/p/ - Photography » Searching for posts that contain ‘saying for years’.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 12 Apr 2023 19:45:53 No.4165840 View View Report

Quoted By:

>>4165834
I don't know if you even realized, but you are agreeing with me. You disagree with me by saying basing reality on what you experience with your limited array of sensors is narrow-minded. Then, logically, it must follow, that the average film digital camera can also not experience reality based on it's own limited array of sensors. Thus, there is no way for either film nor digital cameras to tangibly reproduce an image of anything that 'actually' happened.

Also:
>Keeping track of your 'predictions' from threads on an underwater basket weaving forum from over 4 years ago
>Scouring the archive and finding these same predictions and posting them in a thread to, I don't know, impress anonymous photographers?

Jesus man, you live a sad life.

Ambush !!zJbpV0948+w

Ambush !!zJbpV0948+w Wed 12 Apr 2023 19:24:41 No.4165834 View View Report

Quoted By: >>4165840

Basing reality on what you experience with your limited array of sensors is very narrow-minded. What a camera detects is no more or less "real" than what your eyes and brain do. It's a matter of perception and all animals perceive things differently.

No matter how connected you feel on any medium, remember: You don't make photons, you take them.

Sound doesn't even exist... only vibrations. That movement is picked up by specialized instruments in your body and converted into electrical signals your brain can measure. Hearing is a biological creation; without ears and brains there is no "sound". Your stereo does not output sound, it outputs physical movement. We could be completely deaf in the traditional sense and that movement could be interpreted visually if we had the right biology. It's just signal processing.

Also, /pol/ is retarded. Being aware of the systematic dismantling of your culture to have it replaced by a global corporate monoculture does not make you a /pol/tard. Quite the opposite in fact; /pol/ is for reactionaries not thinkers. I've been banned from there multiple times and called crazy for saying things that go mainstream years later. I tried to start discussions about NATO and Ukraine causing tensions with Russia back in 2014 and nobody cared. I started threads taking guesses at which statues they'd tear down and people called me a lunatic. /pol/ is for reacting to the corporate media. It's an echo chamber designed to keep people out of the mainstream circles. It's full of idiots who simply react to current events they never saw coming.

Most of /p/ is the same way but the discussion here is so much lighter that it doesn't matter much:

https://archived.moe/p/thread/3589443/#3589817
https://archived.moe/p/thread/3500634/#3506550

The people who mocked me on YouTube are now freaking out over AI and it's kind of funny. I've been going through my notifications and picking up those old discussions.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 09 Apr 2023 19:46:20 No.4164769 View View Report

Quoted By:

>>4164758
>Was also looking at Nikon Z5, but S5 also has some decent video modes and options and seems more like a jack of all trades type of thing that I'm after to experience as much as possible while learning before figuring out what I really want and specialise in that with my next purchase a few years down the line
If I'm making sense and my idea of thinking about this hobby is right

S5 bundled with 20-60mm and 50mm 1.8 is very cheap here right now, cheaper than S5ii body only and most other FF options, and only slightly more than used Sonys. I don't really want a Sony right now.

>>4164760
>Does that matter to you?
You are correct, I'm thinking it won't bother me. And to answer your question, I didn't really notice CAF problems before watching camera videos.
The one thing about video that might bother me is the inability to punch in while manually focusing. S5ii has this ability. I'm not yet experienced enough to know if this would be a hinderance or annoyance to me so I'm thinking it's not really worth getting S5ii just for that. But I was watching some comparison videos of different youtubers and one mentioned this as well.

>>4164766
Probably correct, but have been interested in video and photography for a while now with my mobile phone. The only reason why x100v was appealing to me is the form factor, the hype, TikTok and lots of videos on Youtube saying how this will make me a good photographer.
The reason why S5 then became appealing to me is that it's more of a jack-of-all-trades camera that I can truly learn on, as opposed to the false hopes spread by youtubers for easy click bait.
My mobile phone can probably do what most cheap old cameras can (except change lenses), but it's not really "fun" to learn on.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 21 Mar 2023 03:54:20 No.4157466 View View Report

Quoted By:

>>4157447
The majority of people buying Sonys are buying them because they are Sonys and they’ll never take advantage of or need half of the shit that’s built into those cameras..

