[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/p/ - Photography


Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 31 posters in this thread.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]



File: q71BsWoh.jpg (62 KB, 1024x767)
62 KB
62 KB JPG
Smartphone cameras are getting closer and closer to DSLR cameras outside of niche areas like sports and wildlife.

Share your best pictures taken on a smartphone and critique the one(s) above you.

I'll start. This one is taken on a Oneplus 3t using HDR+RAW with the Google Camera app. The dynamic range capabilities of this smartphone camera is far beyond what any DSLR can manage.
>>
>>3310361
>posts a picture any dslr could take
>"hurr durr its capabilities exceed any dslr"
>>
>>3310361
Phoneposters are now not only common but they're this delusional about their toy cameras? Maybe it's time to get off this board.
>>
>>3310361
You do realise most if not all modern cameras have an HDR mode, right? And if not, you can easily achieve this effect in post by composting multiple exposures. What's your point? Most phone cameras NEED HDR to look halfway decent. It isn't an advantage of their sensor or lens, it's software trying desperately to make the image look less like ass so you can upload it to Instagram and impress thots.
>>
>>3310366

This is a phone photo critique thread, not a phone critique thread. Besides, smartphone HDR images are taken with much less delay than DSLR cameras can manage as well as doing it automatically. Smartphones, by design, have far more processing power than dedicated cameras have. And in the end, to get a similar dynamic range out of your DSLR you have to be reasonably skilled and dedicate perhaps a minute of your time.

A normal person buying a DSLR with a kit lens because he or she wants to take pretty pictures is probably get better results with their smartphone than the DSLR simply due to everything it does for her automatically. Especially in lowlight is where the smartphone will blow the DSLR+kit lens out of the water due to clever stacking of frames and OIS being much more effective on a small sensor.
>>
>>3310372
>Especially in lowlight
lol this is a troll thread isnt it
>>
File: 2018_06_10_v1.jpg (357 KB, 1000x1155)
357 KB
357 KB JPG
>>3310439
no, see dat film grain even a 4s is able to render in such beauty

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeApple
Camera ModeliPhone 4S
Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.10.0
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)35 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2018:06:14 15:03:25
Exposure Time1/767 sec
F-Numberf/2.4
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating50
Lens Aperturef/2.4
Brightness8.2 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Auto
Focal Length4.28 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width3264
Image Height2448
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
File: 1528981695582899.jpg (443 KB, 1743x1307)
443 KB
443 KB JPG
>>3310439
OP is clearly baiting, or really delusional, or just ignorant, and you ended up eating even the fishing pole. Still, what's wrong with a smartphone photo thread? Post snapshots you took with your smartphone.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera ModelLG-H930
Equipment MakeLG Electronics
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width1743
Image Height1307
Image OrientationUnknown
Image Created2018:04:19 12:09:48
White BalanceAuto
ISO Speed Rating50
Focal Length4.03 mm
Exposure Time9/10000 sec
FlashNo Flash
F-Numberf/1.6
Altitude0.00 m
>>
>>3310444
>and you ended up eating even the fishing pole
... by clocking it as a troll thread immediately?
>>
>>3310446
By answering: don't feed the troll. We used to say that back in the day.
>>
>>3310447
oh man, didn't realize i was talking to a le ebin oldfag
>>
File: 2012-06-16 20.35.03.jpg (467 KB, 1000x1076)
467 KB
467 KB JPG


[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeApple
Camera ModeliPhone 4S
Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.10.0
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)35 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2018:06:14 15:31:49
Exposure Time1/20 sec
F-Numberf/2.4
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating250
Lens Aperturef/2.4
Brightness0.7 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length4.28 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2448
Image Height3264
RenderingUnknown
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
File: UoSTnhoh.jpg (71 KB, 1024x768)
71 KB
71 KB JPG
Op here. Try getting a picture this bright handheld in nothing but moonlight with your DSLR.
>>
File: Ck7j6LFh.jpg (135 KB, 1024x768)
135 KB
135 KB JPG
Pretty pleased with this one.
>>
>>3310372
>Besides, smartphone HDR images are taken with much less delay than DSLR cameras can manage as well as doing it automatically.

OK sweetie...

A) That's not an HDR scene. Even a Canon crop camera from 10 years ago could have captured that scene's DR.

