall image fails because DC has done a bad job of capturing these women in a way that is enjoyable to behold.

>have you posted any pictures recently?
Yes, but I only post as Anonymous because I want unbiased opinions.
No, my shots aren't particularly good and /p/ seems to neither love nor hate them, I get a pretty broad range of comments, though this being /p/ and all they tend towards the negative.
But of course as I am sure you are intelligent enough to understand, one does not have to be a master at a subject or art form in order to effectively critique it.
Was Stanley Kubrick a film critic?
Is Gene Shallot a film director?
I trust you get the point.
>> Hatefag
>>193681

I'd wager that this is Beethy, since I know that shithead has been lurking ever since he threw a pissy fit and quit.

If you can't understand the value of negative criticism then I hope you're really happy with your level of skill right now because you'll never improve unless you learn how to distance yourself from your work and learn to take some fucking advice.

I'd reiterate the point about someone not needing to be super-skilled in a field in order to effectively critique it, but it's clear that any sort of rational discussion would be wasted on a childlike troll such as yourself.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>193685
The model's presentation is part of the photograph and is definately the artists responsibility, the appearance of the actual model isn't exactly something you can control. Saying "Unfortunately her awkwardness and fat head wreck most of the images." is just shitty criticism.

Models aren't always supposed to appear flawless, you know.

I'm not asking because I want to see your "credentials" or anything, I don't care about that...I just genuinely want to see a picture taken by you. That would at least be a little more refreshing than always coming off as bitter.
>> Anonymous
>>193687
>criticism

This is not fucking criticism, dipshit. This is just jealous bashing:

>>193646
>>193628

>>193626
All you do is talk shit in this post. Do you have any kind of technical understanding of photography? How do you know there was a USM applied? What if the lens produced the vignetting? You say the lighting is too much in one, they you say it's not enough in another. It's obvious you don't have much experience in photography, if you do, please prove us wrong and post something of yours that can show your judgment is worth a rat's ass.
>> Hatefag
>>193688
I'm not asking for the models to be flawless.
I'm asking for the models to not look incredibly uncomfortable and to not be photographed from unflattering angles.

And I know how /p/ works well enough to not fall for the trap of posting images with a name. I don't want to have a USM tree and Vignetting dog pop up every time I want to make a comment, which means I have to totally separate my posting persona and my critiquing persona.
>> Hatefag
>>193691
>This is just jealous bashing:
Not me, but I almost wish it was since it's pissing you off so much.

>How do you know there was a USM applied?
Pixels, etc. I use the tool, I know what it looks like when other people do.

>What if the lens produced the vignetting?
Poster is known for applying his own vignetting. It appears only at the bottom of the image. It does not appear on any of the other images. Ergo unless he denies it the safest assumption is that it was applied in PP.

>You say the lighting is too much in one, they you say it's not enough in another.
Are all the photos in here exposed exactly the same? No? Then clearly, sir, you are a Grade AAA Moron.

>please prove us wrong and post something of yours that can show your judgment is worth a rat's ass.
Please see the last paragraph of>>193685
If you don't understand it, try reading it again.
>> Anonymous
>not be photographed from unflattering angles

Godfuckingdammit, who except worthless fashion magazine photographers actually cares about whether the subjects of their photographs look physically good or not? I'm sick of this "flattering" bullshit.
>> Hatefag
>>193700

The subjects.
The people who have to look at the photograph.

Except for extremely rare occasions, viewers don't want to look at an image of someone who looks like they're uncomfortable because it makes *them* feel uncomfortable.
>> Anonymous
>>193685
>Was Stanley Kubrick a film critic?

No, and you are not the Stanley Kubrick of photography because no one likes or understands your work.

I'll leave you with a quote I think you need to understand to appreciate this kind of art, not just try and compare it with a Vogue.

"Art is the expression of imagination, not the duplication of reality." -Henry Moore
>> Anonymous
>>193700
you're pretty stupid, it doesn't matter if your subject isn't amazing looking, but it does matter if you capture them as nicely as possible. if you're using an unflattering angle when you could use a more flattering one, you're just showing your inexperience as a photographer.

also, this thread isn't full of jealousfags, it's full of people who are defending an overused style of photography that DC employs because it's very easy, and it's all they can do as "photographers"
>> Anonymous
>>193704
Is right. Seriously though Hatefag, quit whining about being afraid of anon critique of your own images. Who cares if they get ripped to shreds? At least the tripfags all don't give a shit. Grow some balls man.
>> Anonymous
shitsucks.
spend less time taking photos of her, and more time making her happy so she SMILES.
you shouldnt be photofagging on a first date.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
This is obviously a tangent and not really related, but unflattering angles are fucking amazing to work with sometimes. It tends to work a LOT better when the person being photographed doesn't know you're trying to do that, though.

See; Any of many pictures of the homeless.
>> Anonymous
>>193704
>The subjects.

Who cares? That's an interpersonal issue, not a photographic one. If they don't look good in a shot and they're the type to be hurt by that, don't show it to them. But take good photographs and forget superficial considerations.

>The people who have to look at the photograph.

