[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/p/ - Photography

[Advertise on 4chan]

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 45 posters in this thread.

08/21/20New boards added: /vrpg/, /vmg/, /vst/ and /vm/
05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
[Hide] [Show All]


Happy 18th Birthday, 4chan!

Janitor acceptance emails will be sent out over the coming weeks. Make sure to check your spam box!


[Advertise on 4chan]


Hello there. I'm 22, been 5 years into photographing hobby, so finally I think I've got enough skill and gear to make this hobby a profession. In this thread I'll post everything related to this decision, including most of a photos that I'll shot commercial. Critique of my works and any advises appreciated (I'm channer for years, so feel free to mock me or advice kys).

My final goal is to raise at least 17K$ for student loans. I hope to do it in a year or two. The first lesser goal is to raise 130$ for a physical server, that will hold my money in form of bitcoins.

For a first stage I'll bomb local TG chats to find a people who wants to be shot for absolutely free. Thus, I'll make a portfolio. I hope to pass this stage and start asking money for my work in month or so. When I do, the early price will be 80$ per photo session.

What I already tried (and failed miserably).

- Invest money into advertising. Well, this is kinda logical to be done sooner or later, but at the point of year ago it was too soon. I've gotten zero clients and some harsh critique of my previous works. So, I learned to obtain a portfolio, and, as you can see from text above, this is what I'll do for a first stage.

- Offering local coffees, restaurants, etc. to shot their location. This was my friend's idea and it revealed to be terrible. I walked into 40 or even 50 locations, everywhere asking for a manager and offering my service, but got rejected in every single one.

- Investing money into «very serious» studio shooting with decorations and costumes. Epic fail because of the gear I had for the moment. What I learned from that attempt is to never trust cheap shitty gear, so now I invested some money into buying more serious stuff.

- Being film-only photographer. A most shitty idea that could came from my mind. What I learned from that is to buy a digutal body, so I did.

With all that experience of doing wrong, I hope I learned enough to finally make it right.
>>
File: communism.jpg (61 KB, 857x1280)
61 KB
61 KB JPG
Best photo I did so far, the only one good from that studio shootings attempt.
>>
Two nice ones from older portfolio with with I failed to advertise myself.
>>
>>
>>3943551
>>3943553
>>3943555
Anon, I'm sorry, but these are horribly and utterly terrible. The exposure is terrible, the sharpness is terrible and colors are terrible. Your second one is salvageable but >>3943551 is the absolute worst of the bunch for all the reasons I listed.

At 5 years in, I'm frankly amazed at how poor these are. I'm not trying to hurt your feelings or whatever but just letting you know that you're skill set is not cut out for commercial or paid work at all.
>>
Why do you want to be a pro?

I know "professionals" and all they take pictures of is weddings, peoples ugly families, or essentially porn, which is the only one of these that I see ANY creative merit in at all.
>>
>>3943568
Thanks, I appreciate your honesty (like, no sarcasm, tho it's kinda sad). In which directions should I look to try improving my skills? Like, when you say that the colours are bad, should I work on post-processing or what?

>>3943569
I need huge amount of money and I l have no better skill than photography. That's all.
>>
>>3943571
> In which directions should I look to try improving my skills?
Composition appears to be a main issue as does exposure. Your first pic is composed pretty badly, the biggest issue being the top of the book is cut off as is half the text on the front of it. Then using the AK also distracts too much and not in a good way, it would've been much more interesting if you'd removed the AK, taken a few steps back to get the book fully in frame and then ease off on editing the lighting since it's both underexposed and overexposed at the same time.

>Like, when you say that the colours are bad, should I work on post-processing or what?
Yes, you've got to really ease off on post-processing. Everything in post should be a garnish, not where the majority of the work is done.

>I need huge amount of money and I l have no better skill than photography. That's all.
You're on the wrong path man. It's like YouTubers that do it just for the money, people no the heart isn't in it and it fails. You'd be better off finding a day job since photography isn't even consistent enough work for the people that actually do it professionally.
>>
>>3943571
while i still think you're a troll, pay attention to lighting more. Backlit subjects usually look like shit, try to get the highlight to be their eyes. Also everything is out of focus. And this is coming from me, I don't even shoot people as a rule.


