File: DSCF3257.jpg (4.39 MB, 4250x2833)

4.39 MB JPG

>>4529021
Maybe.

>>4529030
Very nice

File: DSC5154.jpg (832 KB, 1518x1518)

832 KB JPG

I stood around waiting for a train to pass to get this one and I like how it came out, but I feel like something is lacking. Maybe the composition or that the restaurant looks too busy, I'm not sure.

>>4529005
I like it. I get a strange sense like there's a massive drop off into nothing after the edge of the pier and beyond that grass.

>>4529069
I'm envious, I'd really like to have some of those.

File: IMG_0596.jpg (2.45 MB, 5600x3150)

2.45 MB JPG

>>4529099
i like this a lot. i see what you mean about the restaurant being a little busy, but the dark interior does a good job of hiding that for the most part. the moving train came out pretty sharp too

>>4529005
this is gorgeous and very lonely

>>4529105
>pomegranates
Iran?

>>4529030
Kek I thought it was a taco truck and was expecting to see Trump, memes have poisoned my mind. Is that from a soapbox derby?

>>4529110
Thanks friend. Since EXIF is still gone, it was 1/200, ISO 400 and F4 (using zoom lens on that day). I would've done a slower shutter one but I have no idea when another train would pass lol.

Cool sky colors in yours, is that in one of the more southern states? Feels very like north Texas or maybe New Mexico.

>>4529114
They're also grown in California and Australia.

File: MVC-037.jpg (291 KB, 1216x912)

291 KB JPG

>>4529114
Neighbor growing em in the backyard. NM

>>4529115
It's from World Tramdriver Championship. Some dudes dressed up as a carboard tram and walked around the place. It was a multi unit cardboard tram but you can't see that on my photo. Too many people and not enough space for a 50mm lens to capture the whole thing.

File: image001.jpg (3.38 MB, 3284x4900)

3.38 MB JPG

Generic holiday pictures I know

File: image002.jpg (3.35 MB, 4900x3284)

3.35 MB JPG

>>4529099
This ones good by the way I wish cities here weren't so clean and dull

>>4529193
1 more

>>4529153
Ok. Show us some more documentation from the event.

File: DSCF3264.jpg (4.06 MB, 2833x4250)

4.06 MB JPG

>>4529205
I don't have any more photos without people I know in them. This is the only one I could find. I wanted a tilt shift look but then overdid it with the aperture.

>>4529320
i see bird i feel better

>>4529320
Really nice. I wish I had money for a telephoto lens.
>>4529099
Not bad but doesn't have a clear subject. Eyes keep jumping between the sign and the train. Has this neon + grain + le sad vibes instagram vibe to it which I don't like.
>>4529005
Needs a subject like a person or an animal on that deck. Some point of interest. Right now the deck leads the eye to a white nothing.

The rest of the photos in this thread are not worth discussing. This one is obviously the best because I took it. >>4529030

File: 01.jpg (1.19 MB, 2048x2043)

1.19 MB JPG

A couple more-or-less recent city geometries

File: 02.jpg (2.48 MB, 2048x2048)

2.48 MB JPG

>>4529409

File: 03.jpg (2.61 MB, 2048x2048)

2.61 MB JPG

>>4529410

File: 04.jpg (940 KB, 2048x2048)

940 KB JPG

>>4529411

>>4529411
interesting but i feel like there couldve been a better angle to photograph this subject from
>>4529412
nice

File: DSCF5960.jpg (3.49 MB, 2833x4250)

3.49 MB JPG

Is shot earlier this year recent enough?

File: DSCF6158.jpg (2.9 MB, 2833x4250)

2.9 MB JPG

>>4529418

File: DSCF0988.jpg (3.6 MB, 2833x4250)

3.6 MB JPG

>>4529419

File: DSCF1025.jpg (4.95 MB, 2789x4184)

4.95 MB JPG

>>4529420

File: DSCF5980.jpg (3.23 MB, 4250x2833)

3.23 MB JPG

>>4529421

File: DSCF3103.jpg (4.32 MB, 2060x3091)

4.32 MB JPG

>>4529422

>>4529422
cool
>>4529420
cool only because its a cool vehicle
>>4529419
meh
>>4529421
might be a good phone wallpaper

File: DSCF6190.jpg (4.71 MB, 4250x2833)

4.71 MB JPG

>>4529423

File: DSCF6340.jpg (2.33 MB, 2833x4250)

2.33 MB JPG

>>4529425
This cock needs editing to recover some of the blown highlights but I'm too lazy to do that.

File: DSCF6449.jpg (3.83 MB, 2768x4153)

3.83 MB JPG

>>4529427
Magnificent, superior creature (cats are stoopid).

