File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Why are photographers works who were held in high esteem considered to be "perfect". You see time and time again, famous photographers works posted on here with people "falling" for critiquing them.
In all cases the critic's are regarded as being stupid and tasteless in photography, because they didn't realize that the artist that took it was held in high regard.

I dare say that not every photo taken by these "famous" (and more often than not, deceased) photographers is perfect. So why is it that we seem to judge a photo more by who took it, than what the picture actually looks like.
Time and time again, people fawned over pskaught and Vincents photo's. yet take away the tripcode and they may have gone unnoticed (or at least not as respected)

Not saying that critic's and peoples taste in photo's should be universally recognized and standardized, however I believe we need to stop basing a photographs worth, on who was behind the camera when it was taken.

Pic in a weird way related
>> Anonymous
also the reverse should hold true. there was a thread before where someone with a 90 pound P&S was defacing a guy he had never seen before because of his more expensive camera equipment. (And possibly some sort of social faux-pas in his area)
It seems to be a cycle, people with cheaper cameras often deface and critisize people with more expensive gear. Often attacking their final photo product. Yet the more expensive gear you have the more people will look down on the other photographers equipment and critisize them on the basis that their equipment isn't suitable.
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
you're an idiot. it's not like vincent and pskaught were famous before they started posting on 4chan. they take good photos, so people started paying attention to them. plus, vincent has posted without a tripcode before, and all that ever happens is "wow, these are suspiciously good. where did you steal these from?"

and layman critiques of master works are usually hilariously misled and deeply misinformed/uneducated. it takes a real eye and education to discern the qualities in fine art photography, since ethics, context and history mean so fucking much when you actually judge a picture.

shakespeare may sound like a pretentious fag, but that's just because you're an idiot.
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
>>262449

and no, i don't know who took a shit in my cereal this morning. i'm just cranky.
>> Anonymous
we are all living in a structureless world, tearfully clinging to our feeble attempts to create and control the world.
definitions of art and taste are all the more humorous because of the rapid pace they change.
>> Anonymous
>>262449shakespeare may sound like a pretentious fag, but that's just because you're an idiot.

Hey, i have this awesome black pot that was talking about a black kettle the other day...
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
>>262458

truth.

i am both a pretentious fag, and an idiot. go ahead and come up with another witty remark. we'll see how much i can agree with it.

i predict 100%.
>> beethy !vW/UaE6zYU
>Not saying that critic's and peoples taste in photo's should be universally recognized and standardized, however I believe we need to stop basing a photographs worth, on who was behind the camera when it was taken.

I agree... and this would strongly apply to other photography communities on the net. But /p/ is probably the most brutally honest place there is.
When I look at Vincent's photos, I don't give a shit that he is Vincent who has taken good photos in the past.
Reason why is because there's no point sucking eachother's cocks on /p/, there's no reward other than anon going "slurp slurp".
So when we do compliment someone, it's often real and truthful and not based on who they are.

On the flipside people who generate a lot of positive critique on /p/ often generate the most trolls or hatefags also (see Pskaught and DC.. both very skilled). Unless they're extremely nice and don't join in on heated arguments.

That's /p/
>> Anonymous
>>262465

you're constantly trying to sum up /p/ or speak for all of /p/ but you fail every single fucking time. how many fucking times has a good photo been posted only to have people say "cool shot" or "nice. i like #3"... SO REAL AND TRUTHFUL BRO.

also,
>DC
>very skilled

ROFF ELLE

you're not chancellor of this place.. fuck right off with your newfaggotry.
>> Anonymous
I sometimes wonder how many regular posters there are on here.

I, for instance, don't use a tripcode, but I post in many threads every day. It would be pretty cool if there were only like 10 regulars here in addition to the tripfags.
>> soulr !lK4GD5SleY
You guys worry too much about /p/, go take some photos instead, there is a world out there.
>> Anonymous
>>262477
or maybe all us anonymous are really tripfags?
>> Kilz2latex !!3htj9hFDMA4
>>262465
theres quite a lot to gain by sucking dick on /p/
everyone here likes to be complemented and when you suck a dick your dick too shall be sucked.

>>262477
i used to be one of those, but decided id rather go with a name. i posted for like a year as anon in here, arguments are easier when people arent saying SAMEFAG SAMEFAG everywhere.
>> beethy !vW/UaE6zYU
     File :-(, x)
>>262472
>your newfaggotry.
>> Anonymous
>1219292785729.jpg]

new.
fag.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>262477
>if there were only like 10 regulars here in addition to the tripfags.
I think way fewer than 10. Just seems like ten because there's a small number of trolls who post as if they're multiple people to make it seem like more than one person agrees with them.
>> Anonymous
>>262477

mnn that would be crazy. I am another anon that regularily posts here.

Also ITT butthurt
>> Anonymous
>>262477
mnn that would be crazy. I am another anon that regularily posts here.

Also ITT butthurt
>> Anonymous
>>262529
another anon here
yay 3!!!!
>> Anonymous
>>262477
I'm another anon like this, I'd put it at maybe 12-15 dailies or close to it, with a far larger number that check in pretty regularly.

Hey, what would other regular-anons think of us all tripping up for a week to get a better idea of how /p/ is?
>> OMG ANOTHER ANON LOLOL Anonymous
>Hey, what would other regular-anons think of us all tripping up for a week to get a better idea of how /p/ is?

i wouldn't give a fat hairy shit what you do on the internet.
>> Anonymous
I think everyone underestimates the lurker
the one who sits in the shadows and just watches, only posting every couple days or weeks.

Usually repeating meme's it learned from other boards, or harassing butterfly.

There could be hundreds of them, and you wouldn't notice, In fact I bet there are over 200 regulars to /p/

I wish i had the logs to try to prove my theory