/p/ - Photography » Thread #2995399

[262 / 51 / ?]

Anonymous Thu 05 Jan 2017 00:30:58 No.2995399 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>2995465 >>2995498 >>2995527 >>2995596 >>2995607 >>2995775 >>2995780 >>2995814 >>2997084 >>2997091 >>2997622 >>2997863 >>2997871 >>2999153

>Please post images that are JPG format, smaller than 1 MB, and/or about 1000 pixels on the longest side.

>on a board dedicated to photography

What idiot wrote this?
>b-but muh phone browsing
I don't give a shit. Fuck you.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Jan 2017 01:04:08 No.2995409 Report

Quoted By: >>2996444

>posts photo that is 11KB 247x227px
>still enough to see everything necessary

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Jan 2017 01:23:14 No.2995423 Report

Quoted By:

It used to make sense when /p/ was hosted on one of the slow servers reserved for low traffic boards, but that was like seven years ago.

Now people just repeat it like particularly stupid parrots because muh board culture.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Jan 2017 02:35:09 No.2995465 Report

Quoted By: >>2995467 >>2995483

>>2995399
It started out when the servers were shit and people from other countries had loading issues, but it came to make sense from the perspective that 99.4% of photographs don't need to be bigger than 1000px to judge if they're good enough - and the ones that do are a mere request away from a high-res repost.

tl;dr if your shit doesn't look good at 1000px it's not going to look good at 6000px - so stop complaining and get gud.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Jan 2017 02:37:11 No.2995467 Report

Quoted By:

>>2995465
To add to that, in the days when you could actually get decent C&C in this shithole, most people refused to look at non-resized images out of that same principle. Nine times out of ten if your photo has merit it'll stand out from the thumbnail. I don't need to see it in capture resolution

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Jan 2017 02:57:34 No.2995483 Report

Quoted By: >>2995487 >>2995488 >>2995667

>>2995465
>99.4% of photographs don't need to be bigger than 1000px to judge if they're good enough

lmao no

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Jan 2017 03:03:07 No.2995487 Report

Quoted By: >>2995523

>>2995483
Teach me oh great one, and provide examples

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Jan 2017 03:05:23 No.2995488 Report

Quoted By:

>>2995483
its true though. magnum photos look good as thumbnails

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Jan 2017 03:30:44 No.2995498 Report

Quoted By:

>>2995399
>I'm autistic as hell and I'm NOT GONNA TAKE IT ANYMORE
cool story bro
you may prefer to share your photos on the dpreview forums if pixel peeping is your style

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Jan 2017 04:22:45 No.2995523 Report

Quoted By: >>2995562

>>2995487

Maybe if you actually start learning about photography from places besides internet forums you might realize the folly of such a request.

Spice !FKt5d/am6o

Spice !FKt5d/am6o Thu 05 Jan 2017 04:25:06 No.2995527 Report

Quoted By: >>2995564

>>2995399
I was expecting this thumbnail to be an autistically large image blown up from a low res image. Do you even meme?

I do agree though. It's pretty retarded that's even a guideline to posting on a photography board

All Things Nice !!qKuE3/Ln4IB

All Things Nice !!qKuE3/Ln4IB Thu 05 Jan 2017 05:10:19 No.2995562 Report

Quoted By: >>2995577

>>2995523
Maybe, just maybe, that was sarcasm

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 14835762581553.jpg, 5MiB, 10000x10000

Anonymous Thu 05 Jan 2017 05:11:43 No.2995564 Report

Quoted By: >>2995584

>>2995527
best I can do

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Jan 2017 05:32:47 No.2995577 Report

Quoted By:

>>2995562

doubtful, newtrip.

Spice !FKt5d/am6o

Spice !FKt5d/am6o Thu 05 Jan 2017 05:46:10 No.2995584 Report

Quoted By:

>>2995564
Very good work. Saved

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Jan 2017 06:02:01 No.2995596 Report

Quoted By:

>>2995399
I resize my images to 1500 px or less on the longest side. Why? Because I don't want to upload full size so people can steal them or print without paying me, but also, my monitor is only 2560x1440. Anything bigger than 1800 and I cannot view them without having to zoom in which crops out the sides/makes trying to judge them awkward.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Jan 2017 06:18:02 No.2995607 Report

Quoted By: >>2995609

>>2995399
Isn't it funny that the several pornography boards have much higher standards on image quality than this one?

It's because this board should just be deleted already, since it has absolutely no use at all.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Jan 2017 06:22:46 No.2995609 Report

Quoted By: >>2995610

>>2995607
/s/ is by far the better board for appreciating good photos

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Jan 2017 06:24:36 No.2995610 Report

Quoted By:

>>2995609
They certainly have better modeling and portrait photography, and they do it one-handed.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Jan 2017 08:54:44 No.2995667 Report

Quoted By: >>2995672 >>2995710

The servers are still incredibly shit.

>>2995483
Now you have to post one of your photos that you feel must be over 1000px to appreciate.
The burden of proof falls to the accusers.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Jan 2017 09:07:40 No.2995672 Report

Quoted By: >>2995703

>>2995667

>makes several claims in his post
>tries to shift the burden of proof

why you assumin' fiat, nigga?

Sugar !egyYvoBZV2

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1451123699886.jpg, 2MiB, 7680x4320

Sugar !egyYvoBZV2 Thu 05 Jan 2017 09:34:12 No.2995694 Report

Quoted By:

fuck off peasant scum

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Jan 2017 09:44:23 No.2995703 Report

Quoted By: >>2996092

>>2995672
I made one claim in my post, that the servers are shit. There's no burden of proof there.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Jan 2017 09:57:51 No.2995710 Report

Quoted By: >>2995774

>>2995667
>I can't wait 3 seconds to see a nicer picture

eat shit retard

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Jan 2017 12:25:03 No.2995774 Report

Quoted By:

>>2995710
>nicer picture
Post proof m80 or else you're gonna be eating the shit sundae.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Jan 2017 12:26:16 No.2995775 Report

Quoted By:

>>2995399
the servers/routing is absolute ass, big files take forever to load even on a 100/10 Mbps connection

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Jan 2017 12:32:08 No.2995780 Report

Quoted By: >>2996034 >>2996041

>>2995399
What's the maximum in browser dimensions for 80%+ of people...

Well done you've just worked out why anything over 1000px is detrimental to image quality.

It also works well as a filter, if you're an illiterate bumblefuck i don't want to interact with you. If you think larger = better, you aren't at an acceptable level yet and you should go read some books.

Any way you look at it, the 1000px rule is the saving grace of this place.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Jan 2017 12:36:40 No.2995786 Report

Quoted By:

>>>/wg/

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Jan 2017 12:40:43 No.2995795 Report

Quoted By: >>2996446

daily reminder patricians troll with photos like >>2992520

peabrained faggots troll by pretending to be retarded. dont be a peabrained faggot.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Jan 2017 13:21:12 No.2995814 Report

Quoted By:

>>2995399
Often you don't have a need to post larger images even when you have a good camera.

But it's a recommendation/request, not a rule. I figure if you see that an image actually looks shit at 1000x1000, sure, post it larger.

Been there, done that, and only like one faggot complained. Which is pretty good overall.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Jan 2017 20:35:33 No.2996034 Report

Quoted By: >>2996473

>>2995780
lmao look at this queer talk about shit he doesn't understand

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Jan 2017 20:45:19 No.2996041 Report

Quoted By:

>>2995780
>works well as a filter

Lol, this board filters out fun

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 4chin.png, 86KiB, 1031x294

Anonymous Thu 05 Jan 2017 21:27:15 No.2996092 Report

Quoted By: >>2996200 >>2996370

>>2995703

>There's no burden of proof there.

Lol yes there is. You'll actually have to show that 4chan's servers are slower than average, hence the need for smaller file sizes. Really, you have to show that 4chan's servers aren't just slower than average, they're actually abysmally slow, 1998 slow, and that's why everything has to be uploaded at less than HD standards and at a size that dial-up can handle.

Here's some evidence showing the opposite.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Jan 2017 23:55:27 No.2996200 Report

Quoted By: >>2996203 >>2996222 >>2996242

>>2996092
I can upload an image that's 5000x5000 with good detail that is less than 3mb. There's no good reason to stick to small photos other than some misplaced notion that detail has nothing to do with photography, which is a laughably stupid and rather depressing thing to read on a board dedicated to the subject.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Jan 2017 00:00:23 No.2996203 Report

Quoted By: >>2996209 >>2996214

>>2996200
Jesus Christ its not about detail its about the average browser window size. If I have to scroll left/right and up/down to see your entire photo it's too fucking big.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Jan 2017 00:14:56 No.2996209 Report

Quoted By: >>2996473

>>2996203
The average browser size is 1920 pixels wide, so 1000 is nearly half that size. And that is not taking into account the number of people 2560x1440 and 4k monitors, which should be a good portion of people interested in photography. Additionally, many people enjoy pixel peeping and there is nothing wrong with that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Jan 2017 00:28:03 No.2996214 Report

Quoted By: >>2996473

>>2996203
4chan resizes images to fit your browser window.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Jan 2017 01:00:27 No.2996220 Report

Quoted By:

It promotes actual composition and less gearfaggotry. /p/ might be bad but it's better than a lot of photo forums where people share 18MP photos of brick walls all the time and ask "IS MY LENS TOO SOFT!!" "DO I NEED MICROADJUSTMENT ON MY LENS!!"

