/p/ - Photography » Thread #2647475

[54 / 22 / ?]

Anonymous Fri 14 Aug 2015 05:42:24 No.2647475 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>2648117 >>2648162 >>2648389 >>2649081 >>2651099 >>2651175

I'm new to photography and I'm looking to improve.

This is pretty much babbys first photograph/shitty editing/shitty cropping. So critique, crucify, tell me where I went wrong, and tell me where I went right.

The pictures I'm posting are ones that I personally liked, but I'm fairly certain that there are things I can improve about them -- and I know a few can use work (framing, exposure...)

Thanks in advance.

Last time I posted images, I got blasted (rightly so) for my files being too large. Now everything is equal to, or less than, 1MB.

1/13

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSC00071 copy.jpg, 1009KiB, 2500x1667

Anonymous Fri 14 Aug 2015 05:44:19 No.2647476 Report

Quoted By: >>2648162 >>2649081

2/13

First dabble into long exposure. Cliche, but fuck it.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSC00080 copy.jpg, 1015KiB, 3500x2637

Anonymous Fri 14 Aug 2015 05:45:27 No.2647479 Report

Quoted By: >>2648162 >>2649081

Broad was having none of his shit.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSC00112 copy.jpg, 791KiB, 2200x1467

Anonymous Fri 14 Aug 2015 05:46:32 No.2647480 Report

Quoted By: >>2648541 >>2649081

4/13

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSC00122 copy.jpg, 825KiB, 3000x1844

Anonymous Fri 14 Aug 2015 05:47:54 No.2647481 Report

Quoted By: >>2649081

5/13

Handmade dumplings.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSC00125 copy.jpg, 976KiB, 2000x1461

Anonymous Fri 14 Aug 2015 05:48:58 No.2647482 Report

Quoted By: >>2649081

6/13

These captions doing anything for you guys?

Regardless, the amount of crap in this store was staggering.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSC00127 copy.jpg, 1012KiB, 2500x1908

Anonymous Fri 14 Aug 2015 05:50:17 No.2647483 Report

Quoted By: >>2648444 >>2649081

7/13

There was nothing particularly amazing about this. I just really liked the way the man was situated between the fruit with his cigarette.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSC00132 copy.jpg, 913KiB, 2200x1393

Anonymous Fri 14 Aug 2015 05:51:31 No.2647484 Report

Quoted By: >>2649081

8/13

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSC00133 copy.jpg, 848KiB, 2000x1806

Anonymous Fri 14 Aug 2015 05:52:34 No.2647486 Report

Quoted By: >>2648254 >>2649081

Once again, nothing remarkable -- but yet I still found these three interesting.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSC00139 copy.jpg, 982KiB, 2700x905

Anonymous Fri 14 Aug 2015 05:54:50 No.2647488 Report

Quoted By: >>2648444 >>2649081

10/13

I liked the way the cars all lined up with the bike rider; with Queen's park in the background.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSC00189 copy.jpg, 959KiB, 3000x2377

Anonymous Fri 14 Aug 2015 05:56:41 No.2647489 Report

Quoted By: >>2648248 >>2648444 >>2649081

11/13

Long exposure shot of Toronto from the east end. I took a few of these, with some being HDR photos. I found this exposure (with no HDR), to be my favourite. I'm still finding when it's best to use HDR and if this was one of those times I should have.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSC00202 copy.jpg, 829KiB, 3500x2334

Anonymous Fri 14 Aug 2015 05:58:42 No.2647490 Report

Quoted By: >>2648162 >>2648444 >>2649081

12/13

Cliche "I drink beer and take photos" photo. This photo seems a little over exposed. Originally, I had planned to use a long exposure to capture moving cars behind the subjects -- but the table and my low vantage point prevented me from capturing any cars in the frame. So now I just have an overexposed photo.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSC00274 copy 2.jpg, 982KiB, 2400x1767

Anonymous Fri 14 Aug 2015 06:00:42 No.2647491 Report

Quoted By: >>2649081

13/13

Guy just selling his veggies.