Photography is a horrible, if not the worst, choice of career to make money. Even shitty painters can do porn commissions.
>>
>>3943573
>>3943574
Thanks a lot, you two, I'll try to listen to your advises.

In particular, when shooting people who will answer for my free photography offer, I'll try using the simplest way to make a good composition — rule of thirds. I think I'm not ready to try out more complex composition, like I tried to with the first work.

What I actually don't get is the all you're saying about exposure. You see, I came to photography world via film photography and learnt only to trust my exposure meter absolutely and take not a single step further or backwards from the exposure pair it gives me. Am I wrong in this principle? Am I using exposure meter wrong since the results I've got?

Also, let me post the first one without post-processing. As you can see from it, what did I do wrong? The main mistake I can see is the light on her face. It's obviously over-lighted. But that's a mistake I've learned something from doing it, now I know better how to (not) set a studio light.
>>
>>3943576
>You see, I came to photography world via film photography and learnt only to trust my exposure meter absolutely and take not a single step further or backwards from the exposure pair it gives me.
Oh anon, you have so much to learn still.

>As you can see from it, what did I do wrong? The main mistake I can see is the light on her face. It's obviously over-lighted. But that's a mistake I've learned something from doing it, now I know better how to (not) set a studio light.
It's too compressed (by which I mean so much shit trying to fit in a small frame) and once again the book is totally cut off.

In all honesty, you should not follow this as a money making idea at all. Even highly skilled professionals struggle with getting consistent or high paying work and what you're doing now at best will get you a few dollars from some young kids that don't know any better.
>>
>>3943571
you're better off having a day job/investments. purely anecdotal, but the photographers I've known who are "successful" in a way do this as a hobby at most.
>>
I refuse to believe you've been shooting for 5 years. this has to be a troll thread.
>>
>>3943586
I don't know man, you ever see some of ths shit posted on normalfag sites like flickr?
Some people lack self awareness, and it doesn't help when they only post on sites that allow positive feedback
>>
>>3943586
>>3943669
The best is going to dpreview forums and check what people are shooting with their $3500 R5 and dozen L lenses. It's amazing what garbage people create with their fantastic gear.
>>
OP here, just came home from first session. I've got mixed feelings. From one hand, the shootout was simple enough so I won't fail and both photos are pretty neat. From the other, isn't it too simple so it won't fit a serious portfolio?
>>
>>3943678
>still out of focus
why do you want to hurt us like this anon
>>
>>
+bonus, a lazy attempt on a street photography.

>>3943679
It's not out of focus. It's too soft.

Right after coming home I first posted these photos to one photo conference before 4ch. There appeared a guy who knows that lense (Sonnar 85/2) and shot it before. He told me, that there are no sharpness before f4. And my photos are shot at f2. I'll remember that statement for a future.
>>
>>3943680
>>3943678
This is a nice troll and great baiting. It will net you many (you)s.
>>
>>3943683
What should I do so you believe I'm not a troll?

It honestly hurts a bit. I was ready to go under mockery, since we're on imageboards, but it's way worse to see people won't even believe I'm serious.
>>
>>3943685
I understand anon. You're putting some serious effort in your trolling and I can respect that. Keep up the good work and you will soon reach the bump limit, I guarantee it!
>>
>>3943550
>I'm channer for years
Not enough years if you are still using "channer", you fucking newfag
But good luck anyways

>>3943551
>>3943553
>>3943555
Second one is very nice but i can't see the Pro in these, a professional photographer is a gearfag first and foremost, he never uses creativity but proven recipes, they are the ones buying the posing people books.
From these i can gather you are a photographer trying to use his artistry to make a living; there's a reason most good artists died with not much to leave to their friends or descendants, even modern ones. For example those shots i want to think are film, if not then you nailed the film style better than most, but anyways film is never used professionally other than plugged-in despot artists who do what they want in a set after being established so that's going to be a money funnel. Second you have interesting things nearby and honestly you should use them, they might be incredibly cliche but people are nigger cattle and will follow the trend, that's why they are cliche, people want it no matter how trite so do shots using the classical columns as background, put a girl doing a dumb face using her scale amidst the elevated scale of the buildings, etc.
They are not Bad as the nophoto said but surely this isn't what a professional does, mind you even if they were perfectly composed and processed they still wouldn't be pro because of the lack of resolution and stabbing vibrant colors that digital has and film doesn't when buying normal rolls.