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO test.jpg, 3MiB, 5000x4856

Anonymous Fri 06 Jan 2017 01:05:27 No.2996222 Report

Quoted By: >>2996225 >>2996236 >>2996285 >>2996303 >>2996473 >>2996940

>>2996200
Just an example now that I am back at my desktop. Not my photo.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1483664727387-resize.jpg, 327KiB, 1000x971

Anonymous Fri 06 Jan 2017 01:19:16 No.2996225 Report

Quoted By: >>2996229 >>2996236 >>2996240 >>2996282 >>2996285

>>2996222

What exactly would you gain over it being greater than 1000x1000?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Jan 2017 01:28:13 No.2996229 Report

Quoted By: >>2996233 >>2996473

>>2996225
loses the texture

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Jan 2017 01:35:05 No.2996233 Report

Quoted By: >>2996238 >>2996241

>>2996229

But I'm not here to judge or talk about the texture on the building, you should focus on the composition. If texture was a main component you should get a close up of the texture.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Jan 2017 01:40:45 No.2996236 Report

Quoted By: >>2996296

>>2996222
>>2996225
Ah, right. I get you now. You need the pixels to make it a good photo. Because composition-ally it's a trashy snapshit of a building with a bunch of people in front. I guess that when you're creating photos with autism and are 100% dedicated to reproduction this happens.

I hope you at least took a 12x12 grid and stitched them together.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Jan 2017 01:47:15 No.2996238 Report

Quoted By: >>2996296 >>2996473

>>2996233

>texture isn't an important component of a photograph

just quit now, man. this hobby isn't for you.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Jan 2017 01:52:03 No.2996240 Report

Quoted By:

>>2996225
The ability to look at the details of the building because that's one of the main things people enjoy about such photos. Some photos are good compositions, and some photos are simply good photos of a thing. To disregard the second category is to throw out a huge chunk of photography.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Jan 2017 01:53:53 No.2996241 Report

Quoted By: >>2996473

>>2996233
>If texture was a main component you should get a close up of the texture.

Why do that when you can shoot the whole building and allow the viewer to look where they please? A photo like this can be a journey of examination for the building. You can look at it in ways you couldn't even if you were standing right in front of it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Jan 2017 01:54:37 No.2996242 Report

Quoted By: >>2996252 >>2996256

>>2996200

Yeah, someone actually challenged me to make a photo 5 megabytes, and I genuinely couldn't while still adhering to 4chan's resolution limit. It's fucking insane.

I ran a poll a few years ago. The majority (around 70%) of people on this board were in favor of increased file size limits, or no file size limits at all. It's only a very vocal minority who want to protect some bizarre semblance of "muh board culture" who still argue for the hilariously out-of-date 1000px rule.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO size.png, 35KiB, 4096x2160

Anonymous Fri 06 Jan 2017 02:03:15 No.2996252 Report

Quoted By: >>2996257 >>2997339

>>2996242
>Yeah, someone actually challenged me to make a photo 5 megabytes, and I genuinely couldn't while still adhering to 4chan's resolution limit. It's fucking insane.

This is just a matter of changing jpeg compression levels and color subsampling. If you use 4:2:2 sampling and 90% compression you will easily get a 5000x5000 image under 5mb with a very minimal loss of detail.

pic is /p/'s recommended size compared to 4k. Even viewing full size 1x1 you would only fill a fraction of your screen. 4k monitors are becoming more common and if you are photographer you should own one.

Note also this image is a .png because it represents only two colors with no gradations, and it is smaller than the equivalent jpg file using 100% compression level. If you know how to work with the various image formats and compression algorithms you can still have large image sizes while maintaining convenient file sizes.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Jan 2017 02:05:58 No.2996256 Report

Quoted By:

>>2996242
There's a problem with that.

How do you differentiate baked in users from the dregs of the board? You can't.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Jan 2017 02:06:08 No.2996257 Report

Quoted By: >>2996264

>>2996252

No, I meant I couldn't make one UP to 5 megabytes. The largest I could get to was around 4 megs, and that was with a ton of high frequency detail.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Jan 2017 02:13:43 No.2996264 Report

Quoted By: >>2996266

>>2996257
Oh.

Well, I am not sure what you're working with but it's very common for large size 4:4:4 color images to be well over 5mb and up to 50mb depending on the amount of information in the photo. And this is using jpeg.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Jan 2017 02:14:51 No.2996266 Report

Quoted By: >>2996271 >>2996281 >>2996473

>>2996264

lol okay. the point is, resolution limits are stupid and unthinkable on a photography board.

agreed?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Jan 2017 02:17:35 No.2996271 Report

Quoted By:

>>2996266
Agreed. What should be encouraged in the sticky is to optimize your uploads to the size and quality they require, and some tips and information regarding how to do that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Jan 2017 02:31:29 No.2996281 Report

Quoted By: >>2996286

>>2996266

No really, it's not stupid. The contents of the photo are more important - not detail. The textures on that building have no impact on that photo as a photo, period.

There are some exceptions, maybe macro shots deserve some detail (although we don't need thousands of pictures of le sharp flowers and brick walls) and nobody really bitches about that.

Also generally if people feel the 1000x1000 doesn't do it justice then they ask for a full quality.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO cropped.jpg, 11KiB, 134x124

Anonymous Fri 06 Jan 2017 02:35:23 No.2996282 Report

Quoted By: >>2996285 >>2996296

>>2996225
You have created a massive loss of detail that does not do justice to the beauty of the building.

Left: your version
Right: my version

Crop scaled 2x without interpolation (exact 2x scaling, no information added).

In your image when resized for a 1920x1080 browser window it is difficult to discern the spiral design of these decorations.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Jan 2017 02:37:35 No.2996285 Report

Quoted By: >>2996296 >>2996473

>>2996282
Note: open each image here

>>2996222
and here
>>2996225

in a separate tab and switch back and forth between them. You will notice even when downscaled to fit a typical 1080 pixel wide browser window the 5000x4856 image will show very noticeable improvement.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Jan 2017 02:37:46 No.2996286 Report

Quoted By: >>2996294 >>2996296 >>2996298 >>2996299 >>2996303 >>2996473 >>2996940 >>2998171

>>2996281

I don't know how else to convince you that you're wrong and misled.

Why does literally every important photographer print large? (Michael Kenna doesn't, but there's a sneaking suspicion he does it to be different) Are they all just "pixel-peeping gearfags"?

Why even bother with any format larger than 35mm if details don't matter in a photograph?

Why is 1000px the magical cutoff point? If details don't matter and you just need to see the broad strokes of the composition, why not use an even more bandwidth-friendly resolution like 640x480?

Why is /hr/ a thing if texture and detail don't matter?

Why is a painting so much more magical in person than it is in a print?

You've been bamboozled, kiddo. Come to the light.

All Things Nice !!qKuE3/Ln4IB

All Things Nice !!qKuE3/Ln4IB Fri 06 Jan 2017 02:50:32 No.2996294 Report

Quoted By: >>2996308

>>2996286
Because for the vast majority of photos posted to /p/, you're not that good. And if you happen to be, people will ask for a high res one.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Jan 2017 02:55:57 No.2996296 Report

Quoted By: >>2996300

>>2996282
>>2996285

Maybe if this was "Post architecture" I'd be interested in those details. Judging it as a photo it's shit, detail or low detail.

That's a feature of the building, not photograph.

>>2996286

Yeah go ahead and print that snapshit in glorious full wall printing. Get to see even the snot on the people in front of the building. You still aren't convincing me it matters there.

>>2996236

>Because composition-ally it's a trashy snapshit of a building with a bunch of people in front

Yeah that's all it is period, no matter how sharp or high resolution it is. It's a fine shitty travel snapshit for Facebook I guess but that's what it is, it's not worth sharing to a photography board.

>>2996238

>some texture on a snapshot of a building is going to make this photo better

t. takes photos of brick walls and posts them on /r/photography to ask if his lens is sharp or not

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Jan 2017 02:56:36 No.2996298 Report

Quoted By: >>2996303 >>2996335

>>2996286
You're not printing large, you're not Michael Kenna either. Your work is irrelevant from the example you posted. Documenting a building isn't important, and it's not worth doing from a small sensor in digital format. If you were a true patrician autist, you'd be shooting it in 8x10.

>why even bother with any format larger than 35mm
>if details don't matter
wew, not everyone shoots 120/sheet film for the "detail".
>why is 1000px the magical cutoff point
You don't need more than 1 megapixel
>why is /hr / a thing
it's a safespace autist zone for people who want to wank to celebs

Bin your computer grandad, I knew it was a mistake signing you up for talk talk

!!Me2iIexFVez

!!Me2iIexFVez Fri 06 Jan 2017 02:57:46 No.2996299 Report

Quoted By: >>2996304 >>2996335

>>2996286
Because they are PRINTING, and the target audience is physically present which allows them to appreciate the detail in a way that is effortless and expected.
....Not posting precious snowflakes to a web forum where nobody gives a shit about your presumption of interestingness and assumed bandwidth availability to express your self-entitlement to post large filesized and generally mediocre images that nobody, including the poster, will ever view at 1:1
Cool thumbnails bro.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Jan 2017 02:58:04 No.2996300 Report

Quoted By:

>>2996296
>Judging it as a photo it's shit
Your judgment is too narrow in scope.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Jan 2017 02:59:40 No.2996303 Report

Quoted By:

>>2996298
I who posted >>2996222
am not the anon who posted >>2996286

But I agree with most of it, albeit not with the tone.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Jan 2017 03:01:34 No.2996304 Report

Quoted By: >>2996310

>>2996299
> nobody, including the poster, will ever view at 1:1

Are you so inept you don't know how to click the on the image when the little magnifying glass with a + sign in it shows up?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Jan 2017 03:06:41 No.2996307 Report

Quoted By: >>2996312

At the end of the day, the simple fact of the matter is that most people that still inhabit this shithole and have some modicum of useful feedback to provide won't open it if it's bigger than 1000px. But go ahead. You're special.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Jan 2017 03:10:25 No.2996308 Report

Quoted By:

>>2996294

>implying free data has to be earned

you should go ahead and drop your new trip now, before you embarrass yourself any further.

or keep it! i love having new idiots to entertain me, and it helps keep my memory fresh when you have a persona attached to your drivel.

