Well, to start, I take the photos with a Sony Cybershot from almost 15 years ago. The maximum size it supports is 10MP, and although I can adjust the ISO and shutter speed, I still can't properly handle the aperture (or I can't find it). So be honest with me, how terrible am I? Besides taking a lot of photos in the dark.
>>4510484>What is missing from my shots?Soul because chilangos don't have any
>>4510484Look at the overall shapes, and the subject should be most prominent or draw the eye, squint your eyes and see the shapes, what stands out.You totally fucked the first photo, is it a troll? You should have had the statue with a sky background but you've made it look like a dalek.
>>4510484>>4510486> What is missing from my photos?Photography (especially when not staged) is the art of curating what you want to appear in an image. You are doing this backwards. Ask yourself: what was the ideal image I wanted, and what is getting in the way?> I have a digishitMost people will probably tell you a good photographer can make great pictures on any camera and they are right. However, I don't think anyone can become a good photographer with any camera. First reason is, if you don't have full manual control over your camera, you won't learn the technique necessary to achieve your vision. Second is, to become a good photographer, you must enjoy the act of taking photos regardless of the result, which is very difficult on a digishit. Third reason is, nobody including yourself will take you seriously with your digishit, and that's important because any good art need someone with enough confidence to create their vision and put it out there. > Am I a talented photographer?The honest answer is, I don't know, but realistically no you're a clueless amateur. Not because your photos suck, but because you posted only 2. Exceptional masterpieces aside, photography works in series, like poem do. Each image work to strengthen a general vision you want to communicate. By posting those 2 photos, you show me that you have not put a tenth of the effort needed to communicate something interesting through your art. You must do better. Make a series of at least 10 photos that communicate a concept or vibe you can explain in 1 sentence. Then we can see if you're good at photography; for now you're not even fully committing to the medium yet, just making the least possible effort using it.
They're fine. They're really good.
>>4510484no one cares about photography anymore so u need a subject people care about like a cool car, a sexy woman, brands etc
Thought a thread like this might be useful. Also would appreciate feedback.
>>4517071I posted my edits specifically because the ones posted suck ass, so...
>>4517040It's just engagement bait
>>4512371I like the concept of making the band pop off more, but these colors just look weird
>>4513959>>4513771i like these
>>4516776i like this, very moody
What does /p/ think of Jared Polin
>>4516918He's fine, not great, has this weird obsession with slapping a black and white filter on random pictures like it'll suddenly make them better
>>4516918The chad Jared>awesome jewfro perpetually growing larger and wilder>looks more like a mystical rabbi every year>will eventually start wearing a tallit and shtreimel in videos>shoots raw>gives clean water to based black people>always recognized canon > nikon>is an actual professional, films his shoots with real clients>did awesome portraiture on LF film at a historic baseball field>sells cool preset packs to fund his endeavors instead of just begging for money>self made manthe virgin rockwell>baldingComment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>4516924>slapping a black and white filter on random pictures like it'll suddenly make them better
>>4516924He explains that if the colors are bad, you should switch to BW. Which is a valid practice. Now his definition of a bad colors may be different from yours
How can i make money with a leica q2 as a photographer?Except selling it.
>>4516969Love those sites, any more that you enjoy most? (any focal length)
>>4516969Thanks for your effort posting. Nice links>>4516976>All of these people were either self established by doing the legwork and doing what people asked for before doing “their thing”But is it really impossible to build a legwork with a 28mm only? I presume 28mm takes barely like 5% of total market share when focal length range is concerned, let's say 24~200mm though.>Professional photography is a service industry>It is 80% customer service and human relations>It is a social game far before it is an artistic pursuitCannot be true more.>People do not seek you out because they adore your style.Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>4517005> But is it really impossible to build a legwork with a 28mm only?yesmaybe if you live in NY or something there are so many people you can scrounge up a real client portfoliobut even them someone is going to expect you to be able to do more, and being able to do more increases your client baseversatile cameras are cheap. they are just ugly and not fun to edc. but, they are literally made for work and work only which is why they are ugly ergo blobs and they excel at work. you also could use a good local print shop you can go to when people want wall art, vinyl wraps and yard signs and a fast turnaround timestart getting used to editing your photos for print
>>4516712>>4517005I work as a photojournalist using a Q3 28. Built up a whole portfolio at 28mm before incorporating a more standard 24-70 and/or 70-200 into my toolset. 28 is very hard for covering certain events and I very rarely take it out as my only body for work any more. If you're trying to justify a Q purchase for work - don't. There are cheaper and more appropriate options.