Just wanna point out I’m not a Sony hater I’ve owned a few A7ii , A7C and they are nice cameras. I’m just saying when it comes to overall quality Leica is on a different level and you are getting what you are paying for here. Like I said I’m still using a digital M I got roughly 12 years ago and a film body that’ll last literally forever. There’s not a lot that can go wrong on these cameras it’s photography down to its simplest form. No distractions , always reliable , and learning to use a rangefinder is its own thing and set of skills all together.

There’s a reason why Leica users love there cameras. It’s hard to form a bond with a camera that’s outdated and replaced every 2-4 years on the other hand you buy a M and it’s a reliable tool you’ll be using for decades

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 08 Mar 2023 03:56:44 No.4151530 View View Report

Quoted By:

>>4151522
You don't have to earn a bigger sensor with talent. That's the kind of poorfag cope you hear from the schizo argie from the /mu/ guitar thread.
>you can't spend more than $200 until you're van halen you fucking retard! that's two years of wages for me!

It's like saying you need to be a master before you move on from crayons. What if you just don't like crayons?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 26 Feb 2023 19:50:00 No.4147293 View View Report

Quoted By:

>>4147288
It's a child playing with adobe products problem desu

>>4147283
Sometimes, technology can hold you back from a great photo. You have to work around it. This is a pretty new thing.

For a lifetime, technology did not hold anyone back from a great photo. It was very much cut and dry. You didn't have to worry about computery looking highlights. You did not have to say "for most scenes, well ok not those ones..." the questions were more like "does the camera's shutter speed go high enough for me". Simple! And before anyone noticed, every camera had every shutter speed everyone wanted anyways. No matter what camera you bought, your colors were painstakingly and professionally set to look GOOD before you wound up the shutter and it was common to forego them entirely. Gear wasn't a huge concern beyond "will it work or not" or "bigger cameras take bigger pictures". Simple! No one debated bayer mess vs. xtrans chunks vs. foveon. Black and white resolved finer details with a beautiful silvery look, color was a little lower resolution and the grains weren't as pleasing, that was it. Everyone was on a pretty level playing field. If tommy had a leica, that's ok, you're shooting on the same kodachrome, no one will complain once it's all developed. Gearfags were less common, and mocked. "Watch out for those guys that shoot brick walls, lol".

And then digital hit so we're basically back in the first 30 years of photography, when there were a few more gear concerns and someone would always be walking around with a newer more expensive gizmo that actually did take better photos and someone else will be saying 'well i'm a better photographer because i can work around the limitations fuck you i'm not jealous". Give it another 20 years and people won't even care anymore and there will only be those retards shooting brick walls.

cinefag !CiNE/YT/e6

cinefag !CiNE/YT/e6 Fri 24 Feb 2023 19:18:21 No.4146386 View View Report

Quoted By:

>>4146384
I've been saying it for years, the CFA is what matters. When they started prioritizing noise performance over color it all went to shit, CMOS vs CCD is just a red herring even if sensors do have a sensitivity curve.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO r7r10 buffer.png, 2MiB, 2030x1140

Anonymous Tue 21 Feb 2023 00:14:34 No.4144283 View View Report

Quoted By:

>>4143776
>>4143846
>>4144004
No camera manufactured in the past 10 years is going to have deficient specs in terms of dynamic range of the sensor or other marginal differences, like AF algorithms. I would echo people saying to get an R or RP if you want affordability.

I mean, if you want an R6, why not just save up for one? Used prices took a nosedive since the R6II came out. A quick search on ebay shows that you can get a lightly used R6 body for like $1600, and it does a better job at being an R6 than the R8, make no doubt about that.

PLEASE don't underestimate the lengths Canon will go to gimp their consumer cameras.

>it's an amateur grade R6
No, it is not. It doesn't have IBIS. It doesn't have the normal battery. It has a more flimsy, plasticky body with zero weather sealing. Granted, the R6 itself is a downgraded R5 in terms of build quality, but the R8 is still worse. The R8 might have "animal right or left eye preference switching AF" and Canon might withhold that from the R6's firmware updates like the Japanese Jews they are, but that doesn't mean the R6 has inferior AF tracking. As long as the R8 doesn't have quad-pixel AF, then it's still going to fail to lock on focus in the exact same ways that the R6 fails. The R6 also has basically an unlimited buffer. That's one of the typical ways Canon gimps these cameras and they NEVER state the buffer capacity in their specs, but I bet the R8 is just as bad as the R7 and R10. Probably microscopic.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 17 Feb 2023 20:47:01 No.4142679 View View Report

Quoted By:

>>4142676
Didn't know 90 percent of the industry is all running around with phase one backs and their medium format cameras shooting only pro work.

