>>4304526
you mean, based?

>>4304528
>snapshitting lost airpods then essentially throwing the undeveloped film away
>based
pick one

>>4304530
ok poor

>>4304530
But he's dedicated to le heckin gear

He can't afford to shoot film but he shoots film instead of digital, that makes me feel better about wasting money on film, it makes me feel like I am taking the path of a real artist and it must be better if he's doing it

Let's face it, without the gearfaggotry aspect making credit card "rich" and financially irresponsible single males like >>4304531 feel better about themselves
https://www.instagram.com/jake_ricker/?hl=en
This photography would be recognized as mediocre and repetitive, with a theme of "enough quantity will eventually result in quality"

>>4304532
what is the problem? you can't buy film and some seat-belts?

>>4304529
yt-dlp https://youtu.be/gqxzx2BDm0Q

retard

>>4304534
I could btfo you but you'd probably just cope. It's funnier to watch you pretend you're rich because you don't recognize value and keep spending your construction site help checks on gear junk while living with your mom desu.

All there is to learn from this hack is that if you walk to work, live in a large city, and bring a point and shoot in your pocket, you can convince someone out there you're a good photographer. The work itself is 90% random snapshits.

>>4304535
Too lazy to listen to a streetfag talk, rather just scroll through the photos

File: ee88a6c2-f85e-4cb3-a8a7-0(...).jpg (208 KB, 1000x663)

208 KB JPG

>>4304526
what makes someone think a rushed photo of a hobo walking down a bridge is art

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	1828 dpi
Vertical Resolution	1828 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	663

>I know for a fact a month or two all my photos will be blurred the lens had loose elements

>do you worry about lightleaks?
>all the time

>3 Leica cameras
>all of them somehow fucked

lol
lmao

he is SUCK a retard
it's fascinating

>>4304539
a leica that actually gets used but does not get a CLA every 3 months will inevitably be fucked, that's part of the appeal, the perfectly demonstrate how poor or rich you actually are by being flimsy as fuck

>>4304526
Yeah this guy is sick. Instead of bitching and moaning and complaining about randos on the internet, he's actually out there, making a body of work. Who cares if an individual photo is good or bad or whatever, he's making The Work. More than most anyone on here can say. Be more like this dude.

>>4304579
Seems like the consensus for getting better is to just go out and take pictures of things you like. No studying photography because any well respected work is just an in-group circle jerk.

It also seems to anger people when you do take a lot of pictures of the things you like.

>>4304582
Photography is THIS easy
>All there is to learn from this hack is that if you walk to work, live in a large city, and bring a point and shoot in your pocket, you can convince someone out there you're a good photographer. The work itself is 90% random snapshits.
Do you have 200 photos of your dog? Congratulations you are now a unique artist.

>>4304584
If you're taking hundreds of pictures of your dog are you really trying to be an artist, or just having fun preserving memories of/with your dog?

You'll never get a consensus on what a good photograph is because it's almost entirely subjective. I like some of his photos, but most of them are just snapshots disguised as street photography. Nothing more than a 2 second viewing and on to the next post he made...

Personally I think that creating physical media is a somewhat lost and important part of creating real art. Even if it is just cute pictures of your dog to hang on the wall. I don't think many people realize how much viewing your work in a physical medium can influence you in a positive way...

>>4304589
Its not about what you do, its about your gear - your image, and what people think you do
Photography isnt real art, it’s modern art

Skill, beauty, dead. Now it’s just assumed intent.

>>4304590
Nah... That's like the doomer mindset for photography. Just have fun and if you care enough share it with people to see what they think. Do you have any of your photography framed and hung up on your wall? I'm not joking about the importance of that.

Something sort of funny I was pondering about was how choosing a spot and place for my dog to pose, composing an image and taking a picture was more artistic than any observational/documentarian-esque forms of photography.

>>4304590
Correct

>>4304594
Doomer cuz troomer.
>Something sort of funny I was pondering about was how choosing a spot and place for my dog to pose, composing an image and taking a picture was more artistic than any observational/documentarian-esque forms of photography.
Yeah cinefag said this too and moop had a meltdown where he posted a taco bell dog on his cardboard countertops, it was funny because both of them were wrong

>>4304595
>taco bell dog on his cardboard countertops

Lol. I had a feeling that idea used correctly would create a reaction like that.