File: DSCF6028.jpg (2.29 MB, 4250x2833)

2.29 MB JPG

>>4529428
Poogeon

File: DSCF2884.jpg (3.02 MB, 2833x2833)

3.02 MB JPG

>>4529429
Last one. I hope you enjoyed those superior Fujifilm colors and beautiful rendering of sharp but soulful first party glass. None of those images were edited in any way. All are jpgs from the camera.

Actually I lied. Some of these were cropped a bit. Technically that counts as editing.

>>4529005
I like how eerie and still this feels.
>>4529030
Why do people keep uploading their snapshits in full rez? What detail even needs to be preserved here?
>>4529320
That's perfect lighting. This is quite soothing.

>>4529454
>Why do people keep uploading their snapshits in full rez?
Those are 45% of their original size and load for me instantly. I keep forgetting most of you are from India or USA where gigabit internet is still considered a luxury. I'll downscale my images a bit more next time.

>>4529493
I get similar composition from my parking camera. This gear is wasted on you.

File: aDSC01667.jpg (1.66 MB, 2000x3000)

1.66 MB JPG

>>4529495
Very interesting to know that your camera does the composition for you.

>>4529497
There is no composition to speak of in that pic, so yes it checks out. Looks like someone pressed the shutter button on accident when fiddling with camera settings.

File: IMG_9514.jpg (1.88 MB, 1671x2048)

1.88 MB JPG

South of France

File: IMG_9512.jpg (2.56 MB, 1671x2048)

2.56 MB JPG

Hope you like big ass files

>>4529494
Half resolution and still shy of 5MB is 100% a skill issue, and casual racism doesn't cover poor editing skills.

>>4529542
Heh, that’s lake Geneva right?
I really enjoyed Switzerland

>>4529610
Yup, and the next one is Mondsee from the restaurant right next to the highway

>>4529513
cool!

fuckin around with some color gels under a macro lens. Reminds me of some of those 2000s era walpapers

File: DSC02678.jpg (1.64 MB, 6000x4000)

1.64 MB JPG

>>4529759
of course I forgot to attach

>>4529760
>>4529762
Interesting. What am I looking at?

>>4529811
color gels under a macro lens. keep up, anon.

>>4529759
Make them more wavy and they will be as modern as Winslop 11

File: flowers5_p.jpg (2.03 MB, 2048x1334)

2.03 MB JPG

>>4529867

File: YE20144.jpg (1.77 MB, 1462x2048)

1.77 MB JPG

>>4529320
This is nicely framed, and I like the wonderful sunset light as well.
>>4529760
>>4529762
I like these a lot! We don't see many abstract shots quite like these being tried around here. If you cleaned up some dirt spots and made some sharper color transitions, these would almost look like vector graphic renders.

>>4529867
I like the one on the right.

File: Screenshot_20260923_04512(...).jpg (932 KB, 1079x1440)

932 KB JPG

Been picking up photography as a hobby lately, you guys with more experience, can you tell me if you see anything that needs to improve with this picture? Or pointing out if I got anything right is also welcome

At a glance I like it, I think the way my cover folds naturally created some "leading lines" that guide the eye towards my sleeping cat, I also liked how I messed with the shadows so the backgrounds doesn't distract at a glance but is not totally lost if you try to pay attention
It's the first actual time I try to do these things consciously, but i'm still unsure if I did it right or not

Oops, I tried uploading the raw file but it was too big, I'll just share a screenshot since the quality is not that important rn

>>4529904
gorgeous colors, it must feel so comfy to be inside that cabin at that moment

File: DSCF5415.jpg (1.6 MB, 3477x2318)

1.6 MB JPG

>>4529918
It looks like the focus is not on the subject (cat) but on the blanket where the light is.
Highlights are blown but that's not always bad or possible to prevent so don't worry about this too much for now. In digital photography you generally expose to protect the highlights because you can always boost shadows in post later but blown highlights are mostly unrecoverable.
My first advice would be to get yourself a wrist strap and not a neck strap and go out and shoot. Check out famous photographers and their portfolios for some inspiration but don't try to blindly copy their style. Try to apply rule of thirds where it fits but remember that those "rules" are actually only suggestions and nobody will call the cops on you if you break them. Shoot for yourself and enjoy it. Never crave attention or approval online because vile nophoto fuckers will always shit on you no matter what.

>>4529918
Is that lens 28mm equivalent?

