Been doing b&w for almost 3 years now. Posts will be roughly chronological so you can (hopefully) see the progression.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeFUJIFILMCamera ModelX100VCamera SoftwareGIMP 2.10.12Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2022:10:11 23:27:38Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating2000Metering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashWhite BalanceAuto
Mix of digital and film[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeFUJIFILMCamera ModelX100VMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.0Image-Specific Properties:Exposure Time1/150 secF-Numberf/11.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating320Lens Aperturef/10.9Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length23.00 mmWhite BalanceAutoSharpnessNormal
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:
>>4373466>>4373468>>4373471why are there people in these photos?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeFUJIFILMCamera ModelX100VCamera SoftwareGIMP 2.10.12Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.0Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaMaker Note Version0130Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2022:10:30 17:35:30Exposure Time1/250 secF-Numberf/6.4Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating320Lens Aperturef/6.5Brightness7.6 EVExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length23.00 mmRenderingCustomExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknownBlur StatusOKChroma SaturationUnknownContinuous/Bracketing ModeOffAuto Exposure StatusOKFlash ModeUnknownFocus ModeAutoFocus StatusOKPicture ModeAperture Prior AESharpnessNormalSlow Synchro ModeOffWhite BalanceAuto
>>4373472Why shouldn't there?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeFUJIFILMCamera ModelX100VCamera SoftwareGIMP 2.10.12Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.0Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2022:10:30 17:21:27Exposure Time1/160 secF-Numberf/6.4Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating320Lens Aperturef/6.5Brightness5.8 EVExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length23.00 mmWhite BalanceAutoSharpnessNormal
>>4373474Well you're the one who put them there, so I'm curious as to why.
>>4373466Are you going to call me a nophoto if I don't say your pickies are all 10/10?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeFUJIFILMCamera ModelX100VMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.0Image-Specific Properties:Exposure Time1/70 secF-Numberf/2.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating320Lens Aperturef/2.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length23.00 mmWhite BalanceAutoSharpnessNormal
>>4373475I also put car, buildings, street. Should I justify every element in the composition? Not being defensive, I just don't get the question. The people in these photos basically just serve as a point of focus in the composition.>>4373476No. If I wanted that I'd just sho it to famiily & friends, I came here to get ripped apart.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.10.12Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2022:11:04 13:49:54Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width3637Image Height2396
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.10.12Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2022:03:18 15:15:08
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera Model4200FImage-Specific Properties:
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeFUJIFILMCamera ModelX100VCamera SoftwareGIMP 2.10.12Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.0Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaMaker Note Version0130Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2022:12:20 15:26:15Exposure Time1/25 secF-Numberf/7.1Exposure ProgramShutter PriorityISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/7.2Brightness3.3 EVExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeSpotLight SourceDaylightFlashNo FlashFocal Length23.00 mmRenderingCustomExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknownBlur StatusBlur WarningChroma SaturationUnknownContinuous/Bracketing ModeOffAuto Exposure StatusOKFlash ModeUnknownFocus ModeAutoFocus StatusOKPicture ModeShutter Prior AESharpnessNormalSlow Synchro ModeOffWhite BalanceDaylight
>>4373478>Should I justify every element in the composition?Not be be obtuse, but yes. Every element should have a reason for being there. I personally think those photos would be better without the people so I would have waited for them to leave/move, but you didn't, so I'm genuinely wondering why.>>4373477This photo the person makes more compositional sense. without him the cat is unbalanced and he breaks up the bright area on the other side of the bridge, so I get it. >>4373478I like this one a lot because the people draw out an emotion. I enjoy seeing a child experience winter, the birds alone aren't enough to justify the photo. It narratively makes up for the chaotic composition.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera Model4200FCamera SoftwareGIMP 2.10.12Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution318 dpiVertical Resolution318 dpiImage Created2023:05:14 17:44:20
>>4373486I often feel like something would be missing without a human shape at the center of the composition. Sometimes they serve a purpose, >>4373466 I waited for someone with a long coat to go for a noir aesthetic and fill the compositiob. >>4373468 is for the sense of scale. >>4373471 Is just for the sake of it, it doesn't add much, but doesn't take anything either. Feels more complete to me, but as time went I grew tired of this sort of composition and tried to move on to other things.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
>>4373486
>>4373491>I often feel like something would be missing without a human shape at the center of the compositionhuh. Interesting. I always go out of my way to remove people. I feel like they are distracting so I was just curious as to the thought process as to why you'd want them. Thanks for explaining it.