B) Every ILC camera today has an HDR mode that snaps 3 images and merges them automatically and pretty much instantly.

>Smartphones, by design, have far more processing power than dedicated cameras have.
[Citation Needed]

You have no fucking clue what the processing power is in any of the ILC bodies because they tend to use custom chips. And they are probably using custom chips in order to process image data faster than off the shelf ARM processors.

>And in the end, to get a similar dynamic range out of your DSLR you have to be reasonably skilled and dedicate perhaps a minute of your time.

No phone sensor offers the 13.6 stop range of the Canon 5D IV much less the 14.8 stop range of the Nikon D850 and Sony A7r III. You are literally clueless as to what modern ILCs can do.

>Especially in lowlight is where the smartphone will blow the DSLR+kit lens out of the water due to clever stacking of frames and OIS being much more effective on a small sensor.

LMFAO
>>
I tried to go with minimal editing on this one, as I usually overprocess the shit out of all the photos I take.

I'm quite happy with the result, and it looks almost identical to the original
>>
File: based.jpg (28 KB, 275x373)
28 KB
28 KB JPG
>>3310500
>>3310501
>open the images in full screen
>not even zooming in
Woah.. so this... is the power of phone photography.
>inb4 but I resized it!!
Post your raws or whatever file phones output
>>
>>3310524

1 0 2 4 x 7 6 8
>>
>>3310525
Go ahead post the original file : )
>>
File: IMG_20180614_113456.jpg (526 KB, 4160x3120)
526 KB
526 KB JPG
>>3310524I'm not either of the people you mentioned, but here, I'll humour you
Here's a jpg of my original, unedited photo.
(4160x3120)
>>
>>3310532
I didn't quote you because you can't see shit in your image without zooming in
>>
>>3310513
It's clearly all bait in order to keep his smartphone thread going with an endless supply of bumps, don't bite.
>>
>>3310524
are you retarded?
>>
>>3310552
Sure, I'm retarded because the phone pictures look like garbage, so retarded lol! They also won't post the original files because LOL so retarded.
>>
>>3310361
>Smartphone cameras are getting closer and closer to DSLR cameras outside of niche areas like sports and wildlife.
yeah and twingos are getting closer and closer to mustangs
it's just a matter of time bros xD
>>
When I was here a couple years ago you weren't allowed to post full-res images. Also, I don't have that phone anymore and my current one doesn't do HDR+RAW like the last one did.
>>
>>3310615
so they are actualy getting worse?
>>
File: 20180216_122833.jpg (1.45 MB, 3264x1836)
1.45 MB
1.45 MB JPG
My phone camera is ass, and I honestly don't think that new phone cameras are going to surpass DSLRs. A dedicated camera gives you so much control over your image that a smartphone camera can't, even in the pro mode of more advanced cameras. In the end, what separates a photographer from a tourist is how they assert their will upon an image. Choosing more control will give more potential, but it makes sense that someone taking snapshots would opt for a phone since they would just waste that potential anyway.
>>
File: Mybestlol.jpg (254 KB, 1223x917)
254 KB
254 KB JPG
Taken on pixel 2 xl. no edits on this one

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareGoogle
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
File: IMG_0009.jpg (136 KB, 1334x750)
136 KB
136 KB JPG
This was simply taken from my Iphone 6s

Not so versed in photography, but I'm proud of this one

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1334
Image Height750
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
File: IMG_20180613_053834.jpg (1.95 MB, 4032x3024)
1.95 MB
1.95 MB JPG
>>
File: IMG_20180303_130347.jpg (2.41 MB, 4032x3024)
2.41 MB
2.41 MB JPG
>>
>>3311297
I think this is a pretty nice photo. Not exactly critique but I like the minimalism and the landscape.
>>
>>3310361
pretty good. I would have burned the trampoline skeleton and the pathway to get more contrasnt

>>3310964
this wouldve been good if it was taken with a real camera and not a shit cellphone