>>3943571
>I need huge amount of money
Unironically sell drugs, never cross anyone and be professional about it without consuming what you sell, you will be a piece of crap by society but you will have money. Why do you want money anyways?
inb4 buy film
>>
The quickest way you'll make money from your camera is to sell it, these are atrocious even I'm better than this and I historically suck ass on this board, git gud m80
>>
>>3943576
>trust my exposure meter absolutely and take not a single step further or backwards from the exposure pair it gives me.
This is correct but only in slide film, other type of stuff has more room to miss or use its other capabilities, also in digital if you work with raw files you should try and saturate the sensor, this means expose as much as possible without burning the highlights or the ones that shouldn't at least, this is to fully get the colors and shadows once you try and process it, colors mute out if you underexpose so putting in more light will give you more info to work them; this is what differentiates non-pro workers with pro ones, when to know the raws will clip which the camera never tells you because it's using the JPG engine when it shows you the histogram.
Sharpness is also a main sale, people love it even when attempting to go full film-like, things are made to get more of it so you might say this is where the trend is, shooting cheap film is the counter point of it and you need to be REAL good to get living wages out of it. By real good i mean continental-level top-tier good, i don't think more than 20 people live by decently while shooting commercial/pro level film photography in a region, and be sure most of them do because they have high connections/are jews and not because they are great.

Now remember: Pro work in photo is not about good photos, is about technically-superior photos and that means sharp, loud colors and cleanly composed aka on level with very few subjects to look for by the feeble-minded public. For that you need expensive gear or knowing what to look for (sharp as hell vintage lens, camera with a famous sensor, learning how to process it when used at something above its comfortable ISO range, etc).

>>3943573
>Everything in post should be a garnish, not where the majority of the work is done.
t. not a pro
>>
For example in compositional lessons for the sheep mongrel public: >>3943678 here you made a play on the subject's face being the border between two different backgrounds, this might work with other subjects and contexts but here it's the technical profile of a dude, this is no good at all because people don't see his portrait to entertain the ideas of the visuals and their placement (if they could), they want to see his mug and not be distracted.
Thus you should've places his hairline in a lighter background, say the overcast white sky, and his red plaid shirt used with a contrasting background, say the dark green foliage, and that's it. Depending on the client's tastes you should've let the lighting be natural or flashbang him from an angle to showcase more angularity to his round face.

Keep things simple, way too simple, and concentrate on getting the important things on focus. For example the critical focus here is his left shoulder, his right cheek is out of it, you should use a lens with the property of a well-corrected focal plane as to avoid focus change when you recompose aka a lens with the same focus all over the image. Some 70's and 80's stuff made for medical uses have that property, lousy bokeh but they are telephotos so you might get something out of it.

>>3943739
Shut it, fat khaki-short wearing swamp freak
>>
Your photos are absolutely dogshit and I'm not even just saying that to be hee hee Internet hate machine stereotype

Please learn how your camera works, learn about focus and exposure, and once you have achieved a baseline of technical competence you can branch out into more artistic works

Good luck OP
>>
>>3943550
>refers to itself as 4channer
>cartoon to start thread in photo board
>puts dollar sign after the number

sadly this appears to be a genuine autist and not a troll. there are subtleties in the naivety that someone larping for the lols couldn't write

my advice for the unfortunate creature is to dive in or get out. you need to put the whoring on pause and either spend serious time experimenting and learning about how photography physically works to improve at it or sell all your gear.
>>
>>3943550
post one of the least and one of most balanced pictures you took in the last 5 years
>>
this thread gave me the most genuine laughs I've ever had in all my time browsing /p/.

