File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
in continuation to previous
>> Anonymous
How the hell do you do that?
>> Anonymous
>>223169
wormhole
>> Anonymous
Radial blur and history brush methinks.
>> Anonymouse
>>223153

Awesome pic! Just...just makes me wanna rape!
>> Anonymous
Super! A+++! It evokes the feeling of the trail.
>> Anonymous
no history br. just radial blur 2
>> Anonymous
If you want a real response, not shitty stock comments from DA or Flickr that get pulled out due to there been a reasonable attractive women in the photo, allow me to say what i think

The photo is well composed but would do with a slightly tighter crop (ever so slightly), these wide shot photos do tend to work, but one when the subject is doing something... not just stood there

As for the subject, shitty lighting is shitty... Fix this up, until then your shots worthless... its a shot of the woman, I don't care if the woods is well lit, i want to see the woman!

Lose the shitty DA processing.... Do it in camera if your going to do it at all, Since you stripped the EXIF am going to assume your a moron and tell you to open up the aperture in order to bring in the DoF, this will bokeh out the background....

Overall this kind of shot works well if the subject is acting out a kind of "lost in dream world" scene, and dose not work here...

Try harder
>> Anonymous
>>223180
thanks
I will try
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
     File :-(, x)
>>223169
Some old lenses give so-called "swirly" bokeh that approximates this look. Here's a shot from an OM-mount Tokina 80-200 that kinda illustrates it, though pre-WWII 50mm lenses like the Sonnar and Summar are more popular for the purpose.

Obviously, the effect isn't nearly as great, and the shot itself is rather crap.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeFUJI PHOTO FILM CO., LTD.Camera ModelSLP800Camera SoftwareFDi V4.5 / FRONTIER330-3.5-0E-606Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:02:02 10:31:10Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width1840Image Height1232
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
photoshop gimmicks are exactly that.. do it on the camera..

you can achieve that same photo if you use a flash (off camera is better if you can get some slaves), which would freeze the main subject (the model) and then if you use a slow shutter speed twist the camera to get the blur, or an easier way is to zoom out (however that causes a pretty different effect)..

pic related, example of how it's done properly.. shot on film aswell so no fuckin about

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 7.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:07:14 13:45:23Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width649Image Height669
>> Anonymous
>>223215
why does it matter how its done, this site is so gay about shooping. if you can do it with the camera then do it, as long as it looks good, but if you cant for some reason like not having a proper flash or just the fact that you cant do it then why shouldnt someone be able to shoop it in. the masses arent going to say " ooh he did radial blur instead of using a flash and then twisting the camera around!!!!!!!"
a photo shouldnt be about how its taken, or for that matter what it was taken with.
>> Anonymous
>>223240
>>a picture shouldnt be about how its made, or for that matter what it was made with.

Fixed. It just isn't a photo anymore, with all the shooping, it becomes a picture.
>> Anonymous
>>223240

well, the point is, photography is photography right, adding a radial blur or whatever turns it into graphic design.. most photographers only use photoshop and use the shit that you can do in the darkroom, which is fair enough because this day and age photoshop is the digital darkroom, despite that using the crappy filters and effects doesn't add anything to the photograph, especially when it's obvious that it is shooped..

alot of things depend on having the right equipment or waiting for the right lighting conditions, etc.. to simply shop it in goes against the whole point of photography and it's 'art' so to speak.. if you can't do it then you can't do it.. wait another day or whatever, get a photo of somthin else... photoshop is fine to an extent, but when you start using filters/effects that's where it gets lame and turns it into an aspect of graphic design rather than photography...
>> Anonymous
ITT hair splitting faggots

go outside and take pictures, you nubs
>> Anonymous
>>223269
Though I agree, the following line is utter bullshit:

>>Most photographers only use photoshop and use the shit that you can do in the darkroom

You can do almost anything in the darkroom, even radial blurs, history brush, etcetera. Depending on where you draw the line, your digital work is mostly about adjusting, not processing.
>> Anonymous
>>223240
This is a place for people to develop their photography skills. Lighting, composition, working with models, learning your camera.

There are over 9000 ways you can make someone say "ooooh" to a shitty photo with clever Photoshopping. Photoshop is an easier skill to pick up, you can do that anywhere.

