File :-(, x, )
heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
in b4 shitstorm
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 5DImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2008:09:25 01:32:02Exposure Time1/50 secExposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating1600Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeSpotFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryRenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
     File :-(, x)


Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 5DImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2008:09:25 01:32:33Exposure Time1/30 secExposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating1600Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeSpotFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryRenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
They really suck. Sorry.
>> savage !!4UjFwZgP/SG
in after shitstorm
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
     File :-(, x)


Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 5DImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2008:09:25 01:53:38Exposure Time1/125 secExposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating1600Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeSpotFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryRenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
     File :-(, x)


Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 5DImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2008:09:25 00:46:03Exposure Time1/125 secExposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating800Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeSpotFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryRenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
     File :-(, x)


Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 5DImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2008:09:25 01:45:05Exposure Time1/60 secExposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating1600Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeSpotFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryRenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
Have you ever really imagined a storm of shit? Flying turds and saying someones pictures sucks are two things that bring completely different emotions. One can give you hepatitis and the other may cause tears. You take your pick, /p/.
>> Anonymous
>>262681
I like this shot for some reason

>>262683
>>262671
she's cute :3
>> Anonymous
>>262686
AC's the only one on here who would rather get hepatitis than see Heavyweather cry. He had to make this choice, or rather, he didn't even have a choice: really, in the end, he was compelled by a force greater than himself to stop Heavyweather's tears.

In return, he got hepatitis and a D50.
>> Anonymous
>>262688
d50 ass to mouth?
>> AWESOME Anonymous
I love Heavyweather's professional borkeh look
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
     File :-(, x)
I felt really dumb earlier in the night... I shot an entire assignment with the diopter waaaaay off, so I frontfocused the whole thing. Thankfully I was shooting at f/4 so it was still publishable, but it's just never critically sharp. Sigh. Story was about an artists collective preparing for a show on saturday. This was taken through the wall they'd made for a video art display.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 5DImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2008:09:25 08:38:50Exposure Time1/125 secExposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating1600Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeSpotFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryRenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> i - !EoFJjFcCco
They all look like a bunch of rather average snapshots, nothing stands out as being brilliant, at least not to me.

>>262785

This was sorta nice tho
>> Anonymous
These are all horrendously bad snapshots, and your color-balance is incredibly off.

I can forgive the noise and the blur since the shutter speeds are slow and the shots are low-light, but there is absolutely no sense of composition in any of these shots, and you clearly made no effort to correct the color.

As such, you are clearly breaking one of the few rules of /p/, and deserve to be B&.

>2. Post only photos that show at least trace amounts of thoughtful composition. Do not upload random snapshots.
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
i like how i can read into your life from your photographs. for instance, any time i see a new cute girl more than twice, i know she's a new crush of yours. it's like the photo diary of a collegiate male.

not trying to be derisive, it's just something i've noticed over the last year.
>> Anonymous
i like all these candid snapshots, very amateur feeling
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
     File :-(, x)
goddamnit 4chan "MySQL Connection Failure"... ate a post. Okay, here we go again. I'll spare the geartalk, but there's no motion blur, these are sharp, there's just very little depth of field. Color is accurate as well, they were using gelled tungsten. If the colors are crazy, it's because the lighting was crazy.

My favorite photographer Elliott Erwitt has a wonderful book called Snaps. He calls much of his work snapshots. The word implies a moment, a time, a slice of life taken with a single snap of the shutter. Its etymology is even interesting: from the early 1800s, a snapshot was a quickly execute shot at a fast-moving target. The photographic term was coined in the 1890s, when press cameras and flash powders / bulbs enabled this type of photo to exist. I think life is simply magical... amazing things happen every day. To capture that magic in a tangible record... well, that's so cool it feels like cheating. I love snapshots, I love the exhilaration that comes with chasing those moments with some strange gizmo that captures light and forms an image. I'll keep taking them until I'm pushin' up daisies.
>>262840
Thanks! That's cool. I'm interested in neither of these girls, though. The one with the camera is my amazing first photo editor, Courtney Dudley, and the second one is Eleanor, she's editor of the yearbook (lol yearbook)

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 5DImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2008:09:25 11:55:40Exposure Time1/125 secExposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating1600Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeSpotFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryRenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
ITT: Heavyweather trolls all with throwaway shots.
>> sv !!vC9KZM3Ch/H
>>262897
>I'm interested in neither of these girls, though.