!!Me2iIexFVez

!!Me2iIexFVez Fri 06 Jan 2017 03:12:20 No.2996310 Report

Quoted By: >>2996313 >>2996314 >>2996473

>>2996304
People like you love to ignore this; but it's not about the pixels, it's about the filesize that you presume everybody has the bandwidth, or the desire to apply to downloading your oversized photos.
Here, let me email you my paging file so you can see the three words I just wrote in a text editor.
All this is fairly extensively explained in the pseudosticky wikia. Not that people who bitch about the 1000px recommendation care about anything like reason anyway.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Jan 2017 03:12:52 No.2996312 Report

Quoted By:

>>2996307
>tripfag admits defeat

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Jan 2017 03:14:11 No.2996313 Report

Quoted By: >>2996321

>>2996310

So... we have to resize to appeal to the special snowflakes, in other words.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Jan 2017 03:14:12 No.2996314 Report

Quoted By: >>2996321

>>2996310
I really, really, really don't care about your bandwidth problems. Stop browsing /p/ on your phone. or buy an unlimited data plan.

!!Me2iIexFVez

!!Me2iIexFVez Fri 06 Jan 2017 03:30:46 No.2996321 Report

Quoted By: >>2996326 >>2996327 >>2996328

>>2996313
No. You don't have to do anything.
But people here recognise a self-entitled cunt when they see them posting, and your photos will be simply ignored most of the time.
inb4 you can't figure out what 'cool thumbnail bro' means.
>>2996314
I'm on a broadband connection you presumptuous retard. Connected to a 1080p 55" screen.
If you are on a mobile device AND asserting your entitlement to post enormous files then I guess nothing more needs to be said.

Just go back to posting whatever you like and having it ignored by the majority of the board while Sempai Hiro scowls for your shamefurr failures of basic internet efficiency.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Jan 2017 03:35:16 No.2996326 Report

Quoted By:

>>2996321

Not to mention - just go look at the RPT and check which ones are oversized. They're all garbage from obviously newfags to /p/ and photography in general. Some out of mistake/not reading and others because they think we need to see their 18MP snapshit in all it's glory.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Jan 2017 03:36:56 No.2996327 Report

Quoted By:

>>2996321
>I'm on a broadband connection you presumptuous retard.
Then why do you even care? And don't pretend some anon in a 3rd world country would be bothered by a 5mb file. If you're browsing /p/ on a 56k connection I feel sorry for you, but you're the exception not the average, and posters should not have to accommodate you.

>Connected to a 1080p 55" screen.
You're browsing 4chan on that? Disgusting.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Jan 2017 03:37:06 No.2996328 Report

Quoted By: >>2996357

>>2996321
>But people here recognise a self-entitled cunt when they see them posting

You mean the kind of self-entitlement that makes you require other people resize to meet some totally made-up, subjective standards?

See, the status quo, the de facto standard on 4chan, is that you're allowed to upload files of any size up to 5 megabytes and/or 10000x10000. You could even say that you're.. entitled to do so.

Self-entitlement, my dear upside-down eggy, is demanding that other people change what they are CLEARLY ALLOWED TO DO to better suit your needs.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Jan 2017 03:48:07 No.2996335 Report

Quoted By: >>2996359 >>2996365

>>2996299
>>2996298
Print is obsolete. 99.9% of photos will be viewed on a screen of some sort. And they will be zoomed in on by the viewer and pixel peeped. That is simply reality. If you want to shoot and post photos for the real world instead of some imagined ideal of the past you will take it into account. 1 megapixel is laughable when the average screen size is double that.

!!Me2iIexFVez

!!Me2iIexFVez Fri 06 Jan 2017 04:18:00 No.2996357 Report

Quoted By: >>2996360

>>2996328
See this is how I know you are a self-entitled cunt.

We don't demand anything. The board simply suggest that you resize for best delivery of your snowflake.

Just because you *can* post your gigantic turds doesn't mean a more moderate approach wouldn't be better.

!!Me2iIexFVez

!!Me2iIexFVez Fri 06 Jan 2017 04:20:22 No.2996359 Report

Quoted By:

>>2996335
The average screen size is still 1080p
Devices and desktops.
Or do you own a 4K screen... that can only produce 30fps?
>1 megapixel
u wot m8?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Jan 2017 04:25:32 No.2996360 Report

Quoted By: >>2996510 >>2996523

>>2996357
>We don't demand anything.

lol bullshit.

"resize or gtfo" is practically the fucking motto of this board. it's the first line of the sticky. it's usually the intro to the RPT. there's also the not-very-community-oriented threat of "well if you don't appease us we won't even look at your photos or comment on them!", which is just hilariously childish.

>Just because you *can* post your gigantic turds doesn't mean a more moderate approach wouldn't be better.

Better for whom? By what metric? How easily you can download it? I forget that /p/ is stands for "Pretty fast downloads", and not "photography".

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Jan 2017 04:31:04 No.2996365 Report

Quoted By:

>>2996335
I'm not the nerd who decided to mention print senpai.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Jan 2017 04:45:36 No.2996370 Report

Quoted By: >>2996386 >>2996401

>>2996092
>Here's some evidence showing the opposite.
bruh
>Load time 2.75s
>Page size 631.1 kB
At that rate it'd take almost 22 seconds to load the maximum filesize on /p/ and a fucking hour to load a whole thread of them.

>Faster than 58% of tested sites
That's pretty poor. What retarded method are they using to get the """""Performance grade""""""?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Jan 2017 04:49:19 No.2996374 Report

Quoted By:

I do like photos with good compositions that stand out as thumbnails, but on the other hand...

I love photos with high resolution and lots of detail. I stare at some pictures for several minutes at a time absorbing all of the things that are there. I am fascinated with the way a good camera can capture everything at once and now matter how long I gaze through the viewfinder making sure the composition is good, I can never entirely go over everything that's in it. I'd love to get a LF camera some day and take incredibly high res photographs of cities so I can admire the wide variety of things going on in a single frame alone.

!!Me2iIexFVez

!!Me2iIexFVez Fri 06 Jan 2017 05:02:31 No.2996386 Report

Quoted By:

>>2996370
don't forget:
>tested from new york city
home of self-entitlement and assuming the rest of the world has everything exactly the same as they do

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Jan 2017 05:44:50 No.2996401 Report

Quoted By: >>2996409 >>2996512

>>2996370
It doesn't take anywhere near 22 seconds to load the max file size photo, and it has little do with the location. The bottleneck is the 4chan server, not anything on your end.

The page load time is slow at resolving the connection, once that is established the image file is downloaded at whatever the speed of your internet connection . If you have a 10 megabit connection it would take 4 seconds to download a 5mb image, you can add the connection time and the time it takes your browser to draw the image (can be slow if you're using firefox) you're looking at about 10 seconds for a 10000x10000 5mb file from the time you click the thumbnail. 7.5 seconds if you're running Chromium.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Jan 2017 05:56:19 No.2996409 Report

Quoted By: >>2996412 >>2996428

>>2996401
I know it doesn't, I was pointing out how awful the "evidence" posted was because the numbers there suggest something far worse than reality. The real times are even lower than you suggest for most people since things like rendering and resolving will be totally negligible and measured in microseconds. But even using your numbers you'd spend 25 minutes waiting on images to load going through a RPT if everyone was going for maximum quality.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Jan 2017 06:10:24 No.2996412 Report

Quoted By: >>2996419 >>2996420

>>2996409
>But even using your numbers you'd spend 25 minutes waiting on images to load going through a RPT if everyone was going for maximum quality.

1) Your math is specious at best.
2) You don't have to load every image. You can tell if a photo is worth your time from the thumbnail, usually.
3) Even if you did load every image, that's still only ten seconds per image. You should, ideally, be spending more than ten seconds looking a photograph trying to build your critique. That's why you're spending all of your time here anyway, right? To appreciate photography, right? A good, thoughtful poster couldn't possibly look at every photo in an RPT in less time than it takes to load it, so the time argument is totally moot.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Jan 2017 06:30:16 No.2996419 Report

Quoted By: >>2996429

>>2996412
Not him but your 3rd point and 2nd point are contradictory, nobody on this board posts anything worth a shit so it's either wait 10 seconds to load garbage snapshit, EVERY SINGLE IMAGE, or get slightly smaller snapshit that is IDENTICAL to a marginally smaller image that displays the exact same information as a full size one.

tl;dr, whether an image is fullsize or not does NOT effect it's ultimate critique. Nobody has ever been told their pictures are shit until they blew them up to full size, it's either shit or not and no amount of resizing can change that fact.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Jan 2017 06:31:04 No.2996420 Report

Quoted By:

>>2996412
>1,2
Fair enough.