>>4304595
>>4304590
Is it because you aren't creating the art from nothing? That all photography is just a captured instance of reality?

What if the medium is what creates the beauty? Like a silver plated copper daguerrotype, or a carbon print? Both incredibly difficult processes that produce stunning results.

>>4304526
Usually I'm allergic to loosers, asocial weirdos with no job, no life, no point to exist, but not this time.
Actually interesting doomer guy. Literally real life professional street photographers. Has a lot of good photos for a book, have a theme, have a story. Good. Good. Like it.

>>4304594
>That's like the doomer mindset
Aka contrarian attention whoring heavily laced with teenage self-importance.

>>4304964
Part and parcel with this website. The incredibly loud opinions of people with next to no true experience or knowledge is staggering. Maybe canon being a nophoto is the true 200 IQ move.

I am sick and tired of pretending street photography is ever good because
>BUT BRO, HE WAS OUT THERE, TAKING PHOTOS, WITH A PASSION!
A passion for producing absolute fucking garbage. Am I also supposed to celebrate him because I'm supposed to think negative film is "hard" or something? It's not like these are technically flawless landscape paintings. These are off level, f/16 1/400 zone focused snapshits of whatever direction this retard happens to be facing at the moment. Are we also going to call setting up a surveillance camera an art project now? If someone takes a photo of their cat every day is that art too? Do I have to include a black person in the frame every now and then and claim to be suffering for the cat pictures?

Maybe some street photographers make art. But this guy is an absolute fucking hack and I honestly hope he stays poor. Maybe someone will steal his camera(s) and the world we be spared more godawful snapshits. The only way shit like this can be improved is by not fucking taking it.

We respected people like this when they sat down and painted scenes from a memory because that at least took skill. This is a MAN CHILD randomly pressing buttons on what is essentially a fixed focus point and shoot camera once you set it up according to street photography instructions readily found on google. He's not an artist. He is an overgrown toddler playing with a toy, doing as little work as possible, complaining that he's poor.

>>4305088
And this also goes out to all of you that say things like
>But there was creative intent, I made it up after the fact
>But my camera is so cool and advanced, you wouldn't know what to do with a calumet 4x5 and 800mm lens or a niggon z8 and 500mm f4
I don't care how much money or time you put into it or if you came up with a fantasy about working like an experienced studio professional while photographing your cat.

Some of you almost make this shitty button presser look good just because if you zone focus with a 28mm and portra 400, and shoot midday, you literally can't take a blurry photo.

>>4305088
he fails the most basic art litmus test
>would this be an impressive photo if it were taken on an iphone
if the answer is no it is "just a photo of something", like kids take to text their parents to answer a "where are you whats going on"
>snap
>walking down the golden gate bridge mom

if without the bokeh or the sharpness or the film grain or the edit or the color grade, its nothing, it was always nothing, whoever disagrees, you prove every gearfag on earth right and their camera not the mere equipment operator is what made the photo

>>4305088
Can you post an example of a great photograph? Have you taken one before? I would love to see it.

>>4305093
Does it matter? No. You only hear this when its hate for some shit only photographers like. Shit on wedding photography and no postphotos but shit on street and postphoto
But dont

Streetfags predictably descend to “you are just afraid of people / if you arent helmut newton you cant have opinions”

>>4304532
I didn't think of it like that, but that's really more based than I expected. I should review gear.

>>4305095
That only works with gear most people internally regret

Leica, high volume film, medium format, flagship ff. If its anything sensible you wont be recognized

>>4305094
Only photographers like street photography. That is true. I wonder if gearfagging factors in.

>>4305096
>traditionally required knowledge and technical competency that was rare pre-google
>most used high end “sharp” lenses, hence leica, sharp slr lenses were 2 big
it is photography for gearfags so it makes sense that photographers would like it because photographers enjoy gear but non photographers dont know what a summicrux is

>>4305096
Personally, I think pixel peepers should be stigmatized more than gearfags. It's just a disguise for the truest form of gearfagging.

>>4305104
I think pixel peepers are fine but they cross the line when they use it as a measure of quality, rather than intent.

Some people want appreciating smaller details to be a part of their photography.
Other people don’t want them. Some want them totally gone, smoothed out.

