File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Fucking long as drive, and the graveyard was dissapointing as hell.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:05:26 13:10:00White Point Chromaticity0.3Exposure Time1/160 secF-Numberf/9.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/9.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length28.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1008Image Height672RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
Didn't scope out the site first huh?
>> ac
No graveyards close by?
>> Anonymous
Leave the gf at home to take myspace photos on her own instead of repeatedly popping her in front of these otherwise cool places you keep going to.
>> Anonymous
boobs or gtfo
>> Anonymous
OP here, I like having a female subject. Landscapes are boring to me. And I'm gay she's my faghag.
>> Anonymous
I thought gay guys had hot female friends?
>> Anonymous
>>51927
There goes that myth.
>> slim !yE5LOsLjxQ
what the hell were you thinking with this shot? it is really really hard to make a girl with bright red dreads look dark and brooding in front of about 5 feet of cemetery with a huge, benevolent field in the background in broad daylight. besides the setting, the girl's expression and mode of self-presentation are screaming to me that she WANTS to come off like a mysterious, enigmatic person, which has the exact opposite effect. this girl looks like she is so scared of being the boring normal person that she knows she is that she has to dress up and make a serious despair-face to differentiate herself from the 'normals'.

i mean i guess i can see how you'd want to get SOMEthing after a long drive, but this was seriously it? the IT shot of the trip? the best pose you could get out of her? the best composition you could imagine? an eye-level shot of 3 tombstones and the top half of a girl you know? and a fence?

i also find something unsettling about using dead people's graves as props in your photos to make your hipster faghag (your word not mine i can use it without being mean lol) friend look cool or badass. those are reminders of the lives that those people lived. those were people that laughed and cried and loved and hurt and died and left people mourning, and you positioned this girl in front of those markers of lives that have been and have passed for a cheap way to make her look deep, AND on top of it you failed. i mean, it's rare as hell that i have a moral opposition to a piece of art. in fact i don't think it's ever happened before. but but this shot definetely gets my vote for the Worst Disrespect for the Dead that I've Ever Fucking Seen Reward.

try abandoned houses again.
>> Anonymous
she is killing your photos with her unattractive, expressionless emo-sneer. Normally in photos the scenery compliments the model or vice versa; in your photos the scenery and the model are fighting each other for dominance as the subject. Focus on one or the other [by that I mean: get her out].
>> Anonymous
>>51949
slim, I'd copy/paste that comment into a word document if I were you. The janitors here delete harsh critique.
>> slim !yE5LOsLjxQ
>>51952
well then the janitors here are dicks.

i don't mean to be rude to our grave-loving friend here, i'm just cranky and i like giving critiques and i hate this photo. it may sound like i'm being an asshole but i honestly mean to draw the photographer's attention to possible ways to improve. i would expect the same from any of you in response to my submissions.
>> Anonymous
>>51956
yeah, sometimes I post mean-spirited critique for pretentious photos from "artists" who think they're hot shit when they're just churning out generic crap. They've deleted my comments on occasion whenever photos like this pop up. I just think it's a shame when somebody takes ten minutes to writes a long, honest critique and it ends up deleted.
>> slim !yE5LOsLjxQ
>>51957
noted. ctrl+v, ctrl+c.
>> thefamilyman
>>51952
who are the janitors in /p/ anyway?
>> Anonymous
>>51962
no clue. I think 4chan keeps the janitors Anonymous.
>> Anonymous
this picture could have worked, even with the model.

if she was centered in the frame, taking up a little more of it while still letting some of those tombstones show on each side, looking straight into the camera.... i think that would have been amazing.

as it is, she is facing out of the frame and we are left with an ungodly amount of scenery behind her.
>> Anonymous
>>51949

Bump for win.

>Worst Disrespect for the Dead that I've Ever Fucking Seen Reward.
Here here.
>> Anonymous
>>The janitors here delete harsh critique.
only when it's not constructive feedback, also known as plain flaming

>>I just think it's a shame when somebody takes ten minutes to writes a long, honest critique and it ends up deleted.
sorry if that happens. but it's a difficult thing when a whole thread turns into shit and bashing.

>>51963
correct
>> Anonymous
>>52010only when it's not constructive feedback, also known as plain flaming
Incorrect. Not once and not twice it happened to me that before I got a reply to a harsh, yet interesting critique of my photo ready, the post was gone. Not once and not twice together with a whole thread.