Come on man stop saying stupid ridiculous shit. I'm making a good living just doing headshots for people and baptisms/maternity photos.

We all wanna do high end fashion work but you have to do alot of coke and go to the industry parties. Unless your some rich kid or wanna live like a hobo for 6 years it's not worth it

cinefag !CiNE/YT/e6

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Copenhagen-Cowboy.jpg, 25KiB, 590x350

cinefag !CiNE/YT/e6 Thu 16 Feb 2023 15:13:27 No.4141969 View View Report

Quoted By:

>>4141148
Based and Faulknerpilled post.
>>4141149
>Art is a quality inherent to, not granted to, something.
I've been saying this for years, and so have Stuckists. "Art" that has to be displayed in a gallery to be "art" isn't art. If it didn't take an ounce of creative intent to be made, if it was TAKEN it's not art, period.
>>4141257
>I agree, but the problem is photographic superiority of cinema died in the 90's if not earlier
Wrong, just look at Copenhagen Cowboy for an easy example.
>modern shit is filmed on digital and just looks like aids
It really depends, there's digital photographic masterpieces and film stinkers just like there has been since the introduction of digital. Digital makes shooting cheaper so people reach for the high sensitivity crutch and then the photography suffers, but it's more of a digitally-enabled thing than a fault of digital itself.
>>4141262
This tbqavhwy familia
>>4141284
Let me guess, you ^could* do better?
>>4141364
Have you tried watching cerebral cinema? With photography the message is often more obvious but it has the pretense of being up to the viewer.
>>4141506
But it is. It's photography taken to its fullest potential. It is truly tridimensional, against the bidimensionality of still photography.
>>4141649
Fucking based, specially regarding the untruth of documentary making.
>Hell or High Water
Kino

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 08 Feb 2023 20:46:32 No.4137829 View View Report

Quoted By:

>>4137818
>the rest is babble even you don’t comprehend
>babble
that ''babble'' explains why your fucking sigma cant control, manage and preserve light as precisely you buffoon
>the fact you didnt even read or try to understand anything and just said babble and continued with spewing bullshit
youre an uneducated clown, a true degenerate

>stick to spouting jargon and saying “trust the experts”.
read a book, then you wont have to ''trust the experts''

>asians are smarter than germans btw so nikkor >>>>> schneider dumkoff.
>Sony and Canon are the only asian manufacturer with UHP CNC laser machines and they literally share the factory line with said machines and use it only for their cine lenses
wait until you learn that SK, Zeiss, Cooke, Hasselblad, Angenieux, Panavision and others lietrally have a manufacturing process called ''light management'' where they precision tune glass elements to manage/filter light in the most clean, most precise way possible, JUST FOR IT TO RETAIN AS MUCH INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE which is literally why you see the magical, non-existant so called ''3d pop'' effect in good glass AND YOU DONT EVEN NEED EXPENSIVE UHP MACHINERY TO DO THAT IN THE FIRST PLACE! Voigtlander and Hasselblad have been doing it SINCE FUCKING 1700's!!!!! That's 300 years before SIGMA that your magical 3d pop effect has existed!!! People have been shooting with 200 year old, barely sharp, run down voigtlander lenses AND EVEN THOSE LENSES HAVE SO CALLED MAGICAL ''3d POP!'''

>anyways
READ
A
FUCKING BOOK

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO ff54acffbcf7cc87828d464ec7649f20 (...).jpg, 2MiB, 1638x2048

Anonymous Sat 28 Jan 2023 14:52:20 No.4130962 View View Report

Quoted By:

>>4130593
>a random shit list of random photographers
>not including hundreds of millions of random, unknown photographers around the world who have $10M+ net worth
i literally, personally know dozens and dozens of random, no name spoiled rats and daddys girls that arent even 25yo yet and they have already made their first million in less than 5 years of being in the fashion industry. what even is that horse shit, horrid website? im barely 2 years in, with 9 years of prior experience in portraiture and even i, as average as i am, already bought my own land, built a 310m2 house, bought two brand new cars, paid off both my 40k EUR loans and fully financed, fully switching to both hasselblad and sony systems up from canon in the middle of buying all that. earned more in these two years from fashion than i did in 9 years doing shitty portraits for 200EUR/hour and 500 EUR sessions...

just getting into fashion, beauty, automotive, commercial, product and similar fields where you can get involved with other big name photographers, cinematographers or just other big name corporations, companies, organizations or agencies, alone guarantees you a free millionaire pass in the long run and by saying a long run i mean in the next few years.

