No one goes outside and does anything anymore they just go home and consume media

My friends from high school are 34 and take 1/10 as many photos of stuff for social media as they did circa 2008/early Facebook

>>4530530
Too toxic. Post some photos and either you'll get no feedback or someone will shit on you and then refuse to post any of their own work.

>>4530530
cANON retard posting drove most of the new regulars away, board won't get any better for new people until he's gone

Most people that actually do effort post receive very little interaction or feedback

>>4530534
Please do not forget that it takes two to tango.

Everything is instantly derailed by cANON and LLMs spamming disinfo and fragmentary out of context facts presented to support individual posters agendas

Agenda-pushing shows so hard that people are making excessive copies of the gear thread just so they can restart an argument that already finished and pretend the last one either didn't happen or was about something else. Most of it is reposted. cANON is basically stuck on repeat.

>>4530538
Hard to avoid when he shits up every popular thread

>>4530538
pick a side

>>4530540
If his posts were ignored he probably wouldn't just keep spamming stuff. I mean some guy constantly asks him to post his camera or even his tripod out of nowhere.
Canon may be annoying but the people that feed him are also equally annoying. Why even bother if you know he is going to repeat the same stuff over and over again or whatever?

>>4530542
>If his posts were ignored he probably wouldn't just keep spamming stuff.
people have said this about a lot of persistent retards but they just spam harder until they get a bite or a mod actually bans them for real (name, trip, and a narrow IP range)

its ok to just say "if this retard was gone no one would respond to him, win/win"

>>4530543
Well someone seems to start fights with him whenever he posts anything in any thread so that is not happening. Give it a shot maybe. He is not forcing you to respond. That is something you are choosing to do.

>>4530547
old cope, never worked in the past

the worst part is he targets new users with huge walls of just flat out lies. it's like you're on a science board, and everyone says "just dont respond to the electric universe guy" as he homes in on whoever will listen and fills them with nonsense about earth orbiting saturn

>>4530550
>canon has complete control over me and my actions.
Sad, truly.

File: le both sides.jpg (56 KB, 800x847)

56 KB JPG

>>4530552
>t.

>>4530554
And? I don't obsess over hyper niche internet personalities to the point they control my emotions and behavior.

>>4530557
It's blurry and poorly composed, mysterious catpicspammer.

Have you looked at the latest rpt and bpd? They have some of the best photos this board has ever seen. Do you have examples of your own work to share? Why are you creating meaningless slide threads when you could be out taking photos and posting them here for us to enjoy?

>>4530552
I am become the puppetmaster, destroyer of alogs.
>>4530550
>huge walls of just flat out lies
You always call me a nophoto, you never prove me wrong. I get it, snapshitting thousands of pictures on your way to wageslaving and back thinking you're eventually going to become a good photographer only to see no progress must sting and you need someone to lash out at. I'm the ideal someone. A nazi villain just like in your manchild comics. Hoppe has talked about this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdrCT0wJ7Xs

>>4530530
Doxxers killed it. In fact they ran off one of the best posters the board has seen in years by harassing him because he made the mistake of becoming identifiable.

>>4530559
Disagree with that, but you are entitled to your opinion.

>>4530560
>you never prove me wrong
People do, you just don't like reality

>>4530564
Last guy who tried to disprove that denser sensors increase reach owned himself with his attempts at arguments. He never heard of ceteris paribus it would seem. The average /p/oster prefers sweet lies to the bitter truth. In the case of fool framers, they want to believe other formats have no advantages ever.

>>4530565
Nice anecdote, thank you for no longer linking those garbage xtrans op eds that you always misunderstood

>>4530565
>things that never happened
i only recall someone with more reach on tap than you reminding you that it takes skill and quality optics for it to matter, which you and most people lack

>>4530570
The virgin in theory
The CHAD in reality

>>4530570
How do you expect me to outreach a 500mm moon shot with this weather? I posted a 400 and can do 800 but that's after the sky clears.
If he has so much reach he should be able to produce a crisper image of Saturn than I have. But he can't because he's at the same resolution with worse optics than I am.

>>4530565
You keep bringing this up but not only did it not happen, you originally brought it up to lie when someone reminded you that you had already been BTFO when you were using out of context screenshots from a blog to argue that fujifilm cameras were defective by design...

You are a vicious propagandist, aggressively incorrect at all times. Ignoring you isn't enough. You will lie as much as it takes for you to force your agenda on any new user you can overwhelm with babble.

>>4530570
That's basically what happened. "Theoretical reach doesn't matter if you can't use it to take a decent photo".

Like sure, a g9ii has denser pixels than a sony a7iii. But if the g9ii has a $4000 600mm f8 equivalent and sony has a $2000 actual 600mm f6.3, well, it's a pointless argument. Theory about idealized cameras that autistic people muse about doesn't hold up to real cameras that people actually use.

But people still post. There are ongoing threads with people posting their thematic work or recent photos, I made a thread about my anime con(s) photos month ago and recently posted another con works, granted, not much replies but some anons voiced their opinion, which is always nice.

But I won't lie, it is quite sad to see the board to slow down to crawl, even missing /sqt/ thread, while containment gear threads slowly take up whole catalog (mods could simply delete oldest ones at this point, since they are past bump limit anyway). Last year hacking did a lot of damage.

>>4530560
On kuroba mobile I can just hide or remove posts. Like this one.

>>4530575
The only person I know IRL that does the m43 ,"for reach" is a legitimate award winning wildlife photog, that normally uses his Z9 kit (with a few exotics), and when he uses m43, it's with the $9k 150-400mm, because it's old and slightly lighter than his F/Z supertelephotos
Everyone else going for reach just sticks with FF + super telephotos. I see Canons 1200mm more often than I do other m43 setups.
That's the practical reality.

>>4530575
>using out of context screenshots from a blog
The blog in question showed that even the SOOC JPEG had worms.
>Like sure, a g9ii has denser pixels than a sony a7iii. But if the g9ii has a $4000 600mm f8 equivalent and sony has a $2000 actual 600mm f6.3, well, it's a pointless argument. Theory about idealized cameras that autistic people muse about doesn't hold up to real cameras that people actually use.
>what is ceteris paribus
lol
Put an actual 600mm on both and the Panasonic wins every single time.
>>4530579
>Everyone else going for reach just sticks with FF + super telephotos. I see Canons 1200mm more often than I do other m43 setups.
When you need extreme reach you put a 90D behind that Canon 1200mm. And it doesn't have to be a 100% crop by the way, at the same focal length and distance to subject the 90D will have more quality every time.

>>4530534
Don't be a tripfag basically. Is this the only board that suffers with them? No.

Board culture, to a certain extent, allows the problem to persist.

>>4530580
>In [theoretical scenario] THOUGH
It doesn't really matter because that's not a real scenario
>A SOOC jpeg has much worse fine detail processing than a good raw editor!
Yeah this is true of all brands
>When you need extreme reach you put a 90D behind that Canon 1200mm
You haven't actually done this and lack a lens of the quality needed to not look like a cheap shit teleconverter on a normal camera - you actually have trouble producing good IQ with a 24mp canon rebel - so you're really just being autistic about specific ideal scenarios you've never experienced and have no idea what it's like to be satisfied with the resolution of a normal, employed-person grade camera

>>4530534
Well that's not my fault is it? Anons ignored the wet plate guy for example. Because it's antithesis to the consumption validation they desire so much.
Even though his is arguably one of the purest forms of the art. The artist/chemist who is almost an alchemist. A lot was lost with the transition to canned film for the plebeians. I'm one such plebeian, I'll freely admit. The most involved thing I've done was mixing my own developer from recipes I got from other people who did the hard work before me. Those are Photographers with a capital P. Because the chemical side of photography is artistic too. To come up with a new way to coerce those shy halide crystals into revealing themselves to the naked eye is something to behold.

>>4530580
>schizo nophoto yapping
Boring, it's a shame for the amount of effort you spend on board, you could be making it better, instead of worse

>>4530585
That's the thing, it was measurably better even though it was LESS megapixels than the full frame. It was a SL1, not SL2 which is 24MP. SL1 is just 18MP.

>>4530587
>Well that's not my fault is it?
It is, the board would be in a better place if you were gone

>>4530589
>let me keep ignoring reality to talk about megapickels

>>4530589
Both results looked really bad. "Is this an astronomical object or a dot drawn in gimp?" bad. You should be less concerned with theories about cropping, bokeh, and noise and more concerned with how to use your camera and attach higher quality optics to it. You could, for example, get a job and buy a decent telescope and learn how to stack photos for a cleaner image, and not just doing sloppy HDR bracketing, do it right with darks and flats.

What you actually do is more important than what you could do if only theoretical conditions were met.

>>4530590
Then it'd soon be the blind leading the blind, seeing as you lot like to pile on people actually engaging with actual photography rather than the journalism of the mundane.

>>4530593
I'm not interested in a telescope or going through all that hassle just for a proof of concept. The image quality was sensor-limited not optics-limited. The optics were outresolving both sensors as it can be seen in the increase of detail from 21MP FF to 18MP crop. There would be even more detail with 33MP crop (90D). More than 40MP crop actually, because X-trans smears things up.

>>4530589
baited EVERYPHONO award

>>4530597
>I'm not interested in actually doing things
Okay.

What you proved is that without the correct equipment or any idea of how to use it, it doesn't matter what you think you know about how cameras work. Your skill set is effectively limited to zooming in on terrible photos no matter what you use. None of your theory matters at all because not only are they more complex and varied systems than your theoryslop assumes, you don't know how to use them and have never used them effectively.