>>sorry if that happens. but it's a difficult thing when a whole thread turns into shit and bashing.
You make it sound as if /p/ was a high-traffic board, lazy janimod.

You know, we're big boys here, we don't need a nanny, and can deal with when someone calls us names over teh internets. Save your deleting powars for another "/p/ is for penis" thread, please.
>> Nipplelesshorse
She could have been framed a lot better. You cut her elbow off in the picture. Plus you've got a lot of this boring sky in the background, it doesn't really do much for the picture. I'd probably like this picture more if she was a bit more centered and you lost at least half of the sky.
>> joe D
about the whole framing thing, shes perfectly framed if you use the rule of thirds. putting her dead center makes the picture look like snapshot, not a work of art. kudos to the photographer, nice lines, nice subject, interesting setting.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>52076
not quite. rule of thirds isnt a rule, yes, but i think in this case she is still too far towards the edge of the frame. i never really think anything close to the edge can be the subject of a photo just because its so far away from where the eyes go. obviously thats not always true, but in general.

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:06:01 16:13:23Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width1008Image Height672
>> Anonymous
>>52076

underage ban for rule of thirds nazi.

also: he didnt follow the rule of thirds, notice where her eyes are located.
NOT where any of the lines intersect.

if her face took up most of the frame while still letting the graveyard show through we wouldnt have to look at so much boring sky and shitty field.
>> Anonymous
>>52077

dammit you beat me to it.
>> Anonymous
>>52077

why does everyone(well i guess not everyone) think rule of thirds is a basis for every photo?
>> Anonymous
>>52092
because its aesthetically pleasing. those are focus points within a photo, and its a rule of thumb to help accent the subject. also, if you read what>>52077said youd see that he said it wasnt a rule, etcetc.
>> Anonymous
>>52103

ppl that actively use "the rule of thirds" also like to spend money on lots of pointless lenses, i.e. they are shit. if they honestly think that art conforms to a standard rule that makes one photo beter than an other they know nothing.

you learn composition on your own, you develop your own eye.

>>51949

learn to troll.
>> Anonymous
>>52103

>>because its aesthetically pleasing.

according to who?
>> Anonymous
>>52105
did you even read what i said? i said its not a "rule" but a guideline that helps to accent the subject.
>>52108
people are tend to be drawn to certain areas within a frame. it was found that the areas 1/3 away from the edges were some of the more prominent ones, which is where the "rule" of thirds came from.
>> slim !yE5LOsLjxQ
>>52105
it's clear to the rest of us that you haven't studied photography or art at all. this is not the right board to run your mouth off on when you have no idea what you're talking about.
art is not 100 percent creative. there are many, many established rules and forms to all kinds of art that underly all of the artistic creativity present in whichever art form they apply to. for instance, people are drawn to look at human faces. therefore, the human face has certain artistic applications that, say, trees do not. the rule of thirds is more abstract than that; it simply states that if you divide both the width and the length of a photo into thirds and line up lines and objects of interest with the intersections of the lines created by this imaginary division of space, the result tends to be more pleasing than other modes of placement. this is not a guess or an argument or a lie. this is artistic form.

art DOES conform to standard rules, and you are a HUGE RETARD. don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.
>> Lonjamática !EVNOu/Pjsg
>>52121

LISTEN TO THIS MAN.
>> Anonymous
>>52121
You don't need to study photography or art to understand human behaviour. Alas, if people are attracted to human faces, so is the photographer ;)

Basic technique, good taste and, sometimes, a sense of opportunity will get you pretty far...
>> Anonymous
>>52185
forgot to add that OP is lacking on all of those anyway. :p
>> Sage Sage
Sage
>> sage sage
>>52188
>> Anonymous
>>52105

SLIM IS GOD.

he does not troll.
i do agree with you about learning to recognize good compostion outside of the rule of thirds, but with this simple portrait photo the rule of thirds DEFINITELY applies.

like i said earlier, though, the centered subject can be VERY dramatic.
>> Anonymous
>>52191
your god said it's not a rule.
>> Anonymous
>>52121

yeah, slim, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Learn the difference between subjective and objective when it comes to art. You fail for even thinking that there is a right or wrong way. Good photogrphers can compose naturally.

Oversaturated critical praise doesnt make art good in the same way that a photo conforming to a "rule" wont.

