File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Sup /p/.

Newfag here.

I was just wondering if anyone here thinks I have an eye for scenery. I don't have a good camera... I'm only using a cellphone to take these pictures. I'll commence a small dump now.

Also, if I'm any good at al, is there any use I can put to my (hopeful) skills?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Dump.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Dump 2.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Dump 3.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Dump 4.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Dump 5.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Dump 6.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Dump 7.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Dump 8.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Dump 9.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Dump 10.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Dump 11.

Done.
>> Anonymous
Liked the first three, the rest is boring.

Well, you could use your skills to take more pictures.
>> Anonymous
You have an ok eye, but your composition is a little off. See you on /p/age 10.
>> Anonymous
>>292632
Explain more, please? I'm really wanting to improve here if I have potential.
>> Otherwise Anonymous !R09./old82
You do. Keep shooting.

There is a potential for a great picturesque shot in nearly every photo you posted. And while picturesque mostly means "lol prety colours", that doesn't matter, because the world needs this kind of pictures too. All of the pictures here are flawed to a lesser or bigger degree, and thrown off-balance by uneven horizon, wrong composition, unwanted stuff caught in the corner, etc., but that's something you can work on easily.

Anyway, you're on your way to become a decent landscapist. So smash your piggy bank, get a second hand D40 with 18-200mm and tripod, and work from there, enjoying the whole world of new possibilities.

Also, thank you for this honest picture thread, among the rampant gearfaggotry.

>>292620
>>292622
>>292628
>>292629
These are closest to perfection.

Tripfagging, because I approve. Or maybe I'm just a sucker for pretty postcards.
>> Anonymous
Very fine landscapes. OP is a good example of a real photo-hobbyist, he/she uses time to actually take these pictures instead of arguing about lenses and megapixels on /p/.

Many of your images are very good. I think my favorites are
>>292620
>>292629
>>292628
>> Anonymous
>>292641

Thanks for the constructive feedback. The uneven horizons and the unwanted objects in the pictures bother me, yeah. I usually squat and take 1-2 minutes just trying to align the cellphone, but ehh.

I started taking these for my own enjoyment, but several people commented on possible postcard prettiness.

So I appreciate the indication that I do have a talent, if only small. Are there any guides/websites you can refer me to for when I buy another camera?
>> Anonymous
you can do these kind of photos with about every camera (that can be mounted on a tripod), no need to upgrade.
>> Anonymous
>>292684

Cellphone cameras don't offer too great of clarity.
>> else !L6xabslN96
where was all this taken, OP? and what cellphone? most of them are pretty impressive.
>> Anonymous
Not bad, keep going, and develop your skill every single day.

gear reviews: dpreview.com

Be careful about the 'wow this could be a postcard' comments you'll get. Say thank you, and then forget about them. These kinds of comments are always from clueless types who know nothing about what actually makes a photo.
>> NatureGuy !se3A3TwzdY
Yes they have potential. You compose what's in front of you well, but it doesn't that you look at a area and adjust to make a stronger photo.

>>292619
So like you have the eye here. You put a cloud leading off frame in the corner, and under are clouds leading to the tree. In the opposite corner you placed the mud and rocks leading off the frame, but point to the tree as well. In other you've left open, leaving for good eye movement.

>>292620
What would've this looked like if you move to right, putting the sunset to right of the fisher, encapsulating the sunset under the branches of the tree? So what would've this looked like if you changed the format from portrait, did the same thing with ground and clouds, but closer to make the tree bigger and placed it in the right third of the frame? Though this photo is well balanced as is.

>>292623
What would this look like if you cropped some off the top and bottom?

Pick up a real camera
>> Anonymous
>>292691
All of these were taken in the US, in Virginia and North Carolina.

In order:
- Knott's Island, NC
- Tidewater Community College, Suffolk VA
- Great Bridge Lock Park, VA
- Sandbridge Wildlife Refuge, VA
- Knott's Island, NC
- Moyock Ferry, NC
- Sandbridge Wildlife Refuge, VA
- Coquina Beach, Nag's Head NC
- Knott's Island, NC
- Northwest River Park, Moyock NC
- Tidewater Community College, Suffolk VA
- Great Bridge Lock Park, VA

>>292703
I see what you're saying. Thank you.

>>292695
Yeah, i figured they had no clue. S'why I came here to validate. ;p
>> Otherwise Anonymous !R09./old82
>>292651
If you mean only gear guides, dpreview would be your first stop. As I said, my suggestion is a used D40 with the 18-200mm lens. A very budget and entry-level kit, but will give you a great place to start with "real" photography.

Don't fall for the temptation of buying a point and shoot. A P&S without Manual mode will hardly be a step up from your mobile camera. And for at worst twice the price of a decent P&S with manual controls, you can get the above SLR kit, so it's not worth it.

I think you mentioned something important, about taking 1-2 minutes to frame your pictures. I think this shows, as opposed to thousands of uninspired spray-and-pray method shots. Maybe get a film SLR instead (I'm being serious here). A magnitude cheaper, and will save you from the temptation of becoming lazy, by making you think even more before releasing the shutter. Besides, you just can't fake that Velvia look.

Technique-wise, I don't really have any resources at hand. Keep shooting, and keep perfecting, and be critical of yourself. And look at a lot of photos of acclaimed landscapers.