>3
wew, You mean people do something other than talk about gear and webpages here?

>You should, ideally, be spending more than ten seconds looking a photograph trying to build your critique.
Right, on the ones you don't close right away.

>A good, thoughtful poster couldn't possibly look at every photo in an RPT in less time than it takes to load it, so the time argument is totally moot.
Not really true, since you'd need to preload all of the images and in doing so help rape the servers further. What would really be nice is support and adoption of better image encoding standards like WebP so we can have more reasonable image quality at more reasonable filesizes.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Jan 2017 06:54:25 No.2996428 Report

Quoted By:

>>2996409
I think 25 minutes spent on a thread with 150 images or whatever 4chan's max is these days is pretty appropriate.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Jan 2017 06:55:29 No.2996429 Report

Quoted By: >>2996435

>>2996419
>nobody on this board posts anything worth a shit
if you believe this when are you here?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Jan 2017 07:18:26 No.2996435 Report

Quoted By: >>2996437 >>2996448

>>2996429
You are stupid if you think this board has any actual artists posting here.

I mean, you are fucking retarded if you think any of these images posted here are worth a shit. It's a fun board, but nothing here will last longer than it's post-life.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Jan 2017 07:20:32 No.2996437 Report

Quoted By:

>>2996435

Then why are you here?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO _MG_5937.jpg, 565KiB, 1200x800

Anonymous Fri 06 Jan 2017 07:46:17 No.2996444 Report

Quoted By: >>2996452

>>2995409
>>Please post images that are JPG format, smaller than 1 MB, and/or about 1000 pixels on the longest side.
it was some faggot from Brisbane. but that was another life

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO _MG_0382.jpg, 400KiB, 800x1200

Anonymous Fri 06 Jan 2017 07:48:46 No.2996446 Report

Quoted By:

>>2995795
when you say "peabrained"....

what do you mean

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO _MG_6276.jpg, 120KiB, 800x1200

Anonymous Fri 06 Jan 2017 07:51:46 No.2996448 Report

Quoted By: >>2996449 >>2998428

>>2996435
>You are stupid if you think this board has any actual artists
projection is a hallmark of 4chan.

junk !!281YB8Oy2bZ

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO the_hat.png, 275KiB, 421x427

junk !!281YB8Oy2bZ Fri 06 Jan 2017 07:53:34 No.2996449 Report

Quoted By: >>2996450

>>2996448
Fuck off alphon

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO _MG_0425.jpg, 473KiB, 1200x800

Anonymous Fri 06 Jan 2017 07:58:17 No.2996450 Report

Quoted By: >>2996457 >>2996821

>>2996449
the anime reaction images may have changed but the talent remains the same...

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Jan 2017 08:03:05 No.2996452 Report

Quoted By: >>2996454

>>2996444
Saved. GJ.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO _MG_0376.jpg, 359KiB, 800x1200

Anonymous Fri 06 Jan 2017 08:04:34 No.2996454 Report

Quoted By: >>2996460 >>2996821

>>2996452
you should delete all of your snapshits and not save any of mine.

junk !!281YB8Oy2bZ

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO yui!.jpg, 28KiB, 374x438

junk !!281YB8Oy2bZ Fri 06 Jan 2017 08:09:39 No.2996457 Report

Quoted By: >>2996462

>>2996450
I'm a natural genius after all

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Jan 2017 08:10:36 No.2996460 Report

Quoted By:

>>2996454
Just keep em coming. Their precision is oddly soothing.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO vancouver_sucks.jpg, 804KiB, 900x1200

Anonymous Fri 06 Jan 2017 08:21:56 No.2996462 Report

Quoted By:

>>2996457
stay away from the "red pill" and don't ever lurk /fit/

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Jan 2017 09:13:44 No.2996473 Report

Quoted By:

>>2996034
No u

>>2996209
And browser height tends to top out at about 950, after start bars and shit. You fucking clown shoes.

>>2996214
That's your browser, not 4chan,and it looks like shit

>>2996222
Great, now i can see the flaws in your cheap gear.

>>2996229
So what, it's not important.

>>2996238
Lol, u dumb

>>2996241
Not quite this dumb tho

>>2996266
No, i think all the new xmas fags are here and they don't have a fucking clue

>>2996285
The resized one looks all artifacty and shite, thanks for proving us right.

>>2996286
Spot the kiddy who doesn't know shit about photography, most don't print large, the vast majority of artists stick between a4 and a3 sizes, or about the size of a 1000px on a 27" 1080p monitor ;)

>>2996310
Nah eggy, that's just you, because you run your internet through a payg dongle to prevent all that kiddy porn having a hard link back to you. You sick old man.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Jan 2017 11:06:29 No.2996510 Report

Quoted By: >>2996516

>>2996360
I'm sorry, so if you decide to post high res shots of people's backs, or poorly composed landscapes, or god help me, deadpan shots of industrial areas, I'm now required to see them in full res before deciding they're a turd sandwich?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Jan 2017 11:07:32 No.2996512 Report

Quoted By:

>>2996401
If you think I'm waiting ten seconds to see a poorly framed out of focus shot of seagulls you're kidding yourself

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Jan 2017 11:13:50 No.2996516 Report

Quoted By: >>2996518

>>2996510

>what are thumbnails

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Jan 2017 11:15:09 No.2996518 Report

Quoted By:

>>2996516
> there's also the not-very-community-oriented threat of "well if you don't appease us we won't even look at your photos or comment on them!", which is just hilariously childish.

You seem to be implying some obligation of opening them if you get your way. I was addressing that point sarcastically

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Jan 2017 11:31:03 No.2996523 Report

Quoted By:

>>2996360
>there's also the not-very-community-oriented threat of "well if you don't appease us we won't even look at your photos or comment on them!", which is just hilariously childish.
You know what's hilarious about that bit. You're just flushing your photo away on an anonymous imageboard and limiting your audience because you can't take the extra 1 second to export properly.
If you can't make the effort for your snapshit, why should I take the effort to open it, look at it or even comment on it.
So as hilariously childish as it is, no skin off my nose.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 4chan.jpg, 739KiB, 1000x667

Anonymous Fri 06 Jan 2017 14:19:39 No.2996618 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Jan 2017 20:35:27 No.2996821 Report

Quoted By:

>>2996454
>>2996450
Photos like this look better in lower resolution. The lack of detail allows some of the features of the building to blur together and creates an idealized version of the buildings compared to the reality.

This is the only good argument I can see towards lower resolution. You could potentially create the same effect in high resolution by using a blur filter, but in the practical terms the lower resolution looks better when you are looking at it on 4chan because you click on it and it is instantly there. If you have to wait for the image to load it creates a mental expectation of higher detail and you become disappointed. It's all about the presentation.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Jan 2017 22:33:46 No.2996940 Report

Quoted By:

>>2996222
if these are the kind of photos you take you can fuck off

>>2996286
>Why even bother with any format larger than 35mm if details don't matter in a photograph?
>Why is /hr/ a thing if texture and detail don't matter?
jesus kys

people who are against the 1000px rule are probably the same gearfags eating this board alive

I don't mind if people upload up to 1500px/under 1 mb photos but i'm surely not opening "detailed" over 3mb snapshits

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO legs.jpg, 247KiB, 1024x1536

Anonymous Fri 06 Jan 2017 23:05:31 No.2996973 Report

Quoted By: >>2996975 >>2997042

How about this one?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO legs 2.jpg, 223KiB, 1024x1536

Anonymous Fri 06 Jan 2017 23:10:25 No.2996975 Report

Quoted By: >>2997042

>>2996973

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Jan 2017 00:17:36 No.2997042 Report

Quoted By:

>>2996975
>>2996973
Those extra pixels really help to accentuate the cellulite.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Jan 2017 00:20:00 No.2997043 Report

Quoted By: >>2997059 >>2997113

no fuck off really. please dont play with my heart.

is alphon back?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Jan 2017 00:42:28 No.2997057 Report

Quoted By: >>2997828

If your image requires pixel peeping to be appreciated, it's shit. If you specifically want assistance in something that requires pixel peeping, then post your full files.
It's not complicated.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1376088644171.png, 568KiB, 480x720

Anonymous Sat 07 Jan 2017 00:46:35 No.2997059 Report

Quoted By: >>2997075

>>2997043
Don't call it a comeback..

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Jan 2017 00:59:25 No.2997075 Report

Quoted By:

>>2997059
hopefully not. this board got into a perpetual, unrecoverable, ass state. it doesnt deserve any good things happening.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Jan 2017 01:13:51 No.2997084 Report

Quoted By:

>>2995399

Fuck off pixel peeper. 1000px and 1mb is plenty to see that your snapshit is trash-tier.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Jan 2017 01:22:40 No.2997091 Report

Quoted By: >>2997337

>>2995399
>if they see my slightly blurry photo of people's backs taken with my 50 f/1.8 at FULL RESOLUTION they're SURE to like it for once!