>>4517015>>4517005>>4516712
Well I guess he arrived to the stop
Hockney is based bruh But I wish his subject were as strong as his style
>>4513855>>4513854>>4513853>>4514039These are cool as fuck. I still hate his boring paintings though.
In my opinion this is similar neurotic nonsense than Cubism>wow bro we see things from multiple angles and I have to capture that and show as one moment in time
>>4514097I've been thinking about your post for a while. I think if his subjects had too much import or gravitas, it would seem inappropriate by such a whimsical style. The appropriateness of his subject and his means of capturing it are matched.Imagine world leaders signing treaties or young rebels fighting a guerilla war. There would be dissonance at a few levels. I agreed with you initially but now I don't: I think his subject matter is fantastic. Makes me want to try this tight cubist style for myself.
>>4516001It’s not about the gravitas of the subject, it’s about the general interest. The story the subject is telling. Take >>4513855What is this man thinking behind the cig? He seems to be joking in some of the face shots but also contemplative in others. It’s a naturally intriguing subject that creates a narrative that is enhanced by the way he presents the subject to us. But a lot of the other photos are just unique collages of snapshits
The "House Deposit Tripod" EditionSeriously, what is this?Previously: >>4513965
>>4516913DPreview is the Linus Tech Tips of the camera world.
Bump limit, new thread >>4516915
>>4516911it's still bad lol
Accuracy and the mundane will be the next big thing.
is a z6iii a big upgrade over a z5?
Hey /p/, after years of slowly learning the basics of photography, I think I'm ready to get into the world of portraits. The one small issue is that I don't have any good sources of references other than here for learning the different poses, angles, lighting, and everything else to make decent photos. Don't get me wrong, there are amazing threads that pop up here, but with the gear talk and the shit posts, I really want to branch out and find some from the outside. Instagram is what most people say, but I also want to find stuff that's unconventional or just really creative. So are there any websites, books, or photographers you anons can recommend to check out? Also would love to hear some tips and pointers for a noob like me starting out, especially when it comes to "directing" and posing a model
>>4516521Fill flash, even on camera works well. You can also use a softbox to block out the sun, blending the flash power with the background. >>4516625>>How do I take photos with no shade at all? >Get in the shadeWtf
>>4516694>What's the best way to deal with shooting in harsh light, I often find myself at midday in an open area>Find shade or if not possible try xyzPretty easy to understand if you aren't retardedUnless OP is only ever shooting in the middle of a field, shade is always never far away on a sunny day
>>4516625>>4516703I ask because there's a nice open park I like going to, but there's no shade close or tall enough to actually use when it's the middle of the day>>4516694I do have a speedlight for on camera flash, so I'll probably use that. I did some further research and saw that people also reccomended getting an nd filter for wide aperatures/bokeh? If so, I might also look into getting that
>>4516709Shooting in completely lit areas, with no depth in foreground or background, and bokeh blasting is a recipe for the flat "green screen" look.This guy does tons of just natural light photos on sunny days, but you can see he almost always is leveraging the shadows when possible, or just shooting towards the sun.youtube.com/@caliallstaring/videos
>>4516709You don't need more advice - you need hands-on experience. Put a speedlite without modifiers on your camera, learn to use the zoom, and go shoot. Before messing around with NDs, change aperture to achieve native sync speed.
All of these are just snapshots
>>4516336>No one really does that anymore.Days ago i posted what i consider the best lenses for Nikon F and i don't think anyone read it>>4516340>userbase is so small now that any feedback is welcomed at allWe are at year 2006 or alt-imageboard levels, you now know what it feels like but to be fair old forums that had decent activity also died down, the Bentacks forums, Manual Focus Lenses, even mid-life dentist crisis forums like FredMiranda.After the plandemic it all tumbled down.
>>4516282>>4516298I want to see the RAW too
>>4516362>>4516282The TIFFs are missing from that roll, but you get the full JPG and NEF.https://www.filemail.com/d/fcubnwmlypcggqo
>>4516437
>>4516443PROOF digital is superior and looks like real life! Film subscriptiontographers btfo!
