File :-(, x, )
CPL BurtGummer !!RRMHFHglFsy
Hey /p/

I leave my CPL on pretty much constantly now, it seems to make portraits and B&W more detailed and contrasty, and Landscapes more vibrant.

Is there any reason why i shouldnt?
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D80Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/3.5Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern834Focal Length (35mm Equiv)27 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2008:06:11 20:03:46Exposure Time1/125 secF-Numberf/3.5Exposure ProgramNot DefinedISO Speed Rating400Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length18.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width529Image Height503RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypePortraitGain ControlLow Gain UpContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessSoftSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
You lose about 1-2 stops with a CPL.
>> BurtGummer !!RRMHFHglFsy
>>208185

you do, but that can be adjusted for before you start taking pictures.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>208189
You can, if you have enough light to deal with a slower shutter speed.
>> BurtGummer !!RRMHFHglFsy
>>208192

hmm, theres an exposure setting on the D80 that helps bring up the light. I max out the aperture too.

But youre right, and i do need to get hold of a flash too.
>> Anonymous
Don't use it at night. There's next to 0% polarized light in the environment that will react to your filter. At those times, you'll more likely want the additional speed you gain from not using the filter.
>> Anonymous
>>208192
You don't know what a CPL is.
>>208195
And by validating him, you don't seem to know, either, and you're the one using it.

What the hell has /p/ come to?
>> BurtGummer !!RRMHFHglFsy
>>208200


...well from what ive seen and read, he appears to be right. Because the filter is cutting down the polarisation the colors are more intense but you DO lose out in exposure.

You make up for this by increasing aperture, ISO, and/or Exposure settings.

Why is this wrong?
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>208200
Don't listen to him, he's just trolling.
>> Anonymous
>>208206
That's what a Polarizing filter would essentially do, yes -- act as an analogue to an ND filter when regarding the exposure.

But this is a CPL filter -- *Circular* PoLarizing filter. It rotates. And when it rotates, it adjusts how much light you're blocking or letting in. It's a very useful tool, and doesn't have to block any light if you don't want it to, so DC saying "well it blocks your light so don't leave it on if you can't compensate" is stupid.
>> Anonymous
>>208210
Okay idiot, read the post I just made. Talk about trolls, jesus fucking christ you're so defensively whiny you can't even wait five seconds for someone to speak their mind. What a baby.
>> Anonymous
>>208206
Hate to say it, but DC is right. CPLs (and linear polarizers), by virtue of blocking wrongly-polarized light, reduce the total light passed by the lens.
>> BurtGummer !!RRMHFHglFsy
>>208211

yeah, i understand that, i got the hoya 67mm CPL pro 1, its a great thing but theres no real "chart" on it of how intense youve made it.

It would be handy if they put numbers on these things to indicate how intense youve made it. That way you could judge better.
>> BurtGummer !!RRMHFHglFsy
Whats the advantage of an ND filter?

Never seen, used, or understood one.
>> Anonymous
>>208210
DC, you have no room to talk. Everyone here hates you.

inb4 jealous, don't care what we think, trolling, moral high ground, ad hominem attacks
>> Anonymous
>>208216
And when you rotate them to an unpolarized state, that effect is negligible. He's not right and you would be if only you knew what a CPL is. Again, it's a shame that people are actually talking like they have some authority on the subject when they know next to nothing about the actual item. Okay, great, you know what polarizing means, awesome -- but a CPL filter can be rotated so that its polarizing effect is almost none.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>208211
Wrong.

The polarizer always blocks out some light at every angle.

The reason for this is that most "normal" light is randomly polarized, meaning that the light waves are randomly oriented in pretty much every conceivable direction.

Passing the light through a polarizer passes all light except that which is going in a certain direction. Light of all other orientations is not allowed to pass. This means that at any angle, there will always be some light which isn't allowed to get through.

Hence why I said, only use the CPL when you need to.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>208223
Speak for yourself faggot.