1. Comfort doesn't matter. Photographs are not pillows.
2. Do you get uncomfortable when you see an ugly person walking down the street? No? Then why would you be uncomfortable seeing someone looking ugly in a photograph?
3. What do you want? Totally assured models? These are portraits of his friend and lover, they're natural, not some magazine bullshit.
>> Anonymous
>>193712
>more time making her happy so she SMILES

then people are going to call the pictures cliche. you can't please everyone, /p/ will always find something to complain about
>> Anonymous
>>193706
When I'm doing portraits, I'm trying to *show* or *say* something about the person I'm photographing, and pick my angles accordingly. How their looks rate or appear to rate in the photograph has nothing to do with that.
>> Anonymous
>>193719
touche!

in this case, these photos are good. id bring out the colour saturation till it looks almost comic-book.
yes colour is spelt with a U. its English. do you speak it?
>> Anonymous
>>192992
Would this picture look better if the model was posed just standing there, or "comfortably" leaning on the post? I think these photos capture a moment, isn't that what photography is about? An intimate moment between the photographer and her camera and a moment of time?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>193700
HCB really made Camus look like cozy sex here, didn't he?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>193729
(Ignore the post number up at the top of the prior post. Clicked on a random post to get into the thread and forgot to clear the number.)

But in this one Camus does indeed look like cozy sex. See? Shoot regardless of "flattering." Both are great portraits and reflect Camus.
>> Anonymous
>>193179
Not the fucking Santa Cruz boardwalk. In>>192999, we don't have a carriage ride running down a boardwalk perpendicular to the beach. I go to UCSC.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>193712
>> Anonymous
the retarded hate in this thread is why /p/ is one of the worst boards on 4chan

there aren't many photographers that post on /p/ that are better than DC, only a handful.. maybe
i really don't understand why so many of you bag the better photographers out
jealousfags? it's getting fucking old and that's why good photographers leave /p/
all you will be left with is newfags and horribly shit photographers
>> Anonymous
>>193767

Watch the language big guy!

I am shaking in my boots

I haven't read such posts on /p/ for quite some time

I'm reporting you
>> Anonymous
>>193035

She was pretty!
>> Anonymous
>>193767
signed
>> Anonymous
>>193767
agree.

get out of your chairs you fatties, and actually go take some photos.
and most of you would pretty much sell your family to be near a girl like that.
>> noclue !!2yUmAID3520
>>193767
truth.
>> Anonymous
>>193767
lol sad but true haha
>> Anonymous
>>193767

ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaa
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
>> Anonymous
>>193782
>>193784
>>193785
>>193799
>>193809
holy shit could it BE any more same person in here?
>> Anonymous
>>193767
>When I'm doing portraits, I'm trying to *show* or *say* something about the person I'm photographing, and pick my angles accordingly.

these photos do not say or show anything about these people. they are very generic. the processing is quite good in most but... they do not capture anything about these people. it feels like they could be photographs of anyone.
>> Anonymous
>>193767

/p/ hates ALL photographers. Doesn't matter if they use a name or not.

/p/ is for negative criticism.

If you want to get your hand held go to Deviant Art or Flickr.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
Style : Good

Lighting : Acceptable

Subject : Bad.

You're doing fashion type shots, but the girls look like their hating it, were you shooting naked or something?

Oh and i think those dresses are horrific.
>> Anonymous
>>193838
>Oh and i think those dresses are horrific.

HAHA! Yes!
I know it "doesn't matter" in terms of if the photos are good or not, but the dresses are horrible and look really bad in almost all these pictures. A lot of these would probably have been better if the models were dressed differently. These dresses really over-emphasize the bad posture and awkwardness.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>193843
>I know it "doesn't matter" in terms of if the photos are good or not,

I think if you're doing fashion photos it matters a whole lot, say about 100%.
>> Anonymous
>>193846

When did I say I was trying to do fashion photography?
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>193853
You didnt, but DC appears to be.
>> sage
End this thread, im tired of seeing it.
>> sage sage
sage
>> Anonymous
why was post deleted. relvant to photography culture

have u fucked her or not???
>> archive archive
This thread should be archived.

Perfect example of tripfag posting shots for C&C and then BAWWWWWWing when he doesn't like the comments.
>> Anonymous
>>193882
archive: you're doing it wrong
>> Anonymous
zzz
>> Anonymous
wow you make a post pointing out something that tripfags don't agree with and it gets deleted? nice.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>193929
since us tripfags are ALL capable of deleting posts and moderating forums, right?
>> Anonymous
>>194091

Tripfags have a habit of constantly bawwwwing until mods remove "offensive" posts.
>> Anonymous
Since she is hot and i've seen a lot of porn on the net

from gokkun to bukkake to scat...i jacked off to her

Op you shouldn't post her pic u noe

People will masturbate to it
>> Depressed Cheesecake !AetWvVyeS.
>>194295

Shut the fuck up, asshole.
I'm tired of you bitches criticizing my girlfriend.
Why don;t you post pictures of yours for us to criticize.
Oh because you don't have one.
>> Anonymous
>>194299
obvious troll is obvious. DC has more followers than jesus on /p/, stop it already
>> Qonfused !!ziHVWcW6bcF
>>194299
Um. You posted your girlfriend on 4chan. What the FUCK do you expect?
>> Anonymous
someone cum on pic of her and take pic+post
>> Anonymous
>>194303
>!AetWvVyeS

That's not DC, moron.
>> Anonymous
>>194306
facepalm.jpg, then.
>> Qonfused !!ziHVWcW6bcF
>>194314
WHOOPS LOL
>> Depressed Cheesecake !Ep8pui8Vw2
TOO MANY CHEESECAKES
>> Depressed Cheesecake
fucking sage