This is the last photo I'll post for now. I would really appreciate any critiques of my shots. I'm certain there is plenty to scrutinize, and I'm prepared to be told I'm complete shit. But that's to be expected since I know very little about photography.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 14 Aug 2015 06:27:35 No.2647501 Report

Quoted By: >>2647504 >>2648254

There's almost nothing interesting about any of these, as you yourself point out and most of them look like you just pointed your camera in the general direction of something happening and pressed the shutter release with no thought about anything whatsoever. Read everything you can about composition, color theory, etc. Study the greats of the visual arts and find contemporary artists you like. Find out why you like them and what resonates with you and why. If you can't get excited about your own work then why the fuck should anyone else? Some people will probably offer some criticism like "oh fix this, try to work on that" but really at this point you should just delete this shitastic excuse for a thread and go away until you've figured out a bit more about what you want to do with photography.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 14 Aug 2015 06:40:07 No.2647504 Report

Quoted By: >>2647514 >>2648072 >>2648162

>>2647501

Alright thanks, I appreciate the criticism. I will certainly do that (read and watch and study), but can you go deeper with what you mean regarding "interesting".

I mean, the majority of my shots were street photographs of people. Is any street photographer actually capturing something "amazing" or "groundbreaking" or "thought provoking", or just photographing an interesting individual or a scene? I will agree that my shots lack the former, but some contain the latter.

I'm not trying to be defensive, I'm curious.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 14 Aug 2015 07:04:39 No.2647514 Report

Quoted By: >>2647741

>>2647504
Josef Koudelka: Gypsies
A lot of his early work is really good. He later turned into a landscape photographer because he got old. He is most famous for his Gypsies project.

Robert Frank: The Americans

Also check out Eric Kim's blog. Some of his stuff is questionable, but he has a lot of good content (videos, e-books, and articles about street photography)
Go here first: http://erickimphotography.com/blog/start-here/

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 14 Aug 2015 16:22:39 No.2647741 Report

Quoted By:

>>2647514

Sweet thanks. I'll be sure to check everything out.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 14 Aug 2015 21:38:30 No.2648072 Report

Quoted By: >>2649004

>>2647504

in·ter·est·ing
int(ə)rəstiNG
adjective
arousing curiosity or interest; holding or catching the attention.

none of the photos here can be described that way. i look at them for less than a second and say "boring, next!" the only one that held my attention at all was the toronto shot and that one is from a shit angle w bad composition and distracting flare.

Anonymous !!uPiHYFPeJke

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1439530944610.jpg, 489KiB, 1000x667

Anonymous !!uPiHYFPeJke Fri 14 Aug 2015 22:16:44 No.2648117 Report

Quoted By: >>2648178 >>2648250 >>2649081

>>2647475
You really need to fix your WB in post, anon.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 14 Aug 2015 22:39:04 No.2648142 Report

Quoted By: >>2648178

are you just creepshotting all these peeps?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 14 Aug 2015 22:57:40 No.2648162 Report

Quoted By: >>2648178

>>2647504

Don't listen to them OP
I really like your shots
these are my favorites
>>2647490
>>2647479
>>2647476
>>2647475
Overall, this is really good for your first outing

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 14 Aug 2015 23:17:53 No.2648178 Report

Quoted By: >>2648437

>>2648117
Hmm, I understand what you mean, since the guy's outfit is white. However, the light shining on him from the restaurant that he was facing had a yellow glow, causing him to look yellow. He was actually yellow when I took the picture. Or should I just always correct to make them white?

>>2648142
Pretty much, ya...

>>2648162
I appreciate the kind words. I've only been photographing for the past 2 weeks, so I don't expect my shots to be award winning. That being said, I am still going to need criticism to improve at all -- so the hate is welcomed (to a degree, lol)

But thank you.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 2015-08-14 20.50.36.jpg, 716KiB, 1251x1005

Anonymous Sat 15 Aug 2015 00:53:20 No.2648248 Report

Quoted By: >>2648265

Tdot is beautiful i think there are better places for this shot but if you insist on this location and have a zoom lens try something like this, in my humble opinion you have too much dead space. This is just a crapy crop to give you an idea of what i meant>>2647489

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Aug 2015 00:55:10 No.2648250 Report

Quoted By: >>2648842

>>2648117
Yes, it's more accurate. But can you explain why you think it's better?