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO image.jpg, 2MiB, 3264x2448

Anonymous Sat 07 Jan 2017 02:23:48 No.2997113 Report

Quoted By: >>2997311 >>2997368 >>2997392

>>2997043
If I came back I wouldn't know what to post... I got out of the fine art game.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO _MG_9995.jpg, 633KiB, 1200x800

Anonymous Sat 07 Jan 2017 09:25:24 No.2997311 Report

Quoted By: >>2997313 >>2997336 >>2997368

>>2997113
like, holy shit man. this board got this slow?

who the fuck is the mod?

whoever the mods and/or janitors are, it is their little self-righteous campaigns/motives than turned this place into what it is now.

so yea, basically, OP, the faggot that stickied the shitty faggot sticky is a shitty fucking faggot loser peabrain who singlehandedly demolished a vibrant anonymous community because (most likely) he absolutely fucking sucked at photography.

screencapped for shitposting.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Jan 2017 09:39:34 No.2997312 Report

Quoted By:

>R:120 I:21
oh boy i sure love board culture

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Jan 2017 09:39:38 No.2997313 Report

Quoted By: >>2997367

>>2997311
this board used to stay alive even at night in America.

now it's just dead.

fucking sad, whoever is in charge.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO brisbane and vancouver.png, 90KiB, 1312x611

Anonymous Sat 07 Jan 2017 09:42:40 No.2997314 Report

Quoted By:

never in my life saw
>311
>312
>313
on 4chan.

time to remove the sticky, you talentless faggots

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Jan 2017 10:33:50 No.2997336 Report

Quoted By:

>>2997311
Who is this prince of profanity?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Jan 2017 10:40:24 No.2997337 Report

Quoted By:

>>2997091
Kek

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1483668195102m.png, 2KiB, 4096x2160

Anonymous Sat 07 Jan 2017 10:42:44 No.2997339 Report

Quoted By:

>>2996252
>35 KB
Are you even trying?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Jan 2017 11:40:24 No.2997367 Report

Quoted By: >>2997465

>>2997313
It's the dicky attitude that anons have toward anything that doesn't sit with their own style or desires.

instead of telling people they're trash, or pointing out their errors in ways that are condescending, maybe take the part of photography you enjoy and let that be the motivation to helping them get there too.

and instead of telling people their taste is trash because they like a certain pocket of photography, why don't you just ignore the post or give them suggestions that are in line with their tastes. for example, if I'm trying to play bluegrass on a banjo, and you only listen to trap music, don't the person that their music is trash just because of their genre, either ignore it because you truly have no real relevant or helpful input, or if you're even vaguely familiar, give them examples in their chosen style to follow and learn from.

the authoritarian and condescending voices on this board are what ruin it and scare off most would-be good contributors who don't want to deal with the toxic attitude of the anons here.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Jan 2017 11:48:45 No.2997368 Report

Quoted By: >>2997500

>>2997113
>>2997311
Holy shit. Alphon, are you back for real? If so, you have clearly missed a lot of the drama that made /p/ become an even worse shithole. Ever since the both traps aka Ayya and isi have turned up, the whole board went down the drains. It was all about whiteknighting, secret circlejerking clubs and FB/irc groups filled with tripfags.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Jan 2017 12:33:23 No.2997392 Report

Quoted By: >>2997403

>>2997113
alphon i love you. your teachings and crits allowed me to trash the national art photo scene and piss over those garbage leftists and "social issuers" with my fresh aproach to form and composition, they couldnt be more mad and i couldnt be more happy. im very grateful to you.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Jan 2017 13:02:59 No.2997403 Report

Quoted By:

>>2997392
I'd be grateful if you stopped abusing punctuation and applied a tiny bit of effort into your shitposts.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Jan 2017 16:18:06 No.2997465 Report

Quoted By:

>>2997367
Special participation trophies for everyone!

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO pixelsculpture.jpg, 403KiB, 1000x604

Anonymous Sat 07 Jan 2017 17:29:51 No.2997494 Report

Quoted By: >>2997495 >>2997510 >>2997514 >>2997784

You gotta take in account 99% of people here came from Tumblr, so to them 1000px wide is such a mindblowing concept (twice as much as what they used to have) that it simply looks impossible that anyone would need more.

Details? Too bad, just upload several crops of the same picture instead!

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO woah.jpg, 51KiB, 1000x1000

Anonymous Sat 07 Jan 2017 17:31:57 No.2997495 Report

Quoted By:

>>2997494
For instance, I really like the fine details in this particular area of this picture.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Jan 2017 17:39:58 No.2997498 Report

Quoted By:

It's literally smaller than every single frame of a blu ray. 24 of those a second.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Jan 2017 17:44:05 No.2997500 Report

Quoted By:

>>2997368
It's you, you dumb fuck, you're the problem.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 135887528754.jpg, 2MiB, 4823x3190

Anonymous Sat 07 Jan 2017 18:16:25 No.2997507 Report

Quoted By: >>2997612

I would also like to point out most photographers wish they were visual artists, but couldn't bother putting the effort to become one.

"Composition" is one of the few draftsmanship skills applicable to the field of machine-made imagery, and thus a bitter photographer has got to make it count if he sees the opportunity.

When photography was invented, everyone was delighted with its capacity to instantly capture details that would take days for a skilled painter to reproduce.
Because of that, artists made the whole Modern Art movement and yadda yadda. And they patted themselves on the back so much, it created a community that actually lives from doing easier stuff. "Let the machines do what machines do best, may mankind focus on what really matters, which is vision!"

But remember - a photographer wants to be the artist, not a simply button pusher. So he starts to foster thoughts of being a free, artistic spirit. "I am not dependent on my gear, all the art comes from my inner eye!".

Thus they start to think their vision is good enough, no matter the grain. And just how abstract artists will call good painters "uncreative copying machines", bitter photographers will call quality-seeking photographers "pixel peepers".

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Jan 2017 18:21:46 No.2997510 Report

Quoted By: >>2997522

>>2997494

The sculpture is valuable, the photo is not. If you wanted to share it as a sculpture there are other boards for that.

Otherwise wow, you (if it even was you) managed to take an in focus, relatively sharp photo in 2017, amazing!

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Jan 2017 18:27:50 No.2997514 Report

Quoted By:

>>2997494
now thats some tacky ass shit.

i bet you think steampunk designs look "rad" too.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1905 - Borzhom - Glass Factory.jpg, 116KiB, 512x450

Anonymous Sat 07 Jan 2017 18:32:16 No.2997522 Report

Quoted By: >>2997524 >>2997539

>>2997510
>Sculptures? Post on sculpture boards!
>Urban landscape? Post on architecture boards!
>Miniatures? Post on toy boards!
>Pets? Post on animal boards!
>Portraits? I don't wanna see people, try /int/ or /soc/!
Shut up, you tasteless filth, if composition is all that matters, /ic/ and /tv/ containment threads might as well cover all your watered needs.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Jan 2017 18:37:02 No.2997524 Report

Quoted By: >>2997539 >>2997540 >>2997561

>>2997522
>>Sculptures? Post on sculpture boards!
totally
>>Urban landscape? Post on architecture boards!
there is no architecture board, /p/ will do it
>>Miniatures? Post on toy boards!
totally
>>Pets? Post on animal boards!
totally
>>Portraits? I don't wanna see people, try /int/ or /soc/!
i wanna see people

this is how you outed yourself as a total turbopleb.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Jan 2017 19:04:49 No.2997539 Report

Quoted By: >>2997542

>>2997524

Yup - what I don't get is that >>2997522 is obviously a newfag to /p/ and probably to photography in general. He doesn't even grasp the concept and purpose of the board and yet here he is samefagging up a thread rallying against a key hallmark of the board.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Jan 2017 19:05:40 No.2997540 Report

Quoted By:

>>2997524
This.

What /p/ really needs is enforced anonymity. Maybe with ids like /pol/

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Jan 2017 19:08:11 No.2997542 Report

Quoted By:

>>2997539
this whole thread is a troll thread and that stubborn autist is just posting bait on top of bait. might be that junk tripfag or some other schizophrenic trolling "for the lulz".

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO hkg9841737.jpg, 427KiB, 1500x1000

Anonymous Sat 07 Jan 2017 19:43:13 No.2997561 Report

Quoted By:

>>2997524
>only the things I like to see are real photography
Last I checked this wasn't /p/ - Portraits, but you may try and shoo everyone from the pet thread off.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Jan 2017 21:28:41 No.2997612 Report

Quoted By:

>>2997507
Whose work must I imitate to gain your approval

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Jan 2017 21:33:36 No.2997622 Report

Quoted By: >>2997624 >>2997629

>>2995399
My whole experience with /p/ has been getting insulted on /p/, ignoring their advice to give up and kill myself, and seeing general success as a photographer in the real world meanwhile.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Jan 2017 21:35:03 No.2997624 Report

Quoted By:

>>2997622
Hi Kaz.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Jan 2017 21:35:27 No.2997626 Report

Quoted By:

>g-guys my picture as a whole is shit but look at the details!!! Look how sharp my shit is

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Jan 2017 21:40:13 No.2997629 Report

Quoted By: >>2997635

>>2997622
>general success
you hit $50,000 yet?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Jan 2017 21:45:45 No.2997635 Report

Quoted By: >>2997637

>>2997629
off photography? just about, and I'm happy with it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Jan 2017 21:52:14 No.2997637 Report

Quoted By:

>>2997635
What do you do?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 08 Jan 2017 03:15:40 No.2997784 Report

Quoted By: >>2997794

>>2997494
>implying you didn't come from Tumblr yourself
>implying most of the people arguing for the 1000px limit aren't the last dying gasps of the anon from back when /p/ was worth a modicum of dogshit

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 08 Jan 2017 03:28:05 No.2997794 Report

Quoted By: >>2997808 >>2997827

>>2997784
So you're saying that in the grand scheme of things a board full of 6000x4000 worthless dogshit is better than a board full of 1000x667 worthless dogshit?