All you really do is pull false claims out of your ass. It's genuinely bad for anyone who's new here if their choice is "be lied to by cANON" or "be drowned out by people trying to talk over cANON lying".

You are a vicious propagandist with the memory span of a fruit fly and the honesty of an indian.

>>4530604
I mean it all boils down to pixels on the subject.

File: baited somephono.gif (2.8 MB, 277x320)

2.8 MB GIF

>>4530594
how to get one million reppeys from dumb nusois (INSANE NEW BAIT METHOD!!!!)

>>4530607
I like how you have to make up something I didn't say in order to argue with that and have a chance of being right. A telescope with a camera adapter is a fiddly contraption and very limited in what you can use it for. It's designed for observation rather than photography. I like my camera to be closer to a rifle scope than an astronomer's telescope.
Planets are just cool to photograph and can be photographed without risk of dox if you take the necessary precautions, also being a distant subject the location you're on Earth doesn't change the apparent size much. So they make ideal targets to make a point that others can test out on their own if they doubt your word.

>>4530610
How will clamstaples ever recover?

>>4530594
Would still be better than with you here, the board wants you to leave, pretty sad you keep sticking around
No one else IRL to hear your schizo rambling?

>>4530615
>/p/ is one person
lol

>>4530616
Who here has said they want you to stay?
I've seen an awful lot of different people hating on you, myself included

>>4530612
>I don't actually DO things.
Cameras are a bit more complex than they are in your theories. A lens that is considered great with a larger pixel pitch can grow CA, spherical aberration, coma, etc with a tighter pixel pitch and just produce a more zoomed in but worse looking photo. And no matter what, if conditions are bad, hazy, etc or the photographer is bad at photography it's just going to be a shitty photo. "Reach" genuinely does not matter without context. Buying a camera is not magic. You do need a lens. You do need skill.

Just like "equivalence" translates to
>sometimes, with an equally dumb photographer and equally big and expensive gear on both sides, a full frame camera can take a photo that looks as bad as the one an aps-c camera would take
However stabilization and shit doesn't really factor in because if long exposures are on the table so is stacking many shorter ones. As long as you don't get too cocky and blur one.

>>4530618
stabilization never factored in because no amount of IBIS on a crop sensor can replace a tripod and shooting at a real ISO 100

it was always a gimmick for making telephotos easier to use for landscapes

>>4530530
I'll leave the finer points of what counts as "dead" to other anons. In any case, the reason for the board's current state is:
>Gear threads (literally 10 fucking gear threads on the catalogue right now as we speak)
>Nocameras talking shop (nonsense) about gear
>Nophotos talking shop (nonsense) about photography
>Bots/shills
>Samefaggotry

Problem #1 could be solved easily by banning gear threads. There was a poll for that and it turned out 15 for, 5 against.
Problems #2 and #3 could be solved by requiring proof of camera ownership for any serious technical discussion. There was also a poll for that and it turned out 10 for 4 against before cANON botted it.
Problem #4 could theoretically be solved by requiring posting your own photo for any serious non-gear photography discussion, however proving that it's actually YOUR photo is much harder than proving that you own a camera when push comes to shove so this probably isn't practical to make into a hard rule.
Problem #5 could be solved easily by enabling post IDs.

Anyone that would object to any of these measures (besides #4, for reasons stated above) is by extension objecting to improving the average post quality on this board, and therefore part of the cancer that is killing /p/. Their opinions can safely be ignored.

>>4530617
>I've seen an awful lot of different people hating on you, myself included
All that flak must mean I'm flying above the target

>>4530619
>>4530618
Stabilization is a moot point

Even cheap entry level cameras like the z6 and a7iii have enough ibis to cover all realistic shooting scenarios

>>4530618
Even with aberrations you extract more detail with a denser sensor. I never denied they become more noticeable.
>However stabilization and shit doesn't really factor in because if long exposures are on the table so is stacking many shorter ones. As long as you don't get too cocky and blur one.
lol, spray and pray digisluggery never ceases to amuse me. What's next, Topaz AI?
>>4530619
IBIS is a meme for telephoto, optical IS is the one to have. And it doesn't only help landscapes.

>>4530621
Hell hath no fury like a fujislug scorned

>>4530587
They passed him over because your inane babbling could not go unchecked. You were the elephant in the room in need of addressing. If people see something retarded being presented as fact they will go after the retarded thing 9 times out of ten, it is human nature and combating misinformation is ultimately the right thing to do anyways.
>>4530589
It was better because you had more image scale, not because you used a smaller sensor with less megapickles.
>>4530593
>You could, for example, get a job and buy a decent telescope
A $150 used long tube refractor from 15 years ago and a ~$50 Barlow lens would've done better. Not kidding. There'd be some CA but that's nbd since you can edit it out. You can get a used Mak or SCT for probably not much more if any and then you have no CA at all.

File: a9AaWned_700w_0.jpg (18 KB, 498x299)

18 KB JPG

>>4530559
>Have you looked at the latest rpt and bpd? They have some of the best photos this board has ever seen.

>>4530624
Does it matter if extracting more detail is actually taking two equally unusably bad photos
>look, there are 3 more pixels between the amorphous ring and the amorphous saturn
No

Do things right instead of jerking your tiny dick to megapixels

>>4530626
>It was better because you had more image scale, not because you used a smaller sensor with less megapickles.
I had more image scale because I had a smaller pixel pitch. You already self-owned with this non-argument in a gear general a few days ago.

>>4530621
Ah shit I fucked up my numbers
>Problems #2 and #3 could be solved
#2 and #4*
>Problem #4 could theoretically be solved
Problem #3*
>(besides #4, for reasons stated above)
besides #3*
Hope that helps

>>4530629
You took two unusably bad photos

If you dont use the right tool for the job or operate competently all your theories are horseshit

>57 posts
>14 of them at least are cANON
>nothing of value posted

This is why the board sucks

>>4530628
I'm not the one complaining about cameras being too big, baby hands.

>>4530629
It's a fact, not an argument. SEVERAL anons now have called you out on this and not a SINGLE anon has disagreed. But you can't allow yourself to be wrong because you would lose izzat.

>buying a camera with some megapixel difference wont make your photos automatically better
>NOOOO ITS NOT TRUE
>ITS IMPOSSIBLE!

>>4530631
They weren't photographs, they were camera tests. There was no artistic intent involved. Photography is an art.

>>4530635
More megapixels on target will make your target more detailed, arguing against that is arguing against reality itself.

>>4530637
it doesn't matter — you didn't do everything else right so your theory failed and both photos look like shit

a grim reminder that megapixels cant save you if you dont know what you're doing

Camera theory without application is more worthless than 3 nerds fantasizing about the alternate realities possibly implied by a certain mathematical model

Cameras are real things that do real things and theory is at best a rough guide for what to expect assuming you do everything right (or in the case of "equivalence works against full frame!" dumbassery, do everything wrong)

>>4530587
Pathetic little ingrate. Won't shut up, argues minuatia, deflects thread off topic. Memememememememememememe

>>4530664
>derailing the second meta thread (rule breaking thread, Hiro authorized one) back onto the board's topic is a bad thing

There is literally a Sugar thread up right now that I am adding to when I get time. I don't have much time these days I work 70 hours a week and life is kicking me in the balls but I still take my camera with me.

No one takes pictures anymore it's just gearfagging and bitching about cANON. People are tired these days the economy sucks the news is all negative and our octogenarian pedophile overlords are pushing the planet and all of its people into the meatgrinder to squeeze the maximum amount of profit out of it so they can all die trillionaires and completely disregarding the consequences because they won't be alive to suffer the repercussions. No one has time for hobbies anymore our generation is working 14 jobs 30 hours a day to afford bread. People are fucking exhausted.

>>4530666
There is only one meta thread, schizo. You're in it.

>>4530672
The poll one isn't a meta thread? Fuck off

>>4530678
That thread is gone

>>4530669
Hang in tight. Things will get worse before they get better, but they'll get better.

>>4530669
Tbf cANON’s hobby is lying to new people to try and scare them away from mirrorless cameras

for a lot, being convinced that the only good option is a dslr makes digital photography not worth doing. the fucking things are either larger than a medium format film camera or have iq not too different from an iphone.

File: PSX_20210123_081235.jpg (2.61 MB, 1561x2500)

2.61 MB JPG

>>4530683
>the fucking things are either larger than a medium format film camera or have iq not too different from an iphone.
How's life in lie lie land?
I want people to experience the joy of reflex

>>4530684
its just a viewfinder

you take pictures with it, not of it

>>4530686
It augments your vision and let's you become one with the lens. I'm a huge advocate of getting a super telephoto, a super macro or both to go with a reflex camera.

>>4530687
>Minor spelling mistake.
Opinion invalid.

>>4530688
The bane of the phoneposter... Autocorrect, how could you do this to me?

>>4530530
It's the entire internet, but photography in general now produces an output (photos) that no one cares about because they have been over-stimulated by short-form, captioned video which is physiologically more engaging, regardless of how unaesthetic most of it is. So what is left is a bunch of hobbyists, many of whom are just nerds that elevated out of a EDC/funko interest arguing over gear, while not taking, or even being able to take, photos. And even if they did take a classically aesthetic shot, there is no audience for it, except other photo nerds, who are more likely to just pick on the shot because it threatens them and the attention they want to get from their work. It's not a good hobby, let alone this space, at the moment. I don't see it really ever coming back either.

