File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
anyone else like to take pics like this?
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeSony EricssonCamera ModelK750iCamera SoftwareR1BC002 prgCXC1250092_EU_1_CA 8.6Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:05:10 20:42:06Exposure Time2 secF-Numberf/2.8ISO Speed Rating100Exposure Bias1/3 EVMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1632Image Height1224RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoDigital Zoom Ratio1.8Scene Capture TypeNight SceneSubject Distance RangeDistant View
>> Anonymous
No, because it shows absolutely nothing and looks terrible.
>> Anonymous
no, i'm not fond of taking shitty shaky ass pics.

learn to use long exposure correctly
>> Anonymous
hey it was my first time, not EVERYONE is a professional photographer which it seems like in here
>> ac
Yes, a lot of people like to take horribly overexposed long-exposure pictures on their cell phones. Can't fathom why.

I don't know how much control your K750i gives you, but if you can lower the exposure, I'd recommend doing so. 2 seconds at f/2.8 is giving you this mess, so 2 seconds at f/5.6 or f/8 might work better. Also, if it has a tripod mount, use it. If it doesn't have a tripod mount, set it down on a stable surface before you start the exposure.
>> Anonymous
>>49842
This is the photography section, not the we-take-pics-with-our-crappy-mobiles-and-think-they're-cool section.
>> slim !yE5LOsLjxQ
>>49848
is it also the in-love-with-the-stink-of-our-own-shit section?

i came here posting pics like these at first and now i have a good solid grasp of photographical principles. i'm still not pro but i can take hangable photos.

give the boy time and encouragement if he wants to learn.
>> Anonymous
>>49851
You have to beat them, BEAT THEM HARD! Then they'll learn. If you can't take 4chan, maybe devART is a better place for you. I'm sure they will tell how "cool" and "awesome" your photos are, regardless of what you post.
>> ac
>>49851
QFT
>> ac
>>49854
Beat them and beat them hard so they go running to DevArt and they'll never get any better.

Tell them they suck but then explain to them how to not suck so much and maybe they'll actually get better and produce good pictures some day.

From da rules:
>As with the art critique board, only constructive criticism will be tolerated.
>> Anonymous
>>49856
> Tell them they suck but then explain to them how to not suck so much
Agree. Empty insults aren't helping anyone, better to simply ignore. Sometime though it's pitifully obvious and poster should just think more.
>> slim !yE5LOsLjxQ
so in the spirit of the argument here, let's all offer some constructive criticism, yes?

my answer is no. no one else likes to take pics like these. because they're awful to look at. you wouldn't DRAW or PAINT a picture where you couldn't see anything and everything was blurry and the colors were dull, so why take a photo like that?

if you want to share pics that we and other photo entusiasts are going to like, you should go learn a little about photography. pick up a book or learn from the intertubes. good photos use good composition -- they have a subject and they present that subject pleasingly with its surroundings. that's a good place for you to start. take pictures of THINGS, nost just street lighting. more than that, take pictures of INTERESTING things. and take them in an interesting way. leave out things that don't help the shot. get the lighting right. fill the frame with your subject. don't shoot every god damned thing from eye level. that's boring.

hopefully you actually want to get better and are taking some of this advice.
>> Anonymous
>>49851
Starting off with a phone camera is NOT a good start.
I as well learned a lot from 4chan but they need to take critiques no matter how harsh they are. And honestly? That is one crappy photo. Would you rather if I said it with sprinkles and sugar on top?
>> pixle !YlHXuPBxBQ
fine, constructive criticism:

First of all, stop taking photos with your mobile's camera.
Second, an over-exposed picture only comes out fairly well in a dark ambient and with the right composition or place to take, if it's just a picture of cars running by or light or whatever it is, what's the point? There are already millions of pictures like that, you need to look for originality.

Third and last, you need to take critiques no matter how harsh they are. So have I and so have all of us and that's how we build up to be better photographers.

Honestly, there is not one good thing about that picture. It's overexposed, not original, not clear and with no purpose whatsoever.
>> Anonymous
>>49869
okay i can agree with that. OP, get a real camera. even a little flimsy play camera under $150 as long as you can use different settings and take presentable pictures. you CAN take a good picture with a cameraphone but you kind of have to be an expert to be able to.
>> Bridget !IRcQER6/v6
     File :-(, x)
I didn't take any like that, I just took shots of an empty parking lot...