>>3311230
get more creative. next time frame the water foutain through the subjects legs
>>
>>3311318
>nice photo
>completely blownout highlights

nah bro
>>
>>3311326
There is no modification done to that photo, that is how it appeared directly after it was taken, with no additional effects on the camera either
>>
>>3311327
I'm not exactly sure what your trying to say
>>
>>3311372
Whatever lighting there is to that photo is what the camera picked up on it’s own, there is no added highlighting/brightness
>>
>>3311374
That's why it's bad
>>
>>3311375
You think you know better than nature?
>>
>>3311379
Tell me you are joking lmao
>>
>>3311379
the photo is exposed perfectly for the mountain and is focused on he mountain where the sign is completely blown out making it unreadable and of course it is out of focus.
The sign is the subject of the image and with all I previously said makes the photo look shit
>>
>>3311379
Phoneposter delusion is strong here.
>>
>>3311380
It’s an iPhone photo posted on a Czechoslovakian alloy forging website, does it really matter if it’s raw or not
>>
>>3311381
I simply didn’t have the resolution to capture the sign perfectly as well as the mountain.
>>
File: 1529062533096.png (143 KB, 625x773)
143 KB
143 KB PNG
>>3311386
>>
>>3311386
>it's the "resolution" that determines focus and not where you choose to focus for creative effect
Are phonetographers this clueless? If the sign is the focus point of the image, which it clearly is as it's the most interesting thing in the image, you focus on that. Instead you slapped your thumb on the mountain and focused there instead. Resolution has nothing to do with it, you're just a bad photographer.
>>
>>3311389
I said I couldn’t capture both perfectly, and by you saying I should have tapped the sign instead of the mountain would imply you agree there was a choice of one or the other, meaning I’m not necessarily wrong.
>>
>>3311389
>>3311390
My point wasn’t that the resolution chose the focus either, it’s that I had the option to choose one and I happened to choose the background instead of the sign.
>>
>>3311390
You could have captured both easily if you had a proper camera as you could close the aperture to something like f8-f11 so everything would be in focus. Since you're using your phone you won't have access to that kind of manual control and phones don't default to that kind of aperture. So yes, you had a choice, one would have made the image better with the limits you had re: a phone with limited manual control. The fact you couldn't focus on both shows the inferiority of your phone.
>>
File: images (4).jpg (18 KB, 384x384)
18 KB
18 KB JPG
>>3311390
So is it nature, the limited capabilities of your camera or your inadequacy as a photographer?
>>


[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeApple
Camera ModeliPhone 6s Plus
Camera SoftwareSnapseed 2.18.193290165
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)29 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Pixel CompositionUnknown
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2018:06:15 19:32:07
Exposure Time1/2079 sec
F-Numberf/2.2
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/2.2
Brightness10.0 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length4.15 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width800
Image Height800
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>3311393
>mobile photography critique
Hmm wonder why I didn’t post a picture I took with an actual camera
>>3311394
Never said I was an expert, but my camera was limited, and that day happened to be bright and made the sign pretty well lit too.

So perhaps all three.
>>
>>3311297
meh maybe u could get away with 1/3 lower exposure. personally i like it the way it is. it gives a really strong sun and heat feel
>>
>>3311396
Are you so defensive of your phone that you took what I said as "mobile photography critique"? You sound like someone who doesn't even understand what aperture is. If your phone has access to manual control you could have moved to f8 and got both in focus, which it sounds like was your intention originally then when you couldn't get it to work so you chose the mountain. Maybe look for a manual control photography app for your phone (I use Open Camera on android) so you can put that lesson in action next time you want a sharp landscape shot instead of acting defensive.
>>
>>3311397
Hence why the sign is covered in sun and somewhat unlegible on the brighter parts.
>>3311393
Yeah, my phones busted as shit lmao
>>
>>3311401
No, that’s the name of the fucking thread that I was referencing dumbass, you need to read the shit you post in.

If I’m in a mobile photography critiquing thread, the critique shouldn’t be to use an actual camera!
>>
>>3311404
I didn't say use an actual camera per se, I meant that you should have gone in manually to close down the aperture. I know I can do that on my shitty chink phone. You said you wanted both in focus originally, if you want that you close down the aperture. I'm sure the iPhone can pull it off if my dumb chink phone can, you're just clueless about photography and didn't know it was an option.
>>
>>3311405
Not saying I didn’t know shit at the time I took the photo, but I never said I wanted to focus both, I said I couldn’t focus both if I wanted to, and the nature of it is important to me

