File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
c&c plz
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakePENTAX CorporationCamera ModelPENTAX K10DCamera SoftwareGIMP 2.4.6Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)112 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:09:16 22:16:30Exposure Time1/6 secF-Numberf/4.5Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating400Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length75.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width700Image Height469RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeClose View
>> Anonymous
Shit

Boring - Uninteresting background, uninteresting subject, nothing attracts you to the picture other than the fact the person probably has tits.
Composition - Don't ever centre something into the frame, most of the time it causes the above. Google/Wiki rule of thirds.

Congrats on actually having focus on your subject and resizing the picture for /p/ though. Most of the fucktards can't do that.
>> sage else !L6xabslN96
     File :-(, x)
>>255677
>> Anonymous
>>255687
>>Don't ever centre something into the frame, most of the time it causes the above. Google/Wiki rule of thirds.

this is one of the stupidest rules of all time. Since so many neophytes use it, it itself has become a cliche. Anyone who think this is valid has not seen enough work by masters. Atget, the Brechers, Harry Callihan, Saudek, Toto Frima - I could go one and on and on - ALL sometime have the subject in the center of the frame, and most times do NOT use that fuckin' stupid rule.

Why the would anyone want rules for art?
>> Anonymous
>>255691
Perhaps, but I see it as a good rule for beginners that post this shit.
>> Anonymous
OP - this is actually not a bad shot, but it is what I believe a personal shot. What would have made it better is if the shadow side of her face was a bit lighter, and background darker.
>> Anonymous
>>255693
it's not a good rule for anyone. Good photographer (and painters) can balance a scene using the relative optical or psychological weights of the elements. I have been shooting since I was 7, when I had no idea what I was doing. I got serious a listened to a bunch of babies would were afraid to have their conventions rattled, and latter renounce it all. What's amazing to me now, is how much my work looks like that of then I was 7 years old, just less the technical mistakes.
>> else !L6xabslN96
>>255691
the problem isnt those stupid rules that newbies break. it's cuz they take lots of snapshots with no thought put into them and try to believe whatever turned out was deliberate. and then they post it here asking for critique. critique on what? OP didn't even try.

mind you, i'm still pretty noob myself tho, i still take snapshots just for the lulz but i dont post shit and expect it to be good.

tl;dr random snapshots: good for learning how to use camera + technical side of photography, but utterly useless in every other aspect.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>255691
I was re-watching 5cm/s recently (stunnigly good looking film) and couldnt stop realising almost all of the panoramic shots (like 80% of the film) were roughly 1/3 - 2/3 ratio. It was working perfectly.

I think it's more appliciable to landscape photography than anything else, but its still a helpful to consider, even if you ignore it.
>> Anonymous
>>255704
>>it's cuz they take lots of snapshots with no thought put into them

You're absolutely wrong - there's plenty of thought, it's just no conscious. Better sloppy and mistaken than over wrought and self conscious. Too much stuff today shouts "look how clever I am". It's tedious, fake and uninteresting.
>> Anonymous
>>255708
>Better sloppy and mistaken than over wrought and self conscious.

haha oh wow. what a laugh, gtfo troll.
>> Anonymous
>Why the would anyone want rules for art?

So you can break them.

Learn the rules. Learn to shoot according to all the rules. Then go on to develop your own personal style, breaking any of the ones you don't like.

This is how education works for every field, not just for photography. You learn the ways people have done things in the past, and then you improve on them.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
OP here... ok, so how bout' this?

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakePENTAX CorporationCamera ModelPENTAX K10DCamera SoftwareGIMP 2.4.6Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)112 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:08:21 00:20:05Exposure Time1/4 secF-Numberf/4.5Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating400Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length75.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width400Image Height598RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeClose View
>> else !L6xabslN96
>>255708
>Better sloppy and mistaken than over wrought and self conscious.
so what now? by that virtue you're saying that lomography is better than the entire field of studio photography. hmmm...

anyways OP could've considered more than just getting exposure right and getting the subject into frame. like how about an interesting angle/composition. or is that too pretentious?
>> Anonymous
>>255717
why so yellow?
>> Anonymous
>>This is how education works for every field, not just for photography. You learn the ways people have done things in the past, and then you improve on them.