>>4373496CheersTruth is there is no thought process, it's mostly just gut feeling that it would look better that way
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.10.12Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution1800 dpiVertical Resolution1800 dpiImage Created2024:03:03 17:19:03
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.10.12Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution1800 dpiVertical Resolution1800 dpiImage Created2024:03:06 20:08:42
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.10.12Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2024:10:13 21:07:42
>>4373499>it's mostly just gut feeling that it would look better that wayRight. I get it, it's a vibes thing, but clearly you do like putting people in shots so I was curious about the why. >>4373509This is my favorite so far. I like the ambiance of it.
Reaching the end, this is from a few weeks ago. Didn't have any inspiration or motivation to shoot for a few months before that, so I wanted to try something new, with expressionist inspiration.
>>4373510I don't necessarily disagree with you regarding people. They can be a crutch, they are an easy subject, but not always an interesting one.This is why I've been trying to go another way and focus on more abstract compositions
>>4373496not OP but i don't relate to all the people here who try to remove people, even silhouettes from frame. it makes the scene so dull and lifeless. in terms of moment, it's also quite boring to me because where i am, places are empty 99% of the time. so lack of a person is the default and i or anyone could replicate the exact frame at almost any time. human environments are designed for habitation by humans. it feels incomplete without a person. a person to fill the person-shaped hole in a scene feels satisfying to me. that's all general. maybe it's an individual thing, since my own interest in photography is mostly in exploring people and society.
Bonus one from many years agoI have some more half decent ones but feeling too lazy to post. I have looked at most of these pictures to the point of hating them and every now and again believe I have deluded myself into thinking that they are worth anything
>>4373517I wasn't attacking you. It's just such an alien idea to me and I finally wanted to ask someone about it. It's fine to have people in frame, but I do agree that it can be a crutch>>4373521I think it's definitely a personal thing. You just have a different set of intentions and motivations for doing photography and a different set of life experiences leading you to value and want to emphasis different things. Your photographs are a reflection of your inner state. It makes sense that what aesthetically appeals to people is different.
>>4373524No offense taken, always interesting to discuss different perspectives.Feel free to share your pictures here, or pictures you like without people
you're alright at mimicking andre kertesz but he is still leagues above you. okay these are photos some of them are nicely composed but what are you trying to say with these photos? in comparison to kertesz your compositions are too weak.you haven't improved at all, in fact your early photographs until this >>4373485 point(>>4373491 this is also nice) are the best. your photos after that point are bad. maybe because started pointing your camera towards modern city side. imo the old city side suits your style a lot more. You shooting people from a distance is kinda intimate, and "your thing". that's the only subject that I can chew on for a bit. also the aspect ratios of your photos are all over the place and retarded.
I like them. you've got an eye for composing geometry and value shapes.right now they are all over the place, so next thing would be selecting the shots into sets that provide a narrative. you can try working on photos about a single place, group of people, story implied sequence of actions, more abstract concepts and so on.regaring people, they sort of feel like random objects you incorporate into your shots, not people you want to talk about. you could try either going further and making them more abstract, or getting closer to them and interacting to get a less distant story
>>4373466Okay compositions for some of them, but literally not a single shot is in focus. Or your parkinson's is causing motion blur.Maybe get a camera that can autofocus for you?