File: 1774102218624949.png (19 KB, 598x159)

19 KB PNG

>>4529921
i took it on my phone, so a 23mm i guess

>>4529920
Oh yea, i guess i forgot to edit it in post too! lol
If i did i would probably made the background just a tiny bit darker. And about the sunshine light, how would i go about fixing this? I guess it was bothering me unconsciously because it was what made me seek this thread in the first place lol. The sun was bothering me a little bit too much, and you're totally right part of the reason was because it was totally distracting me from the cat

File: DSCF7417.jpg (2.44 MB, 3477x2318)

2.44 MB JPG

>>4529923
With wide angle lenses you might want to get close to your subject and fill as much of the frame as possible.
Shooting low to the ground to create depth is also a good idea. This way you get foreground, subject and background in your wide angle photographs.
Layering is another technique that makes wide angle photos more appealing. This means shooting in such a way to get something in your frame that is close and out of focus as foreground, then further away your subject and then background.
For portraits you can't get too close because of wide angle lens distortion will make faces look weird. This is all you need right now. Enjoy photography.

>>4529918
>>4529924
If you're getting into photography beyond point and shoot snapshots then i recommend going outside and finding subjects to deliberately take pictures of. actually what >>4529920 said is bang on.

As far as the properly exposing an image, it boils down to either limiting the light reaching the sensor/film or the sensor/film's sensitivity to light. If you haven't learned the exposure triangle yet then read up on it. It has more to do with camera and lens settings though. You can also limit light by simply drawing a curtain or adding a physical filter in front of the lens.

File: 21790149951524401.jpg (941 KB, 4316x1440)

941 KB JPG

>>4529918
Focus shouldn't be sharper on the blanket, than the cat. Highlights are overexposed. Unnecessary tilting, and random distractions in the background. The placement of the highlights doesn't really aid the composition. The leading lines kind of lead more to the butthole, instead of face. The colors are almost too uniform in hue, so you might try BW or some grading. Sometimes it's helpful to squint or look at your image blurred to get a better sense of it as a whole. I would try something like picrel instead.

A good rule of thumb, is that if something doesn't add to a picture, leave it out. Goes for compositional elements, as well as color. Just like a sculptor starts with a rough block and chisels away the unnecessary, so should you.

File: demon feet.jpg (132 KB, 865x704)

132 KB JPG

Not sure where to post this but here I go.

>went to a wedding
>photographer was a smug bitch
>talmbout some I take my job very seriously
>wait a whole month for the photos
>overexposed shit photos of literally nothing important
>worse of all it's all AI slop
>every single photo has some AI vomit on it

Not sure what your stance is on AI for photography, but really what's the point of having all the gear in the world, or calling yourself a very serious photographer if you're gonna end up with pic related?

Like are you blind lmao what is thiiiiis???

File: roflmaoooo.jpg (202 KB, 1194x752)

202 KB JPG

>>4530020
She told me not to give her advice, because she knows what she's doing.

File: ghost.jpg (460 KB, 850x885)

460 KB JPG

She tried removing me from one of the photos instead of just taking another one without me in the frame like hello???

File: what the fuck.png (1.13 MB, 1268x702)

1.13 MB PNG

How are people this shameless?

>>4530026
>>4530022
>>4530021
>>4530020
You must be trolling. If by any chance you're telling the truth then don't pay for the photos. If you paid in advance then demand a refund. If no refund then sue. Ask guests if they have any phone phots.

>>4530029
Literally not trolling. I have way moreexamples, but I don't wanna include faces. Like 80% of the photos have noticeable AI. As far as I'm aware she's their friend and did it for free, so nothing to pay hopefully, but I just knew I should have forced one of our friends to bring his camera. He was like nah no need they already got it covered lmao.

What bothers me most is how people don't notice at all and called me a hater until I started sending them this shit. How are people this blind come on now.

>>4530029
He said "went to a wedding" so he was probably a guest.
AI and its consequences have been and will keep being a disaster for the human race

>>4530029
BTW, she was shooting mirrorless wasn't she?
I guess she figured she'd add AI "corrections" on top of the camera's AI "corrections"

>>4530031
>As far as I'm aware she's their friend and did it for free,
You get what you pay for
Most people just don't care as much as other photographers do

File: fucking retard lmao.png (1.16 MB, 1128x635)

1.16 MB PNG

>>4530032
>>4530034
I also feel like she used AI then added some bullshit editing on her own. Like she saw the AI result and went hmm this is good, let me just add some details. Look at this shit and tell me she didn't draw this shit with the blur pen. What kind of retardedass focus is this lmao???
>>4530033
>she was shooting mirrorless wasn't she?
Not sure on the terminology to be honest. She had an expensive looking camera with a bigass lens on it and she brought her own lights and reflectors.

File: DSCF1930.jpg (4.06 MB, 2318x3477)

4.06 MB JPG

>>4530036
>She had an expensive looking camera with a bigass lens
Must have been the venerable Canon 5D MK II. A real man's camera.

