File :-(, x, )
Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
Another day, another batch

Ready for trolls.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS-1DSCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.2Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:06:17 01:25:26Exposure Time1/200 secF-Numberf/1.2Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/1.2Exposure Bias1/3 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo FlashFocal Length85.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width676Image Height1016RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
     File :-(, x)


Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS-1DSCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.2Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:06:17 01:29:21Exposure Time1/250 secF-Numberf/2.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/2.0Exposure Bias1 EVMetering ModeSpotFlashNo FlashFocal Length85.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width676Image Height1016RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
     File :-(, x)


Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS-1DSCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.2Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:06:17 00:11:13Exposure Time1/250 secF-Numberf/2.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating50Lens Aperturef/2.0Exposure Bias1.3 EVMetering ModeSpotFlashNo FlashFocal Length85.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width676Image Height1016RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
>>207294
>>207297

you realize the oversharpening really brings out flaws in the skin right?
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
     File :-(, x)


Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS-1DSCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.2Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:06:17 00:17:26Exposure Time1/3200 secF-Numberf/1.4Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating50Lens Aperturef/1.4Exposure Bias0.7 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo FlashFocal Length85.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width991Image Height666RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
     File :-(, x)
>>207300
I don't think they're oversharpened, where do you see flaws in the skin?

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS-1DSCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.2Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:06:16 23:59:55Exposure Time1/200 secF-Numberf/2.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating50Lens Aperturef/2.0Exposure Bias1.3 EVMetering ModeSpotFlashNo FlashFocal Length85.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width676Image Height1016RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
>>207294
>>207297
>>207298
>>207301

that 85mm f/1.2 gets some great borkeh
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)


Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:
>> Anonymous
Texture does not equal flaws, goddamn.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>207305
Maybe she just doesn't have perfect skin and I am not going to spend an hour airbrushing her for a porno look? Funny thing is, I used no sharpening other than resizing for Bicubic Sharpness. Ever consider that maybe the 85L is a sharp lens?
>> Anonymous
If you're using USM, try setting the radius to about .2 or .3 and the threshold to 0, then try 95%

That should make the eyes really sharp, which is the only part that matters in a portrait.
>> Anonymous
>>207307

oh hey DC
>> Anonymous
>>207308

ITT: lies and defensiveness to constructive criticism
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>207309
Thanks man, but the only USM used in these photos was the Ultrasonic Motor on the lens.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>207311
More like a blatantly ignorant person who has never used sharp lenses or bodies.
>> Anonymous
It's pissing me off that you have such a nice camera but are taking such mediocre pictures.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>207314
Well, get over it.
>> Anonymous
>>207313
>>207313

The only thing blatant here is your use of sharpening in an image editor. I don't care what lenses or cameras you use to take photos. The eyebrows, hair, and bumpy pores scream oversharpening during post processing.

You are a shitty member of this board who comes in prepared to be defensive and thats why your photos never improve when someone gives good advice.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>207294
>>207297
>>207298
>>207301
>>207303


Your lighting is way off/underexposed in all of these from where you were before. What the heck happened?

I'd also recommend some light healing tool on her- some texture is okay, but as a model her flaws are not something you want to bring out in her. I also agree on the sharpening thing, and would recommend softening them a little bit like they were shot. The Mood of the shots come off as fairly harsh.

Airbrushing does not = porno.

Also my biggest crit- her expressions, did she know you were shooting her, or was it just random? They look nothing more than snapshots that anyone could take. Dont' fit into the modelling/portrait genre at all.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>207318
On the contrary, my photos have improved tremendously. Enough to make people give me their money to take their picture, which is something I'm sure you can't say.
>> Anonymous
>>207321

thats two people that see oversharpening.. still sticking by your "straight from my camera sharpness" story?
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>207321
Okay. Maybe you're right. It's just late and I'm getting cranky. I'll try and re-edit these tomorrow. Sorry to the other anon, maybe you're right about the harsh skin.
>> Anonymous
I'll crit these individually later, but a few things:

1. I think you maybe should have used some USM on these, to be honest. It's part of your style, and it's slightly weird to see them composed and processed like you always do with that one exception.

Plus, even besides that, I think some of these being a little bit sharper would be good, as sharp as the 85/1.2L is already.

2. This isn't directed at DC, but I'm very, very tired of people whining about "flaws" or wanting airbrushed pictures. What's the point? Someone having a pimple somehow hurts an otherwise worthwhile picture? Why try to seperate the person off into some stupid ideal of perfection-as-regularity that has nothing to do with what reality is like?
>> Anonymous
>>207330

>2.

Slightly sharpening it will still bring out the pimples slightly and will make the eyes look nice. This sharpening makes the pores look scaly and the eyebrows too pronounced. There's a big difference.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>207330

if she's trying to use the shots for her portfolio as a model, then a picture showing all of her flaws will be completely useless to her. It's how she projects herself to everyone ELSE. If she wants to show what she really looks like, as agencies require, then that's what a polaroid is for. It isn't a matter of making the skin Hella Smooth & Porcelain looking, it's to make sure she still looks her best & has her best foot forward.

>>207329
Sometimes it helps to walk away then come back :-)
>> Anonymous
>>207337
That shouldn't even be an issue, though. I know it is in that world, but it shouldn't be. Airbrushing never even should've been invented; it's just so wrong from every conceptual angle I can think of except the sick one that has an advertisement campaign proclaim "real beauty" and silently shit all over that by being airbrushed itself, all for the usual purposes.