>>i also find something unsettling about using dead people's graves as props in your photos to make your hipster faghag

god forbid you ever expose yourself too such horror.
>> slim !yE5LOsLjxQ
>>52191
oh boy. i am NOT god. i might be a bright guy with strong opinions but i'm not even that good of a photog.

>>52192
no, i said that it IS a rule. i did NOT however, say that everything that does not follow that rule is going to be bad. the RULE is that the results TEND to be more pleasing. this is TRUE. the rule is not "thou shalt align thy photos according to theis grid or thy work shall be crap". that is nonsense. you can work outside of the rule of thirds and make a good photo, (in fact it's probably more common to abandon the rule than to use it) but that doesn't change the truth to the rule. pretty much everyone arguing with me about this is misunderstanding what 'rule' means. not a rule like instructions you have to follow, but rule like a guideline to assist you when you choose to employ it.

>>52210
you're an annoying little brat. please complete some high school art courses before you bother people with your opinons. also please look up subjective and objective in the dictionary. take a look around at other words you're not sure of while you've got your nose in there, too. it might help you give out some of that 'oversaturated critical praise' you're on about.

sage because i'm sick of this thread. it's attracting the rabble.
>> Anonymous
>>52217

>>i might be a bright guy with strong opinions

opinions are fact right?

yeah youve never even read a book on asthetics have you? stop being an armchair expert on a photoboard that values equiptment over content.

>>i'm not even that good of a photog.

yeah i would love to see your "work".
>> Anonymous
>>52217

i mean, it's rare as hell that i have a moral opposition to a piece of art. in fact i don't think it's ever happened before. but but this shot definetely gets my vote for the Worst Disrespect for the Dead that I've Ever Fucking Seen Reward.

again i would love to know the background and history of your experience with art.

i still vote that your a really shit troll.
>> ac
>>52219
>a photoboard that values equiptment over content.
I actually haven't seen much evidence for this. The only times I've seen "Your camera sucks" as a complaint on picture threads is when it's just one of the many problems with it. There are a lot of people suggesting better cameras in equipment threads, but that's what equipment threads are for...
>> Anonymous
>>52225

a lot of threds do seem to be about what lenses ppl should buy and how they assume it will make them better photogrphers.

>>51949

oh dont worry slim, ive had a look at some of your pictures. they really do suck. how you can say anything about the op's is beyond me. i mean guys, his pictures are awful. hes on a level of anyone with a camera, eyes and a pair of hands. nice to see you spout about guidlines and rules when you cant even compose a simple shot yourself.
>> ac
>>52227
Looking at the front page right now, I see:
7 threads about photos
3 threads about gear

Of the gear threads, one is a "How do I use this thing?", one is a "Hey, look at this hoax", and only one is a what-should-I-buy.
>> Anonymous
>>52217no, i said that it IS a rule. i did NOT however, say that everything that does not follow that rule is going to be bad. the RULE is that the results TEND to be more pleasing. this is TRUE.

This hardly makes it a rule! Rule of thumb, maybe...
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
WTF is going on in this thread?

This board WAS the most mature board on here. There is a mix of both photo content and equipment content. The reason there is no much "equipment" content is that people come in here to ask the regulars opinions on cameras, lenses, etc. The idea that there's more of either because "that's just the type of board this is" is BS. Scroll back. There are plenty of pages asking for critiques.

The rule of third's isn't always something that necessarily has to be used, but it IS a rule. I learned it in my one basic photography class (not that I necessarily use it) but sometimes its a good thing to keep in mind and use, yes?

Slim wasn't trolling. He was giving a personal opinion. As if everyone else. Technically everyone posting in this thread right now is a troll. Including me. You have a problem with it STFU or GTFO or stick around and just live with it. Your choice.

When the HELL did this turn into a "you're a sucky photographer so you have no right to give an opinion on the picture?" board. Photography is something that needs to appeal to the masses, not just a photographer. If someone gives their opinion on a picture, then it should be taken and considered just like any other critique.

On that note: OP's picture is too red, your blue is faded. The lighting is distracting and I still have no idea why he wanted her in a graveyard and what he was trying to accomplish. If the OP is somewhere, please explain the story behind this. Did you mess around with this in photoshop? If so, please post the original.
>> Anonymous
>>52229

in general bub ppl seem to worry far to much about what equiptment they have or rahter dont have.

>>52251

>>Slim wasn't trolling.

ok so this is constuctive to the op is it?