>>4530036
>Look at this shit and tell me she didn't draw this shit with the blur pen. What kind of retardedass focus is this lmao???
lmao, that's somehow even worse than what a phone would come up with
>Not sure on the terminology to be honest
They're the current fad in interchangeable lens cameras, after they took most reflex models away from the buyers.

>>4530052
I like.

>>4530042
Oh look - someone that cANON can't manipulate with his schizobabble. You can tell that he's more out of his element than usual when his responses become terse (quite common in most Cluster B personality disorders).

>>4530020
>>4530021
>>4530022
>>4530026
>>4530036
This stuff reminds me of what I've seen posted from that photo processing AI service, where it would mangle photos in the ways that have nothing to do with the edits being made.

Here there are some funny mindfucks for example.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/threads/using-ai-to-remove-obstruction.4858363/

>>4530055
Oh look an armchair the rapist spouting pop psychobabble

>>4529005
I thought it was a WiFi router.

>>4529979
>>4530004
these tips are great, thanks guys

>>4530145
Very bourgeoisie

>>4530311
I like when water turns out this color.

File: DSCF1467_1.jpg (3.11 MB, 3200x4800)

3.11 MB JPG

>>4530312

>>4529867
Might be my favorite itt

>>4530334
not bad, but I'd have brightened it up a bit

>>4530359
yeh i wish i set exposure a bit higher. i never know with shooting at the sky. im new to this

File: 100S9068.jpg (1.73 MB, 3000x2000)

1.73 MB JPG

>>4530144
nice dubs and scene. i can't help but think if you'd stepped forward once, you could have been closer to the action and had no foliage around the right edge of the frame. good colors and light tho

I have a question anons, do you always use RAW and edit photos or do you go with straight-out-of-camera jpegs?
Same question for film anons too, but obviously about editing their scans vs just posting the default scans.

>>4530399
I basically always shoot RAW and edit for digital. Don't see the point in JPG for my workflow.
The only exception is on my DP3M which requires garbage software, so I stick to JPG only.
Film, I "edit" during the scanning process, but generally leave as-is after that.

File: 797088084_122206947596477(...).jpg (296 KB, 1360x2048)

296 KB JPG

took this today in paris

File: ACR07610.jpg (1.38 MB, 4058x2280)

1.38 MB JPG

>>4530399
If jpegs are good enough for King Ken, they're good enough for me.

>>4530448
Paris more like Africa LAMO

>>4530457
yes, those are certainly all words.

>>4530458
With merit to them.

File: PXL_20240602_062445814.jpg (1.62 MB, 4032x2265)

1.62 MB JPG

>>4530458
LAMO isn't a word nor an abbreviation, but perhaps it means something in the African subcontinent?

File: 43509.jpg (3.45 MB, 3000x4000)

3.45 MB JPG

5 Seconds ago

>>4530399
I shoot JPG + RAW but only use my RAWs for archival purposes. I keep them around just in case my taste changes in the future.

>>4530399
I usually RAWdog it due to the theoretical freedom with post processing. But honestly I dont grade my photos that muchpart of me thinks that its a crutch that takes the pressure off of taking a good photo to begin with. Maybe I should switch to jpegs

>>4530508
>muchpart of me thinks that its a crutch that takes the pressure off of taking a good photo to begin with
If you're new to editing it can be, but some post should always be standard
You should be using grading to fix an image, but to elevate it, it's the final "polish" to make an image

File: 799645631_122206947554477(...).jpg (383 KB, 1360x2048)

383 KB JPG

I took these with the same camera ive been posting on here with since 2012
pentax kr w 35mm 2.4
i should probably get a new camera. maybe ill finally upgrade to the k5.

>>4530582
I like the idea of Montmartre, but it's putting on display the worst part of the city, both from up there and when you go down to Pigalle. Paris is cool though, I hope you enjoy it.

I know, no one asked.

>>4530598
its all good man. i live here now. There are certain parts of montmartre that are really cool, but theyre mainly on the opposite side of the hill from pigalle. Thats where the locals hang out. some really chill spots over there. but yeah where i took those pictures today there were trillions of tourists as usual. i really only go to pigalle for the music stores for guitar strings or whatever.

File: DSCF0354_1.jpg (4.24 MB, 3200x4800)

4.24 MB JPG

While we are at it, I fucking love the tower.

File: ACR08146_resized.jpg (3.23 MB, 4527x3018)

3.23 MB JPG

>>4530661
Serene and comfy.

File: fujifilmfinepixj20mightas(...).jpg (2.64 MB, 2500x923)

2.64 MB JPG

Haven't been able to post - IP range ban.