Last time one of you idiots posted a thread debating dynamic range, I proved that digital has more than film and then the OP, furious that he was wrong, just deleted the thread.

So, kindly go and suck on a dick.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>208221
Neutral Density filters reduce the amount of light passing through the camera lens without changing the color of the scene.

Here's some more info:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/find/Product_Resources/ndFilters.jsp
>> Anonymous
>>208225
>Wrong.
No, not wrong.
>The polarizer always blocks out some light at every angle.
You just agreed with me here.
>Hence why I said, only use the CPL when you need to.
No, you said, and I quote, "You lose about 1-2 stops with a CPL." You make it seem like you can't have it on all the time, because you're going to lose so much light. You couldn't be more wrong. You lose less than 1/3 of a stop of light when the filter is rotated to the "off" position. This is like changing your shutter speed from 1/30th of a second to 1/25th, and is so negligible that the fact you're talking about it shows how little you know.

I'm glad everyone hates you, since your photos are shit and you don't know anything about the actual ins and outs of photography.
>> Anonymous
>>208227
Nope, covered ad hominems and moral high ground in my inb4 clause. You're gonna have to be less predictable than that, darling trollface.
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
Circular polarizer always blocks out some light. Always.
Put it on inside with only artificial lighting, and you'll know.
>>208221
It gives you a longer exposure, and that's it. They're relatively specialized, and are often used in daylight when exposures tend to be really short. Like if you want moving water instead of frozen water.
>> BurtGummer !!RRMHFHglFsy
>>208230

Jesus DC these people hate you!

Lets hope pentard doesnt shimmy in here or this threads totally fucked!
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>208230
>no, not wrong
>doesn't have to block any light if you don't want it to

Fuck, you are stupid.
>> BurtGummer !!RRMHFHglFsy
>>208232

I like the way that if i point the camera at my monitor, i can rotate the filter and the screen goes from *nearly* clear to completely black!
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>You lose less than 1/3 of a stop of light when the filter is rotated to the "off" position.

Wrong again. You lose 1-2 stops of light when the Polarizer is in the off rotation.
>> Anonymous
Hey Burt,

How good is the CPL you have at cutting reflections on windows and shit?
I keep having to shoot street scenes and window glare is a real bitch of a problem. Nothing wrecks a shot more than when the model is posing great but WHOOPS MY BIG FAT ASS IS REFLECTED IN THE WINDOW.
>> Pentard !pjwjmEQ1RM
>>208233

Wat you say?
I am pro photographer and I never use CPLs they are for women and minorities. Real pros use Adobe™ Photoshop™©
>> Anonymous
This thread is made of so much fail.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>208243
Why, because you got proven wrong, faggot?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>208249
>faggot

It takes one to know one.
>> BurtGummer !!RRMHFHglFsy
>>208183

I was referring to your tendancy to go to war with DC, not your use of professional equiptment.

>>208240

Er, yeah, its pretty good for that, cuts out a lot of the reflection. Also makes people look a lot less sweaty. true story.
>> Anonymous
this thread needs more comparison shots
i would like to see with/without portraits using a cpl

i don;t think i've ever seen smoeone use it for that before/
>> Anonymous
>>208238
>Wrong again. You lose 1-2 stops of light when the Polarizer is in the off rotation.
No, you don't.
>> Anonymous
Polarizer makes people look like shit. It makes the skin look pale and dead. I can't recommend polarizer for portraits..
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>208259
Yes you do, fag.