>>i also find something unsettling about using dead people's graves as props in your photos to make your hipster faghag (your word not mine i can use it without being mean lol) friend look cool or badass.

oh by the way, opinion isnt critique. again do any of you understand the difference between objective and subjective when anylse photos?

"too red and the blue is faded". you state that like its a fact.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>52255

I am stating my personal opinion. Take it or leave it, it's up to you. So sue me, It looks a little too faded out to me and too red. I love color. It's what i'm attracted to in photographs or paintings. Say you get a photograph you love. You put it in a gallery and a non-photographer comes in. They immediately form an OPINION. They know nothing about photography. Either they like it or they don't.

Slim was making a suggestion and responding to a previous post. It started with>>52076I believe. There is plenty of constructive criticism in this thread that the OP may want to consider. It's up to him. The fact still remains that he took her to a graveyard. Why we don't know, but general respect says that if you're going to publish a photo, the names of the gravestones should not be shown, or should be at least blurred out. No, that's not a must-rule, but general thoughts that I have heard from photographers before me, that i've spoken with on this subject, specifically because I feel disrespectful just setting foot into a graveyard or cemetary with my camera.
>> Anonymous
>>52255
I've tried to avoid this thread, but really, this post is just

>in general bub ppl seem to worry far to much about what equiptment they have or rahter dont have.
This is true of the entire photographic community since digital started having radically better equipment come out every six months. And yes, it sucks, but unless there is some epic photoboard out there with welcoming, old school Magnum-level photographers, then this is probably close to as good of a photoboard as one is going to get, certainly as good of an anonymous photoboard. And looking for it, I have a feeling, is like looking for the "secret chan" that /b/tards are always going after.

>ok so this is constuctive to the op is it?
Yes, the quote you mentioned was harsh, but true and constructive. The OP was pretty clearly trying to make a hipster girl look cool and badass. He shouldn't have.

>oh by the way, opinion isnt critique
A critique is a thorough evaluation of and idea or work. That by nature MUST include opinion.

>the difference between objective and subjective when anylse photos?

Objective: Focus, exposure, grain.

Subjective: Everything else, and sometimes those, too.

>you state that like its a fact.

How was she supposed to say that? "In my opinion...?"

Have you taken a single English class in your life? In non-fiction opinion writing, avoiding words emphasizing first-person perspective ("I," "my," "me," and phrases including them like "I think," "In my opinion," and "To me) is the equivalent of the rule of thirds: a general rule that should be kept in mind, though not always kept, because the majority of the time it produces more powerful work, be it prose or a photograph.
>> Anonymous
>>52257
>general thoughts that I have heard from photographers before me, that i've spoken with on this subject, specifically because I feel disrespectful just setting foot into a graveyard or cemetary with my camera

I find this strange, to be honest. Photographing live people's faces on the street, often in the midst of some extreme emotional state, is fine, but showing a person's name after they are dead is not?
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>52261

Yes, apparently. Oh, and i'm not for photographing people in extreme emotion at all. In fact, i don't even photograph people (show their faces). No interest, not a subject I lean towards. but in general, from what I understand from those I spoke with, to show particular name's on graves is generally regarded as disrespectful to the dead and to the families of the dead. Fact or no, the OP used the graves as a prop. I wouldn't want to see this in a magazine, then look over at the graves and see my loved ones name right next to her.
>> Anonymous
>>52259

>>Magnum-level photographers

yeah magnum is the be all end all of photography.

subjective and objective in asthetic terms.

>>52257

>>The fact still remains that he took her to a graveyard.

boo hoo.
>> Anonymous
>>52259

>>The OP was pretty clearly trying to make a hipster girl look cool and badass. He shouldn't have.

according to who?
>> Anonymous
>>52265

right so your tiny experience with ppl you have asked on the subject of graveyards(must be thousands right?) means that he cant take pictures of graves?
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>52268

I wasn't saying he cant' take pictures of graves. I'm saying that if he is going to do so, he should have at least stopped to blur out or unfocus the names ON the graves.
>> Anonymous
>>52265
I wouldn't like to see THAT next to my loved ones as well on a magazine, but a tasteful photo with a different person, showing strong emotion, and a different composition, alluding to death or the vanity of life, who knows, maybe.

Otherwise it's just desecration. Like this hipster shit.