If the woman's beautiful enough to be a model, as this one is, it's absurd to make up an artificial version for... what? Sell more soap?
>> Anonymous
>>207343
Also, Depressed Cheesecake seems to always shoot personal friends and acquaintances, not professional models looking to make a portfolio.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
     File :-(, x)
>>207343

it depends on what they're both using the photos for. There's a line between too much texture on the skin & just the perfect amount. It's still a bit overdone IMO. ESPECIALLY here.>>207298I'm not saying i'd take ALL of them out, but they distract from her, her expression, etc. because they're so dark, that's where your eye immediately goes. Say I did some light healing tool on her, not Air brushing (there's a different, and I believe that a lot of airbrushing IS overdone). Does this take away from her that much ?

The camera has an overtendency to enlarge things. I used to do absolutely no touching in photoshop at all. A lot of girls told me they wouldn't work with me, specifically because I didn't do any touch ups. It doesn't matter if they really have those marks or not, unless it's a shopping job that makes them look completely different, the point of a photograph (in most cases) is to capture the personality of a person, NOT their flaws. If i had a skin problem with lots of zits, etc, i wouldn't want my photo to show that. Would you ?

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS-1DSCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.2Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:06:16 23:43:54Exposure Time1/250 secF-Numberf/2.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating50Lens Aperturef/2.0Exposure Bias1.3 EVMetering ModeSpotFlashNo FlashFocal Length85.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width676Image Height1016RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
>>207347
judging by the goofy, awkward, slightly embarrassed facial expressions I don't think she'd cut it as a model. I hope she's just a friend.

in b4 vignette dog and usm tree.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>207347

I know, but he needs to practice now if that's a direction he wants to move in (which is up to him) not on a professional model from an agency, website, etc when he gets his first one. What his shots look like now & as he keeps practicing will determine who will work with him in the future.
>> Anonymous
looking through them i'd have to say i dont think theyre overly sharpened as many have said, yes theyre sharp, and thats how they should be.
that being said, its not like she has any flaws that are really bad.
i mean, youll notice liska's p/hopping and she/he only took out her freckles and i didnt notice any reduction in the pores or whatever.

also on a side note:
consistency! with photoshopping11!!!!!1!
not that its happened here, but if you going to p/s out any flaws, make sure they have been p/s'ed out in all the subsequent shots lol!
i especially noticed the freckles after looking at liskas version and looking at the rest of d/c's shots, so i guess, just beware ;)
>> Anonymous
>>207294

Nice but vignetting makes it look less professional.

>>207297

Poor composition and underexposed with bad vignetting...

>>207298

Poor composition

>>207301

Underexposed

>>207303

Poor composition
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
aww, man. did you break up with the other girl?
>> Anonymous
>>207385

She didn't like his vignetting. Bitch had to go.
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
>>207387

i wish i could see that girl one more time...
>> Anonymous
why are your models always so ugly?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>207387
wrong. It's cause he didn't vignette enough.
>> ­­
i like how in all your photos, the models really seem like they dont want to be there.
what happens afterwards? shallow sand grave?
do you get full consent forms?
>> kres Anonymous
>>207441
its not the models, its hes photography.
>> Anonymous
>>207443
its not the models, its hes photography.
>> Anonymous
>>207365

Get a better monitor if you cant see the oversharpening.
>> Anonymous
>>207444

its not the models, its hes photography.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>207294

This one is my favourite out of the lot. Also the most flattering to the model, I think.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>207502

It's both, possibly.
>> Anonymous
>>207343
>If the woman's beautiful enough to be a model, as this one is, it's absurd to make up an artificial version for... what? Sell more soap?

If she's beautiful she certainly doesn't look like it in these photos. Most of these photos make her look bug-eyed and awkward, and the awful processing (especially in>>207294) just bring more attention to how awkward she looks and how not-model-material she is.

What I don't understand is why DC feels like he needs to go take faggy, horrible ~=:*:*PRECIOUS MOMENTS SENIOR PORTRAITS by D.C.*:*:=~ style photographs on a fucking beach.

This is hackneyed amateurish bullshit.
This is generic mall portrait studio style trash.
This is fucking Ken Rockwell level garbage.

If you really want to do generic portrait studio type work then GOOD JOB DUDE! You can totally get pimply high school kids to pay you $80 for this shit no problem!!! Go get some soft filters and a textured muslin backdrop and you are GOOD TO GO!!!

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/307163-REG/Cokin_CH240_H240_Soft_Filter_Kit.html

But if you want to take good photographs then this is the wrong fucking direction and a huge disappointment after your last batch of photos of the tugboat and lighthouse and shit. These don't show thoughtful composition, they don't tell me anything about the model, and they're generic as fuck.
>> Anonymous
Take pictures of prettier girls
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>207529
>> Anonymous
>>207529
I think she looks fine. What, do you want her showing no emotion in the things?

He's not (thank God) Meisel.
>> Anonymous
>>207531

its not the models, its hes photography.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>207529
>on a fucking beach.
I live on a fucking beach.

>This is hackneyed amateurish bullshit.
It is. I am an amateur, not a professional photographer who does this for a living. What's your point?

>This is generic mall portrait studio style trash.
I don't think so.

>These don't show thoughtful composition, they don't tell me anything about the model, and they're generic as fuck.
Actually, I agree completely with you. They ARE boring, the girl is not a model and just a friend, and they're generic and cliche. She asked me to take some headshots for a job application, so I did just that.

Instead of bashing, why not tell me what you would have done differently like Liska did here>>207321? That is good critique. General assfaggotry is not.
>> Anonymous
>>207534

Since these are portraits (obviously not shots for a modeling agency) I would like something that's less fucking generic.