>>4530560
>You always call me a nophoto, you never prove me wrong. I get it, snapshitting thousands of pictures on your way to wageslaving and back thinking you're eventually going to become a good photographer only to see no progress must sting and you need someone to lash out at.
I don't post enough here to know namefags, but there is truth in this. I have had a lot of hobbies over the years from performance cars, to sports, art, literature, and even fashion, and by far the cattiest, butthurt group have been the photographers. They are so hungry for attention or some kind of validation that they shut or put down anyone in the least bit different or special to them. Ironically the art and fashion people have been more supportive and genuinely engaging despite their so-called vacuous interests.

>>4530693
A lot of people that own cameras just think of it as a cool gadget/tech to have fun with and not a tool for artistic expression.

>>4530621
I disagree with all these points. Making things harder to post is only going to make it worse. The captchas prevent people from posting on top of the general decline in photography as a hobby. If photography was surging in interest there would be no need for these requirements to provide evidence in order to post.

>>4530693
He's always proven wrong

It's just that whenever he is, he goes back to arguing about a barely useful simplified theory and pretending it was always just that when just one thread ago, he was claiming something stupid like all fujifilm cameras are uselessly low resolution (because only adobe without the enhance function and sooc jpeg count because of autistic "reasoning")

he can't be wrong about the theory, but he is always wrong about the conclusions he draws from them because he lives in an alternate reality where all things being equal is the default (you can get close to this "in theory" but it's literally spending thousands on baby sensor gear just so a cheap old full frame mirrorless' photos will be just as bad sometimes)

>>4530637
You don't always want more detail. Especially in portrait work.

>>4530669
That's a good point. A lot of people are overworked and time for hobbies that aren't outright consumption like funko pops hoarding gets deprioritised.

>>4530701
Just ignore him. I don't even know who he is. If I read a post and it looks like drivel I just keep scrolling. It's that easy.

>>4530687
>you cant use a smaller, better camera because i wrote a shitty poem
feminine tbqh

File: d100.jpg (483 KB, 1920x1080)

483 KB JPG

Camera licking is going to become a trend. This trend will revitalize /p/.

>>4530683
Are you retarded?
High end DSLRs are definitively the best and cheapest entry into photography.
For about 300 USD you can have a D600 and a 50mm f1.8, and get exactly the same quality as any modern mirrorless, with proper weather sealing and all.

File: slash p.png (523 KB, 1492x691)

523 KB PNG

>>4530530
>How come no one posts here?
I usually only post here whenever I see you guys on the front page talking about how dead /p/ is. I think this has happened twice so far.

>>4530530
Everyone asking this question should instead wonder "why am I not posting photo threads on /p?"

Because you're clearly part of the problem with this thread and thread image

so why?

>>4530701
>he lives in an alternate reality where all things being equal is the default
To make meaningful comparisons one must remove confounding variables, it's basic science. If you have a full frame setup, want more reach and already have the longest lens you find practical, then a crop camera is one of the simplest ways to boost that.
>but it's literally spending thousands on baby sensor gear
I always say FF digital is the poorfag format, the budget sensitive format if you prefer. Until you want to maximize reach, then the most cost-effective is crop.

>>4530735
One big reason /p died is the mods won't ban a handful of mentally ill people like this guy right here, that have nothing to say about photography yet are spamming about digital gear around the clock. Every board has schizoid retards, but if the mods were at least enforcing the rules, there would be more space for talking about something else than camera sensors. I can't fathom how his talking about gear on this thread, but I guess that's the thing with being mentally ill.

>>4530739
>I can't fathom how his talking about gear on this thread
I didn't start it, maybe you shouldn't be able to fathom how THIS guy >>4530701 is talking gear AND making false allegations about me.

>>4530693
>They are so hungry for attention or some kind of validation that they shut or put down anyone in the least bit different or special to them.
Many are cargo cultists, that's why they care so much about how the camera looks. Also why they idolize establishment snapshitters shilled by the "art" world. Because they want to be idolized for snapshits too. But they're not part of the international clique so they won't be.

>101 comments
>27 of them belong to cANON
>0 value added to thread
Kinda pathetic honestly

>>4530741
>"Nuh uh, it wasn't JUST me"
>Continues flinging shit everywhere
Just because someone is being a nigger, doesn't mean you have to follow suit. Be the change you want to see in the world.

>>4530739
/p/ dying out was a handful of things imo. The funko-pop mental improvishment was probably the biggest offender, but basically any time I see an anon put genuine effort into a thread - be it theory or practical - most anons disengage and/or shit all over OP. I don't come here to see technically perfect or even sovl photos, I come here to discuss and improve. No-one will ever get better if they put themselves out there to be judged and the majority of replies are that the photos they post are shit and they should just use their phone. It's disheartening.
>inb4 sounds like you did exactly that, got shit on and your fee fees hurt.
I used to make threads that had positive engagement and negative. That's the whole point of critisism: to improve based on feedback and mistakes.

>>4530741
I was not talking to you. I don't expect you to help, you're the problem. People like you who are spamming bullshit to farm attention exist on every forum and while there's an argument against ban on sight, not enforcing the basic rules of /p/ allowed useless degenerates spamming around the clock to dictate what this board is about. If you want to help, leave. Or at least drop the name. But you would never do that because you would be deprived of the sweet, sweet attention.

>>4530751
Someone post the tripfag meme. It applies here so hard.
>WELL GET USED TO SEEING ME A LOT AROUND HERE GUYS, KEK CHUNGUS 420 LE REDDIT UPDOOT.

>>4530750
The problem is that the same insecurity they display everywhere also comes when they post pictures. They're only willing to take praise, never any other kind of criticism or advice. So it becomes a bunch of circlejerking sycophants. If someone does something outside their reach be it for skill or technical reasons they either ignore or minimize that. You'll never see them get happy that someone managed to do something cool if it's not part of their circlejerk. Sour grapes foxes and bucket crabs make up the majority of /p/ where learning technique and building a vision is a sin and mindless consumption and snapshitting a virtue.

>>4530751
>at least drop the name.
Then people beg me to put it back on or worse, beg other people they assume to be me to put my trip back on. Think of it this way: each post hating on me is one less post hating on someone who can't take it. Scumbags like huskyfag who like telling people to kill themselves spend their vitriol on me so there's a bit less of it to go around. One of this days he'll bite his own tongue and die from his own poison though. In the mean time, I'm the sacrificial target.

>>4530754
Enough of the fucking rambling and make yourself scarce.

>>4530750
>/p/ dying out was a handful of things
I mean true, gear spammers wouldn't have been able to overtake /p if it was flourishing otherwise

>any time I see an anon put genuine effort into a thread - be it theory or practical - most anons disengage and/or shit all over OP
Ok, but if we want to be fair, the average level is so low, we can't even hold it against them. I think that's where we can discuss how the modern internet as killed graphic arts or whatever, but we can't even start to have this discussion in a forum that contains 90% gear threads. I don't give a shit what a gearfag thinks about photography.

>No-one will ever get better if they put themselves out there to be judged and the majority of replies are that the photos they post are shit
Ok but I think it's important to distinguish troll spam like "x is shit" and harsh constructive criticism. I might be wrong but I feel like very low effort posts often get a lot of valid criticism, but then they never answer again.

>I used to make threads that had positive engagement and negative.
Why have you stopped?
/p is dead, in the same way /mu is dead, but I think the people are still here, because there is no alternative. Other forums have dogshit quality. Reddit is Instagram boring stuff. Lomography is actually really cool, but there's no discussion, and when you post there you give them forever commercial rights. If there was 10 people posting 2 threads a year like I do, already this place would be different. If you do it we're 20% there already.

File: Knight-Protecting-Princess.png (933 KB, 1196x668)

933 KB PNG

>>4530754
thanks for blessing us with your presence. now fuck off.

>>4530748
How many replies did he get tho?

>>4530764
Enough to be thoroughly humiliated in the eyes of everyone who's been around for at least 3 gear threads (so 1 week)

I have never seen the whole board hate him this much before. There is a such thing as bad attention.

>>4530776
How was he humiliated?

>>4530777
Proven wrong over and over again and reduced to making basic theoretical claims, only to have context added to those making him seethe

cANON's sole purpose on /p/ is to be a foil for educational material. he spouts a common myth, misunderstanding, or some slander against a popular brand like fujifilm, then he turns out to be retarded. repeat.
>thanks to cANON, a lot of people now know that fujifilm "worms" can be avoided by shooting smaller, less sharpened sooc jpegs and using lightroom's enhance feature or just using capture one
>thanks to cANON, slander against sony and fujifilm's weather sealing has been examined and found to be 3 people complaining on reddit rather than a systemic issue
>thanks to cANON, people know that adobe camera raw is worse at demosaicing images than better programs and moire issues in their test scene disappear in higher quality software
>thanks to cANON, a lot of people now know that "equivalence" works strongly against crop sensors because full frame has developed so much that it easily beats it the "all things being equal" part, and "equivalent" scenarios are rare and optional, outside of sports photography, where FF has faster lenses anyways
>thanks to cANON, everyone knows that pixel density can provide additional zoom in theory, but if their lens isn't capable and they don't have good technique, it will just produce a larger and still bad looking image
>thanks to cANON, everyone knows DSLRs just have irrational fanboys and there are affordable mirrorless cameras that do the same stuff and usually better, ie, canon m5 = 80d but with smaller and equally sharp versions of all the ef-s lenses

He is tragically retarded and has made a complete ass of himself, but it's actually been of some benefit.