Now SAGE for the love of god! The amount of failure is high here.
>> Anonymous
>>52270

lol the sock puppets come to the rescue , tripcoders seem to be getting angry and have no real comebacks.
>> Anonymous
>>52271
This individual sock puppet is appalled.
>> Anonymous
>>52266
No, it's not, and Nobel Prize winners aren't the be all end all of literature, either. But they don't suck, they're strictly judged for merit, and they are almost always very experienced, probably always without a qualifier in fact.

>>52267
Is your whole shtick here just absolute relativism?

>>52265
>Yes, apparently. Oh, and i'm not for photographing people in extreme emotion at all.

Do you mean you're "not for it" in the sense that it's not part of your style, or do you mean your are "not for it" in the sense that you find it morally/ethically objectionable?

Because if it's the latter, I think Cartier-Bresson, Winogrand, Capa, etc. might like a word with you.

If something's in public, it can be photographed. Someone could just as easily take the same "long as drive" as the OP and see it. The OP just made the experience easier on the car and harder on the eyes.

>wouldn't want to see this in a magazine
How about an artistic collection? I wouldn't want to see it in a magazine used to sell some perfume, no, but if it was published in an artistic book or shown in a gallery, I would think it was a very minute part of the person's legacy.

My position is basically what a later poster said:
>I wouldn't like to see THAT next to my loved ones as well on a magazine

I'm not arguing for THIS photograph, but seeing someone's name on a tombstone is no different than reading the obits.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>52280

I meant me personally, as in my style.

In terms of the tombstones and the names, I suppose it really would depend on what the context of the photo was and how it was done. I personally try to stay away from graveyards as a photo site in general. Feels to me like i'm violating something. I'm extremely visual and HSP, so I tend to get very passionate about certain things and respect for them.
>> ac
>>52259
>This is true of the entire photographic community since digital started having radically better equipment come out every six months.
Goes back way longer than that. Just ask any film photographer who's never owned a Leica. ;)
>> Anonymous
>>52305
Well, yeah, there's always been gear nuts, but only with digital is it easy to enlarge a picture several times and argue about which one looks better that big. People didn't do that with old films, but they do it with digital sensors every single day.

Sure, people wanted Leicas and Hasselblads and all that, but they took their shots with what they had, and when they shared them, there wasn't a little thing down at the bottom that said >EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.
>> Jay Ann
>>51902
I like how the grave yard is in this expansive field bordered by a forest. And its interesting that the entire family was buried together.
>> Anonymous
>>52363
That's not interesting, that's incredibly common.
>> Anonymous
OP here. Wow, reading all this shit was a trip, I don't even know where to start. Shooting in a graveyard isn't anything to flip shit over, really. When I hear someone say hipster, all I think of is a little zit faced camera nerd stuffing who slings vague insults at someone who has developed a distinct style niche. This picture isn't the shit, but its more eye catching than half the garbage on here.
>> Anonymous
>>52410
Agreed
>> Anonymous
>>52410
Regardless of style (and I actually sort of like the colors of the field, etc.) it was very poorly framed and the subject's expression is over-posed.
>> Anonymous
It might be better if you cropped out half the sky, and made it like a panorama.
>> slim !yE5LOsLjxQ
jesus FUCK, this thread isn't dead yet?

i apologize to /p/ for loosing a giant shitstorm with my cranky little rant.

and thanks to liska for proving that someone out there gets what i meant when i said that thing about using the graves like that. i mean you CAN photograph graves and people DO, but it's that those are sacred memorials to people's passed lives, and you used them as props in this photo (which isn't even that good) to give a totally cliché and juvenile mood of indulgence in the macabre to your little pal there.

like i said. i didn't mean to be a dick. i was just cranky and i hated the hell out of this photo.
>>52410
and as for you. let's not fall in love with the stink of our own shit, shall we? you haven't "developed a distinct style niche", you are just still in the phase of teenage social rebellion that causes you to think that hanging out in graveyards gives you some sort of mystique. there's no need for insults. defend yourself in other ways than guessing that i probably look less attractive than you.
>> Anonymous
HMMMMMMMMMMMMMM


SHES UGLY
>> Anonymous
>>52410When I hear someone say hipster, all I think of is a little zit faced camera nerd stuffing who slings vague insults at someone who has developed a distinct style niche.

When I read that, all I think of is denial.