A Curly W !!d+3ubXGZ/SG

A Curly W !!d+3ubXGZ/SG Sat 15 Aug 2015 00:59:54 No.2648254 Report

Quoted By: >>2648265

>>2647501
Shut the hell up

Also OP, nothing wrong with taking "cliché" pics we're all bound to do it from time to time. But when you call them boring or cliché you literally take away any good from the photo. For example, I would've really enjoyed >>2647486 in a grainy black & white, I didn't think it was stale at all.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Aug 2015 01:21:48 No.2648265 Report

Quoted By: >>2648379

>>2648248

Thanks, I do agree with you about the crop. Unfortunately, I was unable to get to an area that would have allowed for this framing without cropping. That side of the city is full of large industrial units that have 24h security and were not down with me using their venue to take a photo of the city.

Do you think there is too much dead space even in the crop? If so, how would I go about reducing that without destroying the skyline?

>>2648254
Thanks, I appreciate that. I guess my little preface of "nothing remarkable" was my own way of shielding myself from hate because I'm so new to photography -- distancing myself from any backlash. naww mean? I agree, I should have stood by my images more.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Aug 2015 04:28:16 No.2648379 Report

Quoted By: >>2648398

>>2648265
Yeah like i said the spot you shoot from is everything. I dont like the horizontal middle of the image so much there is nothing going on but its ok because the reflection is cool. If you have 80 dollars kicking around i recommend you take your partner or a friend for a dinner cruise. I think groupon has a deal right now. I got some amazing shots with my d3100 when i first started shooting 3 years ago and ive been meaning to go back. Bring a tripod and your camera and for a reasonable price you get some excellent angles and a generally good time. Good luck

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Aug 2015 05:01:49 No.2648389 Report

Quoted By: >>2648398

>>2647475
First step to being a good photographer is to know when your photo is shit and when it's great.

Seeing that you posted these to /p/ shows that you're already failing at the first step HARD.

gg op, no re.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Aug 2015 05:48:41 No.2648398 Report

Quoted By: >>2648789 >>2649081

>>2648379

I see what you mean about the bottom of the photo being "dead space". My rationale for including it was because of the nice reflection on the water. Or else I would have just cropped the photo so that the buildings were only visible.

And ya, I've gone on a few of those boat cruises on the lake. The view of Toronto is unbelievable. Is the water not too choppy to get a solid photo, though?

>>2648389
Lol. I mean, it's all relative considering I chose these photos out the others that I took. But ya, I'll agree that being able to see quality is imperative as a photographer. What was it that turned you off from some of them (and what did you like, if at all?).

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Aug 2015 07:42:45 No.2648437 Report

Quoted By: >>2648661

>>2648178
I can tell you one things for sure is that you aren't getting close enough to your subjects. You have to remember that street photography is engaging for both the photographer and the subject.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Aug 2015 08:22:52 No.2648444 Report

Quoted By: >>2648661

>>2647483
100% FRESH JUICE SOLD HERE

Did you draw attention to that sign on purpose? That's all I can focus on.

>>2647488
Could use some cropping

>>2647490
I want your K-1000. This is your best shot.

>>2647489
The grass is taking way too much attention from the skyscrapers and the shiny reflections. Get that chair and the land you're standing on (the bottom part) out of the frame.

The wooden cabin thing on the right in contrast with the skyscrapers could be a more interesting shot, but you didn't frame it well.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO LoL.jpg, 4MiB, 3425x2248

Anonymous Sat 15 Aug 2015 09:23:05 No.2648462 Report

Quoted By: >>2648661

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Aug 2015 13:02:04 No.2648541 Report

Quoted By: >>2648661

>>2647480
Don't be THAT guy

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Aug 2015 16:19:20 No.2648661 Report

Quoted By: >>2651159

>>2648437
Damn, I thought I was close already, haha. I'm using a 35mm and I figured getting closer would be too obvious. But I'll work on that, thanks.

>>2648444
Ya, I purposely left the sign in the crop for that reason. However, I ultimately wanted your eye to be led to the man in the back center. The way the lines all converge at the center of the photo should have brought you there (at least, that was my rationale).