>>4530784
nobody cares about your retarded gearslop except the 5 schizos in the gear thread. people hate him because he represent gearfagottry, ie 80% of what killed the board. visibly you're part of it.

>>4530788
>gearfaggotry killed the board
>especially people who don't tolerate amateur shills lying about gear
>it's completely contained to the gear thread and meta-gear threads
>you don't just start a photo thread you engage with both of them instead
you saw "cANON is a retard and humiliated himself" and had to ask why. why didn't you just move on? who is that hurting? someone might not believe him next time he claims all fujifilm cameras are useless junk? what does anyone gain? you're just complaining about complaining while complaining yourself. sad.

it's not like someone is slandering a popular brand and trying to get new people to parrot their made up nonsense. what's in that post? "more expensive cameras have surpassed cheaper ones, but lots of cheaper ones are still great"? god forbid.

>>4530784
cANON, put your trip back on. This entire post is you claiming you were right and adding some copes that deep down concede every point you made with your trip on. Your post basically says:
>fuji advertised resolution is unusable and requires special software
>redditors complained about fuji and sony weather sealing so it's a reddit thing not a real issue
>you have to avoid adobe if you use a sony or fuji
>you need all things equal for equivalence to work, but equivalence is true
>pixel density increases zoom
>there are dead mount mirrorless cameras that are about as good as a 10 year old dslr
Everyone sees through the sockpuppetry, it's pathetic.

>>4530790
>fuji advertised resolution is unusable and requires special software
All cameras SOOC jpegs have worse fine detail rendering and noise reduction than quality software. It's why almost every professional shoots raw. If you shoot jpeg, don't shoot full sized jpegs and pixel peep them. This is universal advice no matter what camera you have.
>redditors complained about fuji and sony weather sealing so it's a reddit thing not a real issue
Redditors have managed to break every camera in existence. They are breaking canon R6IIs by brushing dust off the closed shutter curtains. Redditors are idiots.
>you have to avoid adobe if you use a sony or fuji
Adobe is laggy, unstable software with generative AI built in and doesn't offer a perpetual license. This is not a bad thing. Capture one is the industry standard for pretty much all high end photography and tethering actually works properly with it.
>you need all things equal for equivalence to work, but equivalence is true
This isn't contradictory. Modern cameras have developed well past the point where all things being equal is the norm, unless you're retarded to have the same amount of money and weight in m43 gear as you would in FF just to claim "sometimes, FFs photos will look just as bad". That's "equivalence".
>pixel density increases zoom
It does, if you have the skill to shoot at that focal length and are using a lens that can render fine enough detail for smaller pixels.
>there are dead mount mirrorless cameras that are about as good as a 10 year old dslr
not just that, they're about as good as modern entry level canon mirrorless. it's just making a point that being short on money doesn't limit people to DSLRs, and DSLR recommendations come from a more emotional and biased place.

>>4530791
>more thinly veiled cANON shilling

>>4530530
Take the filterpill

99% of the problem is replies to reposted bait
and cANON

https://pastebin.com/diHque73

>>4530843
A single tripfag isn't why /p/ is dead.
The problem is that no one is posting.

>>4530845
use those filters
half of every gear thread and anything ruining any other thread disappears

people dont use /p/ because 2/3s of the discussion is bots and autists on repeat. they are starting new gear threads so they can have the exact same arguments again and keep it on the front page.

>>4530853
But no one wants to talk about interesting stuff either. Is studio equipment really less interesting than the same argument thats been going on non-stop for the past year?

>>4530854
why would anyone try talking about interesting stuff when the first post will be instantly buried under 20 posts of equivalence, live view blinkies, and "if you dont shoot jpeg on a panasonic your photos are dishonest and you're wasting hours. buy an s9"

>>4530856
Idk cause people could maybe ignore those. I guess tourists wont but non tourists definitely could. If you look at the gear threads whenever I post interesting stuff someone always makes a stupid ewaste pancake shill post. It's kinda funny how blatant it is, but also a little sad.
It's like the autists/bots that argue about the same stuff over and over again secretly hate photography.

>>4530857
That's just not how 4chan works. No one is scrolling through a mountain of the literal exact same garbage the last gear thread was composed of (literal, exact, same) to find the one interesting post. By the time they do another 10 pancake shill live view blinkie equivalence evf honesty fujiworm snoy posts will have been made.

if people have to dig that much they just go shitpost about african americans and religion on /pol/

>>4530858
I try to find the good posts in the pile of autism even if they are far and few between. The gear thread is unfortunately just a containment thread that the mods should really keep to maybe 3 on the catalog at once but they don't care enough to do that. :[

50 more shillbot posts in /gear/ until we get another gear thread with fresh equivalence debates!

i only own a point n shoot, and my ip is banned most of the time

>>4530861
Use the 2000 char limit to precisely describe your photograph.

>>4530691
I've noticed many hobbyist and even people who had quit their jobs to be full time photography vloggers quietly exiting the scene over the last year. It's over.

>>4530891
>quit their jobs to be full time photography vloggers
Fools

>>4530891
I cannot imagine what it's like to stop doing something useful and instead start essentially running ads over your own voice on a platform you don't own. It's like using a public toilet without checking if there was any toilet paper.

>>4530856
Use catalogue like a normal person

>>4530863
Anon's Snapshit.
This is a digital photograph. All craftsfagship is of the highest quality. On the item is an image depicting humans standing in front of an airplane on a cloudy day. Two of the humans are armed. One human, middle, is dressed casually. The human has his hands in his belt. The human looks apprehensive. The airplane is blue and is adorned with propellers. The artwork relates to not being allowed to bring friends in mid summer of 2012.

>>4531236
Does a camera count as a friend? It has a big lens...

>>4530530
4chan in general is dying. you can look at the sites stats here: https://4stats.io

>>4531751
>/out/ beating /p/
Grim.

File: 1696950717405560.jpg (564 KB, 2000x1335)

564 KB JPG

>>4530540
>>4530843
the tripfag complainers truly melt my mind. why are you complaining about the one group of posters that the website has a built-in way to filter out? board is only usable at a basic level when canon and cinefag are filtered. this has been the case for all 5 years i've been here. i can't wrap my head around these anons complaining about tripfag spam/derailment. it's so easy to ignore that i'm becoming suspicious that the anons replying to them are sockpuppets

>>4531764
Some of us browse on different devices and it's annoying to have to use a filter to begin with
Seems odd do defend a a retard making ~20% of the comments and constantly derailing threads

>>4531764
I don't mind the tripfags they can be funny sometimes and like you said, they are easy to filter out. It's the anonymous trolls that are the worst. Only mods can remove them and I'm pretty sure /p/ is completely abandoned and moderated.

>>4531912
>moderated
unmoderated

>>4531912
Hey cinefag you double nigger

>>4530530
Haven't been here in a few years for real now, I was fairly regular around when that lambo guy was doing his thing? Sugar should know who I'm talking about, can't remember his name now. There was some dude from maybe a Scandinavian country that tripped, used a cat related name and fucked up a lot and forgot to take his trip off? I don't know, the point is I'm old and was here a while back, and news flash, /p/ was dead then, too. The problem is this whole site is full of assholes. Period.

>>4531947
boomers are so low IQ. u can barely express yourself clearly and you literally have nothing to say. be gone

>>4532003
Did you know the fujispammer is also a boomer?

>>4531947
There is at least one mentally unwell person trying their best to fuck this place up. Pretty annoying since there is nothing that can be done to remove them.
Like clockwork >>4532003

>>4532003
You're in the minority here, faggot.

File: L2.jpg (1.79 MB, 1996x1328)

1.79 MB JPG

Photography gets kinda boring after you take a few thousand shots of the things around you. I was hoping that it would get me outside and I would organically meet people while also being creating but nobody but a couple of homeless people have spoken to me.

>>4532009
Consider engaging with the local photography community.
I think photography can get a little boring for most creative people when they're just doing the wander around and take pics routine.
Find something you want to say or some theme you'd like to explore and work on creating a focused series of images. Either as an exercise in creativity itself or as a start to a formal/serious body work. Once you have a good idea for a series you'll be reinvigorated.

>>4532015
>Find something you want to say or some theme you'd like to explore and work on creating a focused series of images. Either as an exercise in creativity itself or as a start to a formal/serious body work. Once you have a good idea for a series you'll be reinvigorated.
Based

>>4532015
this

>>4532009
No offense, I've been in this exact position too, but you are not doing photography. You are taking photos. Nothing wrong with that, but yeah pushing a button is not a fulfilling hobby. The idea that you can be a photographer (meaning, a artist that uses photo as a media) by pushing a button is a lie perpetuated by the digital camera industry to sell cameras to middle-aged men with money to spend and no artistic education, again no offense, that's just the target demographic.
What's cool about photography is pursuing an esthetic, a process or a message, and getting to share that with a community that understands you.

>>4532015
>>4532030
>stop being a snapshitting digislugger streetcuck and do photography instead
Translated by Bing!

>>4532015
>>4532030
Everyone always talks about community, there really isn't one where I live. The only people I found were more enthusiastic about talking about their hookups and stupid parties than photography or anything at all actually meaningful. The online scene is so saturated with content that nobody cares about photography at all.

>Pursue an aesthetic
Well street photography is shit and the built stuff outside is incredibly ugly. I could spend thousands of dollars to do extremely high concept photo shoots but as I said before nobody really cares.
Photography isn't my main art so it's fine, I'm just complaining, but I just thought I'd offer my perspective as to why the board is dead.