Also Weddings, events... if you live in the U.S or Japan, China, Western Europe or literally any popular country for that matter, you can make millions doing weddings, even if you're not that popular or good of a photographer. that is, if you can stand all that shitty lifestyle, organization and stress that comes with it. have a friend that lives in croatia, a country where the average monthly pay is less than 900 EUR and he makes 70-90k EUR per season from weddings with the most of it being earned in summer months. and he is by no means famous or popular in his country.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Jan 2023 18:55:03 No.4130586 View View Report

Quoted By:

>>4130583
mirrorless has the advantage for everything. i'm not going to lie. i'm not going to be a luddite. EVF vs OVF doesn't matter anymore and hasn't mattered for 5 years. CMOS sensor to CMOS sensor, there is no magic, you're just being a sperg. mirrorless cameras are better than DSLRs ever were. saying a dedicated $2500 cinema camera is even better for video doesn't change that a mirrorless camera is more than good enough for 90% of video while a DSLR just isn't.

but you see my DSLR was $100 and the best mirrorless camera for your money is $1300 and that's before you spend $500+ on lenses that can make use of all the megapixels you paid for. of course, this is not an option with new pentax, but i won't defend new pentax. new pentax is for idiots. spending more than $300 on a DSLR is for idiots.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Jan 2023 07:37:36 No.4127476 View View Report

Quoted By:

>>4126569

Correction.

Nobody gives a fuck about the millions of drones on instagram or social media copying the latest trends. Sure now they are all running around saying how amazing short form video is, they will oversupply it with the same crap x million every day for the next few years until everyone is sick of that to and they will move onto the next thing.

Meanwhile outside the bubble of retards on there.
-photos of cars will always mean something to people interested in cars.
-photos of beautiful women/nudes will always appeal to people who like that.
-photos of literally every hobby, passtime, thing, people, events etc wil be valued by people into those things.

OP you sound like a retard just trying to get a following doing the most generic braindead mainstream popular stuff on social media. If you want to piss into the wind in that field with the millions of other soulless drones then yes you will need to do video on tiktok or whatever as thats the current thing for that right now.

And just remember that is still a bubble, even if everyone in the bubble is paying 1000s for fake followers and likes to make it seem like its anything but like 5% of the population even looking at, thinking or caring about it.

The vast majority of the human race is taking photos outside that small space of retards and is doing it for memories, of things they like etc and that field will never die.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 15 Jan 2023 22:17:42 No.4125040 View View Report

Quoted By:

>>4125034
>80 dollars
Lel. Last film camera I used was a Contax. I bought it 12 years ago for 120€ (body) and then I spent more than 2000€ in Zeiss glass that I'm still using, also tons of money in film and film developement.
Saying that 35mm photo cameras are cheap is kind of delusional.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 14 Jan 2023 11:11:23 No.4124414 View View Report

Quoted By:

>>4124407
>>4124411
>avoids the main point which is that bringing up a big ass pro reflex camera in a discussion about the x100v is completely irrelevant and clueless about different photographic needs
>proceeds to argue on whether end of 2010 is closer to 10 or 15 years ago
Yes, thank you for displaying how much of a retard you are. You probably think you won this exchange, but if you pull this shit in real life I can guarantee people just want to slap your stupid obnoxious face. Either accept that you are wrong or stop saying stupid shit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Jan 2023 22:38:30 No.4120235 View View Report

Quoted By:

the question of why is rather easy: If you allow users to freely upload images, and particularly if you allow high definition images and don't apply heavy handed compression on the server, you're going to run into high hosting costs. And to make it worse, most of those images won't even be looked at again by anyone, but you're stuck hosting them if you want your users to keep using your services. It's your promise to the users. Additionally, some of the images are going to get very high traffic, further increasing hosting fees. Meanwhile, where's your source of revenue? If you let the users easily link to your images and embed them anywhere they want, you can't get ad revenue from the people looking at them. You can't even collect any good user data to sell about those people. If you make looking at the images too convenient, same issue. I remember when imgur was started by a reddit commenter saying he was going to make the image hosting site that did it right. And it did for a few years, but slowly all the bloat that the site currently has crept in due to the reasons mentioned above.