You could replace her in these shots with any girl ever born. They're lifeless and don't give me any idea of her personality.

I don't know how to make them better really, just that these are bad. Perhaps Liska can provide some advice since her(?) shots always seem so full of life.

DC, maybe you should try shooting some dudes for once. All we ever see from you are shots of chicks, but maybe you (and your model) would be more comfortable if you tried shooting a guy.
>> Anonymous
>>207538
>>This is generic mall portrait studio style trash.
>I don't think so.

lol think again
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>207539
>They're lifeless and don't give me any idea of her personality.

And you have no idea how difficult it was getting her to even smile. Yeah she's lifeless. I had to tell her multiple times to look more animated, because the shots were all so dull. I shot over 300 frames and maybe a dozen are usable. My usual turnover rate is 20-25%, but this sucked.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>207545
>mall portrait studio

Unless malls are now outdoors, I don't see your point. If you mean to say they're generic, I agree. Why not offer some helpful ideas on how to make them better than just saying they suck?
>> Anonymous
>>207546
>And you have no idea how difficult it was getting her to even smile. Yeah she's lifeless. I had to tell her multiple times to look more animated, because the shots were all so dull. I shot over 300 frames and maybe a dozen are usable. My usual turnover rate is 20-25%, but this sucked.

PROTIP: You can take a good portrait of a person who isn't smiling.
>> Anonymous
>>207546

Some people are really camera shy. I know my g/f is and it really comes through in photos. I've found asking people who are camera shy to make some silly/fun faces really loosens them up and kinda starts the ball rolling for taking some more serious shots.

i.e. "hey, make a silly face." then show them the pic. then a couple more. then "ok now a normal smile" "ok now intense" etc.
>> Anonymous
>>207550

stop being a dick and give him suggestions like this:>>207552
>> Anonymous
>>207553
You're new here?
>>207552
is actually great advice. All your pictures are of trying-to-smile girls. Just take pictures of them not smiling, if you can't make them smile decent.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>207539

Yes, i am a her. :-)
>> Anonymous
>>207554

No, i'm not new here, but if someone's going to be elitist about their criticism, they should at least tell someone how much better their technique is by explaining it.

For example: "Your photos suck and are lifeless. I get MY models to give me what I want by.... "
>> Anonymous
>>207556

You're an idiot.
>>207550
is good advice,
Most of the best portraits ever taken in the history of photography are of people who are not smiling. If someone isn't good at faking a smile why try forcing them?
>> Anonymous
Every DC thread should be auto-archived.
The hilarity is endless.
>> Anonymous
>>207294

Anyone else, upon first reading this, read it as "Another day, another bitch?" :)
>> Anonymous
dc has ugly friends
>> Anonymous
>>207658
wtf.....i'd bone them all
>> ? ?IRs !/sQSkEDLl6
I saw these pics last night, as i were laying in my bed, so i didn't post :P

Nice set, Depressed, but personally i would be working at sunrise, for the fact of the incidence of light, (i don't know how it's called, when you work with light against you, not beside you)
>> Anonymous
>>207684

Hi, DC.
Your girlfriend is OK, but all your female friends are really ugly. Sorry bro.
>> Anonymous
As a an experianced retoucher - some parts do look a tad unnaturally sharp. But this could be due to the lens and harsh light.
>> Anonymous
>>207698

No, it's overuse of USM.
Overuse of USM is a DC trademark.
>> Anonymous
>>207529
oh HAI AC.
>> Anonymous
>>207733
lol wut?

ac would be all like "hot chick is hot" and that would be it.
>> beethy !HJGkSBB3Ao
i think you did a decent job overall since you worked with someone who's horrible in front of a camera
they're a little too generic and snapshotty, but trying really hard with someone who's not photogenic in the slightest is a waste of time IMO
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
>>207748
He " I had to tell her multiple times to look more animated". This tells us he doesn't know what he's doing with a model, either. You can't just tell someone to be something like "more animated", you have to help them relax. If they're an animated person, it'll come out.
Now, the model may not know what she's doing either. But it goes both ways, and by dc's account, he didn't do it right either.
>> Anonymous
dear god look at the face
>> Anonymous
>>207750
>If they're an animated person, it'll come out.

and if they aren't, you tell them to be
>> Anonymous
>>207529
where is ac?
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
Hey DC, you're still far enough along (from your last shoot, not this one) that you should get onto Model Mayhem. That way you can at least get some trade with some real models :)
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
     File :-(, x)
>>207785
Alright, will do.

By the way how is this? It looks overdone to me, but I was wrong last time, so ...

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS-1DSCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.2Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:06:17 22:56:02Exposure Time1/250 secF-Numberf/2.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/2.0Exposure Bias1 EVMetering ModeSpotFlashNo FlashFocal Length85.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width676Image Height1016RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
Fuck
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
>>207811
A little. Nowhere near as bad as>>207297for example.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>207811

much much better!
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
     File :-(, x)
I think what really detracts most from your processing is that it does tend to be a little harsh on skin. You can usually get away with that more with a male model than a female model, but in general it's good to try to keep their complexion fairly clean looking unless you're intentionally going for a grittier look.

I did a quick edit in PP to show you what I mean. It's probably not quite as true to life, but it's the little things like that that will make a picture feel more flattering to someone.