>>4532106
The trick is learning how to do extremely high concept photo shoots without breaking the bank. You could start with the vehicle you drive. A youngtimer is affordable to buy and run, probably more affordable than a current year car. And it's a mobile prop/set. It's also basically a free car, if you end up selling it it's often for around the same money you paid for it.

>>4532106
BTW I have a book recommendation:
Rebel Without a Crew by Robert Rodriguez
I know this is controversial especially if I say it, but if you want to improve your photography then learn from cinema, not from photobooks. Read filmmaking and cinematography books, watch director and cinematographer interviews about the making of their work. That's where the big league of photography is. And if you want to learn from people not from the cinema industry, then do the same but for still photography.
Check local ads looking for assistant crews in your area too, better way of networking and actually learning than photo club catty circlejerks of streetfags and nudeslop makers. You'll find some circlejerks of course (indie shorts are infamous for this) but you'll find opportunities you wouldn't otherwise.
Naturally a lot of these amateur directors will want to make a "deep" short where half of it is a sex scene but that's just the state of things nowadays. People get oneshot by cooming and think they had intellectual epiphanies when they're just walking cliches. However, it's the only way you have to find the ones that will actually make something that isn't slop too. And even the slop ones could be your own assistants in the future, you help them today they help you tomorrow is how it could go if you become part of a loose network of collaborators.

>>4530561
Oh so like photo metadata or identifiable objects in photos?

Does cANON ever post photos or is he a nophoto? I always see him spouting some bullshit but I've yet to see him actually post any photos.

>>4532015
>Find something you want to say or some theme you'd like to explore and work on creating a focused series of images.
I'm trying but I feel either stumped on what the theme should be or I think it'll be far too niche for anyone to give a shit.

where can I post photos, a problem for me is that a single (you) is more interesting than 1000 instagram comments

File: DSC07129editSMBDR.jpg (893 KB, 1600x1600)

893 KB JPG

I don't come here anymore, primarily due to how shitty the captcha has become. Total turn off.

>>4531775
ok, if you're too lazy to implement a filter, just mentally filter out posts by skipping the ones with names. i can't believe a real person is posting a reply this braindead. it has to be a sockpuppet or bot.
>>4532759
this too. posting sucks now

>>4532750
Reddit, unironically.

>>4532738
AI models can analyze a photo and tell you the general area it's from now, based on the trees, roadsigns, etc. Basically a super-powered geoguessr that any asshole can use to doxx if they don't like you.

Welcome to the future. I hate it here. Also I agree fuck these captchas.

>>4533038
What are you even talking about...

1. Even if a powerful AI model like that would be publicly available, which it is not, it's not magic. The reason why a pro geoguessr can know instantly where the photo is because there's a finite set of roads the photo are taken from. If you get off the beaten path it gets significantly harder. If there is no building, road or landmark in the photo it's impossible to narrow down the position from a circle of a 100km at least.

2. Even if the photo is taken in the street and we can figure out where it is, you need more information to doxx a person.

3. Did this happen more than once or twice over the entire span of the board?

4. People continue posting a shit ton of identifiable photos in rpt.

You guys really love to make up scare stories. This is obviously not why people don't post photo threads anymore.

>>4533050
I think some may have been hacked prior to the changes where they scrubbed exif thus scaring them from posting moar.

>>4532891
>It's better to promote a workaround than deal directly with an issue
Sure you aren't braindead?

>>4533050
FWIW, I've posted a ton here and never been doxxed
Plenty of location details, posted my own self a few times, images that linked directly back to my site, etc
Nothing's ever come of it except for more nophoto coping

>>4533057
That only means you're liked by the doxxers or one of them

File: 1000043489.jpg (148 KB, 1600x1066)

148 KB JPG

As a very recent lurker to this place I was surprised as to how slow this board is. One would assume that the photography section of one of the most popular image boards would have lots of images, but it doesn't. It's actually quite odd that it's not a requirement to have a photo when posting, I imagine most people have thousands of snapshots and plenty of good photos.
This place does suffer from an obsession about pointless technicalities and to much discussion about gear.
Gear is the least interesting thing about photography and the most discussed thingy here.
I feel like im more likely to get a critique of equipment than an artistic evaluation of my photo of I were to contribute here.
The few try hard personalities do seem to make this place feel dead, instead of sending a message into a forum of potentially thousands of unique minds you get tripfags constantly showing up to remind you this place has few unique contributors.

>>4533038
Vaguely knowing the general area a picture was taken isn't doxxing, newfag.

>>4533064
>It's actually quite odd that it's not a requirement to have a photo when posting
You keep trying to make this happen but it won't, "recent lurker".

>>4533057
And you're not alone. Many tripfag were basically attention whoring with plenty details about themselves. It's never been in the culture to doxx here really. That's a /pol or /b thing, and that's old story. Nowadays the cops knows what cyberbullying is, and nobody wants to risk being charged for sending 100 pizzas to the wrong adress.

>>4533061
sure. that must be why we post photos.

>>4533064
Totally agree, it sucks such a cool place got turned into that, and the real tragedy is how we know exactly what to do to fix it (ban gearpost outside gear thread, ban /pol posting, ban threads without a personnal photo in the OP) but the mods won't enforce any basic rules and have allowed tripfag to make it basically their forum. Sad really. By the way that's a cool photo.

>>4533068
Before the nazis took over it was just another circlejerk, the place hasn't been good since 2015 or so

>>4533067
I think I have posted twice here ever and only within the last two months, not sure why that's something you'd doubt. I presume this has been debated for a while, why are people against this?

>>4533073
Because saturating the board with snapshits is unironically spam

>>4533074
I don't see how snapshots would be spam, they are after all photography to some degree? This board has less traffic than the others and probably uses less bandwidth too. I suspect that more AI generated images of trump get posted on /pol in a day than OC snapshots get posted here in a month.

>>4533075
"Post only photos that show at least trace amounts of thoughtful composition. Do not upload random snapshots."
Rule 2, if jannies wanted to rulecuck they could ban most posters enforcing that.
You have to ask yourself "does the picture add to the conversation or is it just a distraction?"

>>4532759
buy a pass. or are you too stupid to make a burner email and use crypto?

>>4533091
>10bux goon

>>4533100
Makes me laugh how many retards are wasting hours a week solving captchas to post nonsense on this board because $10 is a serious purchase to them. Seriously, GPT can teach you how to buy crypto, it's very easy and shouldn't be scary to you or a barrier in buying a pass. It makes posting here great.

>>4533121
Lowtax killed himself, but not before becoming Uwe Boll's bitch

>>4533064
>>4533068
The mods and admins of 4chan are useless - how can you form a community if even basic discussions are never possible in the first place? Every time it's tried nowadays, the tripfags and schizos show up to give everyone a crash course in malignant narcissism instead.
>>4533121
>obsessing over 4chan enough to spend money on bypassing captchas
>muh crypto

>>4533121
1. it's $30, not $10
2. they only accept credit cards, the crypto option is gone

>>4533205
That sucks. I paid $20 for 3 years and used crypto. I suppose this place might be dead in 2 years when it expires.

>>4533205
The more captchas you submit the easier they get up to a point. Once you have it on easy mode it's just picking the odd one out of the dice or the single shapes 100% of the time.

>>4532030
If the end result is a photograph then the process is photography, regardless of whatever coping mechanism you've developed to convince yourself that you're doing something more special than that which you consider to be lesser.

>>4533460
If the only things that matters is the end result then you can just generate your photos with AI since if you're careful enough you can generate photos indistinguishable from reality (and even if you're not careful it will fool 80% of people).
>But then it's not a photgra-
Oh sorry, do you mean to say that even if the result is indistinguishable from a a photograph made with a camera, it's not a photograph? Do you perhaps mean to say that what dictates the nature of the end result is actually the process and not the other way around?

>>4533294
Or create a free protonmail account just for 4chan. They don't require any phone numbers or emails for verification so they are not tied to your identity. Do the humiliation ritual of like 30 captchas and clicking a link and now you're on an easy road. It doesn't remove captchas completely but it makes them super easy.

>>4533461
Whether or not the end result is distinguishable from being an actual photograph is completely irrelevant in regards to whether or not it is a photograph.

A jacket made of synthetic leather does not miraculously become a real leather jacket just because you are incapable of distinguishing between what is real leather and what isn't.

If you are taking a photograph (or making one, if you want to be pretentious) then you are doing photography and in doing so you are, at least for that moment, a photographer. It's not the exclusive special club that some posters on this board clearly want it to be.

A photorealistic image that was created by any other means is not a photograph, regardless of how it is perceived or presented. This is a very easy distinction to understand theoretically but it is certainly an avenue through which the observer can be deceived in practise.

The relationship between the words photograph, photography and photographer is really quite simple.

>>4533463
Ok so we agree that the process defines the end result and not the other way around.

When I said raising your camera and pushing the button was not photography, it was wrong because photography has different meanings. I was trying to distinguish someone using a camera to record reality, like what you would do to make the listing for a house, and someone using a camera to make art.

I don't think it's pretentious at all, because I think anyone can make art, but the guy who takes pictures for listing a house is not making art.