First post on 4chan. Not really a photograper, and is exactly underqualifed to be called a proper "photograper"Call me a faggot because this picture sucks or what ever, just tell me of its bad. Call it shit, ass, retarded I DON'T CARE. JUST SAY SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
>>4512579Yeah, he's Broly squatting, so what it's not illegalPoint still stands, the subjects and their thematic contrast are clearly visible, and will be even if shown in a semi-detailed exhibition format of 8x10 seen at a 50cm distance which is 20ish inches in muttric system.Attached is an image sized 7x10 if you are seeing it at 96PPI, 960px vertical side, 768 horizontal side would make it 8in but in this case due to crop ratio it is 672ish, so a 7in.The example inside of a so-called broly squat, black framed, is a normal exhibition size of 5x7 if seen at 96PPI, that might be a bit too small but OP might print it at 8x10 anyways as it is doable at 300DPI, he's just 20 to 25 pixels shy of the 2400x3000 pixels needed if he opts for the cropped version provided before.
Did this monkey attempt any more photos?
>>4512728Your crop, aside from brolly ass, is retarded as it loses the original environmental context from the shooter's perspective.The feeling of squalor is massacred; the grime of the river is not as apparent, as is lost the fact that the subjects are fishing in a shitty, polluted, decaying canal and not against the ocean or something. You literally cropped out a source of flowing water, you fool.Your crop is bad, just like your photo of chairs in a tree is bad (and banal).>>4512280I like it, but you're limited by your equipment; the finer details that would make the photo are blurred. Other than that, good job
>>4516349>Your crop is bad, just like your photo of chairs in a tree is badwat, i haven't taken or posted any photo of " chairs in a tree", take your meds>loses the original environmental context from the shooter's perspectiveYes but compacting the composition gives more room to the hobos and makes the juxtaposition between their "under the bridge" conditions and the fancy building more obvious/explicit.>the grime of the river is not as apparent>lost the fact that the subjects are fishing in a shitty, polluted, decaying canalIt is in the left-side crop shown here >>4512288, it is not lost>You literally cropped out a source of flowing water, you foolThat is true but that is a sacrifice i did because my subject priority is the juxtaposition, not the squalors' condition>canal and not against the ocean or somethingAlso an intelligent observation, again i had a crop priority. To have everything in the composition this would need to be a large-format image and shot at a slightly different angle to avoid the corrugated roofing in the mid-right side while maintaining the water source.>the finer details that would make the photo are blurredLike so.
>>4516360im not the guy ur responding too but buddy if ur using words like juxtaposition, thats how u know ur like not good at this composition stuff. relying on cheap tricks doesnt make a good photo. ur photo is like not leveled in a way that make sense for the composition u attemptedlike my first impression is that this dude doesnt know how to straighten something. second the bottom right corner is just useless shit. its just like some shitty plants and its in a super distracting area. third, there's just more distractions on the right side wit that building. theres too little of it showing so it just looks like u didnt even notice it was there when u took the photo.theres no defining points in this photo that create a composition. it literally just looks random.go read some art books or go look at paintings and see what they doand finally the contrast it just too much, like the shit on top of the ship is too bright and the ppl below is way too dark to the point where no one would really notice itComment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>Sepia toning is a chemical photographic process which changes the appearance of black-and-white prints to brown.>Most digital cameras and photo software include a sepia filter to mimic the appearance of sepia-toned prints.Post your sepia photos!
>>4516052>>4516053Thank you. I severely underexposed, then post processed and that's how it turned out. Here it is straight outta the camera.
>>4516168I don't think I've seen anyone use color banding like this before. Interesting.
>>4516039>>4516168Did you edit the RAW or JPEG?
>>4516168You've got color banding like that SOOC? What the fuck.
>>4516245>>4516248New camera so just taking a lot of goof around jpegs to see what happens. That plus the underexposure seem to be what's doing it, I'll continue to experiment. Don't remember if I used a recipe.>>4516235Glad you like it.
Reply if you're a real mf'er
>>4514099As the anon wrote, B&W negative film is pretty low contrast intentionally. People used appropriate photo paper (these days variable contrast with filters) and dodge & burn while exposing the wet prints under enlarger. For scans the same shit is done with an image editor.That said yellow filter was/is pretty normal when shooting B&W film outdoors. Yellow filter cuts haze from scattered UV/blue light and makes blue sky more contrasty.
>>4515697I can count the pixels lmao
Guys i got a offerHorizon Perfekt camera for 180€Should i get it ?
>>4516036Could be fun.
itt: post your non-standard color photos. your lomo turquoise, your harman red, your aerochrome, and all the like. I guess if you do weird stuff with your digital sensors that's fine too.shot a roll of kono donau II last weekend, its a blue monochromatic c-41 film rated at ISO 8.