File: 20260926-DSC03109.jpg (1.31 MB, 3072x2048)

1.31 MB JPG

>hey Anon, your plane's here

>>4529416
Nice vibe. Very central/East Europe.
>>4530582
Why switch? Seems like it works well enough. I shoot with 10+ year old gear too.

File: DSCF3878.jpg (2.52 MB, 2318x3477)

2.52 MB JPG

>>4530808

File: DSCF3755.jpg (2.81 MB, 3477x2318)

2.81 MB JPG

>>4530810

File: DSCF3775_01.jpg (3.07 MB, 2144x3217)

3.07 MB JPG

>>4530811

File: DSCF3756.jpg (2.81 MB, 2318x3477)

2.81 MB JPG

>>4530812

File: DSCF3706.jpg (2.93 MB, 2318x3477)

2.93 MB JPG

>>4530813

File: DSCF3781.jpg (2.8 MB, 2318x3477)

2.8 MB JPG

>>4530815

File: DSCF3760.jpg (2.47 MB, 2318x3477)

2.47 MB JPG

>>4530816

File: DSCF3836.jpg (2.64 MB, 2318x3477)

2.64 MB JPG

>>4530817

File: DSCF3799.jpg (2.63 MB, 3470x2308)

2.63 MB JPG

>>4530818

File: DSCF3863.jpg (3.61 MB, 2318x3477)

3.61 MB JPG

>>4530819

File: DSCF3793.jpg (3.04 MB, 2297x3463)

3.04 MB JPG

>>4530820

File: DSCF3572.jpg (2.52 MB, 2318x3477)

2.52 MB JPG

>>4530821

File: DSCF3845.jpg (4.87 MB, 2318x3477)

4.87 MB JPG

>>4530823

File: DSCF3838.jpg (3.11 MB, 3477x2318)

3.11 MB JPG

>>4530824

File: DSCF3695_01.jpg (2.34 MB, 3477x1467)

2.34 MB JPG

>>4530825

File: DSCF3602.jpg (3.53 MB, 2318x3477)

3.53 MB JPG

>>4530826

File: DSCF3714.jpg (3.07 MB, 2318x3477)

3.07 MB JPG

>>4530827

File: DSCF3565_01.jpg (4.39 MB, 2060x3091)

4.39 MB JPG

>>4530828

>>4530829
I'm pretty sure I got more good shots today than most of the gear fags in their entire lives.

File: MVC-460F.jpg (316 KB, 1600x1200)

316 KB JPG

love the color on these old mavicas

File: ACR07574_resized.jpg (3.08 MB, 3500x3500)

3.08 MB JPG

>>4530830
You posted so many it took down the site.

File: MVC-468F.jpg (339 KB, 1600x1200)

339 KB JPG

Whats a good starter cam thats not crazy expensive that i can take pics of birds with? Couldnt get much with this old one. They move a lot and so do i

>>4530807
well i dunno, but i like the idea of the top lcd on the k5. Theres not really a need, like my kr only has like 13k actuations, but ive wanted the k5 for like a decade. i dont know. we'll see.

>>4530830
well theyre all absolute gobshite, so maybe take less?

>>4530830
youve got blown highlights everywhere. >>4530824 is kind of ok though. where were these taken anyways?

File: ACR08103_resized.jpg (3.13 MB, 3952x2634)

3.13 MB JPG

>>4530868
>>4530830
photo > nophoto

>>4530872
>youve got blown highlights everywhere
I'm pretty sure only the last one has blown highlights and that's ok. Nothing wrong with blowing highlights where lost detail doesn't matter.
>where were these taken anyways?
Karków

>>4530868
I'm sorry my weekend out of town photo memories were not Pulitzer worthy. I'll try harder next time just for you, Mr Faggot Nophoto.

File: 1762785145830054.jpg (1.42 MB, 3072x2048)

1.42 MB JPG

boat

This was about a mile away, give or take a couple hundred yards.

>>4530890
The view is pretty and framing is nice but I don't like how underexposed it is and how the colors are edited. Make the yellow rocks on the left radioactive yellow and it would belong in Ken Rockwell's gallery.

>>4530642
>>4530644
>>4530641
I like these. They have this dirty and depraved feel to them.

>>4530601
3

>>4530893
>>4530872
>Karków
Kraków

>>4530936
Pretty.

>>4530893
im not sure i agree. I think that if you have blown highlights anywhere at all, its fundamentally bcause the photo was not exposed correctly. i dont think its a dynamic range issue or anything like that. i think the only place its acceptable is on a part of a surface where no detail could otherwise be resolved, like a small part of a bright cloud or something like that.

>>4530955
Can you list a few spots where you think highlights were blown and important detail was possibly lost in any of my photos? I quickly reviewed a few of them in Darktable with blinkies on and couldn't find any obvious problems. I'm genuinely curious and always looking to improve my photo skills.