>>208254
Hilarious. Not quite as funny as you being butthurt over being proven wrong.
>> Anonymous
>>208249
No, because you are retarded. You answered the OPs question and then decided to feed the trolls. Nice job.
>> Anonymous
why does DC always fall for troll bait?
>> Anonymous
>>208262
>Yes you do, fag.
Nope, you're wrong as always. Also, is that you in that pic? WOW lolol
>> Anonymous
what's a good price to pay for a CPL?

amazon has the hoya 52mm for like $20.50 shipped.
is that a good price?
or is this a ghetto version and there is a better one i should get?

http://www.amazon.com/Hoya-52MM-Circular-Polarizing-Filter/dp/B00006HOAN
>> Anonymous
i'm currently looking for a decent cpl myself, will a 'normal' hoya/kenko do or should i waste some extra bucks for the pro series
>> Anonymous
>>208278
>will a 'normal' hoya/kenko do
Yes.
>or should i waste some extra bucks for the pro series
I lol at the whole concept of "professional" filters. What a crock of shit. Any good company that isn't in it to screw people over will offer a nice metal/glass CPL for less than $30.
>> Anonymous
>>208283
i can get both for around $30
>> BurtGummer !!RRMHFHglFsy
For an example of polarization:

http://www.tiffen.com/ultrapol.htm

Sorry, i havent taken any comparison type shots yet!
>> BurtGummer !!RRMHFHglFsy
.. side question /p/

is it worth getting An ND6 filter if i take a lot of this type of shot? I like what the CPL does but, i like to get REALLY vivid blues, you know.
>> $19.99 !OSYhGye6hY
>>208230
>No, you said, and I quote, "You lose about 1-2 stops with a CPL." You make it seem like you can't have it on all the time, because you're going to lose so much light. You couldn't be more wrong. You lose less than 1/3 of a stop of light when the filter is rotated to the "off" position. This is like changing your shutter speed from 1/30th of a second to 1/25th, and is so negligible that the fact you're talking about it shows how little you know.

No, you're wrong, even in the 'off' position, I lose 2 stops of light. Why don't you try using equipment before you try to sound like you're an expert on it.
>> Anonymous
>>208308
>No, you're wrong, even in the 'off' position, I lose 2 stops of light. Why don't you try using equipment before you try to sound like you're an expert on it.
Because I have, and I don't lose 2 stops. Period.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>208314
Physics says otherwise.
>> Anonymous
>>208308

oh lawd..

not all CPL are the same moran
>> Anonymous
>>208319

unless his cameras auto adjusting for the filter, and he cant tell. no?
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>208268
To recap: dipshit doesn't know about polarization, gets proven wrong, then pretends he was just a troll.

lol @ butthurt fag
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>208322
Yeah, but you are still losing two stops of light = slower shutter speed or wider aperture or higher ISO.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>208283
>I lol at the whole concept of "professional" filters. What a crock of shit. Any good company that isn't in it to screw people over will offer a nice metal/glass CPL for less than $30.

This guy is a dipshit. Always buy the best filters you can afford. Obviously don't spend $100 on a filter for a $90 lens, but if for high-end optics, always choose high-end filters.
>> Anonymous
>>208327

And with this post DC begins counter-trolling.
>> $19.99 !OSYhGye6hY
>>208314
>>208320

FUCKING STUPID MORANS ON THIS BOARD!

>Polarizing filters have a number of uses, among them:
>Neutral density. The natural loss of 1-2 stops of light, without shifting color, makes a polarizing filter a good ND filter as well.

http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Polarizer
>> Anonymous
>>208327
See, this is why no one believes anything you ever have to say.
>>208335
When rotated to a fully on position, yeah, YOU MORAN LOL IR FUNNY ON BORD
>> Anonymous
>>208225

you proved him wrong, but dont forget about the mods and janitors lurking around.. i report shitty threads like that all the time, and shit gets deleted :)
>> Anonymous
>>208343
Oh hi DC.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>208337
>When rotated to a fully on position

Since you're posting as Anonymous, I'll just go ahead and assume you're trolling, since no one can be this stupid.
>> $19.99 !OSYhGye6hY
>>208337
Pick up a cpl, and hold it to the light. Now rotate it. Notice that it doesn't get lighter or darker? Now realize that you're a fucking dumbass.
>> Anonymous
>>208327
>Always buy the best filters you can afford. Obviously don't spend $100 on a filter for a $90 lens, but if for high-end optics, always choose high-end filters.