I was worried that the Pentax/beer shot was too overexposed, however I liked the framing and subject so I kept it.

Ya, a few of you have told me how there is too much dead space in the Toronto photo. I do understand where you're coming from and it makes sense.

However, how do you recommend I remove the grass without removing too much of the reflection on the water? Do you mean crop the sides, making the shot more narrow?

It shows how new I am in regard to my observance. I didn't even notice the wooden cabin in the shot. You're completely right, using that cabin properly in the frame would have made the shot much more interesting. Instead, it's swallowed by the building behind it.

>>2648462
I still need to improve my editing skills, seeing as I have none...

>>2648541
Lol, what do you mean by "that guy"?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Screenshot_2015-08-15-15-31-36~2.jpg, 102KiB, 740x1074

Anonymous Sat 15 Aug 2015 19:34:02 No.2648789 Report

Quoted By: >>2648960

>>2648398
You be the judge. This is a crop from my instagram so its not exactly "good quality" but i took it without my tripod with a d3100 and a 18-55 kit lens.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Aug 2015 21:21:06 No.2648842 Report

Quoted By: >>2648960

>>2648250
its better because its more true to what you expect to see. The yellow is confusing when the guy has white on.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 16 Aug 2015 00:22:07 No.2648960 Report

Quoted By:

>>2648789

I'll assume the softness is due to the instagram compression. Either way, the location of the shot is spectacular and a little cruise is the only way to get to that vantage point.

Damn, the CN tower and Rogers centre were looking unreal that evening -- dat blue.

>>2648842
I understand what you mean regarding one's expectations. However, I'm fairly certain (it was two weeks ago so I'm not 100%) that the chef was illuminated yellow because of the large yellow sign adorning the restaurant out front.

In this instance, is it still better to go with a viewers "expectation" rather than staying true to the reality of the image?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 16 Aug 2015 01:49:31 No.2649004 Report

Quoted By:

>>2648072
I didn't know "interesting" was an objective trait for only you to assign... you fucking cuck.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 16 Aug 2015 05:57:35 No.2649081 Report

Quoted By: >>2650188 >>2651121

>>2648398
>What was it that turned you off from some of them (and what did you like, if at all?).

Ill spell it out for you, make sure you can read.

>>2647475
HORRIBLY edited photo, >>2648117 is much better but no amount of editing will save this boring snapshit of a chink scratching his eye.
There's nothing going on, its a shitty subject in shitty light.

>>2647476
are you 13 years old?

>>2647479
wow, two people talking on the street. SO GRITTY AND INTERESTING. Shitty light and edit AGAIN.
please post more like this. (im kidding btw, please dont)

>>2647480
>some old chink looking at food.
fucking riveting man, best photo ive seen on p.

>>2647481
underexposed shot about nothing.

sure if it was a series, it would work, but its just a random shot of some lady working on the dough.

>>2647482
>>2647483
These are the better ones, but still shitty light and edit. also composition and crop is awkward. Subject is pretty much lost in the second photo as well.

>>2647484
what the fuck is the subject.

>>2647486
>people looking at food.
for fucks sake dude, not interesting.

>>2647488
cars
WHY
this is worse than backs of people.

>>2647489
too much foreground, shitty composition and light.

>>2647490
>clipped highlights at this level.
wait, why am i spelling out all of this for you, surely a sane person would realize how shitty of a photo this is.

>>2647491
literally the most boring photo ive seen in my life.

>all these faggots sugar coating your photos.
p is dead.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Aug 2015 23:57:45 No.2650188 Report

Quoted By: >>2651119

>>2649081

I appreciate the criticism. I'll start off by saying that of all the photos you commented on, only 2 are actually edited (that is, aside from cropping): old man looking at buns, and the beer and pentax photo -- there was no editing on any others.

So, in regards to the "underexposed shot" of the women making dumplings. How can I tell that this is underexposed? I've noticed that I tend to gravitate towards photos that others consider "underexposed". In my eyes, I like the darker, richer colours that come with it, and I felt that anything lighter would be too much. I have been told before that some of my shots are underexposed, so it's definitely a valid criticism that I'm going to look into correcting. I just don't see it, they all seem well lit.