TLDR: 4chan is where you learn to shoot good.
>> Anonymous
>>223243
eh i guess...

>>223269
applying one filter does not make a picture/photo into a graphic design, graphic design entails much more than that.
it doesnt take anything away from the art, the skill the art requires yes, but thats not necessarily a bad thing. maybe it make those who have honed their skillz angry but it only helps the art itself, by allowing people to be creative and express themselves without having to learn for years and years but still come out with a decent if not good picture.
a GREAT picture will still out shine a GOOD picture, not matter what effects you put in.

>>223317
your obviously new here, welcome
but i feel i should correct your naive notions of /p/. /p/ is a place to come and maybe learn something but usually argue about bull shit and jack off to gear.
>> Anonymous
>>but i feel i should correct your naive notions of /p/. /p/ is a place to come and maybe learn something but usually argue about bull shit and jack off to gear.

That's /p/ since trolling started. Enjoy, newfag.

>>a GREAT picture will still out shine a GOOD picture, not matter what effects you put in.

Exactly, picture, not photo. If you haven't noticed, this is a photography board. Not a picture board.
>> Anonymous
>>223358
ok so every photo youve ever taken through photoshop is a picture, yes lets be VERY literal. this is a picture board, the pictures have been photos but arent anymore because you have edited them.

ive been here for quite a while ive learned very little about lighting exposure or any of that, maybe composition but you cold learn that from any website that has pictures.
>> Anonymous
>>223394

shut the fuck up, you butthurt little faggot
editing is fine, just not ZOMG HYPER STYLEZZZZ like the OP's shit-tastic blur-fest.

If you can't understand the difference between adjusting contrast and color balance and applying ridiculous fucking filters to stuff then you have no business ever using a digital camera.
>> Anonymous
>>223406
sorry i guess you cant take sarcasm.
my point is still valid and il even edit it to please you

a great picture will out shine a good photo and a great photo will out shine a good picture.
>> Srs Critique Fag !2y1il5Qy0g
>>223215
Amazing.

>>223274
Agreed.
>> Anonymous
>>223414
>a great picture will out shine a good photo and a great photo will out shine a good picture.

A great sculpture will outshine a good painting.
A great song will outshine a good picture.
A great [ANYTHING] will outshine a good [ANYTHING].

What the fuck is your point, you stupid faggot?

>>223215&>>223153
are not good, great, or even mediocre.
They're SHITTY CRAP that's been fucked up so badly that they aren't even generic any more.
>> Anonymous
just a word about processing.you can take a roll of film to be processed by one shop and it would come out different to another hops processing if they were doing it manually and not by the same machine with the same settings.the end product you would call photographs.shiny or matt photographic paper with images on them.pictures all in all to the layman in the street.the fact that they are processed with photographic paper,special light sensiive paper is the only reason they are called photographs.digital cameras do not take photographs ,they take images that can then be printed onto paper, not needing light sensitivity.
>> Anonymous
>>223425

are you an idiot? you don't know shit man..

>>223215
this photo is shot on film (medium format if you wanna get in-depth) and hasen't been deigitaly processed what-so-ever.. technically its great, lighting is spot on, aswell as the radial blur effect that has been used (which was done whilst taking the photo, not fuckin about on photoshoop afterwards).. full photo credit to Leo Sharp btw.. he knows the deal..

>>223153
where as this photo is just a snapshop that has had a filter from photoshop thrown on..
>> Anonymous
>>223430

ITT: faggots somehow argue that photographs printed on anything other than light-sensitive paper (such as in magazines, newspapers, books, etc) are not photographs.
>> Anonymous
>>223441
you my dear sir will never break into the market of using your work in a publishing house if your idea of helpful hints are of this nature
>> Anonymous
>>223441
That looks like one person to me, stop generalizing.
>> Anonymous
>>223441
What you refer to are prints
>> Anonymous
>>223215
>>223153
I feel dizzy after looking at those
>> Anonymous
>>223430

What? A photograph is called a photograph because it's made with the light coming through the lens hitting the sensor. The sensor can be a microchip or a silver halide emulsion or a glass plate or whatever. The photograph is the resulting image.
>> Anonymous
>>223269
Being a graphic designer myself, only n00bs use filters on ANYTHING.
To the op, lose the lame filters, this isnt 1995