I see a pattern here.
>> Anonymous
>>52410

thank you op. i saw another of your photos on an older thred with the tree. i think its also better than 90% of whats posted on here. at least your trying to make photos, no matter what anyone says.

slim is so easy to troll its not even fun anymore. hes arguing(badly)for the sake of it. he and liska can always be found to jump to the rescue when one or the other is shitting up a thred with their form of "constructive critisism"

it would be bad enough if they were anon but by marking the shit they post we can always be sure we know when they post their next great works of art. i know i cant wait.
>> ac
>>52490
Yeah, fuckin' namefags.

OH SHI--
>> carface
>>52494

lol, yeah but your not a dick. do you see?
>> Anonymous
>>52490
What?

This is the only thread where I've seen Slim get searingly aphotographic in his criticism, and I think Liska's was well within the bounds of normal critique.

If you want to be lauded, go to DeviantArt. If you want criticism, so that you may improve, go to a photoboard, like /p/. It's that simple.
>> thefamilyman
>>52494
yeah namefags are the scum of 4chan
>> Anonymous
>>52497

many of the posters that disliked the ops photo were being pompous in their posts. if they want to be so harsh then they should show ONE OF THEIR PHOTOS that clearly explains/shows an example of what they are suggesting. eg when they talk so adamantly about the rule of thirds then show a photo that they have produced that attains to the rule. put your money where your mouth is, so to speak.

critisim should be of some help to the op. not just some belligerent rant about how they dislike the photo and how its "disrespecting the dead"...etc.
>> Anonymous
>>52501
except...unless someone has the same or very similar photo shot differently, it doesnt make sense since depending on whats in the photo, the environment, subject, etc youd do it differently, or the same way but for different reasons. i find that doesnt really help much.
>> Anonymous
>>52503

no, not really. think "out side of the box" for a second here(sorry lol). showing how they have done something may give the op an idea or help them with there own composition or technique.

yeah not everytime, but it would help validate someone when the critisism is very harsh. im not talkin about this thred in particular as most of it wasnt critisism of the ops pic, it was ranting bullshit.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>52501

http://www.flickr.com/photos/liskarialeman/

have at it. Feel free to leave scalding critiques and comments on there. I'm always looking for room to improve. Be warned, though, I'm not doing any people photography.
>> Anonymous
>>52501
>>if they want to be so harsh then they should show ONE OF THEIR PHOTOS

like>>52503said, it would be dumb to post our art in a thread unless our photograph is strikingly similar to the OPs. What would you do if you got a comment like: "your photograph needs more [whatever], take a look at my panorama of mountains to get a basic idea of how you can improve your portrait in a cemetery."

Also, not every critic needs to be able to take good photos. I don't see Ebert and Roper making amazing movies, but they certainly seem to know what they're talking about.
>> slim !yE5LOsLjxQ
>>52619
THANK you. i'll never claim to be a great photog (until i am one), but i know i can pick apart a picture with the best of them. creation and critique are different skills. i happen to be better at critique.
>> Anonymous
>>52619

sorry i havent been really clear with what i meant. say, for example, some guy takes a picture of some cows and some trees and it has horrible composition. if someone was to then show them how they have composed landscapes with the rule of thirds or whatever ..etc then it may help them.

probaly being a bit general.
>> Anonymous
>>52624

ok slim lets clear this up a little.

you own a camera and take pictures. your an amature, an enthusiast...whatever. you have every right to your opinion.

However, your opinion isnt informed.There is a massive difference. Until you have something to back it up then thats all it is.

You dont have years of experience, you dont right essays or columns and your technical ability is that of an amature. Do you even read comtemporary photography magazines like "Source" or "Exit"? So ask yourself what you bring to the table when you "critique".
>> Anonymous
And just when you thought this thread couldn't fail any worse, suddenly,>>52695.
>> Anonymous
>>52733

sock puppet.
>> slim !yE5LOsLjxQ
enough
>> slim !yE5LOsLjxQ
already
>> slim !yE5LOsLjxQ
ok
>> slim !yE5LOsLjxQ
guuuuuuuyyyyyyyyyyyys?
>> Anonymous
>>52868

lol fail
>> slim !yE5LOsLjxQ
>>52869
HUSH
>> iProd !8x7lXo9zIQ
     File :-(, x)
>>52876
laaaaa

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKONCamera ModelE950Camera SoftwarePaint.NET v3.05Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.5Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2003:05:10 21:32:33Exposure Time1/48 secF-Numberf/6.6Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating80Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length19.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1600Image Height1200Image QualityUXGA NormalColor ModeColorImage AdjustmentNormalCCD SensitivityISO 80White BalanceAutoDigital ZoomxinfLens AdapterNone
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
     File :-(, x)
>>52895

laaaaaa! continued
>> slim !yE5LOsLjxQ
alright this thread is now great.