Any activity involving a camera is on a spectrum between "mostly art" and "mostly not art", and it seems to me that, quote:
>Taking a few thousands pics of the things around you
is mostly not art. The thing about photography is it always blurred the distinction between what's art and not art by making the production of images easy. Camera companies try to sell you the identity of being an artist through buying a camera brand and model that does everything for you. It's true to some extent for every commercial product, but for a layman it's very clear what separates an artist painter from a brush buyer but it's not so clear what separates an artist photographer from a camera buyer.

My aim was not to judge him for not doing art, it doesn't make sense, everyone should do whatever they want. I'm only pointing out that pushing the button of a camera is not a fulfilling hobby for most people. What's fulfilling is everything else: being inspired by other photographers, having a project, discovering what you can do and what you want through the execution of said project, sharing results and getting other's people perspective on your work, and talking about all that with real people. And then, some find out that some techniques are preferable because they make you more involved in the image creation, even though you could make it more easily with digital. All that is the art process, and that's what fulfilling about photography.

>>4533464
We only agree in the sense that you are backtracking on what you previously said.

The guy who's dedicated a significant amount of his time to perfecting the practice of effectively and precisely producing photos of houses is most likely, in his own view, producing art as a result. There are no doubt many others that would share h is view.

The contractor who paints houses for a living and takes his profession seriously may very well consider his work to be art. Many would agree.

The camera industry is simply selling you cameras. It's you that is apparently trying to define art as something that includes you and excludes people and activities that you don't deem to be worthy.

You fail to see past your own narrow perspective and you certainly don't speak for "most people" in any sense. There's really no need for you to try to perpetuate your own shortcomings in the way that you are here.

>>4533469
>You fail to see past your own narrow perspective and you certainly don't speak for "most people" in any sense.
That's not an argument. You're not right just because most people agree with you. Btw most people would not agree with your definition. There I did it.

>It's you that is apparently trying to define art as...
Brother you defined art as "thats what these people I made up think is art". I'm open to being shown I am wrong but you need to try a little bit more than that.

You conveniently avoid addressing I said art is a process everyone can take part of, including the people you made up in your answer.

Your refusal to define art comes up as really insecure, you are clearly defining art might exclude you from the artists. I'll say it again, anyone can do art. But you do have to have enough courage to actually engage. "Anything can be art" won't do. What is this "anything"? Do it. Show us. If you try, you'll see: it feels better than pushing a button.

>>4533469
Stop making an argument that splatter painting is art you dumbass.

>>4533469
>The contractor who paints houses for a living and takes his profession seriously may very well consider his work to be art. Many would agree.
That's just a trade unless he's doing something special.
Be it a paint scheme he comes up with, murals or something like that.

>>4533469
Your mom is a hoe. There are no doubt many others that would share this view.

>>4533488
Yes, his mother is a hoe. I can confirm.

>>4533494
Many would agree.

>>4533074
I would replace all gear threads with snapshit threads

>>4533502
Well do it. I hate gear threads as much as anyone who actually takes photos, but it's clear not many people who talk shit actually have a personnal photo thread up, or else we wouldn't have this problem in the first place.

Rules

By using this website (the "site"), you agree that you'll follow these rules, and understand that if we reasonably think you haven't followed these rules, we may (at our own discretion) terminate your access to the site:

/p/ - Photography

1. Only upload images that you, the photographer, have taken.
2. Post only photos that show at least trace amounts of thoughtful composition. Do not upload random snapshots.
3. Even though EXIF data is made available when encoded, please post as much relevant technical information as possible, such as: camera, kit, lens, etc.
4. Include a short description with your photograph, such as when and where it was photographed and under what circumstances.
5. As with the art critique board, only constructive criticism will be tolerated.

>>4533507
>Even though EXIF data is made available when encoded
Available to the glowies, they removed that for us peasants of the public after /qa/ won

File: DSC09565editSMBDR.jpg (1.28 MB, 1600x1600)

1.28 MB JPG

>>4533091
>>4533121
It's not about the cost. Buying a pass to post on 4chan, an anonymous board, is incredibly wack. It's a total antithesis to the basis of what it is meant to be. Maybe if this place awesome, but it's not even good here and hasn't been for a very long time. The captcha was just the final annoyance that caused me to move on.

>>4533064
>This place does suffer from an obsession about pointless technicalities and to much discussion about gear.
>Gear is the least interesting thing about photography and the most discussed thingy here.
This is the key right here. As long as digital image capturers get lumped in with real photographers then we will never have artistic discussion, just console war tier discussion about whose sensor is better.

>>4533548
I'd certainly not pay to use /p/. But I do like posting on /lit/. Probably the last good place to talk about books on the internet.

>>4533549
>As long as digital image capturers get lumped in with real photographers then we will never have artistic discussion
based

>>4533549
>>Gear is the least interesting thing about photography and the most discussed thingy here.
the sad part is its not. its the most interesting. photography isn't a high art. it's inherently journalistic. art photography without an activist streak, significant subjects or novel methods is literally impossible.

if you think you know of a photographer who didn't have these in historical context they did (no one shot like ansel adams before, no one printed like william eggleston before, etc)

>>4533633
So, I know a guy irl who is actually a pro photog, and I speak with him every now and then through work.
I've also met and spoken with two guys who run a pro studio through another mate who runs admin for them.

The first thing they do is speak about gear. This isn't a bad thing per se because it is indeed an interesting part of the field, but literally I was looking at these VERY well done portraits from the studio guys and complementng them on their work and the Italian guy goes "yeah so this is the camera and lens I used".

Okay. Yeah. I get it, you like your tools (and fucking around with his Z9 was kinda fun). but it feels like most discussion gets redirected to the gear.
Other pro photog gets put in Australian Geo for his bird photos and while way less about the gear, his first comment on any photos I look at is "yeah I used the 800mm for this one".

>>4533633
>its the most interesting
To you.

>photography isn't a high art
It's ok to have this opinion. But the way you assert it like it was an admitted truth demonstrates a lack open mindedness.

>it's inherently journalistic
This is an obviously wrong statement: many famous photographers are never published in journals, or take pictures of controlled still life in studios which have nothing to do with Journalism. Maybe you meant "documentary". But the same counter arguments apply.

>art photography without an activist streak, significant subjects or novel methods is literally impossible.
1. Again, impossible according to you. There's tons of fine art photographers that do none of that, so I assume what you mean is you don't consider it art even though most people do, which is an incredibly arrogant opinion. Regardless, I actually agree with you in the sense that I think good art should aim for those things, but I don't believe art is something that should be revered like you do. Art is something anyone can do. Doesn't make it good. But it's art.
2. Are you saying that if i'm making a paint without an activist streak, a significant subjects or a novel method it is still according to you art because it's not photography? I think your definition sucks. Paint, or any other material, has no inherent quality that makes it more art than photo. Art is about what the artist puts into it, not the canvas or the paint. But I guess since according to you gear is the most interesting part of photo, I wouldn't be surprised you'd think what's most important about an artwork is that it is made of paint or rocks or whatever you arbitrarily decided makes it "high art".

>>4533633
>Gear is the most interesting part of photography
And how does that relate to activist streaks or significant subjects which you posit as two other things that make art photography possible? Also lumping "novel methods" in with gear more generally is insane. To paraphrase Adams, you visualize the end result and then pick the equipment for the job. Which is the interesting part and which is the vehicle to attaining it seems axiomatic in that framing. As for eggleston, he simply took pictures on his rangefinders and used the technique used by magazines and movie posters for his prints. His innovation was also intellectual primarily - he believed in taking pictures of everyday scenes in an almost documentary style, and presenting them in color in a time when the art world hadn't accepted that. The beauty of their photographs has very little to do with gear, but a lot to do with artistic intent and technique. A bigger sensor or a better IBIS system or an advance in color science will not make your photographs better. Thinking about the image you want to create and how best to go about creating it will.

>>4533644
if i'm making a painting*

>>4533640
I met a violin maker recently, and interviewed him a little about his craft, and he immediately began talking about his planes, and how he had the smallest one that exists (in commercial production, anyway).
I think only fake postmodern "artists" actually like to blather on about their work, but they do it as a cover for their own crippling imposter syndrome.
If your work is actually good, it doesn't have to ve justified.

>>4533648
>began talking about his planes, and how he had the smallest one that exists (in commercial production, anyway).
Foxbat? I trained in one and somewhat recall my CFI saying it was the smallest engine prop plane they could buy.
>If your work is actually good, it doesn't have to ve justified.
Correct. I do like actually engaging with them about their craft though, and not so much about the tools of their trade.

>>4533648
a violin maker isn't an artist. He's a craftsman

>>4533464
This is completely retarded. Capturing reality is an art too, and a different discipline from what you call "artful" photography - but still art. It also takes skill to be good at it.
The truth that you don't want to accept is that the skill floor in photograph is REALLY low. Lower than any other art, in fact. A 5-year-old's shitty finger painting and crayon scribbling is still art no matter how much you try to cope.
It's NOT the process. It's the tool. Photograph - Ancient Greek, "light drawing". The capture & recording of light with a tool (light-sensitive film, or a digital sensor, in most cases). An AI image generator ISN'T that and thus fundamentally CAN'T produce a photograph. Like how a hammer CAN'T drive a screw (although, with determination, you can pound a screw into wood with a hammer as if it were a nail, in which case it will serve poorly by the standards of both nails and screws - much as an AI algorithm can pound data into the shape of a photograph, which will likewise serve poorly by the standards of both data and photography).
If you truly do believe anyone can make art, stop trying to exclude artists from the title entirely just for practising different disciplines. You can call their art shit, you can say you hate their discipline and that it's low effort and uninspiring, but if it's still art - which a snapshit is, as much as you might not like it - then you can't just call it non-art. That's factually wrong.