>>4530955
Another anon, but I think it's true that often there was no need to preserve detail in blown highlights. It can be overcast sky behind the trees or a light source or something like that that won't get interesting details unless you underexpose by a lot.

>>4530955
Zone X is where detail that adds nothing to the photograph should be. The idea that you need every tone resolved is flickr HDR boomer nonsense. Read chapter 4 of The Negative by Ansel Adams and repent.

>>4530830
They're fine for here, but do look like normal beginner shots. In a vacuum I would assume this is your first maybe few months with a camera.

>>4530967
Post some of your photos. I'd love to see where that opinion is coming from.

>>4530810
This one is bad with the highlights.
>>4530820
This one too is busted, worse than the plane one in fact.
>>4530855
How much is crazy expensive to you?

>>4530975
Forgot to say, the rest are all fine as long as highlights are concerned.

>>4530976
Go back to your containment thread, nophoto.

>>4530965
I'm sure that Hat Man™ has something interesting to say about it, but i just think they're ugly in like 99.7% of cases. I don't think they're nice to look at.

>>4530981
Well I'm not getting into the aesthetic judgment, just saying that the mantra that highlights must always be preserved is a misconception.
>>4530979
lmao I was literally shooting for a client less than 24h ago

>>4530986
You have no clients because you're not a photographer. You lie with EVERY post you make.

>>4530988
Cope.

Can I note that bickering with everyone who comments on your photos does not make this thread any better?

File: P9250244.jpg (2.71 MB, 2560x1920)

2.71 MB JPG

>>4530970

>>4530990
To be fair, I don't think the guy bickering is the one who took the pictures. I think it's a triggered third party that hates honesty. I also don't think the highlight criticism is valid except for the plane and shrine photos. The shrine one especially, because the image was altered in a destructive way that doesn't seem intentional but a mistake instead. The others are fine as far as highlights are concerned.

>>4530990
Just filter cANON, EVF blackout, !!oKsYTZ4HHVE, and !!SsTG7AwRAHa in 4chan X or the native extension

The cancer is bad enough the gear thread now has an official filter list full of MD5s of reposted shill images

>>4530818
Take this for example, the picture itself sucks but not blowing highlights wouldn't improve it at all. There's nothing wrong with the blown part. It's more the lack of an interesting subject or composition. It's a mere snapshit.

>>4530972
For sure, probably can't get around to post new stuff until this evening
I did the effort critiques >>4528431 and >>4530004 and happy to do the same for some of yours, I also do most the info effort posts like >>4523051
In the meantime some misc photos >>4520618 and if you've been on board long enough, you've certainly seen my other collages of landscapes and wedding/boudoir/portraits

>>4530995
Took you long enough to add EVF blackout. I'll keep getting more monickers and poking holes into your padded cell walls.

>>4530826
This one badly needs distortion correction, probably Fuji's optics at fault.
I wouldn't bother because it's a dog nevertheless but the place has potential with that architecture and pond. You just need some better positioning.

>>4530998
> Hm, where I've seen these models
> Ah, yes, on Youtube
If you're not trolling, can you explain the economics behind the stoots with these women with small or already deleted instagram accounts? Like, are you paying them to build your portfolio and fill your channel? Are they paying you to build their portfolio and influencer accounts? Are you all you just larping and in fact meet up to have sex?

>>4531002
He didn't say the pictures of the women were his, just that his post was. He obviously used the pics to explain focal length.

>>4531004
In that case it's very deceptive. Downvoted the post.

>>4531005
His last link points to his pictures. I don't think they add any value to the critique but they're there. To me they're snapshits.

>>4530998
He's a good reference for portraits with a variety of gear, lots of examples. I did some TFP work early on in my career, but the rule of thumb for payment is generally whoever's asking is the one paying. I've never paid for a model (either TFP or they pay me), but I can absolutely see the value now in paying to build a portfolio if you really are starting from scratch and have no one to use.
It used to be a lot easier in the era of MM and Tumblr, but I've had success on early Instagram too.
I know of at least one old trip that started through MM, and then just was full time paid portrait/lifestyle and has continued for at least a decade now.
>>4531004
This. He is a good reference for similar examples with a variety of gear.

>>4531008
Oops >>4531002
>>4531005
How is it deceptive to link to example posts I've made offering information with example images, as well as my own examples linked?
What a shit attitude to have lol

>>4531009
Brain rot has deprived people of the ability to read and parse information. They read but don't understand.

File: collage.jpg (4.58 MB, 5024x2618)

4.58 MB JPG

>>4531002
>>4531005
Here you go newfriend, most of my old stuff that's been reposted here
I'll get you some new dogsnaps later bb

>>4531009
> Get asked to show examples of his photos
> Links to a collage
> Photos are not his
> BUT I DID NOT SAY PHOTOS WERE MINE
???

