File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Anyone here have flickr?
>> Anonymous
As much as we love to hate it, yes.
>> Anonymous
>>294025
Whats your url?
>> Anonymous
I think nearly all of us do.
Me included.
>> Anonymous
>>294030
I don't
>> Anonymous
OP: Post urls!
>> Anonymous
i don't either, flickr is for faggots

host your own shit
>> Anonymous
what program do you use to host your own?

I tried Gallery2 on a rented server I have already paid a year for; and it was a waste of time setting it all up the interface is cluttered compared to something like flickr.
>> Anonymous
I do but im not going to post my url, /p/ is a bunch of meanies :(
>> Anonymous
Yes.

Instead of asking this dumb question, what you should is /r/ the screenshot that has everyone's flickr account on it.
>> Liamness !R3jx5T6JdM
I use 23hq. Not good for being at attention whore as no-one else is one it, but purely to show photos to friends in far away place and as a backup, it's very, very good. Much better than flickr, anyway.

http://www.23hq.com/Liamness
>> $19.99 !OSYhGye6hY
     File :-(, x)


Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:10:20 01:26:19Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width2655Image Height4434
>> Samson !!x3tpUY1BsmB
www.flickr.com/erichdeleeuw

tear my shit up
>> Anonymous
I have a paid PBase account. Flickr is for emo fags and their cellphone cameras.
>> else !L6xabslN96
hay guise, i don't have a flickr account. am i missing out?
>> Anonymous
>>294171

can you stop being such a newfag, christ
>> Anonymous
>>294131
this is 4chan btw
>> ANTMY !qDIAcd3vJM
>>294048

cool fire bro
>> Anonymous
>>294120
That's actually some not bad stuff mate nice!
>> Anonymous
flickr.com/photos/mikepwnz/
inb4 OLOL UR DISRESPECTIN DA DEAD
>> Anonymous
>>294180
can you stop being trolled so easily, christ

if you fell for that, are you sure it is him that is the newfag and not yourself.
>> Anonymous
>>294376

oh hai else or someone who hasn't read any of the other newfaggotry posts he made
>> Anonymous
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45pZyomwsns
>> Anonymous
http://www.flickr.com/photos/italobrito/

destroy me, /p/.
>> Anonymous
www.flickr.com/photos/anti-martyr

lulz
>> Anonymous
http://flickr.com/photos/xn--4cab0r/

yo
>> ??????? !KEBab7wem6
http://flickr.com/photos/monglercock/

fffff yeah
>> Anonymous
>>294120
nice samson, some good work.

>>294354
god, you suck. and your photography too.

>>294391
great photoweek´s, everything else is boring

>>294452
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz l2comp

>>494455
read above.

1 out of 5..... damn /p/, damn
>> Anonymous
>>294458

>>Sui at her first "real" photoshoot. Isn't she lovely?

you sick fuck
>> Anonymous
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kaptenboelja
I almost only post my strobist faggotry over there though.
>> Anonymous
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45pZyomwsns
>> Anonymous
sweet

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kaibot

i pretty much just use flickr so I can link people to shit better than facebook or whatever, I bought a pro account last year because I am a faggot
>> Anonymous
http://flickr.com/photos/kloppervok/

Because I'm too cool for a tripcode
>> Anonymous
>>294048

YOURE THE FAGGOT BURNING PIZZA BOXES!
>> Anonymous
drk229 on there
>> Anonymous
I like how I'm getting flickr traffic but no comments or feedback. Thanks a lot.
>> Anonymous
Only good shit so far is david sandell, and i already had him in flickr contacts. so you anons fail hard
>> Anonymous
http://flickr.com/photos/lruw/

Trolling /p/ with bad shots.
>> Anonymous
has /p/rojekt flickr shown up yet?
I'm curious as to see if its happened yet
>> Anonymous
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lorenzodesiati/3020768068/

