File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Is this an okay portrait?
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakePENTAX CorporationCamera ModelPENTAX *ist DSCamera Software*ist DS Ver 2.00Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)0 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2006:12:02 23:35:06Exposure Time1/180 secF-Numberf/3.5Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating200Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashFlash, AutoFocal Length0.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3008Image Height2000RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationHighSharpnessHardSubject Distance RangeDistant View
>> Anonymous
Two things I can see wrong with it, the glasses don't complement the eyes well (they are too low or the shot is taken too high). Four eyes should never look literal.

The bricks don't complement her skin, it makes her sort of blend with the wall, you should try a lighter backing.

Beyond that though, the shadows, lighting, focus are all good.
>> Anonymous
>>34430
Alright, I'll tell her to push her glasses up next time. = P

Thanks for your input.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)


Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakePENTAX CorporationCamera ModelPENTAX K100DCamera SoftwareK100D Ver 1.00Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)187 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution199 dpiVertical Resolution199 dpiImage Created2007:01:19 14:53:56Exposure Time1/125 secF-Numberf/5.6Exposure ProgramCreativeISO Speed Rating200Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashFlash, AutoFocal Length125.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1593Image Height1992RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeClose View
>> Anonymous
OP here. I need to get a decent photoediting software so that I can actually resize and tweak my pictures.

I think I will soon, then I'll start posting here more often.
>> Photoshop or gimp? Anonymous
>>34462

If you're not going to spend alot, then gimp will actually be more powerfull and easier to use than what you would pay for.

( photoshop? good, stick with that. The box at walmart with camera word art on the cover? you would be better off with gimp for free )

gimp.org
>> Levels Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>34461

No need for that, I love the background ( compared to green difference clouds ), but some tweaking could help.
>> Anonymous
>>34466
Your version fails on many levels, contrast and brightness to high (look at the skin tone and tip of nose).34461 background is not green clouds but green blurred bushland. Your sense of color is not very good, I hope your sense of smell is better.....because your MS Paint skills stink.
>> Liasa
She's pretty. The direction she is looking in, however, and the fact that she's not really smiling, take away from it.

I don't mind the brick wall, personally. But, she would be amazingly beautiful in sunlight, or really any other kind of more dramatic lighting.

Just my two cents.
>> Liasa
     File :-(, x)
Lousy shop. Changed levels slightly, took out what I considered unneccessary amounts of negative space, and took out the dark circles under her eyes - seems to be eyeshadow? Makes her look very tired. Also, brightened highlights in her hair.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakePENTAX CorporationCamera ModelPENTAX *ist DSCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS WindowsSensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)0 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:01:19 03:48:36Exposure Time1/180 secF-Numberf/3.5Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating200Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashFlash, AutoFocal Length0.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width2149Image Height2000RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationHighSharpnessHardSubject Distance RangeDistant View
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>34466
If you were really clever, you would have presented something like this.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakePENTAX CorporationCamera ModelPENTAX *ist DSCamera Software*ist DS Ver 2.00Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)0 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution355 dpiVertical Resolution355 dpiImage Created2007:01:19 23:10:52Exposure Time1/180 secF-Numberf/3.5Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating200Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashFlash, AutoFocal Length0.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width2130Image Height1420RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationHighSharpnessHardSubject Distance RangeDistant View
>> Anonymous
>>34498
She's naked! =0

Anonymous approves.
>> Anonymous
>>34506
Please desist from fapping to my girlfriend...

>=(
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
What about this one, despite being a bit dark and not rotated?

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakePENTAX CorporationCamera ModelPENTAX *ist DSCamera Software*ist DS Ver 2.00Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)0 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2006:12:02 23:35:19Exposure Time1/180 secF-Numberf/3.5Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating200Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashFlash, AutoFocal Length0.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3008Image Height2000RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationHighSharpnessHardSubject Distance RangeDistant View
>> Anonymous
>>34510
I'm not. I'm only appreciating the illusion. Though, she is really pretty. Consider yourself lucky.

sage for a non-contributing post.
>> Anonymous
>>34513
Alright. = )

And by the way. I will probably go for GIMP unless one of my friends gives me photoshop or I can come up with the money for it. It's heavily discounted at my university's software store, but even so it's still $400. Maybe sometime later on.
>> Anonymous
>>34514
you must be new to the intarweb
>> Anonymous
>>34515

He must be.

Honestly, just crack it. For what non-professionals do with it it is not worth the $400.
DL the trial version and find a crack for it.

Or get GIMP. That's what I started on. I only switched to PS cause it handled text better.
>> Anonymous
tits or gtfo
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>34511
Harder to work with, to much noise and lack of clarity. Thats all I can do now, have to get back to work. Catch you later.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakePENTAX CorporationCamera ModelPENTAX *ist DSCamera Software*ist DS Ver 2.00Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)0 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:01:20 04:37:44Exposure Time1/180 secF-Numberf/3.5Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating200Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashFlash, AutoFocal Length0.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width2000Image Height3008RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationHighSharpnessHardSubject Distance RangeDistant View
>> Anonymous
>>34515
Okay then. I don't know why I thought maybe /p/ would be against a crack of it, but I do know someone who has it already cracked and will give it to me.

My apologies for being an idiot too.
>> Anonymous
>>34521

What were you trying to do with this? It looks terrible...
>> Anonymous
>>34511
OP here, I think they were trying to get it to be a little lighter.
>> Anonymous
>>34522

I wish you luck with it. I think you'll like it. If you need tips let me know.
>> Anonymous
>>34526
Okay, thanks. Another thing. Should I start shooting in RAW?
>> Anonymous
>>34528
Shoot in RAW if you can afford it... meaning if you have the space for it on your memory card. But if you're a casual photographer, then RAW doesn't really mean too much if you're not going to do any post processing. (I'm not sure if RAW or compressed format affect anything when making print outs though.)
>> Anonymous
now, a totally different subject: zoom in a bit when you take a photo. that gets rid of the horrible flash vignetting (dark corners) and also fixes barrel distortion (brick walls are great benchmarks for that)
>> Anonymous
lol @ buying a Pentax *ist DS camera without having a clue on how to use it. Not even 128 bit deep raw images will save this dude.

Also lol @ the girl's body language saying she doesn't want her photo taken.
>> Anonymous
>>34535
Since you can do it better, please post pictures of girls you have taken with your supreme skills that you must have to make such comments.
>> Anonymous
OP again.

Honestly I'm much more comfortable shooting 35mm, but it's just not frugal or practical. I'm by no means a master of the DS or digital photography in general. If I had better film development skills, enough reason to spend money on 35mm all the time, and a negative scanner, I'd probably be using my ME Super for everything.
>> Anonymous
>>34536
Hey, I've got a better idea-- worshipping mediocrity, like all the other failed 30-somethings who've worked at Bestbuy their entire adult lives.
>> Anonymous
Holy hell, I was just hoping for some critique and help on how to improve myself! Did I ever claim I was some sort of photography master and everyone should be paying me to do photoshoots of them? No!

No matter where you go, it's still 4chan I guess...
>> Anonymous
Constructive criticism.

1. Eye contact. It will make this kind of portrait better, guaranteed.

2. A smile. It definitely wouldn't hurt :)

3. A natural beauty deserves natural light.
>> Anonymous
>>34524
..as I said `harder to work with`.It`s better than original, maybe you should have a go at it.