Good job OP.
>>
what were you doing for 5 years? could you please show us some early photgraphy
>>3943550
>>3943550
>>3943550
>>
this thread can't be real, there's no way someone can lack this much self awareness.
>>
Below are answers for a specific phrases, but in general, I should make my photos more technical superior, in specific by setting aperture narrower to et it sharper, AND keep my works as simple as last two photos, including usage rule of thirds. Am I right?

>>3943735
Well, to be honest, I'm 10 years into imageboards, but only >1 year into 4chan. How do you guys call each other? I'd be happy to learn.

And yeap, it's film. Kodak Portra 160, soviet 6x9 rangefinder.

>>3943741
> Now remember: Pro work in photo is not about good photos, is about technically-superior photos and that means sharp, loud colors and cleanly composed aka on level with very few subjects to look for by the feeble-minded public. For that you need expensive gear or knowing what to look for (sharp as hell vintage lens, camera with a famous sensor, learning how to process it when used at something above its comfortable ISO range, etc).

Thanks a HUGE amount of times, I'll remember that statement for a long time.

>>3943751
Thanks a hecking lot of times too. Are you the same guy from above, or several people around here are trying to educate me?

tldr You guys are great.

>>3943838
How early? I'm holding archive of all the photos I've shot, systematized by film queue, but shots from 2016 will be much different from 2018 ones.

I've shot exactly 158 film reels, pick any number from 1 to 158 and I'll post something from a specific reel.
>>
>>3943928
>shot exactly 158 film reels, pick any number from 1 to 158
7
>>
>>3943928
>I've shot exactly 158 film reels
What a senseless waste of film.
>>
>>3943936
Surprisingly nice, tho amateur.
>>
>>3943939
show more!
>>
>>3943940
From the same film? Ok.
>>
how about reel #91
>>
>>3943942
Little bit overexposed, but nice.
>>
>>3943939
>>3943941
Terrible once again. Waste of the film they're on.

>>3943943
An actually decent one at last.
>>
>>3943944
Ahem. I'm absolutely agree this is terrible. But this is hecking #7 film I've shot in my life.

> decent one

And this is shot years after those two. You see the logic.
>>
>>3943948
Considering that at the start of this thread you posted your most recent pics and they were total shit, you can probably understand.
>>
OP, I want you to fill this thread with your photos.
>>
File: 000082640034.jpg (4.31 MB, 3130x2075)
4.31 MB
4.31 MB JPG
>>3943969
Why not. How much and how old? I literally stated above that I have an archive of more than 5000 photos shot for over 5 years.

Anyways, I love to shot architecture besides of people, here a good one.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNORITSU KOKI
Camera ModelEZ Controller
Camera SoftwareEZ Controller 6.70.007 (170607)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width3130
Image Height2075
>>
File: 000082640029.jpg (4.61 MB, 3130x2075)
4.61 MB
4.61 MB JPG
Moar.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNORITSU KOKI
Camera ModelEZ Controller
Camera SoftwareEZ Controller 6.70.007 (170607)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width3130
Image Height2075
>>
File: 5.png (3.6 MB, 3402x2268)
3.6 MB
3.6 MB PNG
>>
>>
>>3943671
>The best is going to dpreview forums and check what people are shooting with their $3500 R5 and dozen L lenses. It's amazing what garbage people create with their fantastic gear.
lmao this is always nice for an ego boost tbqh when i'm feeling bad about being a poorfag
>>
>>3943972
I actually like this one anon. I think maybe people aren't your thing.

