File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Is this a good picture?
Or what could i have done better?
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakePanasonicCamera ModelDMC-FX3Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.4.5Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)35 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:05:27 10:42:55Exposure Time1/30 secF-Numberf/2.8Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating400Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceFlashFlashFlash, AutoFocal Length5.80 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width2456Image Height1632RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlHigh Gain UpSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalImage QualityFineWhite BalanceAutoFocus ModeAutoSpot ModeUnknownImage StabilizerMode 2Macro ModeNormalShooting ModeUnknownAudioNoFlash Bias0.00 EVColor EffectOffContrastStandardNoise ReductionStandard
>> Anonymous
>>190766
>what could i have done better?
resize
>> Anonymous
>>190768

gp but that aside.
>> Learning
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
LOL, Sony noise.

>>Equipment Make Panasonic
Wait what???
>> Anonymous
HOLY FUCKING NOISE

At ISO 400!?!?! WTF, I am literally scared by this!

Also, P mode.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Is this a good picture?
Or what could i have done better?
>> Anonymous
>>190781
well played
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Is this a good picture?
Or what could i have done better?
>> Learning
>>190781
remember rule of thirds next time idiot
>> Anonymous
itt people realize that noise is a part of (digital) photography.

If you can't deal with physical limitations then you need to gtfo my universe.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>190775


Wow, way to bash on Sony then make yourself look like a pompous jackass.

Although pic is not OP's camera, Panasonic does make DSLRs.

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:08:28 21:46:35Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width540Image Height407
>> Sheep++
     File :-(, x)
I never did anything like this, so I can't tell if it's improved or not.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
This thread makes me smile
>> $19.99 !OSYhGye6hY
     File :-(, x)
>>190792
Fuck rule of thirds!

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 30DPhotographerunknownMaximum Lens Aperturef/4.0Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2008:05:26 23:48:19Exposure Time1/50 secF-Numberf/13.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/13.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeSpotFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length70.00 mmRenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> washer !kxrJVlZ8OE
>>190797

oh god please delete that monstrosity
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>190797
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
>> washer !kxrJVlZ8OE
>>190794
read his exif, he didn't take that with a dslr, he took it with a fx3, the one of the lowest of their budget point and shoots of a couple years back.
>> Sheep++
>>190800
...
>> Anonymous
>>190766
serious answer? alright:
get on your knees, it's (almost) always woth making your pants dirty. also try to give the man and the bird focus by having them in one line (almost good here). the background should be out of the dof at 2.8 ... i haet p&s.
remember: you don't TAKE a picture, you MAKE it!
>> Anonymous
at first i was like, argh! Noise!
but then i was like, no, its a good thing for this photo
>> Anonymous
>>190799
Its a rule of thumb which means if you follow it you'll do well most of the time, but it is not right for all cases, as your excellent photo demonstrates.

For people who suck at photography the rule of thirds is of tremendous benefit. At the very least it gets them thinking about composition, instead of them just clicking and getting a boring snapshot with the horizon centred and their girlfriend with a cheesy smile right in the centre of frame.
>> Anonymous
>>190766

I think a better angle would be from behind the birds, ground up, portrait style. Not only do you see the man's face better, but the angle really adds to the interest.
>> Anonymous
>>191410
Really? I kind of think the opposite. I really like the mood that not being able to see his face creates; if you were gonna go forward, I'd only go a bit and be careful to keep his face a bit hidden, or I might even go a bit behind him.