If you were trying to keep a grittier texture to the skin, then disregard everything I just said. :P

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS-1DSCamera SoftwarePortraitProfessionalMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.2Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:06:17 00:11:13Exposure Time1/250 secF-Numberf/2.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating50Lens Aperturef/2.0Exposure Bias1.3 EVMetering ModeSpotFlashNo FlashFocal Length85.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width676Image Height1016RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
Fascinating stuff. I spent the entire day at work reading up on skin retouching. Thanks for the criticism, /p/, I am evolving as a photographer (slowly, but surely).
>> Anonymous
>>207824
oh lawd you are such a faggot
>> Anonymous
>>207811
No, the original is much better. This one is way too soft.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
i think it fits her better, imo the original looks harsh-- so i guess we all have different opinons!
>> Anonymous
>>207831

I agree.

DC, good work on taking the criticism and working on your stuff (even if your first response wasnt the best). Def think the new retouch is better.

Just remember that we're not all here to troll you, and pick out the good constructive criticism and think about it. If it seems like sound advice, try it out. If not ignore it and always ignore the idiot trolls.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>207811

I went ahead and fixed your shot
>> Anonymous
>>207835
>good work on taking the criticism

Are you fucking retarded?
His first response was to call us faggots for not liking his shitty over-sharpened photos that make the girl look like steamed dog crap.
DC is arrogant as fuck with nothing to back it up, and has all the photographic finesse of a quadruple amputee. If it wasn't for the sheer size and the gross amount of post processing I'd assume this shit was shot using a fucking PowerShot.
>> Anonymous
>>207852
100,000 times better than>>207297

there is no use in telling him not to do it though
he will fuck up any image he takes
always he over darkens and adds shit vignetting
you can tell him a million times but he will always do it

also he needs to get models who actually want to be photographed
i am tired of him blaming the models for his failure
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>207862
/p/ - Dept. of Serious Business
>> Anonymous
>>207862
I'm tired of people critting him on his style (heavy sharpening, vignetting, etc.), which he obviously likes and IMO it works for him, instead of critting things that matter (composition, etc.) and actually dealing with the content of his photographs. It's like ragging on David Alan Harvey for always metering for the highlights... which there's threads on both Photo.net and some Flickr group bitching about that. Really pathetic.

Re: the subjects, what would you rather he have, expressinless professional models that look like they shit ennui? Also portrait subject != model, portraiture != model photography.

-------

DC: Some global problems- except for the second one, there's no context to these photographs. either from too shallow depth of field or too tight framing or both. Which isn't nescesarily *wrong”, plenty of great portraits (photographs and paintings) have uncontextual backgrounds, but in most cases it's better to let the surroundings say something about the subject, too. Maybe have her holding something that says something about her if you want to keep that? Like how Elsa Dorfmann always has the plainest set-up possible, a chair at most against a perfect white studio backdrop, but has people bring with them stuff that gives context.
>> Anonymous
Your early work you posted here, stuff like what I'm linking to on your Flickr below, you played around with different angles and always included some legible background, and there was never this “photoshoot feel” like these have. There was always something going on, the subjects were always *doing something* besides mugging for the camera. Since almost your subjects are people you know personally, just shoot them in the normal course of things.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/soloxide/2336712046/in/set-72157604132445708/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/soloxide/2339294954/in/set-72157604132445708/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/soloxide/2338464797/in/set-72157604132445708/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/soloxide/2344710278/in/set-72157604132445708/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/soloxide/2389147994/in/set-72157604329376164/

(I know you didn't post the last one here, I stumbled across it looking around just now and it's awesome.)

Another thing: it's best to pare down to the one or so great pictures, unless they tell a story somehow, instead of presenting a bunch. Two of these photographs are even identical in everything except her facial expression.

Photo-specific crits coming in a minute.
>> Anonymous
>>207294
Like I was talking about above, f/1.2 means that if I didn't know you were always by the sea I wouldn't know that's the sea. And even if I did, it wouldn't really say much, but it'd still be pretty good, as it is now.

It could use slightly looser framing, letting us see more of her torso, down a bit more on her hips. It seems just a tad tight.

It could use some more contrast, not in the contrast slider sense, but just something to give it more pop- doding or artificially lightening some other way the tonal values of the sea is what I would suggest, but go for however.

>>207297
Too tight on the left-hand side of her.

Either too tight or too loose vertically, too. A step closer, to cut off just above her elbow (in before people bitching) or to show a little below it would've helped much. She seems awkwardly inserted into the frame.

Framing on the other side is good, f/2 helped a lot with including background. If you were directing her, having her arms not be flat on her side, but instead resting on the handrail or something, would've helped.

>>207298
It's a very tight headshot and nothing else. It's pretty good for that, better than the other one.

>>207301
Very good, the lack of context like I was saying doesn't hurt this one, but again it's too tight/awkward in composition on the left side and (though less so) at the bottom.

>>207303
Everything I said about the other tight headshot and nothing else, except this one is inferior.

------

And *that's* how you do a critique of someone's work, not "lol lol lol vignetting USM skinflaws lollollol!!!111!."
>> Anonymous
great equipment, ok girl, dull photographer.
>> Anonymous
>>207888
heavy sharpening and vignetting all the time is not a style, it is an amateurish mistake, just as any other user error is. these things are detracting from what could be better photos.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>207890
>>207889
>>207888
Okay, gents, excellent, sound advice. I'm going to put the camera down for a few days and spend some time reading up on technique.

My question is, how do I tell a story with these photos? Can you give me some examples of photographers who do portraiture properly? I did some searches on Flickr, but all I got was trash. I seem to be out of ideas for thoughtful composition.
>> Anonymous
>>208153
shut the fuck up and stop posting
>> Anonymous
>>207888
>I'm tired of people critting him on his style (heavy sharpening, vignetting, etc.), which he obviously likes and IMO it works for him

tough shit.
it looks terrible so people will crit him for it.
there is a reason other people don't do it.
that is because it looks terrible.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>208161
Haha, fuck you.
>> Anonymous
>>207888
Crits do massive damage and ignores def.
>> Anonymous
Alright, lemme see...