picdrop linked above seems like it might stand the test of time if you're willing to pay for such a service, otherwise something like google photos is probably going to be good since they're specialists at extracting user data and don't need to worry about ads too much.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 Jan 2023 10:21:17 No.4118966 View View Report

Quoted By:

>>4118920
>DR is a measure of noise, anyone that's had their shot ruined by noise will find it relevant,
At high ISO all modern cameras have roughly the same noise because shot noise dominates the image. Shot noise is inherent to the nature of light, you cannot improve it with "muh sensor." You have to compare today's best sensors to something from over 10 years ago to see a full 1ev difference in overall image noise (which is not the same as DR) at high ISO.

>and no, 1 ev is PLENTY to be noticeable,
Not when it comes to shadow tonality / pushing shadows, aka DR. Worse for you, a 1ev difference in the DR measurements at DxO/PtP amounts to a small increase in NR on the pushed shadows. As long as there's no banding...and there's not on modern sensors...shadow recovery is about the same within a format at high ISO because shot noise, not e-noise, limits your recovery.

>hence why people see a huge improvement in noise performance going from crop to FF.
That's something different, noise over the entire image. Your inability to distinguish the two in your head is part of the reason why you are wasting your life arguing over a metric, DR, which only rarely matters at lower ISOs.

>And are you really trying to say you've never taken a photo with blown and crushed areas?
I'm saying you have likely never maximized the DR off whatever sensor you own. You very clearly are not competent on this topic, so I find it highly unlikely that you know how to ETTR and recover as much range as possible in post. But that won't stop you from DRoning on and on about a metric which is completely irrelevant to OP's question.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Dec 2022 00:17:56 No.4117227 View View Report

Quoted By:

>>4117203
No he was a salty stembug mad that artists get things he doesn't. They've been saying this for at least 30 years
>CGI will make you "artist" chuds beg us for mercy. revenge of the nerds!

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 07 Dec 2022 10:23:03 No.4108677 View View Report

Quoted By:

>>4108543
>people saying to try a camera before buying.
this applies to everything..?? it's not a question of fuji's build quality, it's just good practice for buying used items in general
>>4108664
as someone who has used ebay for a few years, i'd put your odds of getting scammed here below 1%. ebay heavily favors the buyer in disputes.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Dec 2022 08:12:33 No.4108259 View View Report

Quoted By:

>>4108110
I recently bought a D800 for peanuts because many people are selling their DSLRs because they see them as outdated.
How many do you reckon will end up re purchasing their DSLR in 10 years because of some YouTube video saying that DSLRs are the new coolest thing?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 04 Dec 2022 06:20:22 No.4107459 View View Report

Quoted By:

>>4107450
Some people are just really fucking autistic. On /mu/ people are still obsessed with and continue to E-stalk a devastatingly handsome italian kid that called the guitar general a giant faggot 10 years ago. Recently an ugly construction worker and a transgender javascript monkey joined him in infamy, to the point someone on /p/ is complaining about the transgender javascript monkey years later. /fit/ hasn't forgotten scooby. Some /an/ schizo is still traumatized by bugguy and sometimes thinks he is bugguy. /co/ still has nightmares about inspector redwood banning them for saying the gamer word. People still think about moot. People still think about WT snacks.

What can I say but...
>this is their social life

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO teletranny clowned up kicks.png, 2MiB, 845x1000

Anonymous Thu 01 Dec 2022 07:28:22 No.4106092 View View Report

Quoted By:

