File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Soup /p/?
Let me know what you think of this.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:03:26 19:49:55Exposure Time1/125 secF-Numberf/7.1ISO Speed Rating400Focal Length28.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width720Image Height1080
>> beethy !HJGkSBB3Ao
this hdr photo is kinda.. bland
it would've worked a bit better with a wider angle lens, but it would still be a bit boring
i like the color tones though
>> Anonymous
>>148444beethy
>>148444wider angle lens

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahah

oh god
>> Anonymous
>>148452
kind of agree, need to see a little bit more.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
Missing a subject in the frame; boring.
>> Anonymous
>>148452
Rampant ultrawides are part of what's ruining photography. Crazy visual tricks are A) usually distracting and B) hard to manage, by which I mean composing for stuff like that looks nothing like the way you naturally see isn't something anyone's decent at unless they're really talented and really experienced.
>> beethy !HJGkSBB3Ao
>>148506
>Rampant ultrawides are part of what's ruining photography.

LOL
you're a troll.. right?
This photo would be fine at 17mm on a cropped body even.
I don't see how anyone could disagree with that
>> sage Anonymous
hdr-o-matic luv
>> Anonymous
>>148537
No, not a troll. Trolls don't write out reasoned posts. They just go, "HEY BEETHY UR A FAHG" and whatnot.

People throw all sorts of crazy things into their pictures... obviously artificial strobing, huge wide-angles on things besides architecture and landscapes that just shove a distorted perspective on a scene, crossprocessing or similarly over-the-top postprocessing techniques... and all of it is gaudy and flashy enough to grabs the stock five seconds of attention stuff gets from people who're looking for a quick fix of visual stimulation, while distracting from any emotional or intelletual stimulation the photograph could overwise have.

There are people who can and do use this stuff right, but most people aren't skilled and artistically mature enough to go complex without it just being some trick.

Let me ask you a question: how would a wide angle help this picture?
>> Anonymous
>>148537

he didn't say anything about OP picture

he said retards running around with UWA and only UWA thinking they're making instantart

and obviously, since you do it, you just had to come back and try to defend yourself
>> Anonymous
>>148537

same old beethy fag

whenever someone disagrees with you, you call them faggots or trolls and cover your ears

great
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>148559
>No, not a troll. Trolls don't write out reasoned posts. They just go, "HEY BEETHY UR A FAHG" and whatnot.
Actually, the best trolls stay extremely calm while carrying on arguments that are juuuuust a little bit completely wrong. Like a long post that sounds completely rational but ends with the conclusion that f/2.8 lets in more like than f/2.0. Then everyone who knows what they're talking about and genuinely wants to further understanding will have to work hard to keep their heads from exploding as they try to explain aperture to someone who's deliberately fucking with them.

Example: A while back (before the D3), there was a guy who was arguing that Canons suck and that the only good full-frame cameras were the old Kodak DCS Pro models, but that you couldn't really take good digital pictures with anything less than a medium format digital back. He did it just smoothly enough not to be obvious. In the end, he revealed that he was actually an Olympus user and went to bed laughing his ass off. *That* was a quality troll.

It's an artform in and of itself, really. The 'UR A FAG' type trolls are the rankest amateurs.
>> Anonymous
>>148567
Ah.. Thats my recipe for successful trolling right there. And im proud to say that ive gotten you a couple of times too Mr. Crain.
>> Anonymous
i like
>> beethy !HJGkSBB3Ao
>>148563
>>148564
hey samefag

you give yourself away by always typing like this

kinda obvious

right?

>>148559
that was actually a pretty interesting read, and i also agree with you almost entirely.
as for why this photo would be better at a wider angle... i feel the space i'm meant to be viewing is too confined right now, i would like to feel more immersed in this actual area to get a better feel of the area.
something a little interesting on the left bottom side of the photo would also add to it (if at a wider angle)

do you think my opinion is not correct, or do you think it's too subjective?
>> Anonymous
>>148581
I agree seeing more of the area would be better, but that can be done by taking a few steps back without screwing with the perspective, which I think is pretty good for this shot. Frame with the feet, not with the lens, whenever possible.
>> Anonymous
>>148581

oh yeah right, there's one and only one anon lulz
>> Anonymous
>>148581
OP here. Lulz. I love how so much controversy was caused when Beethy was stating his opinion.

Anyways, yeah I can definitely see what you're saying about using a wide angle lens. I'll probably reshoot and repost on /p/ when I get the chance.