>>207294
Well, it's better than the standard "look at the camera and smile" shot, right? The vignetting isn't too bad here, works with the subject and background. Hmm... Did you screw around with the white balance? Because the whites of her eyes shouldn't be that color. Correct her so her whites are white and her skin tone is where you want it and then change the background's color with a feathered selection. Do that in Photoshop to the jpg version instead of trying to process the raw like that. Also, remember what I said last time about hands being important in a portrait (that'll also help you "tell a story").

>>207297
Vignetting's not good in this one. Also, if you want to include that creamy sky in the frame, get your subject higher or take it from a lower angle yourself. If you don't want to throw off the perspective, shoot it with a telephoto (even though I know you were hoping to mostly play around with that 85mm). Oh, and this goes for all of your shots: Meter your subject better (stick with spot and meter several different places on your subject) and shoot in manual.

>>207298
Hmm... not too bad. But not very interesting either. Remember, use your subject's hands to make it more interesting!

>>207301
You got underexposed even with your reflector. Once again, this is a metering error because this time you were in "pattern" mode which shouldn't be used if you have any idea about what you're doing. And quit using exposure bias and priority modes. Oh, and while I'm on it, quit bumping your ISO to 200 or something and then having a shutter speed of 1/250 or some shit like that. Stay at 50-100, it'll come out sharp enough at 1/125.

>>207303
See>>207298
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>208217
Thanks for the sound advice, Anon, but why did you say this?

>quit using exposure bias and priority modes

What does it matter, if the picture ends up being exposed properly (not saying these are, but they would look the same in manual mode, it would just take me longer to meter and adjust)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>207823

no offense but shooting at f/2 looks extremely homosexual when her eyes are in focus and her ears are all ready significantly blurry. it makes her face look creepy and big as shit. if you printed that shit out and put it on a wall everything would be popping out and shit. this isnt fucking Spy Kids 3D

dltr mega small DOF in portraits is unflattering and looks stupid. im pretty sure the point is to get the subject in focus and the background blurry.

>>207297
>>207301
too much fucking vingetting. vingetting is supposed to draw focus to the center of the image but if you overdo it by about over nine thousand percent than it makes your lens look like a piece of shit.

other than this i think your pictures are cool but i think your time would be better spent masturbating than doing something unproductive like post processing.

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 7.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution119 dpcmVertical Resolution119 dpcmImage Created2003:02:15 13:20:58Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width450Image Height451
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>207294

Hey fagnuts.
I fixed your picture.
>> Anonymous
>>207297
>>207294

why are both these pictures so fucking dark?
did you take them on a foggy night or something?

she is dressed for warm summer weather so why do the pictures make it look like it is all cloudy and shitty outside?

stop doing so much burning on the edges of the photograph and the background. it looks unnatural and bad.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>208318
I took them at around 9 pm, way after sunset, plus it was overcast and rainy.
>> Anonymous
Uhg. I honestly don't think underexposed pictures are always bad. Granted I'm biased because I like darker pictures myself, but jesus... just because something is a tad dark doesn't mean it's instantly shit.
>> Anonymous
>>208390

For this kind of headshot, yes it does.
If this was some goth chick wearing a SLIPKNOT t-shirt then I think the underexposed thing would actually be really fitting and a good choice on the part of the photographer.

DC's problem is that he processes EVERYTHING exactly the same, and that what he does in processing seems to have absolutely no relation to the subject of the photograph.
>> Anonymous
makes me depressed that someone has $3k worth of gear to shoot mediocre images
>> Anonymous
>>208438

Mediocre? More like piss poor.
Everything DC did in this set he could have done with a fucking Powershot and a copy of Photoshop.
>> Anonymous
>>208438
why?

Anyone can take boring garbage pictures with expensive gear and terrabytes of images on flickr/DA/etc. are proof of that. Mediocrity doesn't need to be expensive - and look at how many friends you'll have!
>> Anonymous
What the fuck is wrong with you people?
If you take a look through DC's flickr you will see that he has made a vast improvement from when he first started photographing.

You can't expect someone relatively new to the hobby to be producing stellar images. What is wrong with giving proper critique to help him improve further? From what I can see, he does listen to some of you.

And all you faggots bawwing about him using an expensive camera to produce shit images... HE IS LEARNING. What the fuck difference does it make if he learns on a shit P+S/medium format/pinhole etc etc.
Bahhhhhhhh..
I just don't even know what to say anymore.
Keep it up DC.
>> Photon
>>208459
THIS IS 4CHAN!
>> Anonymous
>>208459
>relatively new to the hobby

dc isn't new to the hobby any more
his images still really suck and he still makes the same mistakes

EVERY SINGLE SET overuses vignetting, post processing, color shifting, USM, and a million other shitty "fixes" to try to make his bad photos look better.

EVERY SET HE POSTS /p/ criticizes him for these things, and then he gets all butthurt and whiney and KEEPS DOING THE SAME SHIT every time.
>> Anonymous
>>208459
This is why I rarely visit here anymore. No one takes pictures and posts them here anymore. It's all trolls. And it's forcing the community away. And no, I don't think it's summer; these fuckheads are here to last.
>> Anonymous
>>208478

Shut the fuck up, Beethy.
>> Anonymous
>>208484
PROTIP: I'm not Beethy.
>> Anonymous
>>208513

stop pretending to not be beethy, beethy.
>> Anonymous
>>208516
fuck off martin
>> Anonymous
knock it off AC let the thread die
>> Anonymous
>>207312

Bicubic Sharper may oversharp your pictures, check the Photoshop Help if you don't believe me.