When it goes past this and the resolution warriors accuse each other of being worse photographers its joever

>>4304538
>>4304536
I'm getting the sense that you guys like to earnestly pretend that you understand what makes compelling photography and as an extension of that what makes good art. You probably think that it takes a lot of thinking, care, consideration, etc.--a good exposure, great grading, superb composition, all the little technical itty-bitties you learn about casually reading or wasting money on a degree. In reality great photography typically does not (consciously) involve any of those things. Its about the body of work. It's about the view of a lifetime of images and how that looks holistically and particularly. If Cartier-Bresson produced a single extremely well done picture that he thought a *lot* about he would have died in total obscurity. Same for Capa. And Eggleston. And Maier. They were authentic, interesting, living people *first* and photographers *second*. Do you get it?

And you can read this and recognize that I'm right on some level, but ultimately you will pretend that you get it, reflexively come up with some bullshit idea that protects your incredibly autistic and neologistic worldview, and move on. You will never understand.

>>4305107
Incredibly based.

>>4305106
Very fair.

>>4305107
All these “authentic” people suck too

Tldr you said this:
Taking 100 shitty photos a day is the faster path to 1 good one
You miss this:
You’ll forget what makes a good one along the way and so will everyone else

>>4305110
Not who you're replying to, but your post is exactly why I ask for you to post one great photo. There's many to choose from.

I've shot 1.5 rolls of Portra 400 (pushing to 800) on wildlife this year so far. Also made a darkroom in my basement.

This White man is coming home.

>>4305107

Capa was literally about as inautenthic as they get, he faked bunch of his famous pictures and exaggerated lots of the reporter work he did. D-Day perhaps being the most famous one.

>>4305094
it only matters if you want anyone to care about what you say
anon didn't ask specifically for a picture you took. no >Le Doxx!-ing your way out of this one. if you have such a strong opinion on what's good and what's not, then surely you can post a good photo. although in this particular case the conversation is pretty much over after this >>4305110. you just dislike popular thing and want attention for it. there's nothing more to discuss
>>4305107
>>4304964
this site is infested with the boldest contrarians whose posts are rarely worth reading. what you need to do is see if they plainly state their theory of the topic at hand, or if they show you what is good according to their worldview. if they type post after post of ten layers of irony, of derision, bashing, or condescension but never post an example of what they think is good, then you can write them off instantly. it's either a bot or a shitpost. their absolutist hot take (You) economy falls apart the instant they are expected to back up literally anything they say and the subjectivity of art and media at large is thrust into the light.
If the interloper decides to show a shred of conviction by posting an example, that's when you can start weighing whether to take them seriously. 99% of the time, such an example will invalidate all of their previous posts, which is probably why /p/ is saturated with anons talking shit with nothing to back it up
>>4305104
>pixel peepers should be stigmatized more than gearfags
yes. gearfags per se are mostly harmless. they are unfairly misattributed constantly with brandfagging and anti-photography posting

File: Lewis_Hine_Power_house_me(...).jpg (436 KB, 2155x3000)

436 KB JPG

>>4305122
I'm the guy asking for a good photo from the guy.
Just for arguments sake I will say that when I saw Lewis Hine's "Powerhouse man working on steam pump" I was humbled to say the least... I don't think I'd ever find myself in the opportunity to envision and capture such a stunning photograph.

>>4305122
>popular thing
with like 30 people, all photographers

>>4305107
nah, if it's not aesthetically pleasing to me, then it sucks. case closed

>>4305387
I only like chicken tendies, and all other food SUCKS! BROCCOLI IS SO GROSS!

>>4305389
it's actually that simple. i dont care how much or how little work you put in your photos, if i dont think it looks good, then its bad. i dont care if you disagree, theres literally nothing you could possibly say to change my mind. also whats the broccoli of photography? i need to see these nutritionally dense, awful tasting photos

>>4305390
Sounds like narcissism to me. Imagine telling a famous chef that all food sucks aside from.what you like.

Maybe microfiche is the broccoli of photography... lol.

>>4305391
yeah you're right maybe "sucks" is too harsh, but when i see a photo, i'll know if it's "good" (meaning i like and appreciate it) almost immediately. if this doesnt happen, then i forget it. I just dont like the way the guy i was responding to defines "great photography". for me, i know it when i see it, its just that simple

File: 1713139230404133.jpg (576 KB, 1634x2893)

576 KB JPG

Street "photography" is the dullest franchise in the history of photography.