The postcard comment wasn't ill-meant or condescending, at least from myself. There is a great landscape potential in your photos, and one very aesthetically pleasing and broadly appealing too. Mind you, many Ansel Adams' photos would make great postcards too.
>> Anonymous
>>292930used D40 with the 18-200mm lens.
>>A very budget and entry-level kit

Lol, over a grand isn't what I'd call budget. Shooting landscapes means he doesn't need extra reach, so why bother with an 18-200mm? If anything, he should be getting a good tripod and maybe a wide angle lens or flash for fill lighting rather than throwing away $700 on that lens.

>>292930A P&S without Manual mode will hardly be a step up from your mobile camera.

Bullshit. You can't even print what comes out of a cell phone. At worst, a cheapo Powershot A590 gives much better controls, a usable interface, and GOOD prints for little more than $100.
>> Anonymous
>>292619
>>292621
the best the best etc.

others were pretty meh
>> Otherwise Anonymous !R09./old82
>>292942Shooting landscapes means he doesn't need extra reach, so why bother with an 18-200mm? If anything, he should be getting a good tripod and maybe a wide angle lens or flash for fill lighting rather than throwing away $700 on that lens.
Landscapes != wide angle, shooting them very often requires the extra reach. As opposed to fill flash, WTF did that come from?

I suggested the 18-200 for versatility, but fair enough, 18-135 will do for starters at half the price, so he can see on which end he feels better.

>Bullshit. You can't even print what comes out of a cell phone. At worst, a cheapo Powershot A590 gives much better controls, a usable interface, and GOOD prints for little more than $100.
It's not about prints quality, it's about having control over your photographs, and actually having facilities and room to keep improving your technique.
>> Anonymous
>>292953Landscapes != wide angle
8/10, the D40 + 18-200 should have tipped me off, but this post is just too fucking much.
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>292959
It's true that landscapes != wide angle, but it's also true that fill light is handy for landscapes and that the 18-200 is a retarded idea for starting out in most cases.
>> Anonymous
>>293013It's true that landscapes != wide angle

you should tell that to SDPE
>> Anonymous
>>292620
>>292621
These are pretty good.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>293013
the 18-200 is a retarded idea for people who want good optics over versatility and who will move on to bigger and better things.

It's perfectly fine for beginners and novices not interested in getting their shit in galleries eventually.

Even that said, 18-200 and great photography aren't mutually exclusive. It didn't work for me and i fuckin hate that lens. But it does wonder for some people.
>> Anonymous
>>292619

Yo, OP, bring a tripod so you can compose pictures properly and check if the horizon is straight or wonky. Also, no need to rush landscape, it's not going anywhere, so take your time composing unless you're after sunset/sunrise shot, since the sun goes by so fucking fast.
>> Anonymous
Superb work by the OP. If you took shitty photos I'd love you just for pissing off the gearfags by using whatever you have handy. I love you all the more for actually getting some great shots out of it.

>>292689

Fuck off.

>>292695
> gear reviews: dpreview.com
Fuck *off*.
>> Anonymous
Thanks again guys. Really appreciate the feedback.
>> Anonymous
First six and last two look a lot better than I'm used to, and maybe comfortable with, from a cameraphone.
Keep at it, develop your active skills (ie eye for composition) and
POST MOAR
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>293720
I was pretty amazed at how some of them came out, too. I expected blurry pixelated shit.

Of course, I thought I had taken some pretty nice shots this last weekend and the camera decided it wanted to be fuzzy and horrible looking even though I cleaned the lense. Have no idea why some turn out beautifully clear and sharp and some don't.

Pic related, most of them turned out gross like this.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
>>292629
MAGNIFICENT

cell phone camera are you fucking kidding me?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
I'm going to post a few more older/random ones if you guys don't mind. Just for criticism.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>293755
I am being 100% honest here.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Crooked, I know.
>> Anonymous
Fix your framing + horizons but apart from that I like them! Nice job
>> Anonymous
i think you have great fucking potential. keep up the good work op. there are little to no flaws in your pictures other than a supposedly shitty cellphone camera and somewhat bad angling. you can't expect life to be flawless, so you shouldn't expect your pictures to portray that either.
>> Anonymous
>>292619
This one is so fucking pristine.
>> Anonymous
You are already better than half the DAfags who come on here with pictures of a tree in mid day light. All you need to do is study composition a bit more, especially proportions angles and framing, but apart from that all is well. DSLR would be good addition as well.
>> Anonymous
what cellphone is this?
>> Anonymous
>>293999
LG enV Camera 2.0 Megapixel
>> Anonymous
>>294960

whaaaaaaaaat
>> Anonymous
>>292629
I'm never too fond of ocean shots, but the decaying dock is a really nice touch. You do have a damn good eye, keep it up and buy a nice camera!
>> Anonymous
>>294960
whaaat
>> Anonymous
lolwut
>> Anonymous
>>2939999

what the shit!
>> Anonymous
>>295241
>>295196
>>295169
wat
>> Anonymous
Good job, OP. You're thinking about what you are doing and it is showing in the results you're getting. Some lovely shots.
>> k.
get a better camera

i think you are doin ok. just stay away from postcard pictures. they are doin nobody any good.