Try using only Bicubic next time.
>> archive archive
archive
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>208438
You must not visit Flickr or DPReview often.

Old richfags buy $10,000 telephoto lenses to take pictures of ducks.

And I am pretty new at photography. I've owned my XT for three years, but only really started using it a lot during the last five months. I think /p/ has improved my stuff a lot and obviously everyone has a strong opinion about it, since almost every thread I post pictures accumulates 100+ posts.

You guys make me smile :)
>> $19.99 !OSYhGye6hY
>>208568
>Old richfags buy $10,000 telephoto lenses to take pictures of ducks.

Probably the funniest thing i've seen you write on /p/.
>> Anonymous
>>208568

1) 3 years is a long fucking time.
2) Your threads get lots of posts because you're an arrogant asshole and you post to your own threads as Anon.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>208663
I was expecting you to make a third point. And you didn't. And that disappointed me.

Anon sure does like to rageee at DC...
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>208663
Unfortunately, I do no such thing.

I have been shooting in JPG until about 5 months ago, using my XT in mostly Auto mode.
>> Anonymous
>>208244
Because if you took the time to do it, then it WOULD be exposed properly. Also, once you get in the habit of it and understand your camera better, you can take a look through the viewfinder and say, "Oh wow, I know my light meter says I'm balanced, but because I know my camera, I know part of that is coming from the large amount of brightness behind my subject so I should probably drop the shutter speed/whatever." It's a lot quicker than changing your exposure bias for each shot individually.

So yes, if the shot comes out perfectly fine, then you got lucky. Which is good. However, you'll improve your success rate by fully understanding the smaller nuances of the camera.

And once you get good enough at it, you can make all these adjustments on the fly. I don't even shoot sports in anything but manual.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Just go away DC. Face it. Nobody fucking likes you. I know this and all I do is lurk.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS-1DSCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.2Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:06:18 21:43:00Exposure Time1/200 secF-Numberf/2.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating50Lens Aperturef/2.0Exposure Bias1.3 EVMetering ModeSpotFlashNo FlashFocal Length85.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width676Image Height1016RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
Sorry for the mild necromancy, everybody, I've been away from my computer since I posted that. This boards gotten fast, too, from page one to five in less than a day.

>>208153
IMO, the best portraitist is Henri Cartier-Bresson, who it never hurts anybody to look at.

Your styles, both compositionally and otherwise, are so radically different, though, I think you could learn more from:

The aforementioned David Alan Harvey. While he works mostly with a wide (primarily 35mm on 135 film, now 28mm on a Leica M8's 1.33 crop) and you mostly with a medium tele, I can see some sort of relation between your visual idiom.

He's more street and general documentary than portraiture (though now he's just in the past month started a portrait-only book project on American families), but he's a knockout all around. He also runs a great blog (http://davidalanharvey.typepad.com/road_trip/) that discusses the more mental side of photography. There's a link there to his website, with lots of his work, though for some reason conspiciously missing his masterpiece, "Cuba," which can be found here.

http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue9910/cubaintro.htm

Robert Frank. There's also, in your strongest work, a similarity I feel between your compositional style and Frank's, although otherwise your work is dissimilar.

A good look at Ferdinando Scianna, Eli Reed, and Steve McCurry would help you, too.

Everybody I mentioned except Frank happens to be a member of Magnum, so you can go dig through their archives.

Among painters... Modigliani, Rembrandt of course, Paul Gauguin... in a recent semi-interview Harvey had on his blog of William Albert Allard, Allard suggested Matisse, Picasso, and especially Edward Hopper as good painters to study for learning composition generally.

Just study all that, other photographers, painters... that's how one learns composition.
>> Anonymous
>>209150

If DC wants to see a gallery of work similar to his, he should look on DeviantArt.

Also just FYI while most of those guys may have been awesome for their time they'd be considered shit if they came on the scene now.

Though if you were trying to subtly say that DC's style is old-fashioned and shitty then I guess you did a real good job.
>> Anonymous
>>209155
>Also just FYI while most of those guys may have been awesome for their time they'd be considered shit if they came on the scene now.
>old-fashioned and shitty
Go fuck yourself. You have no clue about or appreciation for how art works.

When you're done fucking yourself, come back and tell me who the hell is your idea of a good photographer.

Then go fuck yourself again until I tell you to stop.
>> Anonymous
>>209150

Didn't look at all your examples.
Henri Cartier-Bresson would be considered shit today.
David Alan Harvey's work is nothing like DC's and is pretty fucking snapshotty.
Robert Frank is pretty cool I guess.

Didn't bother to look at the others.

For good photographers, gimmie some Jock Sturges or Kent Rockwell. That's the stuff, baby.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>However, you'll improve your success rate by fully understanding the smaller nuances of the camera.

I do this by using EV. I appreciate your opinion on technique, but using Aperture Priority vs Manual just saves me time from having to flip an extra dial for shutter speed. If it's underexposed, it'll still be underexposed no matter which mode I shot in, since I go (sometimes inappropriately) by the light meter in camera.

>>209150
Thanks a ton for this Anon's help. As mentioned before, I'm taking a few days away from the camera to study on composition and technique. I'll have a look at these mentioned photogs.
>> okto !.ZlrOYZhsk
>>209174
>Henri Cartier-Bresson would be considered shit today.
He isn't. By anyone (whose opinion is at all informed).

