>>2693204are you retarded?
>isi point out that x is technically correctthats not what happens
what happens is people make stupid and fake "Critiques" that people with deeper understanding of photography realize to be nothing but buzzwords, and she eviscerates people for it.
Someone accused her of blowing red channels in a photo, so she posted a red histogram showing it wasn't blown. The other person apparently thought anything with more than 251 red was blown.
Another time, someone was arguing that her photo "literally" had blocked blacks. She inverted the image and posted it which showed that was clearly not true.
I'm not surprised some people reading can't tell what is going on in these kinds of conversations, and just goes with the crowd (or, one overactive anon, whatever it is at the time). I'm not surprised at all.
There's also a fundamental and observable difference in demeanor between isi and the dominant culture of anonymous posters, and that's that the dominant culture of anonymous is to actively avoid shooting anything they they might think could be perceived as boring, or cliche, or stereotypical, or whatever. Isi does the polar opposite of this and seems to embrace tropes and cliches between her more solid, stand-alone output. She seems to enjoy doing stereotypical shots (such as centered square compositions) with a lot of competency, but most of /p/ looks right past that and instead gets upset that it's not a new and interested subject wowing them. This is literally missing the point.