Also “proper camera” would imply a standalone camera
>>
>>3311405
you cant change aperture on iphone 6s
>>
>>3311407
>If your phone has access to manual control you could have moved to f8 and got both in focus
Also what is the app store? I hear you can download a bunch of cool things form there, including an app that lets you control the camera on your phone manually
>>
>>3311409
This, on my Android I use Infinity Focus mode on Open Camera which kind of simulates the same thing. There might be a focus stacking app too which fires off multiple shots at different focus areas and merges them so everything is in focus. At least, there should be. It's a no-brainer of an app idea.
>>
>>3311407
Exactly
>>3311409
That wasn’t me but the photo is 2 years old m8 I don’t really care to change it
>>
>>3311419
>I don't care to change it
Uh, you can't refocus a photo that's already been taken. We're talking about in future, you can go out with an app that has manual controls so you can have more creative expression.

Are you genuinely clueless about photography? We're trying to help you use what you have but you seem like the most overly defensive phonetographer on this board who doesn't want to learn anything.
>>
>>3311409
you can only change shutter speed and iso. iso going as low as 50 or 25 (low)
>>
>>3311422
>you can only change shutter speed and ISO
the power of smartphone cameras. I hear they're getting closer and closer to DSLR cameras in niche areas like sports and wildlife... as long as you never want to change your aperture.

Fucking sides. Is there a focus stacking app at least?
>>
>>3311420
You're defending a 2 year old snapshit you took on a mandarin cartoon website. It's easy to tell that you have no idea what you're talking about and that you have zero knowledge of photography, just stop buddy.
T. phoneposters never learn
>>
>>3311425
looks like there is, that's good
https://petapixel.com/2015/01/21/stay-focused-app-brings-focus-stacking-iphone-camera/
>>
>>3311426
>criticises phoneposters
>quotes the wrong guy
you sure you're not posting from a phone my guy?
>>
>>3311425
with the iphone sensor size and focal length you are infinity focused at like 1 meter. u r dense
>>
>>3311429
sematics
>>
>>3311432
no you quoted the wrong post. that's usually a mistake phoneposters make since posts clump so close together on mobile it's easy to press the wrong one. It would be ironic if you're making fun of phoneposters while posting from your phone, that's all.
>>
>>3311422
This guy isn’t me but
>>3311420
I’m taking the advice at face value but you have to understand this is a phone photo thread and it’s an old photo
>>
>>3311439
If this whole thread is made under the argument that phones are almost as good as DSLRs with images to prove that, it's doing a really bad job. As long as you're happy with your snapshits taken on auto mode, I guess that's okay.
>>
>>3311325
No shit, Chosis, of course the photo would be better had it been taken with a better camera. What's next for you, oh wise fatman of /p/? Water is wet? Ice is cold? Don't you have some 13 year old girl's ass to creepshot?
>>
File: chosisinhappiertimes.jpg (176 KB, 1024x768)
176 KB
176 KB JPG
>>3311449
There's no point calling him out, he'll just turn his trip off and have a samefag meltdown at you while congratulating himself at every opportunity.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
>>3311450
One day he'll turn his trip off and it'll never come back on. We can only pray.
>>
>>3311440
It’s old as hell with an old phone, for me it’s more of a benchmark of what I started off at, and regardless of whether or not the sign is ledgible I still think it’s a pretty cool photo
>>
>>3311470
I'll be honest here and as polite as I can be, I think you're deluded or maybe just really young and self-important. Multiple anons have been trying to critical of that photo for its poor composition and you've tried to blame everything, from the photo being 2 years old, to it being taken with a phone, to the light conditions at the time, to the "resolution" of the image. I understand the photo means a lot to you personally so you see it differently from us, but if you still think your work from 2 years ago is any good then you need to be more critical of your own work.