i was eating escargot for the first time the other day and i didn't know what it was so someone told me and i just went 'laaaaa' and everyone was so confused.
>> Anonymous
>>52895
>>52908

oh liska gbt flicker or whatever the hell its called and bask in the glory of all the photos that look exactly the same. im sure you can all circle jerk each other when you see pictures of water droplets.

lions, landscapes and flowers...OH MY.
>> slim !yE5LOsLjxQ
>>52908
also i think they put those in Super Metroid.
>> Anonymous
>>52908
That thumbnail reminded me of the logo for the apache web server.

Posting in an epic thread, btw (for /p/ standards)
>> Anonymous
>>52915

you guys are about to become the next "gang of four". maybe three will do.

we have liska, ac and slim...whos next?
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
Jesus, this thread is made of lol.
>> slim !yE5LOsLjxQ
>>52922
plox asplain gang of four aside from the literal english meaning
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
This is now an IR thread.
>> elf_man
>>52916
Damn man, at least she's having fun. What the hell are you so bitter about?
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>52916

Aww I feel so loved ;)

Of course that's what I shoot. It's what I'm attracted to shoot. Feel free to continue to put scalding critiques on there still.

>>52918
Did you find the Limpet? It goes with the Nudibranch (not as Laaaa, but a relative of the snail)
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>52922
Dibs on Zhang Chunqiao.
>> Anonymous
>>52926

lurx moarz. maybe one of your biker firends can explain. when hes not busy being tough(read: gay) with his friends "workin'" on their "choppers".
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>52928

Shush, let it go. Everyone has their own opinion; people are allowed to hate what i'm photographing. ;)
>> Anonymous
>>52929

yeah you tell them buddy. get the socks out and rock this thred. if that doesnt work jump back on aim or whatever you use and ask for some help.

maybe all those helpers arnt as air tight as you think?
>> Anonymous
>>52933

there is nothing to hate about what you photograph. your not a photograher. your at best on parr with a sunday painter.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>52934
What the fuck is wrong with you? My theory is that you're either 16 and in a hormonal rage, or late 20s, sad and alone.

Anyone want to give me odds?
>> Anonymous
>>52939

i just find it so easy to troll you guys and the fact you all talk shit about each other off of here is fantastic.
>> slim !yE5LOsLjxQ
I'VE CREATED A MONSTER
>> elf_man
>>52936
Ooh, interesting discussion topic: how are you defining "photographer?"
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>52934

What in the world are you talking about? That makes absolutely no sense.

I'm not trying to make a living off it (though i've been published in several books here). I just do it cause I love it.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
     File :-(, x)
>>52942
This is the real reason 4chan is 18+ only. Seriously.

btw, toasting in an epic bread!

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D50Camera SoftwareVer.1.00Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.7Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern824Focal Length (35mm Equiv)75 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2007:06:01 17:30:03Exposure Time1/60 secF-Numberf/2.8Exposure ProgramNot DefinedExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashFlash, Auto, Return DetectedFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3008Image Height2000RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastSoftSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknownISO Speed Used250Image QualityFINEWhite BalanceAUTOImage SharpeningAUTOFocus ModeAF-AFlash SettingNORMALAuto Flash ModeBuilt-in,TTLFlash Compensation0.0 EVISO Speed Requested250Flash Bracket Compensation0.0 EVAE Bracket Compensation0.0 EVTone CompensationAUTOLens TypeUnknownLens Range50.0 mm; f/1.8Auto FocusClosest Subject, Center Selected, Top FocusedShooting/Bracketing ModeSingle Frame/OffColor ModeLandscape sRGBLighting TypeSPEEDLIGHTNoise ReductionOFFCamera Actuations10418Saturation 2NORMALDigital Vari-ProgramAUTO
>> Anonymous
>>52947
>>52948

boo hoo. you keep posting back. your nerd rage is fantastic. by the way im way over 18. im 39 if you want to know the truth.

get back on irc and tell me what they are saying .
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>52950

Mostly i'm posting because it's fun as hell to do so.