Not me, but it made me rage long and hard
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>294639
In way after everyone just sort of loses interest in the whole thing.
>> Anonymous
>>294744
That shot sucks so hard, im hardly able even to describe how much it sucks.
And people fav this shit?
>> divide Anonymous !Bi/zero./.
oh lord
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
>>294466

why don't you ever post this stuff on /p/? i know there's a strong anti-strobist vibe here (i'm lord anti-strobe, which makes this whole post ironic), but this is generally well done, and certainly better than 90% of the stuff on /p/.
>> Anonymous
>>294815
Yeah, well, as you said yourself, /p/ seems to hate strobism. Maybe I'll give a try next time I shoot something though!

On a side note, why the strobist hate? Too gimmicky?
>> Anonymous
>>294853

because 96% of /p/ don't know how to use light at all

because 96% of /p/ likes to run around with their 50/1.8 shooting professional borkeh look

because 96% of /p/ can't afford lighting equipment
>> Anonymous
>>294853
Too baroque, too slick.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>294853On a side note, why the strobist hate? Too gimmicky?

this is what /p/ does with strobist

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTiCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 MacintoshPhotographerunknownMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.8Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:05:27 17:05:38Exposure Time1/80 secF-Numberf/4.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating800Lens Aperturef/4.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePartialFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width671Image Height1000RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
>>294861
strobist techniques aren't all gimmmicky.

there are many techniques to be learned at that site about lighting, especially if you don't have a studio budget.

but just like any techniques, people only look at the poor examples and base their comments on them.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
http://flickr.com/photos/jason_benjamin/
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
>>294853

1. because instead of freeing up your visual vocabulary, it makes every photo you take look like you read strobist, which in turn dates your work as very 2000's early digital. oftentimes you can even point out which article the photographer was reading when he shot that photo. (oh, this is the one where he figured out how to balance flash with the sunset. oh, this one is a light painting. this one is with the diy ring flash.)

2. because not every photo needs to be lit like a commercial, which is the ethic that the strobist philosophy espouses. natural light is just fine, and often it's preferable. again, it's the thing about visual vocabulary. you know, ideally, everyone would read strobist and get the useful bits, which is basically to think about light all the time. everyone would become more creative and free themselves from rote imitation. instead, the exact opposite has happened. david hobby has unleashed a very powerful suite of tools on the internet, and people are using it to create the exact same set of photos time after time. there's something cheap and unearned about the entire process.
>> Anonymous
http://www.flickr.com/photos/c_s_breiland/

shitsux, be warned.
>> Anonymous
>>294986
>because not every photo needs to be lit like a commercial
And this is where you are wrong. Can you count how many pictures, since the start of this year, were posted on /p/ that fall in this category? Not county Pskaught, because he's a faggot. I don't remember any, because they weren't memorable, or they ended up on page 6 before I got there.

Your bitching about what could possibly happen. I haven't seen it. The diy ring flash shit is a meme for a reason. It sucks. It's nowhere near the diy stuff you see on flickr.

>david hobby has unleashed a very powerful suite of tools on the internet
Ok, I'm glad you think so, but contrary to public opinion, there's not an army or strobist either on /p/ or on flickr. Sure, light stands and clamps sold out on adorama again. That's because it's the strobists right? Wrong. I learned photography through experimentation. I picked up bits and pieces left and right. I picked up some strobist and integrated into my work. Does that mean I have balance the fucking light everytime and use a "diy" aluminium place reflector? NO.