I'm so critical of my work that I think my photos from a month ago are trash except for a few exceptions, which I only think are okay. It's not normal to still think a photo, especially one as bad as that, is still cool 2 years later if you're focused on progressing as a photographer. You should always be looking back at your work with a critical eye but it sounds like you've NEVER been critical of that image until now. To be honest it doesn't even sound like you consider yourself a photographer and more of a casual snapshitter who can't be judged like the rest of us with all your lame excuses.
>>
>>3311473
I never said I was any good, and I never called myself a full fledged photographer, jackass. The fact of the matter is that I don’t consider myself an expert, and I am critical of it. If I weren’t critical at all, I would be pointing out hat my resolution is low, my camera is shit, and I wouldn’t be admitting I’m not so good. You’re judging me through your own tight as lense when I’m not you, and it’s obvious I’m not. Get off your goddamn high horse and stop acting like I can’t post a casual photo that should be taken at face value: a casual photo

I never claimed I was good, never said I want listening to you, and I sure as shit didn’t say my photo was some professional shit m8, loosen the fuck up.
>>
>>3311473
>I think you're deluded or maybe just really young and self-important.
Over on /ic/, we just tell them they're never gonna make it and then make them grind pointless fundies until they quit after a week. These are babby tier excuses compared to the shit we get daily.

>>3311484
Never gonna make it with that attitude.
>>
>>3311484
Wow lol I was being as nice as I can to you pal and you react like this? You sound like someone who has never had any of his criticised in his life.

I really don't care if you consider yourself a casual or want to play photography on easy mode, you're posting on /p/ and the sticky on this board reads "you should expect to be judged harshly, deal with it". If you can't handle mild criticism or advice to be more critical of your own work then I don't know why you're here.

We're all posting photos in an attempt to get better and get some criticism, that's the goal of this whole board, but it sounds like you posted them with the expectation people would just leave you alone because you're a casual? That's not how it works around here, kid. Get some thick skin before it's too late.
>>
File: 1528721170923m.jpg (151 KB, 814x1024)
151 KB
151 KB JPG
>>3311484
>phoneposters are massive crybaby manchildren who fly into a temper tantrum when they get any form of critique of their snapshits
Makes sense.
>>
File: IMG_20180519_155218.jpg (4.18 MB, 4032x3024)
4.18 MB
4.18 MB JPG
Phone pics look like phone pics
>>
File: 1403350333143.jpg (266 KB, 949x800)
266 KB
266 KB JPG
>>3311484
/lit/ has a meme about this attitude kek
>>
>>3311488
M8 you literally started this by trying to be sly/ snarky and somewhat unconstructive. Whether it's you samefagging or not, whoever started this off didn't even criticize him, they criticized a compliment rather un constructively, and proceeded to keep trying to directly berate the poster when he kept trying to explain all the factors that culminated in that photo, while never once saying he was amazing. Please, learn to read before you piss someone else off by being a douche and then act like it's unwarranted or surprising.
>>3311496
But the difference is he never claimed to be an expert and y'all are still trying to treat him as one, and that's actually called being elitist.
>>
File: fat.jpg (403 KB, 1000x1000)
403 KB
403 KB JPG
>>3311721
>whoever started this off didn't even criticize him, they criticized a compliment
oh look it was Fatsis >>3311326 what a surprise

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-7RM2
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2017 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)55 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width7952
Image Height5304
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2017:12:22 14:18:16
Exposure Time1/800 sec
F-Numberf/2.0
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/2.0
Brightness7.7 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length55.00 mm
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width1000
Image Height1000
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>3311721
Stop trying to post as if you're not him to defend your actions just because you're embarrassed by your temper. You didn't even bother to change your writing style to pull it off. You were in the wrong with your reaction to that post and you know it. I was treating you with kid gloves and being nice, which you wouldn't get otherwise on this board, you couldn't even handle that and had a meltdown because your ego is that fragile.

