File :-(, x, )
Ratings pl0x? Takeikin
I take mostly nature photos... Is this one any good? I'm just looking for some criticism from people who don't care much for my feelings (my relatives automatically love it all, of course).
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeFUJIFILMCamera ModelFinePix A360Camera SoftwareDigital Camera FinePix A360 Ver1.01Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaMaker Note Version0130Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:01:15 14:52:29Exposure Time1/30 secF-Numberf/4.1Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/4.0Brightness5 EVExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashFlash, AutoFocal Length12.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width2304Image Height1728RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknownSharpnessNormalWhite BalanceAutoChroma SaturationNormalFlash ModeAutoMacro ModeOffFocus ModeAutoSlow Synchro ModeOffPicture ModeAutoContinuous/Bracketing ModeOffBlur StatusOKFocus StatusOKAuto Exposure StatusOver Exposed
>> Oh, yeah. Takeikin
That's not a nature photo.
What I meant was that I usually take nature photos and was wondering if I ought to just stick with that.
Am I allowed to post a link to my gallery here?
>> Anonymous
what. you say you take mostly nature photos and ask if "that" one is any good, but then you say its not a nature picture. how can we tell you if your nature photos are any good if you dont post one. we cant tell you if you should stick with it if we dont know what they look like. im gonna go ahead and say no though, just because.
>> 'Course. Takeikin
     File :-(, x)
I should post nature photos if I'm asking about them, shouldn't I?

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeFUJIFILMCamera ModelFinePix A360Camera SoftwareDigital Camera FinePix A360 Ver1.01Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaMaker Note Version0130Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2006:07:10 15:13:09Exposure Time2/215 secF-Numberf/2.8Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating64Lens Aperturef/2.8Brightness6 EVExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, AutoFocal Length5.80 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width2304Image Height1728RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknownSharpnessNormalWhite BalanceAutoChroma SaturationNormalFlash ModeAutoMacro ModeOffFocus ModeAutoSlow Synchro ModeOffPicture ModeAutoContinuous/Bracketing ModeOffBlur StatusOKFocus StatusOKAuto Exposure StatusOK
>> ac
>>51339
Pictures of your pets need to work much, much harder to be interesting than a lot of other subject. Your dog is just sort of laying there.

So... boring. Sorry. On a scale of Resolution Chart to Dali Atomicus, I rate this a Boring Picture Of Your Dog. This is just below Flower Macro.
>> Hmm? Takeikin
What's wrong with a flower macro?
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>51415

depends on how the flower macro is done. They're really common, but if done correctly and different from the others, they can be wonderful.
>> slim !yE5LOsLjxQ
>>51415
not to try to one-up liska or anything but...

the problem with flower macros is that flowers are automatically beautiful. this makes people take pictures of them without putting any thought into it, resulting in a picture that says 'hey look it's a flower'. people use the flower's natural attractiveness as the only element of the picture and neglect presentation and originality. what's wrong with flower macros is that flowers are goddamned everywhere, and it is as boring as hell to look at a picture of just some flower sitting in just some damned place as if no one's ever taken the time to look at a flower before. it's hard to make a flower photo good because you have to do something with or to that flower in the shot to make it interesting.

it's like this OP dog pic. haven't you ever seen some dog just lying down somewhere? yeah? well so have i. and so have we all. like every fucking day. which is why i'm not interested.
>> slim !yE5LOsLjxQ
oh but your bridge picture was pretty.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>51428

well said
>> ac
>>51428
Now a picture of a man biting the dog, *that* would be news!
>> Anonymous
>>51350

i think this has lots of meh.