What you're talking about is the people who use the copy and paste method to photography and have a stream (over 100 pictures) with strobist like pictures over a 6 month period. I'm sorry, but I just don't see them, and I'm not exactly looking for them. Stop setting up this straw man "anti-strobist" argument. You know it's shit. And I know it's shit. It's been repeated everytime the subject comes up that it's becoming it's own meme.

tl;dr: The 100% strobist-all-the-time fags that people are bitching in this thread don't actually exist outside the real of the jealous fags looking too hard for them. They are rare.
>> sunshine
Have a flickr, recently purchased a pro account. I just like how they organize their stats and the popularity of the flickr search engine.
Not posting url, sorry.
>> Falldog !2qYdimqiHs
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mt_falldog/
>> NatureGuy !se3A3TwzdY
flickr is gay

rdpufallphotography.com
>> Anonymous
>>295085
wut happened to your photo.net account? Too 1995 for you?
>> NatureGuy !se3A3TwzdY
>>295097
I maintain a devART and photo.net account, but why bother linking to them if I have a real website?
>> Vladimir !Putin706F6
http://www.flickr.com/people/decidedlyaverage/
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
>>295059

wait, so i'm wrong because every photo actually DOES need to be lit like a commercial? i'm not sure i grasp your implication here.

and it's not like i made up that second point out of thin air just because i need something to hate. it's merely a product of my observations, stretching over the last two years that strobist has been up. i like a lot of things about strobist, and there's a lot of things that i strongly dislike. that's all.

http://flickr.com/search/?q=strobist&w=all
>> Anonymous
No I have my own domains
>> Anonymous
>>295141
>lit like a commercial
This is like the 20th time I've heard this phrase. I don't understand what you're raging about? That someone is using bounce flash correctly? That someone is using fill light and contralight correctly? That somebody is actually calculating lighting ratios? And got forbid, getting even textures and no shadows? That's called lighting like a commercial? Or do you mean "you work looks good enough to be commercial"?

That phrase has huge jealous overtunes, especially when you link the whole pile of stuff tagged "strobist". What are you trying to prove? You're making a blanket statement here, without even explaining why.

>which is the ethic that the strobist philosophy espouses

That's false. Why don't you do a negative boolean search for "-strobist" and you'll see tons of people who do natural light work, balanced with heavy commercial work. There's nothing to hate here. Have you ever done it? Sounds more like you're jealous of people who have a bigger list of photography skills than you do. Don't try to pretend that ignorance is a virtue, because that's what you're coming off as.

Got any more platitudes to throw my way?
>> Anonymous
http://www.flickr.com/photos/yoshiosan/
>> Anonymous
www.flickr.com/ad-nauseam

Just got another flickr up and going so there isn't much to it at all yet, plus exams have kept me from going outside (which is shit weather anyway).
>> Project !dashI8UpO.
I'd rather be a strobist fag than a gear fag. Attended a baptism and reception of a niece a few days ago and was bouncing my flash and dragging shutter, etc. Definitely got better photos than if I had a better lens/body and simply relied on available light.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/synthonics/
>> Anonymous
no one here has flickr. i triple guarantee it
>> Anonymous
>>295085

Your text, at least under the "about" section, needs some major work. Example:

> Having grown up in North Dakota he has a strong love nature
>> NatureGuy !se3A3TwzdY
>>295314
Thanks

eh I'll just delete the text, it's crummy anyway
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
i ask myself, do i even bother replying at this point? i'm not going to change your mind on anything, and i'm not trying to. i was merely explaining my own opinion on strobist, and why there's a strong anti-strobist sentiment on /p/. i'm not saying it's right, or wrong. it's just my opinion.

if i don't reply, you "win" and get to call me an idiot for disliking strobist every time someone brings it up.

if i do reply, i end up losing a half hour to writing a well-crafted, thoughtful reply just to have you counter with an equally well-crafted, thoughtful reply (kudos on "platitudes", by the way) that contradicts everything i say.

so you know what? i'll split the difference. you like strobist, it works for you, great. it works for a lot of people. i don't like strobist. i think the visual style is shallow, cheap, and trendy. i think it favors pretty looks over meaning and substance, but it also teaches photographers how to think about light before they think about the lens. that's as admirable a lesson as any in photography today.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Let's agree to disagree.
Pic related.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNikonCamera ModelNikon SUPER COOLSCAN 9000 EDImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:11:06 11:04:06
>> Anonymous
>>295369

Let's disagree to agree.