>>3716908>Being so fragile when constructively criticised that you would attack someone else based on the fact that they haven't shown you a photo of theirs.You haven't actually been talking to the guy who took the original photo (and, therefore, the guy who was constructively(?) criticized). My only response since then has been
>>3716847where I pointed out that I didn't actually shoot it wide open, so the criticism that I shot it wide open just for the sake of shooting it wide open wasn't actually a valid critique.
Saying that it would look better with more depth of field is potentially valid critique, but I'd wager the author of
>>3716752 wasn't trying to provide constructive criticism but was just irrationally angry that someone said they liked my photo.
(And, I mean, based on my experience with 4chan, I actually suspect that
>>3716732 was saying it more to be a dick about all of the other photos in the thread than to say something nice about my photo)
>>3716908> autists bitching about the fact that I use Sony and shoot males more than females.The pictures of men in this thread have gotten pretty good reception, and the closest thing I can recall in this thread to a complaint about gear is the one guy who said
>Another portrait thread where all the best shots are on filmSo, why not contribute?