Maybe keep it as a hobby and just shoot what you like?
>>
>>3943972
>>3943973
ok OP, good news, you actually can shoot. just not people. These two are good. and they've actually been properly scanned.
>>
>>3943995
>ok OP, good news, you actually can shoot. just not people.
This. He still needs work but he can at least get architecture alright.
>>
>>3943943
this one is lovely
>>
>>3943550
OP should upload a dump of his work on some site so we can go through and tell him what is good and what is shit
>>
>>3944208
Not a bad idea
>>
>>3944208
this is why I want OP to post his pics on here. it's an image board, seriously just channel your inner isi and flood the thread.
>>
Today's shooting. Is it any better than a previous?
>>
>>
>>3944451
>>3944453
yes, actually. Good job.
>>
>>3943551
Really poor composition and exposure(fstop?)for a potentially interesting image
>>3943553
better than first but isn't particularly interesting.
>>3943555
this person is making me laugh quite hard. but the photograph itself has an uninteresting composition.
>>3943576
really unsatisfying composition. photo would have been much better from a different perspective
>>3943678
>>3943680
why are these so out of focus/soft?
>>3943939
lameee
>>3943941
just follow the most basic rule of thirds and this would be a better shot
>>3943943
this one is really nice
>>3943972
>>3943973
>>3943974
>>3943975
these shots dont look terrible and are much better than the portraits you took
>>3944451
>>3944453
decent composition but to get the professional look you need a much sharper image. these appear to be shot at too low of a fstop.
>>
>>3943550
>>3943551
>>3943553
>>3943555

a-anon i..
>>
>>3943928
>I'm 10 years into imageboards, but only >1 year into 4chan
Well that's interesting, just for kicks i would like to know where you hanged to end up in a waste hole like this one.

>>3943928
>Are you the same guy from above
I am, not sure if you are going to make it because this is one of the worse eras in trying to get money via photography but persistence with hard work using simple but carefully planned methodology is always rare and demanded among most mediums.

You are simply trying to use your niche art ways to make mainstream pro money, that's a rookie naive mistake because majority of people are not niche art viewers, they are sheep who go by the trends and the trend has been clean sharp digital stuff with skin post-processing. Once you get the money you might start experimenting with more wacky clients and use film or your own style, if you check many artsy famous photographers you will always invariably see they started churning trendy everyday trash in their early days, even the ones with high pull.

Also pirate portrait posing books, in Russia nobody will ever go at you for downloading PDFs, use LibGen or download torrents about portrait ebooks. Again, it's not about being a better photographer, is about being a quick one with professional demeanor and the recipes to lure the everyday clients and deliver them a fast clean product, art is for the hungry but art is also much more lasting if done right, even massive commercial photographers are forgotten after a while while the truly good who squeezed some wacky stuff into it get remembered (Hamilton, Testino, gay jew faggots Mapplethorpe and Ritts, etc)
>>
>>3944564
You know Testino is a jew as well, right?
>>
>>3944477
> Really poor composition and exposure(fstop?)for a potentially interesting image
> really unsatisfying composition. photo would have been much better from a different perspective

What exactly should have been changed to salvage this shot? This information would really help me with future studio shootings.

> why are these so out of focus/soft?

Already covered this question. Sonnar 85/2 softs image badly at wide aperture, will shot at f4 for future shots.

> lameee
> just follow the most basic rule of thirds and this would be a better shot

Read thread more carefully. Anon asked me to post some imagery from my first year of photography.

> decent composition but to get the professional look you need a much sharper image. these appear to be shot at too low of a fstop.

Those are shot at f4. Need to narrow aperture even more than that?

>>3944564
Slav imageboards 0chan and Dobrochan. 0chan was the most freaking awesome website I even encountered in my life, but it's closed. DC is still on the run, but it's popularity died out so it's now a shade of its old glory. So, I ended up here. And I don't really think 4ch is a shithole, both /a/ and /p/ are nice places.

> You are simply trying to use your niche art ways to make mainstream pro money, that's a rookie naive mistake because majority of people are not niche art viewers, they are sheep who go by the trends and the trend has been clean sharp digital stuff with skin post-processing.

Thanks for that statement, it kinda declares the way I should move with. More technical quality, more simple yet working rules of composition. Is this correct?

> Also pirate portrait posing books

Already did. Actually, even more than that: a fellow of mine, already a professional photographer, sent me PDFs of two soviet photography books, mandatory to be read in particular order. I'm already reading the first one. Hope it will help.
>>
>>3944649
He is? well that kinda explains some of his gov access but his entire education is based on catholic schools associated in south america (La U Catolica, Marianistas) his family are big donors to the church and he supposedly did test briefly for priesthood.
If he is indeed a noseman then he's a rare example of a sneaky very undercover one.

