I'd like to post some of the stuff I shot over the years to get some feedback. I'll go trough some analog stuff shot on point and shoot first, fujica stx-1 and then some digital. (I'll provide model for film and camera if I can recall it). Personally I'm almost never happy with the framing and often I need to adjust/distort in post to get satisfaction. Also one constant observation I made is that it would have been better to move closer to subject, and yet I still fail to do that too often. First pic: Kodak 200, minolta zoom 80
>>4536755Feels like a bit too much of the columns, maybe it'd work better in landscape orientation (or even the dreaded square!). Maybe steeping closer would have been the right call. Cool idea nevertheless.
Roman temple ruins in MacedoniaCheap disposable 35mm (kodak? fuji? can't remember). Athough I have better pics on this roll this -would have been- my favourite had I managed to center it properly. Also I haven't posted on 4chan in ten years and the captcha is a whiplash.
>>4536755Please ignore this retard >>4536756. He doesn't even own a camera. His opinions are worthless.
>>4536757>Cheap disposable 35mm (kodak? fuji? can't remember).Somewhere on the coast of Croatia.Sadly the rest has similar vibes but it's not particularly interesting.
Olimpus mju2 zoom 120, kodak 200 (possibly expired) This camera has some parasitic light, I did not mind it at the beginning and I thought I fixed it by covering the roll label window on the back. But I've seen it's actually getting worse with use so I suspect it might be the seals of the lens body
>>4536758So are 95% of the pictures I shoot desu
>>4536755Pretty cool. Issues could be, the right pillar is way too distracting due to having a colder white balance than the rest of the picture, the sky is blown out, and I would darkened the part of the landscape that contains the road to make it more apparent.>>4536757This is a mess. It's very challenging to understand what i'm looking at due to those bright chaotic lights.>>4536760I think this pic is about as good as it could. 50mm might have helped to give emphasis to the motorcycles.Thanks for the photo thread, next time try to make series with more photos, it's good practice.
>>4536761Olimpus mju2 zoom 120, kodak 200 (definitely expired and dirty)It's either the leak getting worse or just the film.
>>4536763>This is a mess. It's very challenging to understand what i'm looking at due to those bright chaotic lightsI understand, I hardly think it's salvageable but maybe a more balanced lighting is more fitting?With the price of film and development I think I'll keep the practice on digital. I take this as a bit of gambling with used cameras and expired films
Kodak 200, minolta zoom 80
>>4536763>the sky is blown outYes, skies in real life often are.
>>4536756I'll post 6 crop ideas
>>4536755
Olympus omd em-10 lumix 20mmI'll post some digital shots in a few hours.
They were 5 in the end
>>4536772the best but a bit too much is left at the top
>>4536764You really need to stay conscious of how the objects in your photo are interacting with the edge of the frame. This, the Roman temple photo, hell, even >>4536761 is a good example because of the tree to the side. Is there something wrong with the viewfinder on that camera you used for these shots? The effect is the shots appear hasty and messy.
>>4536779I thought the negative space was a good thing, also the lines almost align with the diagonals of the frame.
>>4536767This is also a good example. Look how the man on the left is shoved right up against the edge of the frame while on the right is a blank wall. Just one step to the left could have given the view of the entire room some breathing room.
>>4536757The only bad thing about this one is that it's blurry imoThe shadows and lights make you do double takes which is a good thing
>>4536775Again, same problem: you cut off part of the aurora to show more of the dim foreground? Do I need to explain to you why that's an inefficient use of your limited space? I don't think I do, just be more conscious of what's going on at the edge of the frame, because more often than not it's cutting off an object that's part of your composition or even your subject itself, like here with the aurora.
>>4536784I like it despite the cutting
>pngThe mark of the retarded nophoto
>>4536788Lossless, no EXIF to worry about clearing, triggers stalker faggots, I say it's a based format. Maybe you got lost on your way to posting your JPEG2000 glitches to the deepfried reddit
>>4536780>>4536782>>4536784The olympus mju actually as a funky viewfinder where you need to use a cropped guideline to shoot past a certain zoom, the other one however does not and I can assume that's the image in the viewfinder is too small for me. But I think I focus mostly on aligning geometries with structure and more "notable" lines like the horizon and that distract me from details like the man almost cropped on the edge. For the mother/child pic you're referring to the intrusive feets? I just prioritized centering the subject. Not sure what you mean with the tree in the other picture?And for the aurora yeah I actually wanted the vast empty space to emphasize the isolation of the cabin in the lights. Although I can see that a cropped cabin + aurora would also work I don't like much having the subject in the dead center, specially for landscapes. I also noticed a lot that I have a bias for the bottom right third in my photos.