Needs moar asian. :)
>> Anonymous
>>262814
Well gee, anon, your composition is so much better on those shoop da whoop photoshops, you've probably got a good point there.

tl;dr: criticism comes from namefags, trolls come from anon
>> Anonymous
>>262897

>My favorite photographer Elliott Erwitt

Too bad you didn't take a single cue from any of his "snaps"

He's got a good sense of space and gives an idea of whats going on around the subject. Yours are all too tightly cropped and too OMG LOW DOF. His shots are probably no wider than 2.8, lots of them with everything in sharp focus.

>>262785
is pretty good though
>> Anonymous
Why hasn't heavyweather been b& for trolling yet?
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
>>263275

because you dumbfucks should be banned first, and since you haven't been, we can only assume that no one gets banned.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
     File :-(, x)
>>262921
I hear what you're saying, and I agree with you. I got into the habit of working close and tight partially because that's an easy (probably too easy) way to compose and partially because shooting for the paper, you often need really really tight shots that read quickly. Not because they're the best shot necessarily, rather because at 2 columns wide, you don't have the luxury of detail.

That said, I'm trying to step back, work looser, more composed, more detail and design oriented. That ISN'T to say that I succeed most of the time. Please don't misunderstand me, I'm never completely satisfied with my work; there's so so so much room for improvement. I'm a noob with less than two years of experience under my belt. I'm not trolling anyone when I post here, I just like posting photos and talking shop in a photography forum. I'm not out to ruin anyone's day.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 5DImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2008:09:26 01:21:09Exposure Time1/125 secExposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating1250Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeSpotFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryRenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
>>263288
>I got into the habit of working close and tight partially because that's an easy (probably too easy) way to compose and partially because shooting for the paper, you often need really really tight shots that read quickly.

No, you got in the habit of posting shitty snapshots to /p/ just to try to get people to rage.

Sage for another thread full of Heavyweather trolling /p/.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
people on 4chan are so strange...
>> Anonymous
>>263298
dude you know that most of the pix in this thread are shit and you post them anyway

>>262671
>>262672
>>262678
these pix are just shit. seriously terrible in every way. they look like it is the first time you have used a fucking camera man. and you KNOW they look bad.

so why do you post this shit?
>> Anonymous
>>263300

because it beats posting no shit..

take your butthurt elsewhere
>> Anonymous
I don't get it. The photos look nice enough to me. I haven't been going to /p/ long but it seems like people are always shitting on each others work here, wtf?

Anyways I enjoyed the photos OP.
>> Anonymous
>>262897
>My favorite photographer Elliott Erwitt has a wonderful book called Snaps. He calls much of his work snapshots. The word implies a moment, a time, a slice of life taken with a single snap of the shutter. Its etymology is even interesting: from the early 1800s, a snapshot was a quickly execute shot at a fast-moving target. The photographic term was coined in the 1890s, when press cameras and flash powders / bulbs enabled this type of photo to exist. I think life is simply magical... amazing things happen every day. To capture that magic in a tangible record... well, that's so cool it feels like cheating. I love snapshots, I love the exhilaration that comes with chasing those moments with some strange gizmo that captures light and forms an image. I'll keep taking them until I'm pushin' up daisies.

this is the longest and gayest excuse for posting pix with shit composition that i have ever read.
>> Project !dashI8UpO.
>>263430
HCB did a lot of snapshots too. Most of the greatest photos ever taken in the field of photojournalism are snapshots. heavyweather's shots in this thread can count as photojournalism, more specifically as documentary photography. The composition of some of them are good enough.
>> Anonymous
>>263436
>The composition of some of them are good enough.

Absolutely.
For instance>>262683&>>263288

But many of the others are clearly junk, and HW knows enough about photography and has been posting here long enough to know that.

Honestly, I kind of agree with the people who are crapping on HW here. He knows that posting these kinds of pix will piss the board off, so I'm not sure why he posts them when he clearly has better work.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>263430
>lol i dunno what ur sayin so im gonna call u gay
I honestly don't see why people are saying these are poorly composed. To my eye, the composition on all of these shots range from "okay" to "excellent". Take for example

>>262683(The shot of the girl holding up the video camera)
You've got the main subject nice and sharp (well, sharp given the lighting conditions he was working on. Not f/8 on a sunny day sharp, obviously, but she's clearly foreground) on the left side of the shot, which nicely balances out the rest of the frame. Additionally, you've got the repeating series of photographers/videographers extending into the distance, blurred but still able to be made out. He's got it framed just perfectly so videographer #2 is just inside the frame made by videographer #1's arms and camera, and videographer/photographer #3 off in the distance is similarly enclosed by the lights and videographer #2. Potentially distracting elements (like the face hiding behind the main subject's head) are so blurred from the f/1.2 that they aren't noticeable unless you're really hunting 'em out.

