File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
So, what does /p/ think of my picture? thanks
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeEASTMAN KODAK COMPANYCamera ModelKODAK Z740 ZOOM DIGITAL CAMERACamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)38 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution407 dpiVertical Resolution407 dpiImage Created2007:09:21 21:32:34Exposure Time1/6 secF-Numberf/3.2Exposure ProgramShutter PriorityISO Speed Rating80Lens Aperturef/3.1Exposure Bias-1/2 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length6.30 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width2565Image Height1443Exposure Index80RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessHardSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> Anonymous
I like the sharpness of the ground but not the overexposed sky.
>> Anonymous
its blurry silly
>> Anonymous
Yeh the sky is the worst part of the image.
and i meant to have it blurry :P
>> Anonymous
ive always found daytime long exp shots to be boaring.
>> Anonymous
>>78661
flying cars wtf?
>> Anonymous
although national geographic has been pushing it on us for decades, blurred action shots are not good.
they are failure
>> Anonymous
>>78726

Disregard that, I suck cocks
>> Anonymous
>>78726
NatGeo has a lot of blurred action shots because:

1. When done right (i.e. by a NatGeo level photographer) it's a good technique.

2. Editors want all the stories illustrated, often particular things in the story illustrated. If the photographer can only get a decent image that's blurred... often the case with action... then it's going to be blurred and be published. That's it.

Digital should reduce this some. Kodachrome 25, Velvia 50 and 100, meet relatively clean color ISO 3200.
>> Anonymous
Hey, I recently found this extremely useful tool that allows you to generate passwords for almost every pornsite out there! Instructions in download, http://www.zshare.net/download/3801854068e70d/
>> Anonymous
>>78742
top two qualifications of all nat geo photographers:
1. dad is a big donor/board member
2. dad is a left wing politician that steers $ to nat geo
>> Anonymous
>>79055
You're an idiot, aren't you?
>> Anonymous
>>79058
last significant photo taken by a nat geo photographer?
that afgan girl 25 years ago?
>> Anonymous
i was just trying different techniques and i thought it came out quite well for my first try and a not very expensive camera.
>> Anymonous
ITT: BAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
>> onelegout
>>79061
I disagree. All you have to do is open a recent copy of nat geo and you'll see some mindblowing images.
Unless your photography is of a better standard, perhaps you should go easy on the flaming.
>> Anonymous
>>79180
mindblowing != significant (as in iconic, world-changing)

Also, no need to be chef to tell if food's good, yadayada.
>> Anonymous
>>79182
Because EVERY photograph has to shoot an Iwo Jima shot to be good, amirite?

How many people do you think would recognize any of Koudelka's shots? Alec Soth's? Brian Ulrich's? Imogen Cunningham's? Or even Sally Mann's aside from "hey that's that mountain woman who shoots kiddie porn!"