>>4533487
>>4533661
Trade & craft are applied art. Try again.

>>4533854
>This is completely retarded.
no

>Capturing reality is an art
You are completely missing the point. Yes, you can make art with the intent of capturing reality. No, raising your camera and mindlessly shooting is not art. The difference lies in intent.

>The truth
according to an unhinged online troll

>you don't want to accept is that the skill floor in photograph is REALLY low.
There is no skill floor to making art. There is a skill floor of course when you start wanting to make ambitious stuff and compare yourself to other and sell it.

>A 5-year-old's shitty finger painting and crayon scribbling is still art
I agree, mostly, I could sew the argument being made that if he mindlessly scribbled the page, it's not art.

>It's NOT the process. It's the tool.
It's hilarious how someone can be so angry and certain they are right while spouting the most controversial and intangible belief. Alright then humor me, list all the tools that make an object art. You said finger painting, so paint, and maybe finger? What else?

>Photograph - Ancient Greek, "light drawing". The capture & recording of light with a tool (light-sensitive film, or a digital sensor, in most cases).
Fuck, you're so smart. I think I just came a little.

>An AI image generator ISN'T that
Yeah I know, my point was that if done well we cannot distinguish one from another. In this case the difference becomes the process.

>Like how a hammer CAN'T
I just love how you caps your words like that. I think it's a sign of a great mind.

>although, with determination, you can pound a screw into wood with a hammer as if it were a nail
Ok, so it CAN'T but actually it CAN? How is that different from the AI? Help us understand anon, not everyone has your intellect.

>If you truly do believe anyone can make art
I do, I genuinely do. What I don't believe, is that anything is art. It's interesting how it makes some people so angry.

>>4533857
cont

>>4533854
>stop trying to exclude artists
Ok that is mildly frustrating, because I'm being accused of something I did not do, and that you are actively doing. I did not exclude anyone. I just didn't get the impression that "Taking a few thousands pics of the things around you" was doing art.

You are the one who exclude artists.

There is many artists who use no tool to makw art. For example this guy whose art was a pile of candy that visitors where incentivized to eat as an allegory for everyone taking a piece of his deceased companion or something. By saying art is defined by the tools, you are the gatekeeper of art. When you are done making your list of what tools make art, there will be a thousand artists who don't use them, and that you won't consider artist as a result.

>You can call their art shit, you can say you hate their discipline and that it's low effort and uninspiring, but if it's still art
So yeah again you're the one saying some works are not art by deciding art must be done according to a finite set of tools.

Anyway don't sweat it, I don't expect a raging sperg to have a rational discussion with me, I'm just using you to clarify my position because I don't want people to feel like I am dissing their photography practice. I was trying to give advices to make photography fulfilling for people who lost the spark.

File: kent_staubus_wet_plate_at(...).jpg (1.49 MB, 1800x1350)

1.49 MB JPG

>>4533640
Sounds like he's based.

Photography isn't really an art, and hasn't been for a while. Once mass produced film rolled in what middle class art there was bled from photography's carotid and 1hr photo labs sealed the deal before digital was even a thought. Now the real art is a meta over photography, the presentation, marketing, and spin given to MERE photographs. You can only break from this if you truly break from MERE PHOTOGRAPHY.

>>4533644
It's journalistic. Documentary honestly represents reality. Journalists distort reality to present their desired narrative. Honest photography is called an expensive snapshit. Everything you like is journalism.

And it's not comparable to painting. Painting is inherently art. Photography is not. Even at its best, even at its most gravid with the impregnations of the human soul's desires, photography is still just preserving something that was already there.

There is no art IN photography. There is art INVOLVING photography. You can not make art by aligning a camera and pressing a button once. Not even if your shutter speed is too slow or your aperture is too open. You have to at least press the button twice to make some low tier art.

Sorry if you got into this expecting to be "an artist" and gain some sense of status/value from that but it aint happening chief. Photography is only inherently art after much pilpul, but then you stand up, return to real life, look at a photograph next to a painting, and it's just not art, it's a small part that can be assembled into art. It's not a painting. It is at its best an intentionally mixed pool of pigment that has yet to meet canvas.

>>4533870
>It's journalistic.
According to your own defintion of "journalistic" that nobody shares.

>Bunch of contrarian, unsubstantiated claims about what is art and what is not
Ok cool opinion which you had arguments behind it but that's alright.

>There is no art IN photography. There is art INVOLVING photography.
I agree. But you could replace "photography" by "painting" In the sentence and it would still be true. Or are you unironically believing that anything that's painted is art?

>You can not make art by aligning a camera and pressing a button once.
According to... who again?

>Sorry if you got into this expecting to be "an artist" and gain some sense of status/value from that but it aint happening chief.
It is currently happening all over the world. You might be surprised to learn your edgy opinions actually have no power outside of your own head. Enjoy your power trip though hope it feels nice.

>return to real life
Brother you are worrying me. You're taking a position that is in contradiction with the entirety of the current art world, Are you seriously demented enough to believe "real life" agrees with you when every city has several art photography galleries?

I won't answer any further, because if you're denying the basic reality that photography is considered an art by basically every art institution that exist nowadays, then you need psychiatry not logical arguments.

>>4533881
Holy fucking shit, you are stupid. Your entire argument is a false equivalence and an appeal to authority.

Photography is not inherently art.
Art is above photography.
When institutions say photography is art they mean it in this fashion, because as artistic institutions, they do not speak literally. It should be obvious. Photography is not art. It is something that can be made into art.

Painting is ALWAYS art. It is inherently art. Music is ALWAYS art. It is inherently art.

Photography is not. Photography is lower even than writing. All writing is the product of the human mind even if not art. Photography is a machine recording an image and all you do is line it up and press a button.

File: OA025719_b.jpg (2.05 MB, 3142x4093)

2.05 MB JPG

>>4530530
>How come no one posts here?
I got banned all the time so I stopped visiting daily. Now I visit every few weeks to see how dead this shithole has become lol

>>4533883
oh shit that's a nice photo

>>4533640
>Yeah. I get it, you like your tools (and fucking around with his Z9 was kinda fun). but it feels like most discussion gets redirected to the gear.
faggy artsy emo faggot discovers that craftsmen care about tools
wow

File: Screenshot_20261010_170017.jpg (128 KB, 930x509)

128 KB JPG

>>4533882
>Painting is ALWAYS art.
Behold, art

>>4533886
to clarify I meant the painted wall itself, because it is painted so it's art, not the photo of the painted wall, that cannot be art since photo is not art

>>4533858
>By saying art is defined by the tools, you are the gatekeeper of art.
Disingenuous.
1. I'm talking about photography, not sculpture.
2. The "tool" in sculpture can just as easily be your own two hands, if the material you're working with permits it. See: pottery. I'm still right.
3. It doesn't matter if YOU can't tell the difference, an AI image fundamentally IS different from a photograph because it's not capturing photons. Whether the two are immediately distinguishable at a glance is immaterial.
>Ok that is mildly frustrating, because I'm being accused of something I did not do, and that you are actively doing
You are delusional.
Ignored the rest of your wall of text. Stop excluding artists based on arbitrary criteria just because you don't like their shit. Call them bad artists if you must, non-artist is a bridge too far.

>>4533892
>I don't understand what you mean because I can't read
ok?

>>4533882
>thinks camera operation is all that photography is.
The camera is a tool like a paintbrush is a tool.

>>4533886
Thats not what he meant by painting esl

>>4533892
Gatekeeping is good anyways

Gatekeeping is also known as
Quality Control

>>4533923
Its obviously not possible to compare photography (not art in itself) to painting (by definition, making art with paint). Paintbrushes are used to create things from thoughts. Cameras are machines that reproduce things that already existed. You can create art in front of a camera or create art from a camera’s output but using a camera itself can never be art. A single photo of something that already existed, something a human being did not create, is not art, not unless you create art using it as base materials.

“Being a photographer” is not “being am artist” and never will be. Art requires creation. A single garry winogrand photo is not art. A sooc jpeg or as developed slide no matter how technically good is not art. A garry winogrand photobook or exposition is art. Ansel adams painting in the desired lighting in the darkroom is art.

>>4533932
No shit bro. Photography is the entire process from inception to print. It is either extremely stupid or very dishonest to not recognize this.

>>4533855
no they aren't. Putting up drywall isn't art

>>4533855
>the state of streetfags
k3k
>>4533932
>A garry winogrand photobook or exposition is art.
It's an exposition or photobook of non-art, it's dishonest hackery. But it's true compiling those is closer to art than his photography will ever be.

>>4533661
Well it depends on the violin, just like with any musical instrument. They can be art, but don't have to. Just like photography.
Take the absolutely ridiculous basses they make for Les Claypool, they're art of the ugly kind but art nevertheless. There's a creative vision (shit taste) behind them.

File: winomeme.jpg (741 KB, 2700x1870)

741 KB JPG

>>4534250
But you don't understand anon!!! This is ART!!! It tells a STORY!!! of--- of Something!!!

File: k3k.png (48 KB, 155x138)

48 KB PNG

>>4534252
I actually proved a while ago that doing Winogrand's "art" is trivially easy and explained how. People just called me a nophoto as usual and refused to acknowledge. Pic related.
I think the desperation to call anything art comes from the misconception that all art has artistic merit. By being loose with the definitions they can call themselves artists which to them is some sort of accomplishment in itself.
They think pressing a button is art, it's really pathetic.