>>4536789PNG is for simple graphics like icons or parts computer interface. Can be good for screenshots.JPEG is for photographs and other complex graphics with lots of color.>EXIFNobody gives a fuck about you, schizo.
>>4536797JPEG is good for saving space. I wanted to not alter OP's photo beyond the crop.
>>4536777>>4536772Yeah I actually like these.
You are far better than 99% of the shitters on this board.These could have been pretty great, if not for the missed focus and motion blur:>>4536764>>4536761>>4536760>>4536766
>>4536755Good photos but you need a better camera. I like the OP image without any crop.
>>4536755Well, I quite like this one. I think cropping it would take away the charm. This is my favorite.>>4536757It is blurry, but not to the point that it ruins it, but it is a shame because if it wasn't so blurry, this would be my favorite. The more balanced lighting of the other version, again, kills the charm, and there it does suddenly seem like a mess.>>4536775This is good too. I think you could mess with the colors to make it better, but that's a matter of taste.>>4536761This one is hard for me to look at. The shadow from the post is distracting, and so are the road markings. The building feels awkwardly offset, and the tree seems like it should be much closer to the edge. The road, the sky, and the area about the building aren't interesting enough in their own right to warrant so much space, nor do they serve to frame the subject, but just make it seem awkward and out of place, in a visual rather than conceptual way (which the road signs or the stoplight would have done just fine). I just wonder why you didn't take it from the other side of the road. >>4536764The intrusive feet really do fuck this one.
>>4536796>For the mother/child pic you're referring to the intrusive feets?No, but that's also bad. No, I was referring to the way the empty bench at the top of the frame is cut off.
>>4536805I thought the worst part was the voyeurism
>>4536763Meanwhile, what a really blown out sky looks like (EOS RP): >>4535883Not saying "blown out sky" is a valid criticism either, it can be a valid artistic choice. Zone X is there to be used. But OP's sky here never becomes pure white. It's close to blowing but not blown.
>>4536812You are seething so hard at the EOS RP it makes me want to buy oneIf a colossal idiot furfag hates it, it must be based and sovlfulinb4 you reply and keep seething
>>4536812You're like, an actual idiot you know that? If anything the pure white sky adds to the photo. I guess I can't blame you, since you've never actually taken one before. You're like someone who learnt a language by reading textbooks but never practicing speech. You make the general sounds, but nothing you say can be understood by normal people.>>4536844I keep seeing RPs go for $500-600 AUD which is an absolute steal. You literally just need any one of the 24>50mm primes and you're basically set with a kit that's better than 90% of cameras being used.
>>4536850It's more like an LLM that gives hiking advice despite not having legs, skin, bones, muscles, etcIt just parrots random bullshit it doesn't actually know is correct or not>i read it on reddit -nophoto's personality
>>4536812It's sad how you can't help but carry your issues into someone else's thread. For the record - in my sand photo, I intentionally pushed the sky to isolate and showcase the dunes.
>>4536859I said it's a valid artistic choice but that it simultaneously shows the limits of the RP. Personally I'd have left the sky on zone IX to have some texture (especially on print), but that's MY vision and it's YOUR photograph so YOU call the shots. I wasn't ripping on your photography but on the RP.>>4536844>>4536850Go ahead, get mogged by a quarter frame Panasonic effortlessly.EOS RP would be the worst FF mirrorless if Sony cameras with their baby mount and garbage construction didn't exist. You get better image quality from any of the DIGIC 7 APS-C models than the RP. Even the itty bitty kitty special 200D (pic unrelated).
>>4536869that's a lot of words for someone who doesn't even do photography
>>4536871https://passage.press/products/passage-prize-volume-ii-rewilding-paperback-editionBuy my photos anon.
>>4536875Amazing how this creature cant post a photo but can beg people to give money to some lame alt lite publisher
>>4536880>begI didn't say please.You must submit.
>>4536880He does it while knowing that his contributions won't be recognized. He does it just so he can claim that he "technically" released his photos - it's textbook pilpul.
>>4536812Please don't talk to me. I don't respect you.