All my advice boiled down to was stop making so many excuses and to be more critical of your work, which you then follow up with MORE excuses. Seriously, this board is cutthroat and harsh, it doesn't matter if your snapshit is from your phone or it's 2 years old. You and your work will be criticised. I've been through the coals with every photo I post here and you just have to deal with it and stop making excuses for your images or saying "I'M ALLOWED TO POST CASUAL IMAGES" as if that excuses you. If you consider that "elitist" then find another board. It's literally in the sticky and this is how it is here. Deal with it.
>>
>>3311779
Oh and repeatedly saying "I never said I was amazing or an expert leave me alone!" who fucking cares, people around here get criticised if they're one week into photography or twenty years into it as a career. It's all the same. You can't throw out I'M A NOOOOOB and expect to be treated differently. You uploaded images to /p/ and that makes them fair game to be critiqued, your reaction to that (making tons of excuses) is what bothered me.
>>
>>3311779
>>3311780
>imagine being so stuck up your own arse that you accuse someone else of samefagging when it's rather obvious you're the one samefagging while also to justify being a sly ass
I think his temper was warranted and that you need to stop treating photography like it's life or death, it takes the fun out of a hobby.
Also, your criticisms weren't constructive and could quite easily come off as asinine and snarky to anybody reading them that isn't just you samefagging
>>
>>3311778
kek i don't even know who this tripfag douche is but if he really is samefagging and starting shit then i'm glad i don't and that his reputation already precedes him
>>
>>3311784
To be clear, this is me.
>>3311473
>>3311488
>>3311779
>>3311780
Anybody else isn't me.
But yeah keep shouting that I'm samefagging if that makes you feel any better about the reaction to your post.
>>
>>3311789
Learn to not be so condescending, and if you can't do that then you at least shouldn't get surprised if someone gets mad at you for acting like an asshat and not understanding that an explanation and an excuse are two separate things
>>
>>3311791
>an explanation and an excuse are two different things
An excuse is when you try to justify something or lessen the blame on yourself. If you don't think blaming the light, then blaming your phone, then blaming the age of the photo counts as an excuse under the strict definition of the word then I don't know what to tell you. Sorry for hurting your feelings kid.
>>
>>3311792
Not even him but it's obvious he conceded, he was told he was a shitty photographer and he then agreed and still got poked at by your condescension

>>3311396
>so perhaps all three
conceding here
and >>3311484
in >>3311484
He repetitively admitted being new, he was agreeing with you on that and you pissed him off by continuing to try and tell him he wasn't being critical

Admitting he was new, that the camera was inadequate, and that the lighting made the photo the way it was were all him trying to say he's new to it and he understand your criticisms, he was explaining why the photo was the way it was.

But you decided to criticize him rather than the photo anyway, when all he said was that he thought it was a cool photo, which multiple people agreed on as well, see
>>3311318
>>3311397
and myself included

Criticism is great, but be constructive and understand what you're criticizing, and if they're listening.

Telling him he's shit and then having him say "yeah i'm shit" and then hounding him for telling you he's shit (a noob) isn't constructive, and it should be no surprise he got pissed off
>>
File: IMG_0606[1].jpg (1003 KB, 3264x1836)
1003 KB
1003 KB JPG


[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width3264
Image Height1836
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>3311793
I wasn't hounding him based on the photo, I was telling him that he's deluded because he thinks a photo from two years ago is still good even though it has a number of flaws which are apparently news to him. Nobody - if they're serious about photography and if not why are they on /p/ - should be this soft on themselves or expect others to be soft on them. Like >>3311485 said I could have told him "you're never gonna make it" and left it at that but I tried to tell him why that attitude he's showing isn't going to work well for him around here.

And being two years into photography isn't explaining you're "new to it", everything you list there was told to /p/ as an excuse in order to be treated more kindly when confronted with criticism of the image, of course he got some positive feedback too. Why does that matter? This is /p/, people here need to have thick skin and not """explain""" away the flaws in their images because ultimately those "explanations" don't matter. If he had taken it on the chin and stopped making up excuses I'd have laid off but he kept coming up with new ones every other post. If I posted an image in recent photo thread and acted the same way I'd be torn into.

And I never said he's "shit", I said he's delusional or just very young and self-important. There's a difference, I'm trying to tell him to be more humble and stop "explaining" every image to make it okay when faced with criticism. That's a bitch made way of doing things. If you can't take responsibility for your own work as an adult and not try to justify it every step of the way then you're never going to make it.

There's a reason why, when you start a new job, you never say "sorry, I'm new here". It doesn't matter to the customer if you're new, the job you're doing is what matters. Your excuses DON'T MATTER.
>>
>>3311795
Explanations, not excuses
He's a casual, obviously, and he's ok with that. He never said he wanted to make it, and he explained why his photos were the way they were, because chodesis didn't even criticize him, he criticized his compliment.
He's not doing a job, this is his hobby, and he was explaining himself, nothing more (and at times agreeing with you), but you just decided you'd try and make him change his mind.

It doesn't mean he didn't listen, you're legitimately taking this too seriously when he's already heard your criticism and agreed.
>>
>>3311797
1. What he was doing fits the dictionary definition of excuse, not explanation. You're wrong.

