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

08/21/20New boards added: /vrpg/, /vmg/, /vst/ and /vm/
05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
[Hide] [Show All]


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: 1761507224698640.jpg (3.59 MB, 2204x3244)
3.59 MB
3.59 MB JPG
I've been taking photos with a 60D since 2012 and feel like I haven't improved much in that time. In particular I struggle with the actual process, often failing to get satisfactorily in focus or sharp images which leaves me unsatisfied even if I think an image's composition is good - I know the best camera is the one you have with you, but that aside I think I could do better. I've selected a bunch of photos I've taken over the past ~4 years since I started shooting raw that I am proud of and would like to dump them here for /p/ to tear apart. I've tried to keep editing unobtrusive, but I'm making this thread on a whim so some edits may be older or incomplete.
>>
File: 1747913818132731.jpg (3.72 MB, 2315x3473)
3.72 MB
3.72 MB JPG
Somewhat related, I recently purchased my first vintage lens - SMC Takumar 50mm 1.4, 7 element - and it's been alot of fun just testing it at home. Even just holding it up to the lens mount - no converter yet - I've found that the image quality is comparable or better than my two lenses, Tamron 18-200mm F/3.5-6.3 or Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5. Given that I'm a poorfag, what would be some other vintage primes I could try? One of my concerns with them is that I do most of my photography while traveling and I don't want to be lugging kilos of lenses around.


>>4498027
Forgot to say that I'll be posting exif for each because I believe there's no embed now.
OP image
1/80
5.6
iso2500

Pic related
1/5000
6.3
iso500
>>
File: 1768069354077675.jpg (4 MB, 3473x2315)
4 MB
4 MB JPG
1/320
4
400
>>
File: 1744874577833754.jpg (4.49 MB, 3473x2315)
4.49 MB
4.49 MB JPG
1/30
4
3200
This one was taken handheld from a car with no light source apart from flash
>>
File: 1741942137227202.jpg (4.04 MB, 3473x2315)
4.04 MB
4.04 MB JPG
1/320
8
500
>>
File: 1748659507758383.jpg (2.8 MB, 3473x2315)
2.8 MB
2.8 MB JPG
1/200
8
400
>>
File: 1743612222320865.jpg (4.13 MB, 3378x2252)
4.13 MB
4.13 MB JPG
I should also mention I've exported these at 66.67% downscale 95 jpeg quality to hopefully show the lack of sharpness, focus etc. I usually export at 25% downscale to help obscure these.

