>>4275773Nigga do you know the history of this photo
She had some rickety 4x5 piece of shit, not a 42 exposure roll and a leica. Half the time those things don't even hold the film flat and you cant actually predict getting shit in focus if you're shooting quick. It was probably ISO <100 too, so what's focus and whats motion blur?
99% of us here never even noticed that her face was slightly blurry. I bet that was just you!
>>4275777An uninteresting blurry picture will always have the blurriness pointed out first because it's unironically more interesting than your photos (which we assume you haven't posted for a reason - i bet they're godawful street photography or blurry animals). A lot of interesting pictures have been posted on /p/ and in art galleries with bits of motion blur, too much bokeh throwing backs of heads and fronts of noses out of focus, and none of that was criticized. But when your photo has NOTHING going on, then people go
>Hey, your models nose is the only thing in focus retard, and your lighting sucksAnd if you're using a literal magical, AI autofocus high speed camera that costs $1500 and still fucking up people will notice that like they'd notice you riding a loud ass fuck neon green 1000cc race motorcycle really slowly and wobbling all over the road
>its the journey n-not my riding skills im sightseeing no one cares how good you are at riding if you never go anywhere interesting ;_; *falls over trying to get moving*You're just a consoomer clown then
And yes, I am saying that you are talking about critique you have received. It's really, really obvious this is about your experience on /p/ posting blurry boring snapshits. Can't imagine anything else because these "gearfags obsessed with focusing" aren't a thing to my knowledge, any camera can focus and lots of fine art photography makes creative use of OOF throw and motion blur - using $50k hasselblads. It's people mocking you failing at photography in every conceivable way.