>>4531014
>Get asked to show examples of his photos
>Links to his own photo posts
>Also links to effort comment posts with others' example images
It seems like the issue has more to do with your own reading comprehension.

>>4531016
You are really full of yourself for someone who posts on /p.

>>4531017
Nah, if I was full of myself, I would hide my photos like a lot here do.
I learned a lot from old /p/ and have been trying to give back and help other newbies learn. I try to do the same in gear threads given my access (R8II for example).
It's a shame you seem to care more about me, than you do about any kind of learning.

>>4531014
Learn to read
>>4531013
A couple gems there but most suck particularly the boudoir ones. How can you make them so unarousing and proudly display it?
The dog waking into the woods one is good. The brown dog (bottom center of animal cluster) is good. The white cat is cool but the pictures soulless. Bottom forest pic is good. Beach sunset and forest pic above it are good. Beach house at blue hour had potential but needed better positioning. Moonrise at the lake is good. The piles of gear are hot garbage. Cat in black and white above the gear is decent. Island in the fog is hampered by the square format which doesn't help the composition.

>>4531019
It's too bad you're a nophoto, otherwise I'd bother considering what you think

>>4531018
>It's a shame you seem to care more about me, than you do about any kind of learning.
Sadly /p/ has come to this.
>>4531014
Didn't you say you wanted to know where the criticism came from? He showed him his criticism, his technical posts and then his photos. Learn to read.

>>4531001
My Fuji 16-50 distorts more or less like that when wide.

>>4531022
That's where you scroll down to lens corrections in lightroom and straighten it unless using it for effect. The buildings on the side look as if falling towards the center.

>>4531020
You only want my photos to try to get dox

>>4530995
And you should all use it
https://pastebin.com/diHque73
Every thread derail disappears and /p/'s photo:text ratio improves significantly

>>4531029
>Every thread derail
You mean like you're doing right now dramafag?

>>4531030
>one post
>recommending you some shitpost filters
i see you're in the list

>>4531032
>I'm not a derailed, just a humble filter salesman!

File: P1080604.jpg (1.01 MB, 2736x1824)

1.01 MB JPG

>>4531045

File: P1080653.jpg (836 KB, 2736x1824)

836 KB JPG

>>4531046

File: P1080675.jpg (825 KB, 1805x2708)

825 KB JPG

>>4531047

File: P1080703.jpg (821 KB, 2577x1718)

821 KB JPG

>>4531048

File: P1080739.jpg (1.27 MB, 2724x1816)

1.27 MB JPG

>>4531049

File: P1080765.jpg (1.15 MB, 1776x2664)

1.15 MB JPG

>>4531050
ok rating now

>4530993
nice + based pana user
>4530936
nice but not level
>4530930
could use some mask-vignetting and crop
>4530902
nice but yeah tele chromatic aberrations waste it
>4530890
nice maybe go easier on saturation dunno
>4530829
nice coulda tamed the highlights
>4530820
>4530817
composition is nice and all but you need to learn fundamentals (overexposed)
>4530702
noice
>4530645
very noice
>4530364
would be a good portrait but lacks a pretty gril
>4529920
would love this with higher aperture speed
>4529905
based épeire diadème
>4529713
potential there
>4529585
love it
>4529542
nice
>4529421
niiiice I'd print that one
>4529005
great, I'd love some more horizon definition, the subtlest hint, just for legibility

Getting "Error: Our system thinks your post is spam. Please reformat and try again." and I'm getting tired of captchas now, fuck new 4chan istg hiroshima nagasaki is the worst shit that roamed this earth

>>4531053
ok it was the quotes indeed so sorry for no (You)s but complain to mods not me

File: P9250257.jpg (2.62 MB, 2560x1920)

2.62 MB JPG

>>4531053
>nice + based pana user
its an olympus actually!
>>4531054
yes there is a reply limit now

File: DSCF3590.jpg (2.26 MB, 3091x2060)

2.26 MB JPG

>>4530998
Cool. You might be the first person I've met here who actually takes photos with their camera. Some of the stuff you posted I liked, some I didn't like but it's a matter of taste and not skill/technique. I'd appreciate any constructive feedback you can give me but keep in mind that the photos I posted are literally my weekend tourist snaps. I don't really do any planned, posed photography. I'm all about enjoying myself and capturing memories.

>>4531053
>nice coulda tamed the highlights

>4530817
It's perfectly exposed so if you mean taming the highlights to make it less contrasty then I disagree. I like the way it looks.