1/60
6.3
2500
>>
File: 1770194982940231.jpg (3.13 MB, 3473x2315)
3.13 MB
3.13 MB JPG
1/250
9
250
>>
File: 1761960575376217.jpg (3.95 MB, 3473x2315)
3.95 MB
3.95 MB JPG
1/200
9
500
>>
File: 1742228766740345.jpg (4.27 MB, 3404x2304)
4.27 MB
4.27 MB JPG
1/60
6.3
2500
>>
File: 1766742218262227.jpg (2.52 MB, 3473x2315)
2.52 MB
2.52 MB JPG
1/250
6.3
200
>>
File: 1740389704241891.jpg (3.4 MB, 3473x2315)
3.4 MB
3.4 MB JPG
1/160
8
1000
>>
File: 1763035958654641.jpg (3.27 MB, 2315x3473)
3.27 MB
3.27 MB JPG
1/250
10
500
>>
File: 1746194055598208.jpg (3.63 MB, 3473x2315)
3.63 MB
3.63 MB JPG
1/100
6.3
800
>>
File: 1750552444616784.jpg (4.2 MB, 3473x2315)
4.2 MB
4.2 MB JPG
1/160
8
800
>>
File: 1760433796260849.jpg (4.24 MB, 3473x2315)
4.24 MB
4.24 MB JPG
1/100
6.3
800
>>
File: 1767715962602552.jpg (3.85 MB, 2315x3473)
3.85 MB
3.85 MB JPG
1/160
8
640
>>
File: 1748968522665523.jpg (3.54 MB, 2216x3371)
3.54 MB
3.54 MB JPG
1/200
7.1
2500
>>
File: 1764781642408416.jpg (2.91 MB, 3473x2315)
2.91 MB
2.91 MB JPG
1/400
8
200
>>
File: 1764703566153086.jpg (3.2 MB, 2283x3406)
3.2 MB
3.2 MB JPG
1/100
4.5
1600
>>
File: 1769176054336523.jpg (4.79 MB, 2291x3436)
4.79 MB
4.79 MB JPG
1/125
7.1
1000
>>
File: 1764302755843980.jpg (3.42 MB, 3473x2315)
3.42 MB
3.42 MB JPG
1/125
16
200
>>
File: 1754645471998084.jpg (2.87 MB, 2315x3473)
2.87 MB
2.87 MB JPG
1/160
9
250
>>
File: 1743257646939857.jpg (2.38 MB, 2316x3350)
2.38 MB
2.38 MB JPG
1/125
8
160
>>
File: 1757560966615095.jpg (3.03 MB, 2315x3473)
3.03 MB
3.03 MB JPG
1/320
8
160
>>
File: 1743332089560100.jpg (3.03 MB, 2315x3473)
3.03 MB
3.03 MB JPG
1/200
7.1
500
>>
File: 1742266111039239.jpg (2.36 MB, 3473x2315)
2.36 MB
2.36 MB JPG
1/100
9
320
>>
File: 1740206846154225.jpg (2.16 MB, 2315x3473)
2.16 MB
2.16 MB JPG
1/400
8
200
>>
File: 1753994402028332.jpg (4.28 MB, 3473x2315)
4.28 MB
4.28 MB JPG
1/320
8
250
>>
File: 1765783357016568.jpg (4.92 MB, 3473x2315)
4.92 MB
4.92 MB JPG
1/80
5.6
1250

This was taken in Singapore and my lens fogged up harshly when I took my camera out
>>
File: 1763113596939313.jpg (3.26 MB, 3473x2315)
3.26 MB
3.26 MB JPG
1/1000
8
250
>>
File: 1764107085978132.jpg (2.31 MB, 2303x3258)
2.31 MB
2.31 MB JPG
1/250
7.1
400
>>
File: 1755181566763127.jpg (3.59 MB, 3473x2315)
3.59 MB
3.59 MB JPG
1/60
5.6
2000
>>
File: 1746434822117468.jpg (3.79 MB, 3473x2315)
3.79 MB
3.79 MB JPG
1/200
9
400
>>
File: 1761988455836498.jpg (3.08 MB, 3473x2315)
3.08 MB
3.08 MB JPG
1/60
22
250
>>
File: 1752069761891398.jpg (3.51 MB, 3386x2042)
3.51 MB
3.51 MB JPG
1/400
13
640

That's all
>>
>>4498054
Man I like this photo but the stairs pull your eyes away from the subject which sucks. I think that red and white foreground element and just the tent guy and bicycle guy would have made a better photo?

Like if you had taken it from lower so the red and white thing would take up more of the frame cutting out the water and stairs element.
>>
>>4498057
Again I want to like this picture, but what am I meant to focus on? The colors are nice, but my eye is drawn to the space above the chair stack.

I think you have a great eye for color and subject, but composition is your failure point. I do like a few of your photos though, like >>4498037 >>4498038 >>4498049 >>4498062
>>
>>4498029
honestly op try different lenses

its not your body unless the sensor is aged/damaged where the camera cant do accurate awb or your autofocus isnt where it should be

the problem is that you went nearly 15 years without a single good lens or even a prime, just a soft as hell telezoom and a wide angle zoom. pick up a 50mm f1.8 ef for starters. fortunately you have a dslr so you can aquire shit cheap.
>>
>>4498027
whats the first image of?
>>
>>4498059
this is good



[Advertise on 4chan]

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.