Let me guess, you buy "high-end" Monster-brand cables for your TV, too.

"High end" = "rip off"
Sage for retarded bullshit.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>208380"High end" = "rip off"

oh hai
>> Anonymous
>>208357
What the FUCK are you talking about? Of course it does, that's the whole fucking point.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Shining example of a ripoff. Here, more proof.

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:06:13 00:05:17Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width804Image Height518
>> Anonymous
>>208386

but it's a classic "G" design lolololololol
>> Anonymous
>>208386
>>208381

har fucking har assholes
i was clearly talking about filters in>>208380
>> Anonymous
>>208391

pro tip: lolololololol usually means sarcasm
>> Anonymous
>>208357
>Pick up a cpl, and hold it to the light. Now rotate it. Notice that it doesn't get lighter or darker? Now realize that you're a fucking dumbass.

Dude, you're doing it wrong.
You have to rotate the two parts.
Polarizing glass gets lighter and darker as the glass goes into and out of alignment.

Lots of misinformation and asshattery here.
>> Anonymous
>>208384

LOL i was going to say that,
OF COURSE IT FUCKING DOES.
>> Anonymous
I honestly don't understand where you people are coming from. Kodak is one of the great pioneer companies in photography and it's been around even longer than Nikon. Given that a lot of their development budget over the company's life has been focused on the production of better photosensitive devices. You'd seriously be at a loss if you were to simply ignore kodak's great achievements in the field of photography and their contributions even today.

Schneider optics, which are used in OP's camera are also some of the leading optics manufacturers in Germany, most certainly on par with the Carl Zeiss of old, pretty much like Leica, except heavily underrated.

As for this camera, you need no more than take a swift look around the camera to know it's a really good camera for the money. First off, Kodak took it's cue for ergonomics from professional SLR designs. This isn't a flimsy camera and it isn't difficult to handle (unlike a certain entry-level model produced by Canon). Its control menus are certainly on par with Nikons' fantastic ones, if not better, given that there is a much better integration in this camera's system than there is with Nikon's entry level SLR's, perhaps even a higher level. The optics and imaging device are certainly where it's at with this model, however. Through Kodak's expertise (and history) in the creation of light-sensitive devices, you can most certainly assume, without a doubt, that this camera is at a whole different level than you'd find in an SLR. This sensor, coupled with Schneider's optics makes gives this camera the edge over the similarly-priced cameras produced by the Japanese market.

You guys need to do some reading on these companies instead of dissing OP's camera. You'll realize how much you've missed and even lost by buying an expensive all-in-one SLR system when you could have achieved comparable/superior quality images from a well-priced, spot-on solution as the one OP has put on the table.
>> Anonymous
>>208402

...what?
>> BurtGummer !!RRMHFHglFsy
     File :-(, x)
>>208402

swing and a miss, mr copypasta
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>208402
Oh god. I wrote that. You make me proud, anon.

I'm the guy that's building the lens/camera btw, so you could well say it was written by a future tripfag.

Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:White Point Chromaticity0.3
>> Anonymous
>>208412

epic copypasta
>> Anonymous
>>208357
>>208384
>>208399
Hey $19.99, how come you're such a fucking retard? Huh? Saying that a CPL doesn't change the amount of light coming in when rotated?
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>208412
how is that coming along, anyway? You never set up a blog for it, did you?
>> Anonymous
>>208397
Two parts? lol wut
>> $19.99 !OSYhGye6hY
>>208397
>>208384

no, it doesn't change in density, the whole filter itself does not become more transparent or more opaque depending on how the two pieces of glass are rotated. Sure, it makes the sky look like it's getting darker and lighter, but the filter itself does not get darker. Hence, you have a constant 2 stops of light loss with your filter.
>> Anonymous
>>208454
It exists, but I just haven't updated any info on it, been too busy learning a bit more about optics. There's really not much to show just yet. I'd never finish if I wrote about it for the time being. I keep finding/learning new things that either set me back or help me get around issues, etc. It'll be up when the project takes shape. I still haven't figured out the lens. If I'm going through so much trouble, I'd like it to at least form a usable image.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)


Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:06:11 18:40:37Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width541Image Height800
>> $19.99 !OSYhGye6hY
     File :-(, x)
>>208211
>>208224
>>208230
>>208314
>>208337
>>208384
>>208397
>>208399

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 30DCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsPhotographermvMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.4Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2008:06:18 17:36:53Exposure Time1/6 secF-Numberf/3.2Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/3.2Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width600Image Height1523RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
thank you, someone needed to post that comparison.
>> Anonymous
>>208487
It's not much of a comparison when it's against a flat surface with no light coming through it.
>> $19.99 !OSYhGye6hY
>>208496
>>208496
does it look darker or lighter?
No.
I proved my point.
>> Anonymous
>>208487

9/10
I started to rage until I realized you were trolling. Then I LOLed.
>> Anonymous
>>208496
fuck i want to facepalm your head into a brick wall.
>> $19.99 !OSYhGye6hY
>>208500
How am i trolling? If anything, it's a counter-troll.
>> Anonymous
>>208502

Unfair comparison and you haven't rotated it at all.
>> $19.99 !OSYhGye6hY
>>208506
each picture was with the filter rotated about a quarter turn. I don't know what you kids are going on about, i've proven. Fucking pick up a cpl and find out for yourselves that you're all wrong.
>> Anonymous
>>208508
i have one (hoya super multicoat) and it gets significanty brighter and darker when i rotate it,,, maybe yours is fucked up?
>> $19.99 !OSYhGye6hY
>>208512
maybe mine is just more expensive than yours.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>208512
Looking brighter/darker in the viewfinder =/= being brighter or darker.
>> Anonymous
>>208515

pretty sure not. mine cost $50 how much was yours?
i think yours probably has one of the pieces of glass in the wrong direction so that it's always 100% polarized.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>208521
Probably because you're looking at something that the polarizer effects. Hurrdurr.

I've got the $10 CPL by Targus from Walmart in my hand right now. If I hold it up to the monitor and rotate it, the image in it gets darker or lighter. The filter itself doesn't get darker or lighter. If I sit it down on top of the desk, which is frosted glass, and then rotate it it does not change.

LEARN HOW YOUR FILTER WORKS.
>> Anonymous
>>208487
>>208515
>>208518
Wowwwww holy shittttttt you tripfags are more retarded now than ever. Nice comparison $1.99, I especially like how you didn't do anything to the polarizer between photos.

Hey guys, which tripfag, who inexplicably defend each others' conflicting opinions, is the stupidest?
Depressed Cheesecock:
>You lose about 1-2 stops with a CPL.
Or $1.99:
>Pick up a cpl, and hold it to the light. Now rotate it. Notice that it doesn't get lighter or darker?
>> Anonymous
>>208530

You're not exactly the best person to be talking about filters.
>> $19.99 !OSYhGye6hY
     File :-(, x)
Ok, if you newfags don't understand this next set of images, then you're hopeless.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 30DPhotographerunknownMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.4Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2008:06:18 18:19:54Exposure Time1/50 secF-Numberf/1.8Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/1.8Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length50.00 mmRenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> $19.99 !OSYhGye6hY
     File :-(, x)
Look at the paper.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 30DPhotographerunknownMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.4Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2008:06:18 18:20:03Exposure Time1/50 secF-Numberf/1.8Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/1.8Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length50.00 mmRenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> $19.99 !OSYhGye6hY
>>208533
hey anon, don't talk about shit you know nothing about.
>> Anonymous
>I especially like how you didn't do anything to the polarizer between photos.