>>4534254
I never saved the "pressed the button award" basedjack but hot shit if it doesn't apply to 99.5% of what's posted otb

File: dude art lmao 2.jpg (447 KB, 1000x667)

447 KB JPG

>>4534255
The funniest thing is when they demand people attach photos to conversations that they're not relevant to. Back when I did this some other guy joined me in proving Moriyama's photography is bullshit too and he too produced some similar results. I remember he edited in Luminar.

>>4534254
>I actually proved a while ago that doing Winogrand's "art" is trivially easy and explained how
Paste it here if you can, that sounds hilarious. I've never liked his stuff. Or the stuff of most "street photographers" in general.

File: dude art lmao.jpg (367 KB, 1080x720)

367 KB JPG

>>4534256
https://archived.moe/p/thread/4130784/#4139110
Found it k3k
>>4534257
https://archived.moe/p/thread/4102505/#4102691
/p/ was trying to gaslight me into thinking picrel was good when it's a garbage snapshit I took and developed in black and white with some grain added
streetcuckery, not even once

>>4534250
If Garry Winogrand were named Garhelm Wolfenkreutz and had blonde hair and blue eyes, but had the same career, you would think he was awesome.

>>4534259
You did not tell the dog to sit. Obviously not art.

>>4534259
Given your comment history, you owning a big manly german shepherd is highly concerning.

File: American_Photographs_27_c(...).jpg (268 KB, 1080x662)

268 KB JPG

>>4534262
I wouldn't, but we wouldn't know about him either.
The only reason Winogrand's garbage gets promoted is him being part of the clique. Same with most of them. Same with those dull shots from Vivian Maier but some of them actually have some artistic intent (just like some rare Winogrands like the one with his kids). Most are snapshits. Some of them chosen for their similarity to existing stuff like this unimportant Walker Evans photo.

>>4534263
k3k

>>4534265
Not my dog, just some random dog. Stay predictable though, I got the same type of dumb comment on the photo last year.

>>4534267
>there was a,,, uh,,, a story,,, about,,, i mean!! you SEE them looking at you?? with that LOOk on their faces?? and the truck blurring because of the shutter speed the photographer chose??
>DUDE,, there's a lot of MEANING HERE... we gotta unpack this... I mean with the FACES and the BLURRING TRUCK. It's just so deep. What a STORY this guy told here. Just an Amazing storyteller. So much said here in this pic, so much raw emotion......

File: winogrand_coupleinacar_1964.jpg (94 KB, 640x431)

94 KB JPG

>>4534269
It's hilarious how much of the typical streetfag readings of photos is explained by them trying to save face and not be the dumb guy in the gallery. They're like the people in the crowd praising the emperor's new clothes to each other.
However, I will say that the Evans photo at least has aesthetic merit. Winogrand's just ugly, pic related.

File: Still life (Glass and ref(...).jpg (56 KB, 411x559)

56 KB JPG

>>4534271
I mean, that's basically it. The "respectable institutions" (read: Jewish/communist establishment) -insist- that someone is an amazing artist to all their midwit readers. Then since they are the "authorities" on art you are branded uncultured if you actually stick to "old-fashioned" and "outdated" notions of what good art is.
Myself I would say these recent examples of "street photography" are art though of little to no merit and worst of all of no moral value - for all the critics' love of "story" these pics are mostly depressing ugly and meaningless.
Mediocre and ugly are considered what art should always strive to be now. For photography, painting, anything.

>>4534271
>don't you see the... uh... story with the nose bandage... like he got into a fistfight... so deep... ahhh

>>4534275
>RIGHT BRO, THAT'S WHAT IT'S ALL ABOUT AFTER ALL. . WE ARE STORY TELLERS WITH OUR CAMERAS. EVERY GOOD PICTURE IS ABOUT STORY. THAT'S ALL THERE IS TO IT.

>>4534274
Same thing as with actresses they shill as the most attractive, it's basically a psyop. Now it's Sydney Sweeney with her dysgenic tardface but there was worse before like Jennifer Lawrence. And in then end there's always a switch into turning things extra kosher, now Sweeney is allegedly on the way to converting to judaism because of her boyfriend. JLaw was into kabbalah if I recall and involved with that plagiarist hack Aronofsky who directed her.

>>4533870
If it's not art then it's not photography, it's mere imaging.
>Documentary honestly represents reality
Misconception, most documentary actively distorts it.
>There is no art IN photography. There is art INVOLVING photography. You can not make art by aligning a camera and pressing a button once. Not even if your shutter speed is too slow or your aperture is too open. You have to at least press the button twice to make some low tier art.
If there is actual artistic intent then it can be art right at the capture. It's a subtle distinction but it's true pressing a button isn't art. There has to be an intent to realize a certain vision. Whether that intent is manifested through camera settings, filters, lighting, mise en scene, in development or some other way it matters little.

Do people ITT seriously not understand narrative in photography? No wonder people can't seem to understand photography as art.

File: the-afghan-girl--sharbat-(...).jpg (1.46 MB, 1581x2268)

1.46 MB JPG

>>4534281
>>4534275
>>4534269
>>4534274
Literally no different from picrel.
>IT TELLS...A STORY! JUST IMAGINE THE STORY DUDE!
You're simply slowly coming to the realization that a photo itself isn't art. It's just a cool picture, and we as a culture never should have justified giving producers of mere "photos themselves" the status of artists. Framing and exposure aren't enough for the activity to cross into an act of creation any more than deciding to place a brick horizontally or vertically is. If you carved something into the brick or built a design by placing many bricks one way or another then we can talk.

99.9% of photography is just recording cool shit. Setting a brick down and calling it done. "Today I saw this middle eastern girl with crazy eyes" "today I saw a tough looking foreigner driving a convertible with his wife".

FFS, if ansel adams worked today, he wouldn't even be called an artist by any reasonable person. No one would denigrate art by calling someone taking photos of rocks and leaves messing with masks and exposure values in lightroom art. He was called an artist at the time because it was rare for pre-google mankind to even know how to use a camera and people were impressed by his knowledge, and moreso, impressed by the very fact that photography was a thing. There are a million ansel adams on flickr today and none receive recognition because none deserve it and never really did. Meanwhile burtynsky is just a climate activist with a camera and some friends with helicopters, and he rakes in millions, just because that layer of activism on top of "photos of things" does more to cross from reproduction to creation... even if he's just creating propaganda (which tbf is a form of art).
>well, he made sure all the bricks had the right tonal range for the overall wall color he was going for. he had intent!
>mate... it's just a well made brick wall.

>>4534469
Damn bro speak for yourself and your own failings... Oh wait...

File: gbdslop.png (2.24 MB, 1254x1254)

2.24 MB PNG

>>4530530
Just got into film photography, surprised 4chan has a board for it.
Not surprised to see that its dead, mainly in part to CanoNiggers.

REAL NIKON NIGGA ROLL CALL
>REAL NIKON NIGGA ROLL CALL
REAL NIKON NIGGA ROLL CALL
>REAL NIKON NIGGA ROLL CALL
REAL NIKON NIGGA ROLL CALL
>REAL NIKON NIGGA ROLL CALL

>>4533882
AI generated images are ALWAYS art. It is inherently art.

Everything you type is not. You are lower even than a nigger. All your posts are the product of your talentless mind even if not shart. Photography is when my 3000$ Nikon records an image of your mother after I fucked her.

>>4530636
A CAMERA TEST JUST FLEW OVER MY HOUSE!

MY LITTLE BROTHER TOOK THE PHOTOS!

MY MISTRESS HAD ME IN HANDCUFFS AND BLINDFOLDED WHEN I TOOK THE PHOTOS!

THE SENSOR WAS HAVING A MENTAL BREAKDOWN!

THE SD CARD WAS RUNNING WINDOWS VISTA!

THE AUTOFOCUS LOCKED ON A DIFFERENT DIMENSION!

I SHOT IN RAW BUT THE FILES CAME OUT EMOTIONALLY JPEG!

THE CAMERA WAS STILL DOWNLOADING THE CONCEPT OF LIGHT!

THE SHUTTER SPEED WAS SUBJECT TO FRENCH LABOR LAW!

THE IMAGE STABILIZATION MADE THE PHOTO LESS STABLE!

THE SENSOR HAD 45 MEGAPIXELS BUT ONLY 12 WERE EMPLOYED!

I FORGOT TO REMOVE THE VIEWFINDER PROTECTIVE FILM!

THE PHOTO WAS PERFECT UNTIL I OPENED LIGHTROOM!

THE PHOTOGRAPHER WAS A COMPLETE FUCKING LIABILITY!

HERES YOUR (YOU) NIGGER!

>>4534478
Not an argument

the whole of photography is connections. i have seen worse shit than /rpt/ win awards. actual art is extremely rare.

>>4534524
Why would I waste my time arguing against your dumb ass opinion?

>>4534533
Wrong kek. I was just making fun of your retarded ramblings.

File: DSCF2218.jpg (2.52 MB, 5819x3879)

2.52 MB JPG

The only way photography can be art is if it's of dogs or eggs.

>>4534548
Only if the dogs are doing sexy poses, of course!

>>4534560
May G-d have mercy on your spirit

>>4534548
Imagine being in love with a fucking dog

>>4534570
YOU imagine
>I live it

>>4534570
Put your trip back on cinefag

>>4534570
Yeah you'd rather just fuck it and not love it right

It's because any thread devolves into gearfaggotry