2. It doesn't matter if he considers himself a casual or this is just "his hobby", NONE of that matters. None of it. These images were posted on a PHOTOGRAPHY board and harsh criticism of all kinds is expected, it's in the sticky. If you disagree with the board culture then go to r/photography.

3. "you're taking this too seriously", no he's not taking this seriously enough and that's the bedrock of my entire complaint which apparently you've missed. This is a board for people who want to get better as photographers. All I said was that in order to get better you have to be humble and more critical of your own work. If that makes me a "condescending dick" then I really don't care. The lesson will be learned sooner or later and in a much harsher way than I put it.

Imagine wandering into a real life photography club and hanging up that image then flying off the handle when people who ARE serious about photography criticise it, telling them they take things too seriously, screeching that they're "just a casual". Absurd right? Well that's how it looks. I hope it sinks in one day.
>>
>>3311802
1. He accepted full blame, in fact he was somewhat harsh on himself by explaining he was a casual extensively, you are the one that can't see he's just explaining the circumstances of the photo

2.If his circumstance as a casual is irrelevant, but what makes the circumstances of "professionals" so relevant is that it's the board's attitude? In case you didn't notice, he's a poster on the board as well as you, and you haven't even posted a photo. He's a part of this board just as much as you are, and this "harsh" criticism you're saying he'll receive is different from what you're giving him. Harsh criticism isn't beratement for not meeting standards, it's holding high standards, and he understood full and well he didn't meet those. You're not giving him harsh constructive criticism, because he was already given that and listened, you're just being an asshat while also not understanding that he's listening to you.

3.He wants to get better or else he wouldn't have asked to be critiqued, he listened to the criticisms. You're criticizing him through a different lens than is necessary, he's learned his lesson but you're essentially just shouting at him for not knowing it in the first place, and it's not actually helpful to anyone.

It's more like he walked into a photography club and asked for a critique, got his critique, and when they said "your focus is on the wrong thing" he says "okay, I'll fix it next time, i didn't know", but then you continue to berate him needlessly for explaining himself. He explained he was new and not so good along with the circumstances around the photo in order to let y'all know that it wasn't because he was lazy and didn't want to improve, it was that he didn't know how to improve, that's why he came.

He wasn't mad at the criticism, he was mad that you didn't know the distinction between beratement and relevant criticism.

I'm done defending an anon who's probably asleep already to one that can't listen.
>>
>>3311808
Man, I don't know how much further we can stretch this act where I pretend you're not him but I'll do my best. I understand you need this act to continue.

My problem was that after all the criticism he said "after two years I still think this image is cool", I told him to be more critical of his own work and he flew off the handle saying he doesn't need to operate to my standards as he's not me. Well, my critical way of looking at my work isn't unique. In fact, as I said before, I regularly post my work on /p/ and have done for years. I've been torn to shreds hundreds of times. Everyone here strives to be better or they get weeded out fast by harsh criticism.

I used the photography club example because people around here are serious about photography. That's the environment. Telling people you're a casual and explaining away all the flaws in your image does absolutely nothing for us because we're already serious about this, it doesn't give you a handicap or let you off the hook. Imagine in that photography club example, the casual hangs up a print, people criticise it and the guy says "whatever I still think it's cool :) I'm just a casual and that's ok". Sure, it may be (((okay))) to be a casual, but you're in the wrong environment because calling yourself a casual doesn't mean you're exempt from scrutiny. Nobody cares if you're a casual or consider yourself to be one. There's no easy mode on /p/. Explanations mean absolutely nothing.

It doesn't sound like the lesson is sinking in but I hope OP sticks around and hardens up regardless. I'm not trying to chase anybody off the board. It's good to have fresh blood around no matter what.
>>
>>3311816

I'm legitimately not him

He wasn't exempting himself from scrutiny, perhaps he just thought his photo was cool from his perspective, regardless of it's photographic flaws.

He doesn't have to be unnecessarily critical on himself, he just has to understand the relevant criticism, which he already did.

It's more like he went into a photography club and heard the criticism, and then said "I'll try to do better next time, but for a beginner's photo I don't think it's all that bad, and regardless of the quality not being so professional, I like the vibe of my photo", which is rather reasonable considering other people that are in this said culture have agreed, and he plans to improve.