That's the point, he was showing how rotating the filter does nothing to the polarizer
>> Anonymous
>>208535
if you cant see that this one is WAY darker then you need to get your fucking eyes checked
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>208534
Except I know exactly what's going on here. What's confusing you idiots is that one side of the CPL, the inner side that faces towards your lens, changes with rotation and does appear darker or brighter even though it's not. If I look at it from that side facing this bright LCD monitor and the yellow wall behind it, with it at full polarization, the image will "appear" darker because the LCD is a blue/black color. If I rotate it to minimum polarization then the image will appear lighter because the LCD is bright again. But if you look at the two pictures side by side, the frame of the monitor and the yellow wall are more or less the same color and same brightness in both pictures.

Look at 19.99's last two pictures they show exactly what I'm talking about.

HURR DURR OPTICAL ILLUSIONS
>> $19.99 !OSYhGye6hY
>>208545
>the image will "appear" darker because the LCD is a blue/black color.

No, it's really because the lcd emits linearly polarized light
>> $19.99 !OSYhGye6hY
>>208544
>Ok, if you newfags don't understand this next set of images, then you're hopeless.

I called it.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>208544
Holy fuck, you're stupid...
It's not darker, it's POLARIZED. The white piece of paper doesn't change between pictures, the other part does.

Do you not understand how contrast works at all? You're seeing the darkened monitor and associating the whole picture with "DARK" and the light monitor and associating the whole picture with "LIGHT"

You're falling for an optical illusion, nothing else.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
ITT: Anon doesn't understand Physics.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
     File :-(, x)
>>208547
I know, I'm agreeing with you. I'm saying, the reason it appears darker to them is because of the contrast between the paper and the LCD.

Optical illusion very related. Unless this is all miscommunication and what's really going on is that they think you're comparing the part of the paper visible through the polarizer to the part outside of the polarizer where it is, indeed, slightly darker.
>> Anonymous
>>208562
ITT: tripfags get trolled, H-A-R-D.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>208567
More like butthurt fags pretend they were trolling all along.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>208570
This.

I really like how we get accused of being butthurt any time we argue with someone, but when we're right then the other side was "just trolling"
>> Anonymous
>>208570
No, but you can cry yourself to sleep to that thought tonight if it makes you feel more like a man.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>208574
LOGICAL FALLACY: If it's something that you think makes him happy, why would he cry himself to sleep over it?

-\_O_o_/-
>> Anonymous
>>208575
Tears of joy, bitch.
>> Anonymous
ITT: idiots sitting at their computers are now feeling pretty stupid for being wrong all this time.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
     File :-(, x)
>>208574
At least I won't be alone like Anon ;)

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS-1DSCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshMaximum Lens Aperturef/4.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:06:18 22:00:58Exposure Time1/100 secF-Numberf/4.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/4.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo FlashFocal Length40.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width676Image Height1016RenderingNormalExposure ModeAuto BracketWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
>>208582
Enjoy your ugly gf while I enjoy my moderately attractive one.
>> Anonymous
this thread is now about posting pics of your gf.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>208584
>Enjoy your gf while I enjoy my right hand.

There you go, fixed it up for ya.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>208584
if she's your idea of ugly then you're going to have a lonely life, and I say that as a girl.
>> Anonymous
>>208588
sage is a girl?
>> Anonymous
>>208589
Welcome newfag.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>208589
ITT: we reveal our true newfag origins.
>> Anonymous
>>208588
>if she's your idea of ugly then you're going to have a lonely life, and I say that as an ugly girl who won't show my face.
fix'd
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>208609
I've been on 4chan long enough to know what happens when any girl, attractive or not, posts her face. Nice try, though. :]
>> Anonymous
>>208590

I'm not a newfag, I had read it before but forgot about it. It's pretty irrelevant. It's possible that I actually do things other than 4chan, you know?

>>208609
sage's appearance is irrelevant. DC's chick is actually pretty.
>> Anonymous
>>208582
Lip ring = insta-ugly. Too bad. =/
>> Anonymous
I love how when the stupid raging anons know that they were wrong, the thread comes to a complete halt.
>> Anonymous
>>208582

Wait, your girlfriend is the one with the fat face?
I thought your girlfriend was the one with the pinched face, not this one...