And the correct term to define what I am is "geek"
>> Anonymous
>>52952

its fun as hell cus you like to feel superior to the shit heap of photographer on /p/. let slim brown nose you some more.

at least you can take "nice" pictures. the most vocal of the others have no knowlege and or talent.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>52953

That's not true. I dislike most of my photos and don't think they're up to where they should be, yet I still share just because they're fairly decent. There are many photographers here and on flickr that are way better than I am. I admit this. I dont' expect to compare to a National Geographic magazine photographer. Photography's just a good creative outlet for me and I like to share. If people like it, cool. If not, that's cool too. I do it for me.

and i really am replying because it's fun. I don't care what others think. No one's sucking up to or brownnosing me, nor do I give favoritism to anyone on here.

I still fully believe that Critiquing photos is not a matter of having a pre-knowledge of a field. If you're looking to hang it in a gallery, it doesnt' matter what other photographers like but the masses. Anyone can critique and give their opinion on a photo. Some people like one subject, others like other subjects. Oh well.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>52953

That's not true. I am an amature/beginner photographer. I admit to being so and won't try to deny anyone who calls me as such. I dislike most of my photos and don't think they're up to where they should be, yet I still share just because they're fairly decent (usually goes that I like them when I first look at them, then the more I look the more i hate them).

There are many photographers that have posted here and on flickr that are way better than I am. I admit this. I don't expect to compare to a National Geographic magazine photographer. Photography's just a good creative outlet for me and I like to share. If people like it, cool. If not, that's cool too. I do it for me.

and i am replying because it's fun. If i was going to be pissy, I'd just let the thread die and not reply. I don't care what others think. No one's sucking up to or brownnosing me, never has, nor do I give favoritism to anyone on here.

I still fully believe that Critiquing photos is not a matter of having a pre-knowledge of a field. If you're looking to hang it in a gallery, it doesn't matter what other photographers like but the masses. Anyone can critique and give their opinion on a photo. Some people like one subject, others like other subjects.
>> slim !yE5LOsLjxQ
>>52953
but i don't feel superior to anyone and i have fun posting. i like learning. photography's the most rewarding hobby i've ever had. everything else i ever tried died off before 3 months. that's what i'm here for.

anyway.

i gotta wonder how many anonymous posts in this thread were the OP, steamed at what i said. reveal yourself dude. i didn't mean to be a dick and start the worst thread /p/ has ever seen.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
     File :-(, x)
>>52950
Haha, even better! Dude, just drop it. If you argue on the internet, you're a centipede infested vag. State your opinion and then gtfo.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D50Camera SoftwareVer.1.00Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.7Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern670Focal Length (35mm Equiv)75 mmImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2007:06:04 11:17:19Exposure Time1/60 secF-Numberf/1.8Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/1.8Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceFine WeatherFlashNo FlashFocal Length50.00 mmRenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastHardSaturationNormalSharpnessHardSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> slim !yE5LOsLjxQ
this is a surprisingly pleasant photo.>>52964


i love simplicity so much.

did you take this?
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
     File :-(, x)
>>52968
Indeed sir. Last night at the Paramount Theatre in Austin, they were showing Hitchcock's Spellbound. Got to see it with a cute girl who I ended up spending the night with. Altogether a worthwhile expedition, I do say! Pic definitely related.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D50Camera SoftwareVer.1.00Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.7Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern670Focal Length (35mm Equiv)75 mmImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2007:06:04 11:34:16Exposure Time1/80 secF-Numberf/1.8Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/1.8Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceFine WeatherFlashNo FlashFocal Length50.00 mmRenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastHardSaturationNormalSharpnessHardSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
Haha, I think we hit the post limit.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
     File :-(, x)
>>52986

We hit the post limit at 100 :) The threads stop bumping after that.

Boring macro pict of leaves not really related ;)
>> Anonymous
is this the biggest ever thred on /p/?
thanks guys.

>>52961

no its been me doing most of the posting not the op. belive what you will.

>>52959

one day liska you will understand why you are wrong. it will take time but when you do i hope you remember this statement,

>>I still fully believe that Critiquing photos is not a matter of having a pre-knowledge of a field.

and point you to a quote from ED about ppl with your belifes from /ic/,

"Question their critical skills: “You should apply for a job on the Washington Post – oh, sorry, I forgot. You’re not an arts journalist. Well, maybe you could take a job at NYU’s Arts Faculty. No – can’t do that either, you’re not a lecturer. OK, there’s always your local high school, isn’t there? Oh, that’s right, you’re not an art teacher. Good thing you still have 4Chan – no, sorry, that’s no good either – you’re a FUCKING PRAT!!”"