nice pictures but I agree with the other guy that they are blurry. idk if it's shit scans or motion blur but i would look into that, maybe shoot at higher ISO
>>4373541>andre kerteszNot one of my inspiration at all. I heard the name, but couldn't think of a single picture of his until I looked him up. It's definitely the kind of photos i like, thanks.I don't have any pretentions that my photos are anything but pedestrian with some notions of composition.I indeed don't feel like I've improved, but what you perceive as a deterioration I would say is more of a shift. I just got tired of the old city, distant people, noir-inspired style. I stopped shooting for a while because I felt like I reached a plateau. Also life got in the way, less time to shoot, not as many opportunities to visit interesting placed. That's why I'm still searching for my style atm.The aspect ratios I haven't harmonized bc I just grabbed photos here and there in my folders.Thanks for your feedback, it's hard to get some honest critique.
>>4373554Thank you. As I said in the beginning of the thread, I chose a chronological order to show the evolution (or lack thereof), selection onle the "crust", I have more mid photos that would fit in a thematical series. I've been wanting to get my work printed in some way, just not sure how to go about it and lack guidance I suppose.Regarding people, one of my first inspiration was documentary photography, I worked in color and tried to get closer to people, tell their story. I still do it occasionally, but I felt frustrated that I didn't get to tell stories other than just people doing shit on the street. I wanted to shoot peculiar people, workers of unusual trade, people with unusual stories. But that journalism work, not something you can easily get into as a hobby, and I can't afford to get into it professionally (the only way is basically to self-fund and hope to sell your work for a few bucks afterwards, I can't afford that). So I chose the way of abstract pictures, I like it too. And it feels more like self expression, like I put more of myself in the pictures.>>4373563Congrats of the worst opinion itt, but I'll answer seriously. What do you need the sharpness for, what is it you want to zoom in on and look in details? I despise the sharp digital camera look, it ruins photos in my opinion. I shoot 1/60 or lower exactly for that reason and prefer soft lenses on film cameras. Also I turn off sharpness improvement when scanning. There's no need for sharpness, the shapes and contrast are enough to see what you need to see. It's very intentional.
>>4373693>Congrats of the worst opinion itt, but I'll answer seriously. What do you need the sharpness for, what is it you want to zoom in on and look in details? I despise the sharp digital camera look, it ruins photos in my opinion. I shoot 1/60 or lower exactly for that reason and prefer soft lenses on film cameras. Also I turn off sharpness improvement when scanning. There's no need for sharpness, the shapes and contrast are enough to see what you need to see. It's very intentional.boomercore gearfag zoomies infesting /p/ won't ever understand that. if they can't have some resolution chart to look at they feel alone and afraid. that's what you get when you pair autism with teenage angstOP's photos are very moody and I like them because they remind me of my childhood in commie poland
>>4373693>I wanted to shoot peculiar people, workers of unusual trade, people with unusual storiesyou can absolutely do that but if you're not associated with a bigger photo clup or art institution it will be tough af. you'd need a lot of trust in people without a badge or gallery logo as a lone shooter, so not gonna blame you>It's very intentionalwe can very well see when it's intentional OP, but it's that some of the photos have motion blur/camera shake as intended and it compliments the image>>4373509and some of them are just technical fuckups:>>4373483shaky hands>>4373477are you focusing on a cat and separating it with background blur, or trying to capture a whole scene OP? you can't have both at the same time>>4373508for fast moving subjects 1/60 is maybe enough but you need to slow way more down to 1/4th to an effect that's distinctive enough to not give impression of mistake
Some of these photos are soft, and that's ok. And sometimes blurring things can add something to the photo, like the passer-bys being turned into ghostly figures in >>4373505But when shit starts getting blurry without it really adding anything? It might be an artistic decision, but it ain't one I like. It just gives the impression that there's something wrong with the photos, my eyes, or both instead of some kind of impressionistic mood. (At least the way it's done in these pictures.) It's distracting, and so with a lot of these photos I'd be better able to just see your actual photo if these images were reduced down to half size. Hardly ideal.So as much of a conscious choice as it may be, you need to be able to take it gratefully when people either disagree with it or just mistake it for photographic fuckups, because a lot will. At least if you want more than just having a few edgy kids like >>4373698 egging you on.