Next up:>>262681(The shot of the people sitting on the sidewalk)
The people balance the rest of the frame nicely (and, again, are a nice repeating element). They're the only part of the frame in really adequate light, which highlights them nicely. The potentially distracting element of the bus door and the bicycle are dark and out of focus enough that they don't distract from the composition. Despite being a tallfag, Heavyweather got down at a low angle to take this shot, which makes you feel like you're right there on the street with him.

Finally, if you don't think>>262785is well composed, well, then you just don't know good composition.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>263439
>He knows that posting these kinds of pix will piss the board off
The set of people that these sorts of pictures will piss off is roughly equivalent to the set of people who will shit on any damn thing he posts ever. They have to do *something* to troll him now that they've scared him away from ever mentioning the equipment he uses again. He posts them here because he knows some of us (e.g., myself, obviously. Sluuuurp slurpslurpslurp) very much do like them and because if people like him didn't occasionally post things, the board would descend forever into gearfaggotry.

Trying to post only pictures that everyone on /p/ likes is one of those teaching-a-pig-to-sing problems. You just have to post pictures that you think are good, take what small amounts of actual constructive criticism you can see through the "You have to be trolling us. 0/10, fag"-type comments, and try to concentrate on the tiny percentage of users here who aren't bastard coated bastards with bastard filling.
>> Anonymous
>>262897
Funny as I've been re-obsessed with Magnum photographers again. Elliot Erwitt and HCB.
>> Grev !!5D+HXONd/uX
>>263443
Erm it's me guyz!1
>> Anonymous
>>263442

AC, I hope you understand by now that the ONLY reason anyone on these boards likes you is that you suck tripfag cock and defend them no matter what.

YOUR photos suck, and THEY HATE YOUR PIX.
They only like you because you drool all over them no matter how shitty their work is.
>> Anonymous
>>263441
>I honestly don't see why people are saying these are poorly composed. To my eye, the composition on all of these shots range from "okay" to "excellent". Take for example

HOW ABOUT THE FIRST TWO SHOTS IN THIS THREAD YOU FUCKING MORON
>> Anonymous
>>262897

That's a lot of words to say very little other than BAWWWWW MOMMY SAYS I AM SPECIAL
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>264495
>I secretly wish I could actually have friends like you do, ac, but I don't, so I'm gonna say they only like you because you're excessively nice to them
See, there are a few of problems with your argument.
1. After the blissful period in which I managed to quit /p/, lots of people (Anons and tripfags both) were excited when I came back.
2. Pay closer attention to my interaction with the other tripfags and you'll see that I'll argue with them and criticize their pictures when I think they're wrong, too. Hell, there've been times when I've even told Heavyweather that his pictures sucked. The difference is simply that they're wrong less than Anonymous--it takes a while for newbies to tripfag up, and Anonymous is like 80% troll, so the quality of tripfag posts skews higher than anonymous posts. Go ahead, tripfag up and post some shitty pictures and you can see for yourself.
3. I believe a few of the people here like me not because I say their pictures are good but rather for my pretty eyes and big, kissable lips. So nyah.

>>264497
>I'm blatantly the samefag as 264495 but posting twice to make it seem like more people dislike ac
I'll grant you that the first two shots in this thread aren't spectacularly composed, but they're not *bad*. There's nothing *wrong* with them unless you compare them to shots like>>262683.

And in any case, the argument against him was that *none* of his shots had any trace of compositional skill. Even if I agreed with you that the first two were actually bad, it still doesn't invalidate my argument.
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
inb4 drama -oh..wait
>> Anonymous
where did we go wrong, guys? posting anonymously is such a good thing. i hate the idea of being a tripfag because no matter what shots you post, you are judged in b4. if i was a quality photographer, i'd post anonymously and avoid all this "ZOMG DC U SUCK LIKE LAST TIME!!@!". very cancerous.
>> Anonymous
>>262683

what camcorder is that?
>> Anonymous
>>264566
>I'll grant you that the first two shots in this thread aren't spectacularly composed, but they're not *bad*. There's nothing *wrong* with them unless you compare them to shots like

no dude the first two are actually really bad i think the whole reason this thread turned into a shitfest is because those are so bad there are some good pix in here but the first two are just shitty snapshots
>> Anonymous
>>264594
>if i was a quality photographer, i'd post anonymously and avoid all this "ZOMG DC U SUCK LIKE LAST TIME!!@!".

Their egos are too big.
Their insecurities are too deep.
>> Charlie. !3JP.Fc5CnE
>>262671

Before I looked at the image properly I raged because I thought she had a H3DII-50 in her hand.