Seriously, each shot following random people from some urban hellscape as they endure their suicide-inducing environment is indistinguishable from the others. Aside from the gloomy imagery, the genre’s only consistency has been its lack of excitement and ineffective use of black and white, all to make life unmagical, to make action seem inert.

Perhaps the die was cast when street "photographers" decided unauthorized candid snaps were the way to go; they made sure the genre would never be mistaken for a work of art that meant anything to anybody - just ridiculously profitable cross-promotion for their books. Street "photography" might be anti-human (or not), but it’s certainly the anti-aesthetic genre in its refusal of wonder, beauty and excitement. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.

>a-at least the photos were clever though

"No!"

The juxtaposition is dreadful; each street book is terrible. As I look at each one, I notice that every time a the opportunity appears the snappers take a picture of someone making it seem like their head is the one on a sign and showing their legs or vice-versa. Then, some picture of a puddle, an umbrella or a hobo. Art!

I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that pattern was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. The street snapper's mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that they have no other style of communicating. I once read a lavish, loving review of the genre by the same Elliott Erwitt. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are enjoying street photography at 21 or 22, then when they get older they will go on to enjoy Elliott Erwitt." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you consume street photography you are, in fact, trained to consume Elliott Erwitt.

>>4305390
Thankfully street photography never looks good because of the lack of effort
>random snapshit: on film tho! on leica tho! on fiji tho!
Im not in the gearfaggot cult that cares.

>>4305480
Is anyone really like that, or are you creating villains in your brain?

>>4305524
People really are like that. Its done on xyz gear so its good. Hence eggleston’s entire career (only “good” because he shot 8x10 and paid extra for nicer prints), and alan schaller only having a job because he has a leica.

>>4305579
Well if gearfaggotry didnt work it would die off. But it works. It works really well for the people that have a modicum of talent/connections.

>>4305579
>>4305480
Share with me what the ideal non/anti-gearfag setup would be? Can I still shoot large format film without being a gearfag, or is 35mm the only permissible film format?

>>4305619
gearfaggotry isn't something you can buy and sell, gearfaggotry isn't a line drawn in dollars, and gearfaggotry isn't a status you earn because you have a nicer camera than someone else. you might be financially irresponsible, rich, a scrooge, or addicted to retail therapy, but you're not over the line yet. you are not yet gearfag just because you have gear. you are definitely a fag, but not yet a gearfag.

it's a way of life, it's a way of looking at photography, from the results to the process - all through the lens of gear. making excuses based on gear. passing judgement based on gear. it doesn't stop at the camera, it doesn't stop at film vs digital, ccd vs cmos, or full frame vs mft. gearfaggotry runs deep. deeper than "i will finally take those photos once I get my leica". the tripod, the head, the flash, the modifiers, the reflectors, the scrims, the fucking STANDS, the screen, the printer, the paper, the frame, the glass. the gearfag is exacting. the gearfag is never satisfied. the gearfag has spent a lot of time thinking about all of these, arguing about the best - the gearfag sees all of these things, all this gear, as so inexorably intertwined with photography that photography is mostly just about what you used to make the photo. and it need not be expensive, the gearfag may very well decide that expensive things make photography worse. it's just about the gear. when the gearfag is presented with a photo they want a closer look at the exif before they even look at the fucking picture so they can make sure they're allowed to like it. and if you used flash, they will ask you which flash you used. so they can say "oh, doesn't the color temperature vary up to 400k? you shot on that trash? no wonder your colors are FUCKED".

that is what it means to be gearfag.

just by asking what to buy so you can not be a gearfag, as if a purchase can make you more authentic photographer, you put a toe over the gearfag line. retract it. Now!

>>4305622
That must have been fun to write, and I agree with you. It's an excuse to judge an image based on the gear rather than the content.

I like prints more than looking at images on a screen. I have fun imagining a pixel peeper/gearfag using a loupe or standing 1 inch away from a framed print on a wall exclaiming that the corners are soft from a shitty lens and declaring it a terrible picture for that reason alone. In a completely silent gallery as well.

>>4305387
valid
>>4305524
<1% is actually is like that

The Winogrand on the golden gate, but more gay