>>3944987
>Slav imageboards
I see, no wonder there's few slavs in the many alt sites i visited, they have some of their own.
>I don't really think 4ch is a shithole
It's a heaping stinking one but the numbers are here despite very few quality posts, i visit here because i need to study names and sources, some anons here do know about that kind of stuff but photography forums overall rarely discuss photographers, it's not like film where everyone knows the basics but on the other hand it means ironically many anons here do concentrate on shooting/investing in gear rather than consuming works.

I was sick of pro work and this pandemic just cut the throats of the majority of us so i took this as an opportunity to learn how to shoot what i like which is trickier than i thought because it's hard to separate the sentiment of doing what you like and making people enjoy your work, some niches have very few appreciators and that can skew any man into thinking they are shit while also confusing some others into thinking people have shit taste.
Both are true in the end, it's just a matter of coping with it and knowing probably no one will enjoy other than you but perhaps someone who does will absolutely get thrilled if we maintain consistency in both intention and quality.
>Is this correct?
That is correct, it's like food catering, the point is to make it clean and not have anybody get sick, taste is an element but not the priority. Learning to disassociate your personal standards with pro ones was one of the hardest steps for me, sometimes you know a shoot could be much more but time constraints and clients will not abide.
>>
>>3945268
Yeah, russian segment of internet has a long lasting and kind of great history, but, very sadly, russian imageboards are almost dead nowdays. I'm trying to hope for a best, but ended up on 4ch since I need communication.

> It's a heaping stinking one but the numbers are here despite very few quality posts

The truth you realize after spending decade of your life for being anon: the worst imageboard is better than the best non-anonymous community. So, 4ch is a refreshment sip for me after telegram photography chats.
>>
Since it's a blog, I will not only post someting related to main topic, but also try to entertain anon in other ways.

I'm analogue photoprocesses enthusiast and in this hobby my main focus now is the thing called «lith process». This is a analogue photopaper development tweak that dedicated to «bring back to life» very old papers. A fried of mine buys such paper on auctions and then we experiment on is it capable to be revived. Also, recently I shot on technical film some anime pics so them could be printed with enlarger. And, behold the shining peak of this all:

My favorite anime character, Suigintou, and a page from trap hentai, printed on 1956 photopaper.

Just imagine that. This paper waited for 65 years just so I could print some hentai on it.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationBottom, Right-Hand
>>
Today's shooting.

I really don't understand what lacks in my photography to get a «professional» look. I'm following the most basic composition rules, the technical quality is on top, my gear is great… but in a result I only get dull and lifeless photos. What the fuck is wrong?
>>
>>3945612
Do you have lighting? kinda hard to tell from this pic, but it would benefit from better lights. For now, it just looks like an overcast day or light bounced.
>>
>>3945623
I have a really nice flash, but didn't used it for shots above. I should have used it?
>>
>>3945632
I'm not confident enough to say for sure, depends on how you use it. Just in this pic her face looks so muted and like you said lifeless even with the interesting makeup. The orange light in the door is brighter and draws my attention. It's still a fine background, but her face and makeup deserve better lighting which i think could be helped with a diffused flash. It's just IMO i use mostly natural light and am retarded so do with that info what you will.
>>
>>3943550
Some anons gave you already plenty of advice and i'd say if you really are that ambitious about it, keep trying, but as others said it'll be tough. Im a hobby photographer myself, and im taking pictures mostly by my guts feeling. Like i do know i mostly suck at photographing people, with rare occassions where the vibes are there i got a few amazing pictures. But they were mostly out of a spontaneous situation. I think as a good photographer who takes pics of humans looking directly in the camera and on shedule, you have to be able to vibe with them in a way that the act of you actually taking a picture of them becomes secondary. Usually the quality of such a picture then often resembles also the vibe of the entire situation. Which what the art of good photography is. To attempt to not only capture the visuals, but to capture the feeling this visual is giving to you. Which is why your pictures just are not pleasing. They feel random.