It was taken with a older Kodak Camera

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeEASTMAN KODAK COMPANYCamera ModelKODAK Z700 ZOOM DIGITAL CAMERAMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)35 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution230 dpiVertical Resolution230 dpiExposure Time1/2 secF-Numberf/2.8Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating80Lens Aperturef/2.8Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageLight SourceDaylightFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length6.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width2048Image Height1536Exposure Index80RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeLandscapeGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> Bridget !IRcQER6/v6
>>49879

Eh, NVM. I didn't realize there was little camera shake to it. Damn not having a tripod!
>> pixle !YlHXuPBxBQ
>>49879
are you OP?
>> Anonymous
>>49879
That's even worse than OPP.
>> Anonymous
>i can take hangable photos.
I beg to differ
>> slim !yE5LOsLjxQ
>>49929
screw you. i SO can. just not every single one.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
NO photographer is perfect. I throw away so many pictures it isn't even funny. The point is to edit your photographs before posting them anywhere. Don't post a photo you aren't proud of. Look for constructive critism. Very, very rarely is a photograph "hangable" unless there are at least 5 to 6 people (not your closest friends or relatives) that look at it and go "OMG HOW MUCH IS THAT?" It's the sad, sad life of a photographer.
>> slim !yE5LOsLjxQ
>>49937
your standards are too high. i see many, many photos hanging on walls of all types be they residential, commercial, or otherwise, that are just plain no good and not memorable. right now, for instance i am glaring at two uncomfortably underexposed shots of flowers that are dead-centered and surrounded by virtually nothing of interest. these photographs adorn my mother's living room walls.

just think about those damnable motivational posters. many of those photos are cliché and unstimulating, and of they were not accompanied with phony inspirational text they'd be doomed to obscurity. they're still hangable though, because they're good enough for a good number of people to think they're pretty.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>49940

Yeah, I guess maybe they are. However, look at all the horrible photographers out there and call their work "art' when it's just a piece of crap? Hell, I think most of the work that I post on my flickr are POS's, but I'm bias against my own stuff. There are no photos on my flickr right now I would even come close to considering printing.

I also can't account for crazy people with horrible, or if not horrible cliche, taste in photos. I guess there is always someone out there that will think something else is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Most of those photographers are local. You'll never see them make it into the "big time" or see them published in magazines because the quality just isn't there. Guess I should have been more specific. There are horrible hangable photos out there and others that are better than average, but it's likely that these photographers will not be able to make a very good living off their work. Better?
>> Anonymous
>>49929
I like you.

>>49937
> Don't post a photo you aren't proud of.
Why not? Even if I realize my mistakes, I still might miss something.

> I throw away so many pictures it isn't even funny.
A much better photographer then I will ever be once said that, if he gets twelve good photos in a year it has been a very good year.
>> elf_man
>>49949
I figure it depends on how you're looking at 'proud.' It's a matter of being critical; if you think a picture shows development, for instance, that's something to be proud of and worth posting for a new range of feedback. But if you don't at least like the picture, how can you expect others to?
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>49949

I'm not talking about seeing mistakes, we all do that, but if you post a photo you don't like at least a little bit, you KNOW is overexposed, underexposed, etc. why post it unless you're specifically looking for a whole ton of replies that say "that sucks!"? Then say ahead of time "I know this sucks, but i'm looking for suggestions and improvements" or no one has any idea why it's being posted.

(i'm talking in general here, not specifically you) The only reason I say that is why post a photo you don't at least like a little bit, then when someone says it sucks, come back and say "well, it was my first time, so..." I've heard that many times here. If you look at a photo and like the composition and the color, and you think it looks alright to you, then it's likely other people may like it. Just a personal opinion of mine.

>A much better photographer then I will ever be once said that, if he gets twelve good photos in a year it has been a very good year

Quoted for truth. I get 3-4 "trophies" every year, if any at all.
>> illogical !!z/I+8zVANsa
     File :-(, x)
I personally like this Photo, some reason I do love dawn/dusk pictures with the sun.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon PowerShot A710 ISMaximum Lens Aperturef/3.5Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaLens Size5.80 - 34.80 mmFirmware VersionFirmware Version 1.00Owner NameJason LiangImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution180 dpiVertical Resolution180 dpiImage Created2007:05:22 18:32:36Exposure Time1/1250 secF-Numberf/7.1Lens Aperturef/7.1Exposure Bias0 EVFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length13.16 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3072Image Height2304RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeLandscapeFocus TypeAutoMetering ModeEvaluativeISO Speed RatingAutoSharpnessNormalSaturationNormalContrastNormalShooting ModeLandscapeImage SizeLargeFocus ModeSingleDrive ModeSingleFlash ModeOffCompression SettingFineMacro ModeNormalSubject Distance6.810 mWhite BalanceAutoExposure Compensation3Sensor ISO Speed160Image Number100-2067
>> Anonymous
>>49954
Spoilers: that's not a sun.
>> illogical !!z/I+8zVANsa
>>49957
Heh, sorry, I keep thinking the Browse File button is on top.