>>4536888There's not much photography, it wasn't merely a photography contest but a visual arts one. My photography wasn't just deemed worthy of publication, it was recognized as the art it is. Would you recognize it as art? Only inwardly if you have the required sensibilities to do so, your ego would impede any outward recognition.
>>4536889Who the fuck are you? If you don't want me to talk to you perhaps you shouldn't talk to me.
>>4536891Years of this self-aggrandizing drivel, and still no willingness to justify it. This isn't the first time you've pointed towards this collection, and it was just as meaningless then. Your narcissism is absolutely tiresome.>>4536892>If you don't want to talk to me......then it's time for you to finally fucking leave. I truly mean it when I say that I wouldn't lose sleep if you killed yourself.
>cANON ruins another thread with his autism.Mods please ban this pest. I beg you.
>>4536897You'd probably gloat if you were able to find out. On the contrary I could never even possibly find out because you're just an anon. So at best you'd be one of the unknown souls in a prayer.
>>4536898I provided thoughtful constructive critique, the other anons are just trolling outside of /b/. For all the talk about rules you people surely love breaking the global rules of the site namely 3, 4, 6, 8, 11 and 13 (hi JBER glowie!).
>>4536953I want you to leave. You're fucked in the head and you won't give up. You have done NOTHING but make this place worse and drive people away.JUST FUCKING LEAVE. ENOUGH OF THE BULLSHIT EXCUSES.
>>4536955If you want to troll I suggest you use >>>/b/
>>4536955Also begging like you're doing right now violates rule 11
>>4536955Everyone wants him (and cinefag) to leave but the only way it ever happens is if everyone stop answering to him.
>>4537022They're the only reason I even bother coming to /p/ anymore
>>4537088Well you can leave to too
>>4537088Based>>4537097>mfw
>>4537088Put your trip back on
>>4536766yeah it's better.>With the price of film and development I think I'll keep the practice on digital.Reasonable. I think film is actually better for practice but if you don't have your own scanning rig it's not worth it.I posted my original comments thinking there was only 3 pics. I think you have some potential OP. I see you like to have some kind of warm minimalism. As always having a cohesive project would help you progress.>>4536764I think this is an excellent photo.The color work together, this yellow floor really fits while also being somewhat of an oddity that brings a bit of interest. What makes the photo great is the posture and visibility of the subjects, it's immediately clear there is a lot of caring in this embrace. This is emphasized by their isolation in the frame, although the presence of people is suggested through shadows and the legs on the right. This all works together very well to express a moment where those two persons are together, surrounded but isolated from the crowd. I also think looking from above erases the photographer and allows strong focus on the subjects. It would be better without the light leak though.>>4536775cool but quite empty and unoriginal>>4536762I think the bush with red flowers is what was interesting here>>4536761Nice clouds.>>4536771>Skies in reality are often blinding white spacesno? get your eyes checked maybe?
>>4537111cont.Also I disagree with this anon kinda:>>4536782>>4536780>>4536805I agree you should be mindful of what is in your frame and that the edges are especially important because something cut off the gets a lot of attention brought to it. What I disagree with, is this systematic idea that the edges should have no cut off objects. In my opinion the cut off feets in this picture bring balance and emphasize the isolation of the main subjects >>4536764. And when it comes to the cut off bench, it does not matter at all. The main subject in this frame is very clear. This is not a landscape photo. This is a photo about a mother embracing their child. You don't need to have a damn bench fully into frame. Intent over strict rules. Also about the "blown out skies" comment, I don't think it's an absolute requirement every sky has perfect dynamic range. But in this photo, the stare is clearly framed by the columns and led to those mountains by the roads. The sky is not entirely blown out but there is a strong haze; when the sky is your main subject, some more details never hurt. It's also clear it's a limitation of the film that had enough range to resolve the lower luminosity of the foreground but struggle at the background, while the focus of the photo is clearly the background. It makes 0 sense to argue such a mechanical failure makes sense here.
>>4536766When I was an utter noob what I did was shoot a compact digital on equivalent settings to my film body to know where the exposure would fall and not waste precious exposures.
>>4537022Hi Tim!
>>4536755nikon f2, trimax 400home developed in hc110 1:31 in my sink.scanned in with an a7 and downscaled to be here
>>4537191You mean TMax, right?Based choice unlike the Tri-X crutch.
>>4537194i can't lie to you, i forget which is which as soon as i put them in the back. im almost certain photo 1 is tmax and this one is tri-x.no difference in development, but i really think i nailed the exposure and framing on that first shot