>>4515622>>4515670I was looking at Kallitype as an affordable option. Do you have any experience or comments on it before I get in too deep? I just don't like the blue of a cyanotype and can't afford platinum
>>4516183None at all, but I would highly recommend getting into alt processes that you think look cool. They are a ton of fun. Are you going to make your contact negatives with a printer?
>>4516184Thanks, wasn't expecting a response so quickly. I'm interested in prints with good dmax and closer to a traditional black/white print in terms of look, which is why I was looking at Kallitype. I would have to make negatives with a printer. I don't own an enlarger, so why contact prints appeal to me as an option for home printing. That and they look great. I don't have a huge space to set up an enlarger and darkroom wash station either. Just an apartment inside bathroom.
>>4516187Totally doable in a small bathroom. I do my conventional contact printing and enlargement prints in a 4x4 tent. It's cramped, but I make it work.My advice is invest in a quality contact printing frame. You want a lot of pressure on your negative and paper or you will get soft images and highlight tonality will suffer. Good brushes are also very nice to have. I forget the name of them, but theres a brand everyone likes to use. Also silver nitrate stains EVERYTHING. I have beakers that I use to move silver nitrate and the outside of them that is completely dried and clean-ish looking will leave black stains on your fingers if you grab them. Stains on clothes are a permanent blackish purple. The stains last for about a week on your skin. Be aware since you're in a rental.Printing digital negatives are really nice for contact printing alt processes because you have so much freedom to fine tune your contrast curve. You can get really attractive images without fussing with calibrating your exposure and development to get enough contrast and density in your film negstive to make a good looking print.
>>4516191Thanks for the info and tips anon. I'll be sure to look into a good frame and brushes. I appreciate the heads up about staining, too. If I make some prints one day, I'll be sure to post them.
Photo taken on top of Lovcen mountain in Montenegro
>>4516019Well, I don't.
>>4516016I get why you'd want to level, but the only reason for cropping would be if you wanted to turn this into a documentarian photo of some tiles and a gate.
>>4516013Well at least you posted a pic
St Andrew Cathedral in AMALFI window
>>4516117That's tuff
Maybe camera glasses are the way for street photography so you stop taking photos of stranger's backs in public.They shoot video too though vertical
>>4515967You're still holding a camera dummy, the glasses are somewhat incognito
Art is dead.
>>4515968Wrong, as usual.
>>4515971I was thinking that'd go undetected if everyone around you was close by and wearing a hat, but then the photos would just be tops of hats
>>4516054They also have ones that mount on your shoulder or even your chest. You could always use multiple 180/360 cams if you were a truly serious streetographer.
Let’s have a thread where we act like we have free workshops. Come in and critique my work, and even post your own works for critiques from strangers. After all, isn’t photography about making pretty images for people you don’t really know?
>>4515714
Cool pics, now to get you a workshop style critique you'd need to explain us what your project is about. I can figure it's about cemeteries, but not much more. Where is this? Why did you include photos both in color and b&W? What is it that inspired you?
>>4515719It was shot in west terrace cemetery, Adelaide, and at the botanical gardens on north terrace. It was inspired by a quote by Friedrich Engels about how life and death require one another, which I think appears in Anti-Duhring. I wanted to contrast nature and life with shadows, cemeteries, and the cenotaphs of monuments to death. I think the relationship between life and death is complex, and one requires the other; we wouldn’t have life without finality, and immortality would be not only boring but indistinct. The colour and B&W mixture was somewhat a mistake but I did want pastel colours against the contrasting of split tone black and white.
>>4515720I see. I was able to piece together the contrast between natural life and human death so I guess you managed that. My main critique would be that there is not a lot of pictures here that would convey it isolated from the series. It's fine to use the series to give meaning to single picture but it's better if there is at least 50% of the pictures that can drive the point home almost by themselves. Picture like >>4515707 seem too out of place, it would be better to be given a bit of context like in >>4515708 . >>4515712 seems to be just a worse version of >>4515700 . It's a good idea to use b&w next to color to contrat, but then you'd need to have a clearer logic behind why pictures are one way or the other. The color pictures appear to have been taken at noon, so under very harsh light. It's not in itself a mistake, but intuitively if we're talking about life and death I would more imagine a very low and dramatic light and clair obscur. Is pastel supposed to represent the artificial nature of marble and plastic flowers? You need to use your pictures to illustrate why you choses those esthetics.Overall I would say you need to refine this draft until there is a clear coherence between your esthetic and thematic choices and your pictures. Also practice taking pictures that embody your concept entirely without the need for support from other pictures. Make choices about the light and the color you want and use those as limitations to create something coherent
>>4515700I like the composition.
