>>3407577If you're proud about these instagrammers, why don't you simply repost these to tumblr or make a blog about them?
Ignoring the /pol/ debate, none of these photos have EXIF data related to the actual photography itself. I cannot tell what what lens or camera gear was used or what settings in order to achieve these photos. There's nothing I can learn on that facet.
What cameras were you using? Any thoughts on brand quality? What lenses were used? Were they prime or telefocals? What challenges did you face getting these shots? Were the people nice or did you have to sneak up on them?
None of this information is given, except for everything else no-one wants to hear on /p/.
Putting aside if they are even objectively or subjectively "good" or "bad" photos, there is nothing else to debate about the photography other than the lighting and framing, which let's be honest, hardly seemed like much thought went into it. ie, Too often subject is sitting in a shadow without adequate lighting contrast to highlight their face or skin or clothes, and leading lines/bright spots are all over the place and never bring the viewers eyes where they should be looking first.
This whole thread survives on an argument that has very little related to /p/ itself, but more with /pol/. Why not post your images into the Recent Photo Thread and ask for advice/critique instead of automatically going on about racial ideology? I can appreciate a good photo that is framed well, properly lit, tells a story, and has EXIF, so for me the subject matter could be a pile of dogshit on a silver platter for all I care, as long as it revolves around /p/.
This thread delivers none of that, hence, does not belong on /p/ the way it has been presented here.
>inb4 ad hominem retort 