>>4106018
>This stinks of the gibson guitar shills from /mu/ that had nothing in life but regret for paying $1800 for a goofy retro guitar that doesn't stay in tune. And the subject matter, as well.
Again I don't think it's derived from that, even if the mentality is the same (but at least Gibson is actually cool unlike Fuji - other than the LP tbat is). It comes from Trump Derangement Syndrome. You know who they remind me of, even more than gibsonfags? The teletranny, who used to buy the most tryhard yet wannabe shit and then get mad whenever he got mocked for it. He had spent a good chunk of money on subpar gear, a Boss Katana beingone of them. And he wore rainbow flag shoes. Pic related lol. Larped as being rich but his life savings were clearly spent in his söy bullshit.
This is not to defend Gibson, of course. Just saying I can see the appeal of Gibsons even if they're currently overpriced pieces of shit. At the very least they appear cool on the surface. Me? I'd get a Japanese copy, better craftsmanship all around. I plan to get one when I eventually go there even though I'm no weeb.
>>4106020
>whatever it is you shill
Oh the irony, fujifags have been aggressively shilling their shitty lineup for years now.
>>4106022
>XT-4
Yeah when it comes to Fuji that is one of the most passable ones. I'd get an X-T200 myself because of the bayer sensor.
>>4106023
>If this isn't you, why go to such lengths to defend it lmao
He does it because I'm telling the truth. Take your meds.
>Keep fighting the good fight man
He likely is the guy who replied to your post first. I'm the guy you're accusing him of being ( >>4105931 )
>>4106029
Jesus WTF. Where I'm from it's the same price as C41.
>>4106039
Based post.
>But with no offset leica-looking viewfinder it's hard to sell false nostalgia to zoomers.
Personally I find it amazing they think that stupid viewfinder good looking. Must be secondhand Leica cargo culting.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Nov 2022 18:10:46 No.4104322 View View Report

Quoted By:

>>4104308
> I'd love to be in your place in 2 years
Lol, you only say that because you don't know me
>What scale was the film?
What do you mean? Budget? Tiny. Less than 10k.
Conceptually? Average. It mostly takes place in houses/apartments with a couple of more interesting locations.
>Short or feature?
Feature
>What position were you? Did you write it?
Wrote, directed and produced it. I wasn't going to wait around for some dickhead to "let" me make a film while over-inflating the budget for no reason and then using funding as a justification to neuter all the more interesting/controversial elements of the film.
There's this lie that prevails throughout the industry; that famous saying "don't spend your own money". This site more than any should know that any popular saying should be questioned. Who's saying it and why?
"They" are saying it because it lets them keep a monopoly on film production. They control what's released and reap all the profits. We've reached an age where it's completely affordable for someone with savings to produce their own feature that looks half decent and professional but the indie revolution hasn't come because people are too scared to try and do it on their own for fear of turning out like Neil Breen.
>What worked and what didn't?
Worked:
-tone
-cinematography
-the moments that were most important
Didn't:
-some of the sound mixing
-some of the acting
-length (it was too long)
cont

!!Me2iIexFVez

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO B0271640-y720px.jpg, 127KiB, 479x719

!!Me2iIexFVez Sat 19 Nov 2022 10:36:36 No.4101703 View View Report

Quoted By:

eggy thread?
eggy thread!
noice

Got home and culling the pics i was all: "these are shit"
There was a lot I just immediately went: "fuck it, cull that"
Later I'll look over them online before bed on an IPS screen, and I'll be like: "yep, pretty much everything i shot today was shit"
Didn't get a lot of opportunities today. My culling was pretty brutal. The fash is weak in summer around here, stubbies and thongs aren't all that engaging. The light this time of year doesn't help either.

>>4101072
>his style is now a trend
....um... i guess it sort of is, isn't it. I certainly recognise my own photos by something about the framing aesthetic, if not the image itself.
But I'm not female or a self promoting influencer so inb4 nobody in the public arena ever credits this.

>>>4101072
>This guy?
lol, i cant even log into flickr any more. Seems they hosed my login when they changed hands or something a few years ago. Cant login, cant reset password.
Fuck flickr anyway.

>>4101217
>I've been saying it for years, Eggy is one of the best photographers on this site and his work is fashion on the street, not street photography which is cringe.
/me curtsies elaborately.

>>4101219
>This guy's photos are actually good.
'good' probably isnt the right word, but they do have a nice sort of engagement, particularly for the people in them. Less so in the current age of insta, maybe moreso in the previous facebook era.

>>4101240
>I went to a bunch of cosplay events
Petty drama, simp hierarchies and competitive neurotics galore.
Cosplay photography is evil. Escape while you still can.

>>4101267
>privacy
black <-> white
day <-> night
male <-> female
public <-> private
These are antonyms. People who expect privacy in public are not reasonable people.
Don't want to be photographed? Fine, just indicate with your hand and keep walking. But fuck off with the imbecile-tier privacy in public argument, its cretinous.

>>4101691
hi

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Searching for posts that contain ‘saying for years’. 461 results found.

On these archives

Your latest searches