>>3757896Oh, I think I know who you are. I think people were suspicious about your thread because you weren't up front about your movie poster photo being shot on a production where costumes, lighting, etc, were all done by someone else. There was honestly sort of a big jump in quality from that photo to the rest of the stuff in your thread.
>>3757956I wasn't even necessarily passing judgment on isi's work. It's more just an objective look at the board's reaction to her work. They usually start slow until someone (or her) starts shitposting and starting drama, and then the thread whips itself into a frenzy. It's not necessarily an indication of quality, but rather an indication of the mind share that she occupies on the board.
>>3757965My advice is try and highlight the works of other photographers. The problem with personas and tripfags is that they stand out by nature and end up occupying an unrealistic proportion of the dialogue on this board. Hell, we're guilty of it right now, so I'll talk about another photographer who should be in the discussion:
UV guy's work is consistent, it's interesting and unique, and you can tell he's really putting it all on the line for his art. He's talked about the financial difficulties of his life, but the work comes first. That's the sign of dedication and not dabbling.