???
>> Anonymous
>>208656
>>208582

Yeah DC, what the fuck, I thought you said the -other- girl you only showed us around 3 pictures of is your girlfriend, not the girl you keep shooting. : [
>> Anonymous
>>208673
>>208656
>>208582

Did you lie on that thread about who your gf is to appease the trolling crowd, DC?... :[
>> Anonymous
>>208709

His lack of response makes it clear that he did.

Which, honestly, makes that thread even funnier. Not only did he lie and say she wasn't his girlfriend because he thought she was too ugly (so gallant!) but the fact that they're FUCKING makes her awkwardness in front of his camera even more ridiculous.

Only DC could make a girl he's regularly having sex with look incredibly uncomfortable in every picture he takes of her.
>> Anonymous
>>208919
>His lack of response makes it clear that he did.
Apparently so.

>Which, honestly, makes that thread even funnier. Not only did he lie and say she wasn't his girlfriend because he thought she was too ugly (so gallant!) but the fact that they're FUCKING makes her awkwardness in front of his camera even more ridiculous.
Maybe she just sucks in front of the camera. i.e., not photogenic enough. Going all the way to say that the other chick in the shoot is the gf though... what's up with that? I mean, I know /p/'s an asshole 90% of the time, but... she's his girlfriend, why not telling it like it is? Most people thought it was her anyways, so why go out of the way to lie about that? I'm not saying my point of view on whether she is pretty or not, but DC picked her for a reason and that's all he should care about, not if others find her as pretty as he does. Hiding the fact, though, when the trolls are up? I don't know, it possibly says a little bit about him.
>> Anonymous
>>208927
yeah. it would be one thing to say that his gf was just a friend because the trolls here are so mean but why say the other girl was his gf? does he want to date her better or think she is prettier? i do not think his gf would be too happy to hear that.
>> Anonymous
>>208934
Yeah, I don't think so.
>> Anonymous
>>208934
That's really fucking sad if that's the case. That's not the way to go around treating women.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
     File :-(, x)
/p/ - Depressed Cheesecake's Sex Life

Give it a rest guys, I clicked on the wrong photo to upload while I was RAAAAAAAAAAGEEEing and the lack of thumbnail didn't help. This is my girlfriend.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshPhotographerunknownMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.8Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:05:30 02:29:10Exposure Time1/80 secF-Numberf/3.2Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/3.2Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width576Image Height864RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>208965
Countdown to trolls in 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1...
>> Anonymous
>>208965
meh/10
>> Anonymous
>>208966
countdown until sage slides her fat fingers around the keyboard again saying "told u i was rite" trying to be witty in preemptive, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1...
>> ?M?e?e?s?e?????? !iZn5BCIpug
>>208965
Your girlfriend is 15? Sick bastard.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>208973
0/10
>> Anonymous
/p/ has changed
it is no longer about gear bla bla bla
>> Anonymous
>>208973
i love /p/
>> Anonymous
>>208611
We'll just save it in our hard drives, what's wrong with that?

I bet you do the same.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeEASTMAN KODAK COMPANYCamera ModelKODAK CX4300 DIGITAL CAMERACamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/3.5Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)36 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:06:19 18:57:14Exposure Time33333/1000000 secF-Numberf/3.5Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating140Lens Aperturef/3.5Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageFlashFlashFocal Length7.63 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1000Image Height742Exposure Index140RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> Anonymous
>>208965

Please pardon me if I happen to think that you're full of shit, DC.
From where I'm standing I'd wager that your actual girlfriend is>>208582
Not>>208965
Because honestly, I understand the value of not telling /p/ who you're dating because of the trolls, but I think the sheer number of pictures you take proves that if you're actually dating either of them (we have no proof of this) your actual GF is>>208582

Now would be a good time for you to post a shot of you with one of the chicks to silence the trolls.
>> Anonymous
>>208611
>I've been on 4chan long enough to know what happens when MOOO. MOOOOO. MooOOooOOooOO!
>> Anonymous
>>208993
If the body pic she posted in /fa/ was really her, then she's not fat. She appeared to have a reasonably attractive and skinny body.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>208989
Or alternatively, you could just go and fuck yourself.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>209014
>> significantly lightened the photograph
>> love to overexpose
wut?
>> Anonymous
>>209015
As usual, you have a tongue sharp as a club.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
>>209019

And a wit as sharp as a sledgehammer, coupled with an over-the-top reaction to a relatively polite statement of disbelief.

