There was a thread recently where someone posted some pictures that weren't that good and complained about being depressed.I sympathize, but there are a couple of basic things you can do to improve your pictures almost immediately.1. Get up off your knees and quit fellating the god of gear. Better gear is not going to help you take better pictures.2. Quit being afraid of people. Nobody cares if you takes their picture on the street. That said, don't get in their face. Conversely, don't sneak around like a creep with some embarrassing telephoto lens that screams "I'm a sexual deviant" if anywhere outside a sports arena. 3. This is the most important thing. Learn to tell a story. There has to be something that 1) just happened inside the frame, 2) is about to happen inside the frame, or 3) is happening outside the frame. Something important. That unspoken thing is what makes people keep looking. You can take all the perfectly composed, perfectly exposed, perfectly color graded shots of old buildings and street signs you want, but the pictures won't draw people in. A technically imperfect shot of an interesting situation is always going to be a better photograph than the opposite. If your goal is to be the best food photographer in the business then of course none of this applies to you.
>>3899182>MUH STORYfuck off. this is useless drivel that means nothing. an image doesn't have to do anything.
>>3899191He's right about composition, grading and other technical stuff not making a picture great though.But I agree with you, the "story" thing is bullshit.What matters is having some interesting theme going on.
THIS BLOGPOST IS FUCKING TRASH
I see the food photographers have found the thread
>>3899193>Implying a theme isn't storytellingcongrats retard
>>3899197Joke's on you, I shoot passport photos with my 50mm lens and my crop mirrorless. I'm what people call a PPP (PassPort Photographer).
>>3899203You seem to have a very loose definition of "story". Everything is a story to you. You see a picture with a yellow and blue theme and to you it's the story about how they beat magenta to a pulp and are now fighting for supremacy.
>>3899208lol I was only joking about you being a retard, wasn't expecting you actually are.
>>3899206yes but is there a story
>>3899208oh shit the ukrainians have entered the chatroom
>>3899210No but there's no food either.
have any of you stopped to consider why terry richardson fapfests are a regular feature of /p/?he tells stories. Granted, they're stories a 13yo boy who just discovered boobs comes up with, but stories nevertheless.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution25 dpiVertical Resolution25 dpiColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1200Image Height800
>>3899212Kek>>3899209Not an argument. The theme could be architecture for example. The "story" meme is a reductionist streetshitter mantra and the so-called story is more often than not something they make up after the fact to justify their middlebrow fedoracore reddit snapshits. It's usually the excuse for taking a headshot of a hobo.
>>3899214Terry is popular not because he "tells stories", but because he has an unique style that's arguably ugly but at the same time iconic and true art.
>>3899182>don't sneak around like a creep with some embarrassing telephoto lens that screams "I'm a sexual deviant"I know you are trying to be funny but there are people here who are too stupid to get the joke
>>3899227>Terry is popular not because he "tells stories", but because he has an unique style that's arguably ugly but at the same time iconic and true art.Terry is popular because he acts out schoolboy wank fantasies. To pretend otherwise is being deliberately stupid.
>>3899294You don't get it do you? In an industry dominated by the glitzy glamour, he brought pictures with crass cheek and rude rebellion. He cut through the fake.
>>3899294He's not really popular, and he's not original. All he did was copy old Annie Leibovitz's Rolling Stone documentary style.
>>3899407lol Annie Leibovitz did nothing unique
>>3899359It seems like he used that glitzy glamour and had fun with it and that language, but I have a hard time believing his work is supposed to be any kind of meaningful critique or satire. Its openly embracing the visual style of consumerism, branding, and sexual imagery in pop culture, having fun with it, and doing it well
>>3899561He put the degeneracy of the elites in full display. Showed the emperor has no clothes. Crushed the myth of the virtuous celeb.
>>3899359>You don't get it do you?Patronising cunt aren't you?The "glitzy glamour" industry bought the his ass, they'd been playing let's pretend rebels since the United fucking Colors of Benetton. He was just the dirty old man look they needed to give their shit some kind of edgy teen appeal. He would have gone nowhere without their approval.
>>3899182>Better gear is not going to help you take better pictures.Except it will if he needs specialized things like macro, architecture or long-landscape>Quit being afraid of people. Nobody cares if you takes their picture on the street.Except they do in some places, he might be from such a place. In my particular case it's not strange to see old folk picking fights with foreigner snappers. Also he might also not be a creep portraitist.>Learn to tell a story.Some photographic styles don't depend on story, see: Architecture. A very bad tip, especially for being the most important one.Shit thread, either buy a rope or a photo book and learn not everything is street snaps and portrait work.>muh BressonGet the rope.
>>3899724>see: ArchitectureI covered that (cf "food photography")oh wait, you think architectural photography is different from taking pictures of soup for a glossy menu? you really think that? like, really?
>>3899729>you think architectural photography is different from taking pictures of soup for a glossy menu?Yes, because food photography depends on flat-field normal-to-telephoto lenses and good lighting, leaning to warm at times, which you can get in a single shoot. Architecture depends on wide-angle shifting lenses for perspective and using only available light unless you shoot interiors, which then depends on soft light and sometimes even HDR techniques to get the panoramas from outside the windows.>like, really?I made money doing both before this mess happened. Learn how to shoot shit you fucking homo, both need different gear although if done only casually you can do pretty much anything with a superzoom that focuses closely.
>>3899740t. Food and building photographer
>>3899182Every degree-level photography course in thirty seconds.
lol OP this thread would be more interesting if you posted your own photos and led by example
Isi tells stories with pictures of sign posts. You can tell a story with anything.
He can’t unlike Queen isi