>Didn't bother to look at the others.
Thus, you are not qualified to make a comment.

>For good photographers, gimmie some Jock Sturges or Kent Rockwell. That's the stuff, baby.
And here's how we know you are a clueless fag whose opinion is ill-informed and irrelevant. Please to fuck yourself.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>209174
>For good photographers, gimmie some Jock Sturges or Kent Rockwell. That's the stuff, baby

Obvious troll is obvious.
>> Anonymous
>>209174
Troll post is troll, but let me address these two points and them I'm off.

>Henri Cartier-Bresson would be considered shit today.

Yes, you're right, he would wrongfully be considered shit in today's climate. We're passing through another dreadful baroque period, where overwrought, theatrical shit often in the service of power is what passes for good. Idiosyncratic, simple, pared-down, sensual in an understated, realistic way, work about the magic and energy of real life would not "make it" in acclaim these days.

>David Alan Harvey's work is nothing like DC's

-They use color in the same way, and tend to use a similar palette.
-They have a penchant for shooting women.
-There's a common... looseness... is the best word I can think of to their images. Not compositional looseness, just a feeling to them.

>and is pretty fucking snapshotty.
Informal != snapshotty.
>> Anonymous
>>209178
>>Henri Cartier-Bresson would be considered shit today.
>He isn't. By anyone (whose opinion is at all informed).

If he came out TODAY taking those exact same photographs, he'd be considered shit.

He's considered great because, at the time his style was fresh and he was good at capturing candid images with difficult equipment.

In today's world with AUTO MODE and cheap digital photography the vast majority of his images are nothing special.

It's no different than Andy Warhol, who at the time was OH MY GOD SO DIFFERENT AND AMAZING but if you tried presenting his work today people would be all SO TRITE HOW BORING.
>> Anonymous
>>209155
>>209174
10/10

I lol'd. Well played anon.
>> Anonymous
>>209191

holy shit you are an idiot. His composition, mood, and overall feeling is fucking awe-inspiring and timeless. Go fuck yourself with a rake, shithead.
>> Anonymous
>>209191
What's great about HCB has nothing to do with his exposure and focusing abilities. What's great is his eye and sensitivity for life, and his well-developed compositional talents. Well-developed from education as a painter and social association with members of the surrealist movement.

What you're doing is basically trashing Shakespeare for writing relatively simple stories in iambic pentameter. Cartier-Bresson's greatness, like Shakespeare's or Rembrandt's, lies primarily in how their sensitive, powerful, realistic, unrelentless probing of the human condition and human lives.
>> Anonymous
>>209191
That's because of familiarity. If you've seen something your whole life, it doesn't seem as breathtaking. Andy Warhol's style is still around everything today and when you see it you think "oh, they're going for an Andy Warhol/pop art vibe" but when it was new it was "Wow, I've never seen this before. That's interesting."

It doesn't make it any less of a work of art, it just makes it lack originality.
>> Anonymous
>>209204
>What you're doing is basically trashing Shakespeare for writing relatively simple stories in iambic pentameter. Cartier-Bresson's greatness, like Shakespeare's or Rembrandt's, lies primarily in how their sensitive, powerful, realistic, unrelentless probing of the human condition and human lives.

And you still don't fucking get it.
If someone came out today and wrote what Shakespeare did they'd be considered shit.
It's great to appreciate the oldies, but if you try to mimic it you'll be seen as hackneyed and dated.
HCB was great because he was one of the first to try that style, but someone shooting in that style today would not be considered great, they'd just be taking snapshots.

>>209208
And the point is that instead of trying to imitate masters from the past new artists need to build on that work and create their own "Wow, I've never seen this before. That's interesting." kind of work.
>> Anonymous
>>209215
LOL ALL NU THINGS ARE BETTAR

0/10
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>209174
>Jock Sturges
>> Anonymous
>>209208
>It doesn't make it any less of a work of art, it just makes it lack originality.
>lack originality.

which makes it less of a work of art
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>209216
he's right in a way...mimicking the masters is a GREAT way to learn, but you've got to do something new if you want it to really be recognized.

If you had two photographs of equal technical and aesthetic quality, but one was essentially a formulaic attempt at copying an older photographers style and the other was something entirely different, like a very interesting lighting technique you had never seen before, then the second one would probably seem a lot more interesting to you.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>209218
not all artwork is meant to be original, you know.
>> okto !.ZlrOYZhsk
>>209218
_Everything_ has already been done, fuckwit. If the standard for creative self-expression were total originality, nothing would have ever been done after about 1000BC.
>> Anonymous
>>209222
>not all artwork is meant to be original, you know.

Fair enough, but originality (and personality) is what distinguishes the greats from the folks who have to struggle to get by and who are easily forgotten.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>209232
that was my point in>>209220
and>>209208
(forgot my tripcode there)
>> Anonymous
>>209231
>_Everything_ has already been done, fuckwit. If the standard for creative self-expression were total originality, nothing would have ever been done after about 1000BC.

Every single photographer listed in>>209150
did their work after 1,000BC

People are still inventing new styles, technologies, and methods every day.

Just because you don't have the capacity to be original doesn't mean that others don't.
>> Anonymous
>>209232
Exactly, and HCB was original and his personality drove his work.
>> Anonymous
>>209238
And everything they did was rooted in stuff other people have done.