On the photos that you said were better, specifically the one with the man sitting on the stoop reading the paper. I cropped this photo already -- but how would I crop it to make it less "awkward"? I'm still learning how to crop properly. I didn't want to place him at the center of the photo purposely. I liked the idea of you having to divert your attention to the side of the photo to notice the man, as well as keep the entire cluttered storefront in the shot in the right side of the photograph. Would it have been better to center him?

Also, send me a link of street photography that you find interesting. I'm not (by any means) stating that my photography is riveting to you or anyone else -- but I'd like to know what you consider interesting street photography. How are the photos that I've taken of people interacting with each other and with the environment not as interesting as other photos showing the same theme?

Of course I can look this up myself, but you seem to have some strong words, so I'd like to see you back your shit up with riveting and interesting photos of street photography.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Aug 2015 05:58:41 No.2651099 Report

Quoted By: >>2651100

>>2647475
These images would benefit from a small flash unit. Preferably if you got it tethered and shot from an angle to create dramatic lighting.

Now that might be difficult depending on how comfortable you are shooting stangers, but a good alternative would be buying a fast prime lens (prices vary from reasonable to absurd) and boost up ISO.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Aug 2015 06:06:59 No.2651100 Report

Quoted By:

>>2651099

The next accessory I plan on acquiring is a flash and using it off-mount. I have to learn all about flashes though, since I have no clue how to use them.

The prime I was using was a Sony Zeiss 35mm f2.8. So, not ridiculously fast. However, the next fastest native 35mm with AF is ~$1600 -- which is double the cost of my lens.

rubber shoes in motion !FwDS1IFr..

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 2507092635_b6164ef4b4_z.jpg, 90KiB, 640x426

rubber shoes in motion !FwDS1IFr.. Wed 19 Aug 2015 06:33:24 No.2651107 Report

Quoted By: >>2651122

YESSSS BUY MORE GEAR.

and in the mean time, here's some non-shit street since the other poster is sleeping on the job.

Your assignment is to find 3 distinctions between these photos and your "street" stuff.

rubber shoes in motion !FwDS1IFr..

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 94263a8847d5c0e43f03a83539e84c2d.jpg, 85KiB, 640x424

rubber shoes in motion !FwDS1IFr.. Wed 19 Aug 2015 06:34:38 No.2651109 Report

Quoted By: >>2651122

rubber shoes in motion !FwDS1IFr..

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO img27387.jpg, 77KiB, 909x600

rubber shoes in motion !FwDS1IFr.. Wed 19 Aug 2015 06:35:59 No.2651111 Report

Quoted By: >>2651122

rubber shoes in motion !FwDS1IFr..

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO img5754.jpg, 105KiB, 925x600

rubber shoes in motion !FwDS1IFr.. Wed 19 Aug 2015 06:37:47 No.2651112 Report

Quoted By: >>2651122

oh yoshimi

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Aug 2015 07:05:20 No.2651119 Report

Quoted By: >>2651124

>>2650188
> I'll start off by saying that of all the photos you commented on, only 2 are actually edited (that is, aside from cropping)
This is not something to be proud of or an excuse for posting shit photos, if you're publicly posting your work for others to see then it should be a finished product. If you serve me a steak at your restaurant and I complain about it then you can't just tell me OH WELL I HAVEN'T EVEN COOKED IT YET SO THAT'S WHY IT'S BAD. Also stop cropping so much.

>So, in regards to the "underexposed shot" of the women making dumplings. How can I tell that this is underexposed?
Because it looks too dark. Is this a trick question? If you don't have functioning eyes then you can also usually judge pretty well by using the histogram, if you don't know what that is or how it works then read a book or something, there's tutorials explaining it all over the internet.

>On the photos that you said were better, specifically the one with the man sitting on the stoop reading the paper. I cropped this photo already -- but how would I crop it to make it less "awkward"?
>I'm still learning how to crop properly
>Would it have been better to center him?
Stop cropping your photos. If you need to crop a whole lot on all of your photos then it's because you're not close enough and/or you're not considering what framing you want before you take the photo. Framing is something you do before you put the camera up to your eye to shoot, not 2 weeks later when you're in photoshop.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Aug 2015 07:09:54 No.2651121 Report

Quoted By: >>2651124

>>2649081

Despite sounding like an ass this guy has a lot of really good points. I don't agree with a few of them (100% fresh juice isn't as interesting as... well, shit it's pretty on par with everything else that wasn't as interesting).