Might as well nuke the whole place then.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1430668451775.jpg, 20KiB, 519x533

Anonymous Sun 08 Jan 2017 03:41:02 No.2997808 Report

Quoted By: >>2997824 >>2997850

>>2997794
>So you're saying that in the grand scheme of things a board full of 6000x4000 worthless dogshit is better than a board full of 1000x667 worthless dogshit?
lmao dude, you're missing the details. Which is exactly what I'd expect from a person against images larger than 1 megapixel.
The new coolness is tripfagging, posting your social media profiles and hanging out in the discord.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 08 Jan 2017 03:58:22 No.2997824 Report

Quoted By: >>2997826

>>2997808
>new coolness is tripfagging
Implying I ever tripped in my 10+ years on this godforsaken board.

>posting your social media profiles
Implying I have a social media profile.

>hanging out in the discord
Implying I would even if I knew anyone who would invite me.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1481000034915.jpg, 50KiB, 556x417

Anonymous Sun 08 Jan 2017 03:59:52 No.2997826 Report

Quoted By:

>>2997824
I'm not implying that. Learn to read.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 08 Jan 2017 04:00:47 No.2997827 Report

Quoted By: >>2997848 >>2997861 >>2997862

>>2997794
No, I'm arguing the opposite - that the last of the occasional drop-ins from pre-2010 - myself included - argue for the 1000px limit

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 08 Jan 2017 04:00:59 No.2997828 Report

Quoted By: >>2997830 >>2997995

>>2997057
Pixel peeping is part of the fun of photography.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 08 Jan 2017 04:03:18 No.2997830 Report

Quoted By: >>2997834

>>2997828
I've heard the fun part of suicide is slipping away into the darkness.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 08 Jan 2017 04:07:43 No.2997834 Report

Quoted By: >>2997839

>>2997830
Why don't you try it and see?

Suicide Is fun !.tJrPH6BSY

Suicide Is fun !.tJrPH6BSY Sun 08 Jan 2017 04:11:23 No.2997839 Report

Quoted By:

>>2997834
brb 30 minutes

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 08 Jan 2017 04:17:47 No.2997848 Report

Quoted By:

>>2997827
I guess your irony got lost on me, but I'm glad that we agree in the end.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1309923093341.jpg, 233KiB, 1024x680

Anonymous Sun 08 Jan 2017 04:19:03 No.2997850 Report

Quoted By: >>2997989 >>2999588

>>2997808
>The new coolness is tripfagging, posting your social media profiles and hanging out in the discord.
none of these talentless tripfags have more than a handful of photos that shouldn't be sent to the recycle bin.

I can shitpost a thread into autosage with good photos... bet.

back when /p/ was worth a modicum of dogshit we at least had some dank memes.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 08 Jan 2017 04:32:25 No.2997861 Report

Quoted By: >>2997864

>>2997827

I'm circa 2007. I used to argue strenuously for the image size limit back then. I was even the author of a little copy pasta that used to be trotted out every time someone posted an image that was too large.

I think it's stupid now and destructive to the board.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 08 Jan 2017 04:34:35 No.2997862 Report

Quoted By:

>>2997827
argumentum ad oldfagum is the worst

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 08 Jan 2017 04:35:55 No.2997863 Report

Quoted By: >>2997870

>>2995399
>OP thread in the wiki now

You have given them exactly what they wanted.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 08 Jan 2017 04:38:49 No.2997864 Report

Quoted By:

>>2997861
yea, the sticky definitely needs to go.

regulars will know that posting full size images is retarded for an obviously long list of reasons.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 08 Jan 2017 04:44:44 No.2997870 Report

Quoted By:

>>2997863
>http://pseudosticky.wikia.com
that wiki is terrible. not even remotely objective about controversial issues, for one.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 08 Jan 2017 04:44:46 No.2997871 Report

Quoted By: >>2997886

>>2995399
Awe, does someone not know how to resize their fucking iPhone photos.
Poor baby.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 08 Jan 2017 05:05:28 No.2997886 Report

Quoted By: >>2997924

>>2997871
Awe, someone is browsing /p/ on their fucking iPhone.
Poor baby.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 08 Jan 2017 06:34:46 No.2997924 Report

Quoted By: >>2997929

>>2997886
Lol anyone who's been browsing this board for more than a week realizes the only people who post pics >1mb are the dumbasses who take pics with there phones and don't know how to resize.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 08 Jan 2017 06:59:54 No.2997929 Report

Quoted By:

>>2997924
Nah, rabal and Sony alpher fags also do it often. The next tier is the film shooter who only gets lab scans.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 08 Jan 2017 11:13:20 No.2997989 Report

Quoted By:

>>2997850
isi has plenty of keepers and hangs out in discord

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 08 Jan 2017 11:33:51 No.2997995 Report

Quoted By: >>2998004

>>2997828
It's not necessary for critical assessment though, unless sharpness or level of intricate detail is the topic.
Keep in mind you can always post full size images if you want, but most people don't have a beefy PC and fast internet connection that will load it instantly and it gets very annoying when you're browsing through a thread and every single image takes 3-5 seconds to load.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Pontevedra Espanha.jpg, 732KiB, 2100x1500

Anonymous Sun 08 Jan 2017 12:00:12 No.2998004 Report

Quoted By: >>2998006 >>2998007 >>2998151

>>2997995
>3-5 seconds to load
I didn't know ADHD had reached this absurd levels on teenagers already.

Have you ever browsed an art book? It takes 3-5 seconds to flip a page. Walked on a gallery? Several seconds of walking between them.

Stop making shitty excuses, I myself hate to open those 4304x2903 4mb pictures, but thumbnails give me enough information to know whether waiting EXCRUCIATINGLY LONG 5 seconds will be worth it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 08 Jan 2017 12:03:29 No.2998006 Report

Quoted By: >>2998016

>>2998004
5 seconds add up to 500 seconds in a thread with a hundred pictures. Neck yourself.

>It takes 3-5 seconds to flip a page
If you're fucking Stephen Hawking maybe.

>Walked on a gallery? Several seconds of walking between them.
/p/ isn't remotely comparable to an actual gallery you cunt

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 08 Jan 2017 12:20:57 No.2998007 Report

Quoted By: >>2998016

>>2998004
>5mb pics are worth it
>takes wonky holiday snaps with a powershot

Lellerino

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1350083575407.jpg, 1MiB, 2048x1536

Anonymous Sun 08 Jan 2017 12:43:18 No.2998016 Report

Quoted By: >>2998021 >>2998025

>>2998006
If you're going to open every single picture, then start from the bottom and by the time you reach them they will already be loaded.

>>2998007
That's right, try to hold onto anything you can to defend your obsolete resolution.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 08 Jan 2017 12:56:23 No.2998021 Report

Quoted By: >>2998023 >>2998025 >>3000016

>>2998016
It's a shame you posted the full res of this, at 1000px it looks great, but as soon as you zoom in the inherent softness of smartphone cameras just ruins the whole shot.

We celebrate photographers here, not gearfags, 1000px helps level the playing field and concentrate on the photography.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMG_1585.jpg, 584KiB, 1600x1067

Anonymous Sun 08 Jan 2017 13:03:43 No.2998023 Report

Quoted By: >>2998058 >>2998084

>>2998021
>We celebrate photographers here, not gearfags
>goes on to shit about the cameras being used

Maybe we should just strip EXIF data already, that way you won't be able to do what you claim you don't.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1483879398056brdr.jpg, 592KiB, 1000x800

Anonymous Sun 08 Jan 2017 13:07:27 No.2998025 Report

Quoted By: >>2998026 >>2998027

>>2998016
>>2998021

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 08 Jan 2017 13:09:43 No.2998026 Report

Quoted By: >>2998029

>>2998025
much better

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 08 Jan 2017 13:09:51 No.2998027 Report

Quoted By:

>>2998025
Wow so cool! Instagram, please, I like having contacts on professional photography platforms.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 08 Jan 2017 13:16:44 No.2998029 Report

Quoted By:

>>2998026
Ha, thanks. Well, it certainly shows that you can do perfectly fine shots with an old camera such as the one the OP of the image has used. I simply edited the image in ACR for a minute and put a thick border around it to isolate the image a bit from the blue color scheme 4chan is using on /p/.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 08 Jan 2017 14:24:22 No.2998058 Report

Quoted By: >>2998072

>>2998023
a flower macro... yay! thanks for posting hi res :)

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 08 Jan 2017 14:39:09 No.2998072 Report

Quoted By:

>>2998058
>1600 is high resolution
I want Tumblr to leave.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 08 Jan 2017 14:55:04 No.2998084 Report

Quoted By: >>2998092

>>2998023
A lot of regulars do strip exif for this very reason.

And it wasn't the exif that gave it away, it's the fact it's ridiculously soft & noisy when viewed full size.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Izu Islands marriage.jpg, 80KiB, 1024x768

Anonymous Sun 08 Jan 2017 15:30:30 No.2998092 Report

Quoted By: >>2998093

>>2998084
You don't understand, it should be ENFORCED.

Only B&W 1000px-max, no EXIF.

Switching to analog would also help to drive away those fad-seekers who know nothing about REAL photography..