the lighting is kind of boring and the subject matter dosent mesh too well. if anything, i think a lower viewpoint would have helped a little bit.
>> Anonymous
>>51453
Signed. And I LOLd at that copyright notice, pretentious much, eh?
>> Yeah. :P Takeikin
I /did/ feel pretentious copyrighting the photos, but some people (not my suck-up relatives) have said that a lot of my photos are (excellent, pretty good, not bad, OMG D00D CALL TEH NATURE MAGAZINE, etc.) and I just wanted to avoid problems.
Of course, unless I watermark them, those things only deter the honest.
Kind of like exterior door locks.
>> Takeikin
     File :-(, x)
I think this is my best flower macro.
It seems mediocre to me, really, but I was wondering what /p/ thought.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeFUJIFILMCamera ModelFinePix A360Camera SoftwareDigital Camera FinePix A360 Ver1.01Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaMaker Note Version0130Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:05:14 10:27:40Exposure Time5/3333 secF-Numberf/4.7Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating64Lens Aperturef/4.7Brightness9 EVExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length5.80 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width2304Image Height1728RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknownSharpnessNormalWhite BalanceAutoChroma SaturationNormalFlash ModeOffMacro ModeOnFocus ModeAutoSlow Synchro ModeOffPicture ModeAutoContinuous/Bracketing ModeOffBlur StatusBlur WarningFocus StatusOKAuto Exposure StatusOK
>> Anonymous
>>51711
that is why i never ask relatives how good my photos are. i show them, but i dont listen to what they say because by nature itll probably be biased in my favor
>> Anonymous
>>51712
i think it's sub-mediocre actually. it doesn't really show much of the flower. again, flower macros are easy to fuck up because people think that getting close and showing detail is a substitute for good composition and framing and presentation. what you've done here is take an extreme close up of a flower that, as far as i can tell, really isn't all that attractive, and you've done nothing to draw my eye anywhere in particular in the photo.

instead of 'hey here's a flower', what this photo says to me is 'hey i'll bet you've never seen a flower this close up before'. and the fact is that yes, indeed i have.

i saw a good flower macro on /p/ once where the photographer dug up a flower and wedged it in between some sidewalk cracks. the line and the setting and the color contrast made me notice and appreciate the flower more. that was a good photo. your photo is basically of pollen.
>> ac
In general, if the picture you're taking is so common that it's *printed on the camera* as the indication of a control, it's probably not a very original shot.
>> slim !yE5LOsLjxQ
>>51733
you got me thinking. we should invent and market a camera with a myspace setting. it'll have a tiny little standardized icon of a stickfigure holding a camera in the mirror, and it'll automatically set itself to be overexposed and out of focus.
>> Anonymous
I'd not call this /p/ material even. This is just point-and-shoot level pictures, ie. not interesting for other than yourself, at all.

Angles, lighting, focus, colours, and choosing subjects are pretty much what needs improvement to begin with.
>> Anonymous
>>51742

If someone were to market that, they'd make millions!
>> Takeikin
In general, if the picture you're taking is so common that it's *printed on the camera* as the indication of a control, it's probably not a very original shot.

you got me thinking. we should invent and market a camera with a myspace setting. it'll have a tiny little standardized icon of a stickfigure holding a camera in the mirror, and it'll automatically set itself to be overexposed and out of focus.

I lawled long and hard. xD

Thanks for the advice and the yank back down to earth.
/me thinks he's had his opinion of himself too elevated by well-meaning loved ones
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>51797

"/me thinks he's had his opinion of himself too elevated by well-meaning loved ones"

Don't you hate that? My relatives do that all the time. It's hard. That's why boards like this, or joining a critique pool at flickr is so much fun & good input
>> slim !yE5LOsLjxQ
>>51797
a lot of people get into photography thinking that it'll be something that they're immediately good at without practice or education. it's hard to imagine at first how much more there is to photo than pointing the camera at something you like looking at and taking a shot. when you get into it though, like me, you'll realize that no matter how much vision you think you have, you have to learn rules and get experience before you can take shots that are truely attrative and worth showing off.

just always think of yourself as needing improvement. that's the only way to improve. remember and fix your weaknesses.
>> elf_man
Yeah, this is why having loved ones sucks.
>> ac
>>51800
I hate the people who love me, and they hate me!