>>4373713Oh I absolutely don't claim that technical fuckups don't happen. Every photographer fucks up sooner or later. I agree with your fuckup exemples. But independently of motion blur etc, my goal is to get a soft, moody, grimy look. Not saying I managed to achieve that, but that's the best I've been able to achieve on digital so far, and I prefer this to ultra sharp 1/250 shots.I'm more than open to suggestions on how to get that look
>>4373756Adapt a rodenstock imagon to your camera.
>>4373693> I despise the sharp digital camera look, it ruins photos in my opinion. I shoot 1/60 or lower exactly for that reason and prefer soft lenses on film cameras. Also I turn off sharpness improvement when scanning. There's no need for sharpness, the shapes and contrast are enough to see what you need to see. It's very intentional.Oh boy
>>4373847she is right you know, sharpness is a bourgeois concept
>>4373847come on then, tell us why sharpness is sooooo important
>>4373848HCB said that as a joke, because he was bad at using a camera. It took him a whole roll to get that shitty bicycle picture.>>4373854Tell us why it's bad, without angrily screeching about "pixel peeping" (viewing larger than 4x6) and camera prices.Impressionism was brutalized with a lead pipe and left to die in an open sewer btw, and good riddance. sharp is back in for everyone except this weird irrelevant photography cult that seems to be linked to the economic situation of its members
>>4373855sharp has ALWAYS been in except for this weird irrelevant photography cult that's obsessed with cheap shit and has a burning hatred for 1: anything that they cant afford 2: anything that makes it clear that more expensive stuff does things their cheap crap (usually fuji) can notits like... a bunch of communists, seething about rich people and their espresso machines, have begun "purposefully" making coffee by throwing whole beans in water and saying "GOOD COFFEE IS A BOURGEOSIE CONCEPT". dont forget their alt-right friends chiming in about jews and consumerism
>>4373855>>4373856you are mentally ill, seek help weirdo
>>4373857We cant both be mentally ill because you can't explain why sharpness is bad without bringing up camera prices or viewing conditions that make the superior ability of better built cameras more obvious.Are you against sharpness because you have sony IBIS?
>>4373854You cant tell us why its bad. Do you think it makes your photos look like a shaky wine addled frenchmans? I dont even know what camera you have but its probably one associated with poseurs like a sony a7c
Absolute state of sharpness fags. Can't string two coherent thoughts together. Start sperging out about unrelated shit like communism, photography cult or espresso machines although op clearly said they just dislike excessive sharpness. Unable to read exif.Truly emberassing, you are hurting your own cause.
>>4373869>you're meant to read exifa purposeful dislike of sharpness and the purposeful use of mist filters, chink lenses, and slightly slower shutter speeds is unique to a small subset of posers in photography and has become boring because every art ho does it to try and stand out (and hide their frequent mistakes by smoothing over the whole portfolio)it became boring before that, with the rise and death of lomography. it became extra, extra boring when it mixed with financial copes on social media consumer shitholes like reddit and 4chan where you fill find such hot takes as "you are a soulless consoomerist hylic bugman if your camera has autofocus"it's going to be mixed up with other issues because, it actually has been, by the world. for what reason are you perpetuating this trend that was never any good?
>>4373872skill issues
>>4373872>autistic screeching
>>4373880>>4373874>no rebuttalyou got called generic and didnt have a responsedont shoot so many>back of head.jpgnext time
>>4373692agree with >>4373541, the early photos are good and natural, the later ones are forced and contrarian. you think you're saying "FUCK the man" as you shift into longer shutter speeds, but in reality you lack the confidence to be proud of the work you know is actually good.