DC proves, again, that he has the maturity level of a 14 year old.
>> Anonymous
>>209025
coming from a guy who just took the time to edit photos of him?
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>209025
So do you guys always post in packs?
>> Anonymous
>>209026
Different people.
>> Anonymous
>>209027

A conservative estimate would suggest that there are at least three Anon on /p/ at any given time that are aware of how incredibly badly DC sucks and are willing to say as much.

There may be far more, but one must factor in the possibility that some of the negative comments are coming from tripfags posting as Anon as well.
>> Anonymous
>>209028
unlikely since there's rarely more than 3 or 4 people lurking /p/ at any given time
>> Anonymous
>>209028
>>209031

Well I'm not either of you, and I doubt you are both the same person since you're arguing, so that puts at least 3 anons in this thread, in addition to the tripfags and tripfags posting as anon.

why does the photo of the cute couple keep getting deleted? is dc ashamed of his girlfriend? she's a little fat, but at least he has one, which is more than most people on /p/ can say.
>> ?M?e?e?s?e?????? !iZn5BCIpug
>>208183
>>209037
>>209031
>>209030
>>209028
>>209027
>>209026
>>209025
>>209023
>>209019
>>209018
>>209015
samefag
>> Anonymous
>>208965
it's right here dipshit
>> ?Martin? !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
>>209040
Meese, stop wasting your time looking for flawls; grow some balls and step outside your front door for once.
>> ?M?e?e?s?e?????? !iZn5BCIpug
wats a flawl
>> Anonymous
>>209037
wat

The only photo deleted in this thread was mine.
>> Gary Oak !Oq/9NMk1yg
Oh, you guys.
ITT- Anonymous hides behind their anonymity, DC brags about knowing physics, and gets butthurt about trolls.
BurtGummer, if I were you I would have deleted this shit by now.
It smells like /b/ in here.
>> Anonymous
>>209023

DC you should get a hair cut.
You are not a bad looking guy but that hair looks kinda emo and makes your head look really round.
>> Anonymous
>>209063
who the fuck are you?
gb2/flickr fag
>> Gary Oak !Oq/9NMk1yg
>>209072
...wut.
Anonymous questions credibility based on name...?
Ironic.
>> Anonymous
>>209063
Smells? It STINKS of /b/ in here
>> Anonymous
I don't understand why no one seems to know how to Google: http://www.cs.mtu.edu/~shene/DigiCam/User-Guide/filter/polarizer.html
>> Anonymous
>>208582

could be his sister
>> Anonymous
1. Could everyone *please* stop trolling DC?
2. DC, could you *please* stop feeding them?
3. Don't use a filter if you don't want the effect it has. No reason to stick another hunk of glass in front of the lens.

But if, like the OP, someone wants the effect of a filter all the time, sure, leave it on.
>> Anonymous
>>209158

As long as DC remains an arrogant asshole with the maturity level of a 6th grader people are going to troll him. I stopped trolling him a while ago because it's just too fucking easy, but it's clear that several other people here still find great joy in it.
>> okto !.ZlrOYZhsk
     File :-(, x)
>>208249
Man, and I thought the fail was bad back here. You guys have really outdone yourselves.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
HINT
>> ?M?e?e?s?e?????? !iZn5BCIpug
>>209170
O HAI THAT WAS FUNNY LIKE 100 FUCKING YEARS AGO GTFO