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO michael-wesely-moma[2].jpg, 170KiB, 700x558

Anonymous Sun 08 Jan 2017 15:32:09 No.2998093 Report

Quoted By:

>>2998092
Lenses are also nothing but gearfaggotry, pinholes should be enough if you are an artist.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 08 Jan 2017 18:30:49 No.2998151 Report

Quoted By: >>2998169

>>2998004
>It takes 3-5 seconds to flip a page.
If it takes you three to five seconds to turn a page, then you're more of a cripple than I am.
Stop making shitty excuses. Get yourself to a fucking doctor m8.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Glasgow-School-of-Fine-Art-Showc (...).jpg, 46KiB, 802x512

Anonymous Sun 08 Jan 2017 19:19:25 No.2998169 Report

Quoted By:

>>2998151
What have you been reading, flipbooks?

I dare anyone here recording themselves flipping a full-open book in less than 3 seconds.

Unless you stay alert and with your hands prepared from the get go for maximum performance (something you won't do if you're actually looking at the fucking pictures), you can't possibly keep it up.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 08 Jan 2017 19:20:51 No.2998171 Report

Quoted By:

>>2996286
>Why even bother with any format larger than 35mm if details don't matter in a photograph?

There's far more to it than that for larger formats.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMAG0001-01.jpg, 75KiB, 800x534

Anonymous Sun 08 Jan 2017 20:08:08 No.2998190 Report

Quoted By:

There's no need to have pixels or data in a file.
In fact, I even threw away my camera and started using my damaged phone camera instead.
Thanks /p/.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSC_0742-1.jpg, 4MiB, 4912x7360

Anonymous Sun 08 Jan 2017 20:17:19 No.2998195 Report

Quoted By: >>2998198 >>2998208 >>2998377 >>2998439 >>2999308

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 08 Jan 2017 20:18:48 No.2998198 Report

Quoted By:

>>2998195

Sick! Hiroshimoot increased the resolution limit! I can post a full 36 megapixels now.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 08 Jan 2017 20:41:13 No.2998208 Report

Quoted By: >>2998221

>>2998195
How dare you show me high-res snow? If I wanted to see real life, I would just go outside!

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSC_0158-1-2.jpg, 4MiB, 7360x4912

Anonymous Sun 08 Jan 2017 21:07:13 No.2998221 Report

Quoted By: >>2998439

>>2998208

Cool man no problem have a full rez spider instead.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 09 Jan 2017 01:24:20 No.2998377 Report

Quoted By: >>2998394

>>2998195
The picture is still inherently bad. 1000px or 50 megapickles, the subject of the image is undefined and bland. You could print this 1:1 and it'd still be unimpressive on all fronts.
Step up your snapshitting game senpai

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 09 Jan 2017 01:41:47 No.2998394 Report

Quoted By: >>2998413 >>2998422 >>2999146 >>2999288

>>2998377

Nah man it's a great picture. Not only that, but it's a great illustration of why resizing is bad.

>browser sized
>two silhouettes of unknown gender or age walk through a wintry wonderland

>full size
>a middle-aged yuppie couple trudge along a trail
>oh and they have a dog you couldn't even see before
>it's a German shepherd

And that's just with my shit technique of shooting it at ISO 1600. If I shot it at base ISO you would see much more.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 09 Jan 2017 01:58:11 No.2998413 Report

Quoted By:

>>2998394
I am on the side of having high resolution and file size be accepted without being reminded of "the rules" but this poster is perfectly right about what he is saying.

But instead of resizing you can blur your photos to get the right effect at any resolution, and you'll have more control over it than simply typing 1000 into the resize box and choosing lanczo3 or whatever.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 09 Jan 2017 02:04:55 No.2998422 Report

Quoted By:

>>2998394
ur pic sux dude.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 09 Jan 2017 02:16:48 No.2998426 Report

Quoted By:

Because the details don't make a photo. Plus it takes me a while to load photos over 2mb because i'm broke and can't afford good internet.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 09 Jan 2017 02:17:40 No.2998428 Report

Quoted By:

>>2996448
There are actual professional photographers that have been featured in major magazines who i've seen post their stuff on /p/

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 09 Jan 2017 02:25:18 No.2998439 Report

Quoted By: >>2998444 >>2998450

>>2998195
>>2998221
Except these are both rubbish at any resolution.
And that's the thing; if your photo needs more than 1000px to tell the story, then it's telling it poorly.
This thread is just a newfag echo chamber btw, you can absolutely expect no change to board rules.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 09 Jan 2017 02:39:02 No.2998444 Report

Quoted By: >>2998479

>>2998439

1) I'm an oldfag.
2) they aren't board rules.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 09 Jan 2017 02:54:11 No.2998450 Report

Quoted By: >>2998469

>>2998439
and /p/ will continue to be completely irrelevant

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 09 Jan 2017 03:28:43 No.2998469 Report

Quoted By: >>2998631

>>2998450
>this anon actually wants the board to be filled with more dpreview and reddit posters like moopco

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 09 Jan 2017 03:38:51 No.2998479 Report

Quoted By: >>2998513 >>2998518

>>2998444
>I'm an oldfag
So explain again for the group why you were shooting FUCKING SNOW at 1600iso?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 09 Jan 2017 04:32:31 No.2998513 Report

Quoted By:

>>2998479

I didn't want to underexposed

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 09 Jan 2017 04:39:50 No.2998518 Report

Quoted By: >>2998555 >>2998653

>>2998479
Have you ever been in the snow?
It gets really dark. Which means you have to push even harder to get clean white snow.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 09 Jan 2017 06:08:42 No.2998555 Report

Quoted By:

>>2998518
>Have you ever been in the snow?
No, but I have seen plenty of 1000px images of it, that makes me an expert.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 09 Jan 2017 08:27:21 No.2998631 Report

Quoted By:

>>2998469
It would be better than the current 5 posts an hour board.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 09 Jan 2017 10:04:40 No.2998653 Report

Quoted By:

>>2998518
No motion blur, even on the doggo tail, you could have gained a couple of stops on the shutter speed, dropped the iso and get greater dynamic range and detail, which would be ideal for this shot.

Noob.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO nigger.jpg, 128KiB, 667x1000

Anonymous Tue 10 Jan 2017 01:41:51 No.2999146 Report

Quoted By: >>2999154 >>2999341

>>2998394
>it's a great illustration of why resizing is bad.
>
>full size
>a middle-aged yuppie couple trudge along a trail
>oh and they have a dog you couldn't even see before
>it's a German shepherd

Should have used a 600mm then son.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 10 Jan 2017 01:59:30 No.2999153 Report

Quoted By:

>>2995399
>this website should be designed around my standards

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 10 Jan 2017 02:00:15 No.2999154 Report

Quoted By: >>2999161

>>2999146
much better composition here. though I would imagine that's closer to 200mm because the original looks like 35 at the narrowest.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 10 Jan 2017 02:07:23 No.2999161 Report

Quoted By: >>2999165 >>2999171

>>2999154

>much better composition here

Thanks for the compliment! I try to compose frames within frames, which tends to get lost when I have to throw away literally 95% of the frame due to resizing. Full size really lets you admire all of the little details I include in the frame.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 10 Jan 2017 02:14:56 No.2999165 Report

Quoted By: >>2999167

>>2999161
>I try to compose frames within frames
there is no such fucking thing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 10 Jan 2017 02:15:47 No.2999167 Report

Quoted By: >>2999176

>>2999165

Git gud.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 10 Jan 2017 02:19:27 No.2999171 Report

Quoted By:

>>2999161
No one can possibly be this retarded.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 10 Jan 2017 02:24:47 No.2999176 Report

Quoted By: >>2999186 >>2999426

>>2999167
show me some examples of yours then.

barring the ability to back up your own claims, feel free to post some bresson or whatever else the hell you think you're talking about.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 10 Jan 2017 02:40:07 No.2999186 Report

Quoted By: >>2999190 >>2999257

>>2999176

I mean, we're literally arguing over one right now mang. You can't see how that guy was able to find one composition inside another? Do you think I somehow didn't see that when I was shooting it?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1483906639464.jpg, 671KiB, 1216x1744

Anonymous Tue 10 Jan 2017 02:47:01 No.2999190 Report

Quoted By: >>2999195

>>2999186
>You can't see how that guy was able to find one
>when I was shooting it?
wait what...
>one composition inside another
I'm not seeing the merits of the other composition. a trail in the woods is so clichéd it's meaningless. in fact, I changed my mind, I like the original more since the humans are so dwarfed by the all the whiteness. still not quite 7/10 but hey.

your crop isn't the correct "'frame' within a frame" either.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 10 Jan 2017 02:51:00 No.2999195 Report

Quoted By: >>2999201

>>2999190

You need to stop composing like you have to resize for an anime waifu board my man. the figures don't have to be big relative to the frame to retain some basic detail. that's why i paid for all of those megapixels.

let go of your old preconceptions.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO ICE_120813_01.jpg, 43KiB, 667x1001

Anonymous Tue 10 Jan 2017 03:01:05 No.2999201 Report

Quoted By:

>>2999195
>preconceptions
ok, mr. "I follow the rule of thirds religiously"

back to the original point - you can print your photographs as big as you fucking want. feel free to enlarge the fucking grain if you want, snow and ice is grainy and that's like an arty thing to do or whatever. but there is zero fucking point in zooming into this shot on your computer. resize to 1000 pixels and if someone absolutely has to see every fucking single tree branch and leaf and they ask you can smile and post your shit.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 666.jpg, 665KiB, 1024x768

Anonymous Tue 10 Jan 2017 04:13:48 No.2999237 Report

Quoted By: >>2999265 >>2999415

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMG-20111001-00008.jpg, 453KiB, 1600x1200

Anonymous Tue 10 Jan 2017 04:32:09 No.2999244 Report

Quoted By: >>2999265

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 10 Jan 2017 05:06:43 No.2999257 Report

Quoted By: >>2999426

>>2999186
>shitty 1:1 crop of a shitty OVER 9000 MEGAPICKES snapshit made to illustrate how retarded your argument is
>I try to compose frames within frames
>"'frame' within a frame"
>that guy was able to find one composition inside another
>/p/ still falling for it

God fucking damn it /p/, trolls and clinical retards can only thrive if you enable them by giving them attention. So just fucking stop already please.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 10 Jan 2017 05:14:56 No.2999265 Report

Quoted By: >>2999678

>>2999237
>>2999244
I get that you're probably proud of these but I don't understand why you're posting them here.

like, congratulations. you took pictures somewhere that wasn't America or Australia.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 10 Jan 2017 06:09:31 No.2999288 Report

Quoted By: >>2999294

>>2998394
So, full size you have two grainy ass pictures of yuppies. Big fuckin deal, man. Why does that make a good picture.