In poor schools that's how it works. The proof of the pudding is how defensive people get when some else says "no rules". You want rule YOU keep them, learn them and then unlearn them, or ignore them, however complicated you want to make your inner life and your work. I don't want them. I don't accept them and I will encourage anyone who will listen to do the same.
Argue for your limitations and they are yours, goes the often quoted quote goes
>> Anonymous
>>255717

Why so yellow?
>> Anonymous
>>255732
>>so what now? by that virtue you're saying that lomography is better than the entire field of studio photography. hmmm.

Are your REALLY that dull? Not what I am saying at all. Saying that free running without rules is a better foundation then loading up on a bunch of cliches that may not work for your style and what you have to say in the long run.

And BTW - studio photography? I own tons of photo. books. None of them have studio photo shots. I wouldn't do studio photography if it paid $5000 a week.
>> Anonymous
>>255748
>I wouldn't do studio photography if it paid $5000 a week.

LMAO!

Ok, champ!
Too bad that's the direction the art is headed, you stupid faggot.
>> w5t
>>255717
thats so dull i want to kill myself
>> else !L6xabslN96
>>255748
the way i see it, the most type of photography that can be overwrought and self-conscious are shots where people are posed deliberately or shit is arranged, i.e. studio photography. post an example you think is pretentious that isn't a studio photo and i'll reconsider my conceptions.

>free running without rules is a better foundation then loading up on a bunch of cliches
i was never advocating rules, but a little thought in terms of composition, lighting, angle goes a long way and should apply at all times.
>> Anonymous
>>255753
>>Ok, champ!
Too bad that's the direction the art is headed, you stupid faggot.

Boy, you sure know how to debate. I suppose it must be very difficult for someone with your intellect to understand that what one person like may be hated by another. If it ever got the the point where studio photography was the only valid type (and I doubt that will ever happen). I would stop selling my stuff and do something other than shooting photos. The studio is like an office to me. I don't like working in offices.
Why are you so scared?
>> Anonymous
ITT: hipster faggots
>> Anonymous
>>255762
>>the way i see it, the most type of photography that can be overwrought and self-conscious are shots where people are posed

I totally agree. I was not avocating studio photo. I hate it.
ITT - people who don't, or can't read
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
I'm challenging the OP!
BOO!

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 450DCamera SoftwareDigital Photo ProfessionalImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution350 dpiVertical Resolution350 dpiImage Created2008:09:12 22:30:26Exposure Time1/25 secF-Numberf/1.6Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating1600Lens Aperturef/1.6Exposure Bias-0.7 EVFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length30.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width800Image Height533RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> else !L6xabslN96
>>255779
okay at least we agree on one thing. it's just you made it sound like taking random shots is cool or something. which is not.

anyway's back to OP.
>>255717
why is it so yellow? and that half-smile looks incredibly contrived, try to get a genuine reaction off her instead of letting her pose. it always helps to speak to your subject and wait for the right moment to take the shot when they are most relaxed.

>>255779
nice, myspace angle put to good use.
>> Anonymous
humpedibumpedihu
>> Anonymous
>>255803
OP here, its yellow cus of me not setting WB in correcty wayy
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>255677
This pose is kind of a shy/impatient photographer pose. Looks like either you're too timid to take a picture while the girl's looking your way or just too lazy to wait for her to turn her head towards you. Easy for me to spot since I'm a complete pussy and have the patience of a mayfly.

Technically, it looks like the only thing keeping this from being unusably blurry is the low resolution. Now that I take a gander at the EXIF, it seems to back that up. Blur's noticeable in the hair and the hand, and I'm guessing it would be noticeable even in the face if she were better lit.

I recommend picking up a faster lens if you want to take indoor candids like this. f/4.5 is way too slow for this work.

>>255717
Ahh, the good old "Goddammit, put down the damn camera and stop taking pictures of me" pose. I'm quite familiar with that one too. Also, why so yellow? Lrn2white balance. If you shoot RAW (which your K10D is capable of), you can fix the WB in post and don't have to futz with it on the camera.

>>255779
This one's really nice.