If you criticize somebody, just point out the problem. Don't do what the tripfag did and just criticize the compliment rather than helping the photographer by explaining what was wrong directly.

Who knows, maybe one day he'll come back around better, but he can only do that using the constructive criticisms, not the unnecessary bits of screeching from either end.
>>
>>3311821
>he doesn't necessarily have to be critical on himself
Then how is he supposed to improve? The whole point of self-improvement is you are critical on yourself and your work or you simply do not improve. That was what I was trying to tell him in a nutshell. You can't rely on others criticising your work all the time. You have to have a critical eye yourself.

>totally reasonable to think it's cool as he's a beginner
No, he's saying after TWO YEARS he still thinks the photo is cool. If he's serious about improvement as a photographer he should have long since gone on leaps and bounds in skill and look back at that image as kind of junk. I was pointing out the extreme length of time since the photo was taken and now, he shouldn't look back at it as if it's still any good. He should be more critical of his own work. Again, apparently that's not okay to say.

>if you criticise someone then point out the problem
I did, I told him his attitude to his own photography is the problem and apparently that's not okay. To become better you must be critical of your own work and he straight up isn't. And I don't care if he's a casual or not, if he's on /p/ I will treat him like he should take his work seriously because everyone else does. If he doesn't want to be treated like that, there are plenty of other places to go.
>>
>>3311823
1. *unnecessarily critical, read it again, it says he just has to know what's wrong with it

2. I think the point of him saying he is a casual is also so we know that he hasn't been trying to improve for 2 straights years

3. He was critical of his own work, he understood and conveyed that the photo was subpar and casual at best (because he's shite) , but he's still allowed to think the vibe of it is alright in itself. If he didn't want to learn how he could better take the photo, he wouldn't have posted it in a critique thread
>>
>>3311824
I'll be honest, if you're really not him, then I don't really want to discuss this with you any further. You're making assumptions about him and backing him up when he should be doing it himself like a real adult. I'll check in later and see if OP is back, most likely he won't be but there's always a chance. Thanks for the chat.
>>
>>3311827
No problem, but he probably got banned for freaking out at you anyway lmao
>>
File: 20180617_203232.jpg (858 KB, 1487x1115)
858 KB
858 KB JPG
>>3310361
Trip to a Wedding in Trygort, Poland. 1st. Attempt at photography. Criticism's welcome.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera ModelSM-G950F
Camera SoftwareG950FXXU1CRD7
Equipment Makesamsung
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)26 mm
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.7
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationUnknown
Image Created2018:06:17 20:32:32
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
ISO Speed Rating40
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
Unique Image IDF12LLJA00VM F12LLKL01GM_
F-Numberf/1.7
Exposure Time1/10176 sec
Focal Length4.20 mm
FlashNo Flash
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Exposure Bias0 EV
Image Height3024
White BalanceAuto
Brightness11.0 EV
Image Width4032
Exposure ModeAuto
Lens Aperturef/1.7
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
File: 20180617_193002.jpg (561 KB, 1613x1210)
561 KB
561 KB JPG
>>3312073
2.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Makesamsung
Camera ModelSM-G950F
Camera SoftwareG950FXXU1CRD7
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.7
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)26 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2018:06:17 19:30:02
Exposure Time1/7232 sec
F-Numberf/1.7
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating40
Lens Aperturef/1.7
Brightness10.6 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length4.20 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width4032
Image Height3024
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Unique Image IDF12LLJA00VM F12LLKL01GM_
>>
File: 20180617_202043.jpg (1.38 MB, 1613x1070)
1.38 MB
1.38 MB JPG
>>3312075
3.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera ModelSM-G950F
Camera SoftwareG950FXXU1CRD7
Equipment Makesamsung
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)26 mm
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.7
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationUnknown
Image Created2018:06:17 20:20:43
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
ISO Speed Rating40
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
Unique Image IDF12LLJA00VM F12LLKL01GM_
F-Numberf/1.7
Exposure Time1/1744 sec
Focal Length4.20 mm
FlashNo Flash
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Exposure Bias0 EV
Image Height3024
White BalanceAuto
Brightness8.5 EV
Image Width4032
Exposure ModeAuto
Lens Aperturef/1.7
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
This thread is retarded
>>
>>3312083
Blame chodesis




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.