>4530820
I might lower the exposure on this one just to see how it looks but some of the highlights on that white wall are gone. Not much can be done about that.
Thx for feedback.

>>4531050
I wish there was a 3rd person there. Would look so much better.

>>4531049
>>4531048
Pretty cool. What are those structures?

The rest is pretty meh.

File: pic with cat.jpg (2.57 MB, 2236x3724)

2.57 MB JPG

I'm not a photographer by any means, but took this on my phone today and I think it's kinda cool.

>>4531080
How do you like Montevideo?

>>4531093
No idea what that is, twin.

File: ACR08073_resized.jpg (3.14 MB, 3825x3061)

3.14 MB JPG

>>4531053
> would be a good portrait but lacks a pretty gril

A version of this exists, but sadly cannot be posted here.

>>4530911
Thanks for the feedback. I'll try and go easy in my inner Ken. Here's the scene from a slightly different viewpoint and focal length.

File: ACR08469.jpg (990 KB, 1409x2113)

990 KB JPG

>>4531112
Love the fall colors. All I managed to get today was this low res scene from across the lake on a very cloudy day.

>>4531099
>>4531106
Nice.

>>4531112
This could have been very nice but it looks like focus is on the trees way in the back and not on the beautiful red tree which to me is the subject of this photograph. I also think it's overedited. Looks like you tried to darken the sky too much but I'm not a photo editing expert so I could be wrong.

File: renajettata.jpg (4.87 MB, 2160x1494)

4.87 MB JPG

>>4529099
I really love this one.

>>4529112
Coomfy.

>>4529193
I like this one, reminds me of pictures I used to see on travel magazines as a kid.

>>4530970
Cutie, looks really similar to my cat.

>>4531178
Beautiful stuff.

>>4530813
very unappetizing

>>4531076
abandoned goldmine

>>4531237
>Cutie, looks really similar to my cat.
thanks anon, she's my friends cat and she's sweet
this was like 10 mins before she smacked a wasp and got stung on the paw, thankfully she's okay

>>4531053
>nice but yeah tele chromatic aberrations waste it
Considering I shot that on a reflex lens I'm not sure what chromatic aberrations you think you're seeing.

>>4531272
Glad to hear she's ok man

File: R1-07062-018A.jpg (2.54 MB, 3509x2339)

2.54 MB JPG

>>4531237
Very grainy, yet clean. Evenly distributed gruops of subjects.
Don't quite like the magenta cast, though.

File: R1-07062-024A.jpg (2.83 MB, 3504x2344)

2.83 MB JPG

>>4531045
Interesting lanscape. I like your work with the colors, and the nice touch of the people being framed by the "V".
>>4531047
This composition instantly begs for the right rock to fill in the space made open by the river on the other side. For example if your camera was 2' higher. Have the stream separate the two different textures of rock.
Just a thought.

File: sbbb.jpg (506 KB, 2160x1440)

506 KB JPG

>>4531314
thx it was a beautiful landscape indeed, very eerie

>>4531314
tis no river it is the MEDITERRANEAN SEA

I was running behind my dad and bro who got fed up with my photo endeavours, some of the comps are kinda spontaneous there

>>4531316
windows xp looking ass, love it, I can smell the fresh scent of this scene with a hint of cow dung

File: P9280338.jpg (2.75 MB, 2560x1920)

2.75 MB JPG

it's nice to look through this thread
little pieces of peoples lives all over the world

>>4531264
Absolutely. Even if you get one from a nice, clean place it's still just a piece of dry bread roll.

>>4531319
There's more to come. Derelict barns are my favorite subjects.
>>4531318
Ah, that's alright.
Shout out to all our patient friends, family and special ones!

>>4531001
>badly needs distortion correction
XF 18 f/1.4 it was shot with is virtually distortion free. Captured scene looked pretty much identical in person. I normally don't reply to your shitposts but I'm genuinely curious and wanted to ask where exactly do you see a problem with this image?

>>4531350
he's never actually used a camera. as a camera user i instantly recognized wide angle perspective distortion and passed over it because it was probably unavoidable there without a shift lens or a different vantage point. the "person" you're replying to only knows that term from reading dpreview and isn't really familiar with it IRL, so they just blame the gear in whatever way fits their current autistic fixation.

>>4531351
I bought that lens 2nd hand and I guess I got a bit anxious when he pointed out "distortion" in what is supposed to be a very well corrected, flat shooting piece of glass. Thanks.

>>4531353
if he had any fundamentals in optics or photography he'd understand that a FOV superior to the human eye will look bulged, but as >>4531351 pointed out, I doubt he ever used a camera

File: Screenshot 2026-09-28 233320.png (153 KB, 221x373)

153 KB PNG

>>4531350
Another anon, but this house is not doing well.