I wouldn't really agree with the
>are you 13 years old?

More like 16 years old. Fucking 13 year olds wouldn't even bother figuring out a long exposure.

Really heavy handed criticism, too edgy, but a lot of it has a good point. Some of these shots are super beginner, some look like they're trying to force meaning out of nothing (two people talking or the old Asian scratching his eye).

Sure if something looks interesting go ahead and snap it but don't force any more "meaning" out of it if there isn't any to begin with.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Aug 2015 07:12:17 No.2651122 Report

Quoted By: >>2651372

>>2651107
To be honest, I find this photo rather unremarkable and uninteresting in my eyes.

>>2651109
This photo I quite like, and in conjunction with >>2651112 I see a common theme: closeness with the subject. Not to mention the photo of the men smoking is just an all around interesting subject, but the photographer is very much in the scene with his subjects in these two photos and it makes you feel as though you are in it, too (especially the smoking one).

>>2651111
This particular photo uses nice interplay of light and dark, specifically in the shadows. I like the orientation of the photograph and how it seems like the person is going upstairs while his shadow is heading downstairs.

My ranking of the photos:
1) Smoking men
2) Stair man
3) Train man
4) Rain man

If I was to take anything from these shots it would to get closer to my subjects. Even the first photo (the one I didn't find attractive), the photographer was right inside the guy's jacket when he took it. Either I need to get better at cropping, or I just need to move closer. I'm assuming the latter is the preferred method since it allows me to "experience the scene" and such.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Aug 2015 07:30:54 No.2651124 Report

Quoted By:

>>2651119
>on not editing photos
I agree with what you're saying, and that's a pretty good point you bring up with the steak analogy. I guess the only reason why I haven't dabbled in editing is because it's rather foreign and I feel like anything I do would just ruin the original shot.

But you gave little help on exposures aside from "watch tutorials" (which I plan on doing). It wasn't a trick question, the photo I was referencing doesn't look dark to me, which is why I brought this whole thing up.

As far as histograms go, I'm fairly certain that a properly exposed image is one that has a normal curve distribution localized in the centre of the graph.

And yes, I agree with me just getting closer to my subjects and using my feet rather than photoshop to adjust. You're right about framing, for the photos I posted I was just looking for a subject and not considering what was around it.

>>2651121
Lol, ya I agree. That's why I've been asking for more criticism by this person. A little angry? Definitely. But still helpful nonetheless.

I don't want any sugarcoating, especially because I'm so new to this. I went into this thinking the photos I had taken were amazing (and I still like them), but now I can see where improvements could have been made and how to improve in future outings (still a long way to go, though).

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Aug 2015 09:57:56 No.2651159 Report

Quoted By:

>>2648661
>Lol, what do you mean by "that guy"?

I meant the kind that goes out to shoot street/daily life and only manages to capture close ups of the sides or backs of heads.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1439530944610 (4).jpg, 1MiB, 1400x933

Anonymous Wed 19 Aug 2015 10:14:57 No.2651167 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Aug 2015 10:48:22 No.2651175 Report

Quoted By:

>>2647475
There are no magic tricks. Study the technical side (both stuff like how the camera works and the technical aspects of the artistic side like the philosophies behind the use of things like color and composition), then get out there and work to apply what you've studied to your own work.

rubber shoes in motion !FwDS1IFr..

rubber shoes in motion !FwDS1IFr.. Wed 19 Aug 2015 19:17:30 No.2651372 Report

Quoted By:

>>2651122
Nice job, buddy. You totally keyed in on one of the big points: >closeness with the subject

Ken Rockwell always said that "if your pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough.

Looking at pictures you like and trying to identify what specifically about the photo pleases you and juxtaposing it against your own work is always a good exercise. If you want to see more, the two photos you liked the most are from the same photographer: Severin Koller. tbh I like his older stuff a lot better.

The 3rd is from Bruce Gilden who is infamous for getting up in peoples' shit.

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

On these archives

Your latest searches