You be original not by throwing off the past, but by expressing your own personal vision and spirit.
>> Anonymous
>>209245

And building on the past and adopting and adapting to new technologies and styles of making. Don't forget, one of the things that HCB was famous for was being one of the first to adopt 35mm film.
>> Anonymous
>>209238

you've taken what>>209231said in the completely wrong context. he was saying that just because you can reference one work to the other doesn't make one a lesser work of art and each individual work has to be based on its own merit.

i agree with what you said about technology. although completely new technology no matter what you did with it someone could always fine something similar, conected in some way.
>> okto !.ZlrOYZhsk
>>209245
This is the point I was making. Not that nobody does anything that's fresh/original, but that nobody does anything that is 100% new, and so you cannot simply judge art on "originality" or whether it's something you haven't seen.

The self-portrait, for example, has been done. To death, some might say. But, that doesn't mean that someone cannot bring his/her personal vision and all the things that make him/her a person to a new self-portrait.
>> Anonymous
oh god. H Bresson. just ...what must you guys think or current photographers. they must blow your fucking mind.
>> Anonymous
>>209253
>The self-portrait, for example, has been done. To death, some might say. But, that doesn't mean that someone cannot bring his/her personal vision and all the things that make him/her a person to a new self-portrait.

Sure, everyone has done a DC-like shot of themselves in the mirror holding a silver-bodied Rebel, but has anyone done a self-portrait using a camera made out of twigs and berries? Has anyone done a self-portrait of themselves painted white in a weird combination of geisha/African costume with cloth shoved in their mouth (ok Matthew Barney did)?

Just because a genre has been done doesn't mean that fresh and ORIGINAL perspectives can't be developed within that genre. But you know, keep backpeddling from your fucking retarded statement that nothing can be original.
>> Anonymous
>>209261
OMFG NACHTWEY HEAD A SPLODE
>> Anonymous
>>209266

oh shit weegee was a god mann ray was agod......etc...etc.
>> okto !.ZlrOYZhsk
>>209265
You're one of those "omfg im gonna do art nobody's ever done" people, aren't you?

>But, that doesn't mean that someone cannot bring his/her personal vision and all the things that make him/her a person to a new self-portrait
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>209265
Quit trying to butt heads all the time, you just said exactly the same thing as him while confronting him.

You're both saying that self-portraits have been done and you can make it interesting and original by doing your own thing with it. So why are we arguing again?
>> Anonymous
>>209283
this is 4chan, fail, faggotry, etc?
>> Anonymous
>>209278
>You're one of those "omfg im gonna do art nobody's ever done" people, aren't you?

Nope. My personal work is 100% commercial.
I do it for the dollaz, baby, not the self expression.
I'm just explaining how the greats got to be great.
>> Anonymous
>>209300
Are you that egotistic fucktard from the homeless thread?

Also, Henri Cartier-Bresson was deeply rooted in traditional European art, as is Nachtwey someone mentioned. Cartier-Bresson was trained as a painter, first by his painter uncle, then after his uncle died in WWI, in a studio emphasizing traditional forms and techniques adapted to the new modernism. He didn't do anything radically new with it, except doing photography (which was actually already pretty well-established), using 135 film and not a larger format, and taking some of the aesthetic attitudes of the surrealists (again, not a new thing) and applying them to realist photography.

His genius laid in his own personal sensitivity to human life and the human condition and his talent at composition, learned from studying traditional art and, of course, whatever that innate part is.
>> Anonymous
>>209320
>Nachtwey
Oh, I forgot to elaborate on this. Nachtwey has no formal photography training; in college, he was a double Art History/Political Science major, which really comes through in his work. I can't think of any photographer, even Cartier-Bresson, whose work seems to fit more directly into the overall whole Western artistic tradition. Cartier-Bresson fit very well into a particular moment, modernism, but Nachtwey seems to transcend now and draw from everywhere.
>> Anonymous
>>209300
Choke on a dick. You are the cancer killing modern photography.

Anyone who makes their living taking pictures and doesn't give a shit about making images for themselves is a paparazzo.
Enjoy your well-paid fail. I'm sure people will remember you when you're gone.
>> okto !.ZlrOYZhsk
>>209300
janitor : explanation of nuclear physics :: you : explanation of photography
>> Anonymous
Please die, shitty thread.
>> Anonymous
>>209278
i am one of those people.
you won't know me though.
we went to different schools.
>> Anonymous
>>209443
>Choke on a dick. You are the cancer killing modern photography.
>Anyone who makes their living taking pictures and doesn't give a shit about making images for themselves is a paparazzo.
>Enjoy your well-paid fail. I'm sure people will remember you when you're gone.

1) Who said I make my living taking photographs? I sure as fuck didn't.

2) Oh, OK, so people who do product photography but don't also have faggoty "art" careers on the side are part of the paparazzi? Care to explain how that shit makes any sense at all, or are you just going to crawl back in your troll-hole as soon as you get challenged?
>> Anonymous
>>209445

Good response, dipshit.
How's your studying for the SAT's going you fucking underage gimp?
>> okto !.ZlrOYZhsk
>>209480
No, no, no. GREs.
>> Anonymous
hahhah. "yes, refrigerator" haha. Youre funny.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
dear depressed cheesecake
if you shot this picture of>>207297
can i photoshop and use it for my background

i was looking for this pose a long time
and photo's means a 1000 things but this pose even more
i went ahead and u see i vectored it and gave it a nice soft glow
please let me know

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwarePaint.NET v3.30Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution96 dpiVertical Resolution96 dpi
>> Anonymous
>>211060
dude, you're not funny. let the thread die.
>> Anonymous
>>211060
RESURECTED!