Also

>fucking surrounded by blinding light and snow everywhere
>shooting at ISO1600
Already shameful, no reason you need your ISO that high (or, low, really, but on your poop camera it looks pretty bad.)

Why are you such a pixel peeper if you shoot on such clearly shit hardware? If you were on something good I'd at least understand somewhat, but what crap camera are you shooting on?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 10 Jan 2017 06:14:51 No.2999294 Report

Quoted By: >>2999305 >>2999329

>>2999288

D810.

Exactly how many 36 megapixel cameras are there, fucktard?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 10 Jan 2017 06:33:03 No.2999305 Report

Quoted By: >>2999334

>>2999294
I have a d600 and it's hard to imagine that the d810 actually looks that bad at ISO 1600.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 10 Jan 2017 06:38:40 No.2999308 Report

Quoted By: >>2999322

>>2998195
this picture is fucking trash
it would only make sense printed 12 feet tall but the technical quality doesn't support anything near that
plus it would still be a fucking deadpan snapshit

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 10 Jan 2017 06:56:01 No.2999322 Report

Quoted By: >>2999426 >>2999757

>>2999308
how does "deadpan" apply in the situation?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 10 Jan 2017 07:11:09 No.2999329 Report

Quoted By: >>2999334

>>2999294
/p/ in a fucking nutshell:

>$3000 top-of-the-line studio camera
>takes a smartphone-tier outdoors snapshit
>manages to fuck up exposure settings too
>argues about the snapshit's composition

Oh right, there no AUTO mode on pro-level Nikons. Why don't you show us the original EXIF so we can laugh some more at your retardation.

And to be sure, the 1000px rule is to prevent retards like you from flooding the board with your garbage snapshits, 4+ useless Megabytes at the time.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 10 Jan 2017 07:27:16 No.2999334 Report

Quoted By:

>>2999305

i accidentally boosted the shadows to +100 in lightroom lmao

it wasn't supposed to be a serious photo but everyone sure got their james russelled.

>>2999329

program is basically auto. ;)

i don't understand how someone like you can download 4 gigs of big black cock transgender cuckold webms on /gif/ and then come bitch about 4 megs of art on /p/. you ought to be ashamed of yourself.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 10 Jan 2017 07:46:30 No.2999341 Report

Quoted By:

>>2999146
THE DETAILS
SO MANY DETAILS

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 10 Jan 2017 10:47:26 No.2999391 Report

Quoted By: >>2999395 >>2999426

Photography being some sort of art, it doesn't matter what size it is, a test of sorts, high resolution is a crutch, a good photograph is beautiful even when shown upside down,

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 10 Jan 2017 10:54:51 No.2999395 Report

Quoted By:

>>2999391
>NWODEDISPU
>W
>O
>D
>E
>D
>I
>S
>P
>U

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 10 Jan 2017 11:59:16 No.2999415 Report

Quoted By:

>>2999237
I love it.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO dasddds.jpg, 363KiB, 1000x1000

Anonymous Tue 10 Jan 2017 12:29:34 No.2999426 Report

Quoted By: >>2999431

>>2999176
>show me some examples of yours then.
You were arguing against an example, how can you be this retarded?

>>2999257
>>that guy was able to find one composition inside another
I don't get your problem with this claim. I can crop wherever I want and make a new composition.

>>2999322
It doesn't. Kids are looking for ways to insult what they don't understand.

>>2999391
Then post everything you shoot upside-down from now one. And no colors or post-processing. Stop ruining true art!

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 10 Jan 2017 12:45:49 No.2999431 Report

Quoted By: >>2999506

>>2999426
>I don't get your problem with this claim. I can crop wherever I want and make a new composition.
I think he thought you meant that you're actively making multiple compositions in single shots while you're shooting, not that you make new compositions by cropping your files.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 10 Jan 2017 14:50:47 No.2999506 Report

Quoted By:

>>2999431
Ah, okay. (I'm not the people involved in the discussion, by the way).

That is somewhat possible, film directors do that a lot, although I doubt it was intended here.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 45374547.jpg, 39KiB, 431x450

Anonymous Tue 10 Jan 2017 19:04:40 No.2999588 Report

Quoted By: >>2999761

>>2997850
>says tripfags have shit photos
>posts a shit photo

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 10 Jan 2017 22:24:44 No.2999678 Report

Quoted By:

>>2999265
The size of the files. I took them a while back with my old blackberru and they turned allright I think.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 11 Jan 2017 01:03:11 No.2999757 Report

Quoted By:

>>2999322
it doesn't show any emotion, it doesn't make you feel anything at all (maybe an unintended sense of predatory voyeurism?)
I'll agree that gallery deadpan photographers are typically CAPABLE of conveying emotion through and image and that this guy shows no evidence of it, but the snapshot "picture of a thing" aesthetic is a big part of what they are responding to

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 11 Jan 2017 01:08:23 No.2999761 Report

Quoted By: >>2999784 >>2999806

>>2999588
dude that pic is fine kys you fat fuck

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 11 Jan 2017 01:39:34 No.2999784 Report

Quoted By:

>>2999761
theres nothing fine about that photo, except maybe the creative use of extreme chromatic aberration

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 11 Jan 2017 02:22:37 No.2999806 Report

Quoted By:

>>2999761
that's one of the mod's OC.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMG_0884.jpg, 141KiB, 720x715

Anonymous Wed 11 Jan 2017 03:25:08 No.2999836 Report

Quoted By: >>2999848 >>2999853 >>2999876 >>2999909 >>3000100

I've soooooo many nudes and no one to send them to so I've decided I'm going to sell them if interested let me know.
kik: paperweite
Or hit up
Four six nine two one four three seven eight seven
$15=30 pictures
$25=40 pictures
$25= 1 video
$40=1 video + 25 pictures
$50 = 2 videos + 35 pictures

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 11 Jan 2017 03:50:02 No.2999848 Report

Quoted By:

>>2999836
lol

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 11 Jan 2017 04:01:04 No.2999853 Report

Quoted By:

>>2999836
Post a few testers

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 11 Jan 2017 04:40:03 No.2999876 Report

Quoted By:

>>2999836
>sell them
top kek mate, if there's too much of anything on the internet for free, it's nudes.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 11 Jan 2017 05:35:40 No.2999909 Report

Quoted By:

>>2999836
>Four six nine two one four three seven eight seven
dallas-fort worth, huh? wanna meet up?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 11 Jan 2017 08:06:50 No.2999971 Report

Quoted By: >>2999976 >>3000013 >>3000016 >>3000026

I like how no one has actually provided one positive argument for resizing besides "I just don't want to download it" and "it's muh board heritage."

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 11 Jan 2017 08:21:03 No.2999976 Report

Quoted By:

>>2999971
I always resize because I don't want to end up like Alex Burke having to deal with a third world company selling his full size photos stolen from /p/.
I think OP wants to steal more photos, hence all this shilling.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 11 Jan 2017 09:14:41 No.3000013 Report

Quoted By:

>>2999971
it makes a difference on my ipad :^(

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 11 Jan 2017 09:17:15 No.3000016 Report

Quoted By: >>3000020

>>2999971
>>2998021

Faggot face.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 11 Jan 2017 09:22:30 No.3000020 Report

Quoted By:

>>3000016
face faggot

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 11 Jan 2017 09:40:30 No.3000026 Report

Quoted By:

>>2999971
Read the thread faggot.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO waves_sunset_by_akira535-d7rlg6w.jpg, 745KiB, 1920x1200

Anonymous Wed 11 Jan 2017 12:42:58 No.3000100 Report

Quoted By:

>>2999836
>$15=30 pictures
>$25=40 pictures
What, 10 dolars for only 10 extra pictures? Why not buy 2 packs of 30 for 15 dollars instead?

>$25= 1 video
>$40=1 video + 25 pictures
40 dollars = 25 + 15. I could buy 1 video and 30 pictures separately for that price.

>$50 = 2 videos + 35 pictures
Now you're just fucking with me. The 35 pictures suddenly become free.

This is the most retarded price list I have ever seen, there is no consistency whatsoever.

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