For example I love to do landscapephotography see the tree thread, it was a snapshot and one where i was still pretty new to photography >>3945519

I dont wanna say its only feels, sometimes the simple 2/3rd rule, or fibonacci spirale or keeping things paralell n shit can help, but they are more of a choice than having to use them 24/7
>>
>>3945612
maybe don't compress your jpegs so much.
>>
>>3945787
It's not compression, he said earlier his lenses are shit.
>>
It's compression, I do compress images via uploading to telegram before I post them here. And I didn't said my lenses are shit. I actually think Sonnar 85/2 is a great lense, it just has some troubles with sharpness at open apertures, so it's mandatory to narrow it at least to f4.
>>
I need more models then I might find in teh internets and I need money. So, I've decided to try out an idea. I will go on main tourist street of a city and suggest random people to get a photo for «free but will happy to recieve a donation».

Wish me luck.
>>
>>3945877
if you go there with a professional setup, I'm sure you'll get some money
>>
>>3945612
The lighting on her face isn't very dynamic and kind of boring. Maybe you could get a good reflection off those pearl things on her eyes
>>
>>3945612
This would be a absolutely fine portrait if you haven't butchered the lighting.
Because of this there is no texture to the face and skin is plasticky.

Saddest part is that you needed just a bit more light to make this picture work.

Not even a flash, just a built-in model light (if your flash spot it) or even a phone torch from far away.

Directly into models face (for more dramatic shape) or in the general direction of light (for Rembrandt effect).
>>
I'm tired and going home, so I can finalize this expirience.

Your main bread is foreign tourists, earning is around 4 bucks per hour. And even since it's very fun work associated with bringing people happy emotions, it's extremely exhausting. After two hours on a street I'm sqwooshed like a lemon.
>>
For fuck sake, I did it. I've made a shot that is quality enough to be sold, to become a part of my new portfolio.

The secret reveled to be in references. I found references both, separately, for color correction & lights, and for posture. Then, on photosession we copied posture references in exact way, and after home I photoshoped image to mimic other ones.
>>
If anyone interested or want to try photoshoping it the other way, here's source.
>>
>>3945980
>vignetting: max
>white balance: just fuck my shit up
>>
>>3945980
I think it could be a slightly better with the camera angle/height. Like i feel like you take the picture from a bit too low. Its like she is looking down on you. Other than that it looks artsy nice, but usually a good photographer makes great pictures without alot or even any post processing.
>>
>>3945981
Okay looks good, but again i dont like the angle you took the picture, theres something off still. Its like some pics give me emotions or feels, and your still lack something. Maybe itd.the angle.
>>
>>3946023
>>3946025
Its just my opinion though, im not a pro photographer.
>>
>>3945980
>I've made a shot that is quality enough to be sold, to become a part of my new portfolio
Any doubts I had about this being a troll are completely gone.
>>
>>3943550
I see it's you're first time on /p/

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Width1116
Image Height936
>>
>>3946179
your* even. I think this image needs updating though. HDR should be replaced with lifted blacks
>>
>>3945980
>>3945981
try to have actually good lighting on the set instead of faking it in post

>>3946164
I believe >>3943812 is right and OP really just has little if any sense of aesthetic because of his autism.
>>
>>3946201
forgot to add:

>>3944451
>>3944453
these are your best shots OP because - you guessed it - the overcast sunlight really makes her face look smooth and well-balanced
>>
>>3946180
>lifted blacks
or just LUTs in general
They can be useful, but if you use them too often/too early, they can make you believe your editing is decent when it really isn't.
>>
Ok, maybe I'm retarded and this post-processing is actually shit. Depending on that, here's questions.

1.) How do I properly post-process this source material?
1.1.) Is it possible to mimic the sunset in photoshop in a better way?

2.) What can I watch/read/scroll to fix my «little if any sense of aesthetic»? Right now my sense of aesthetic mostly relies on anime and this is probably not the worst case, since i love titles with good visuals like Madoka, but the result of using it in own work you just saw up above.
>>
Ok, I'll bite.
>>3946310
>Is it possible to mimic the sunset in photoshop in a better way
It is if you have proper 'sunset-like' lighting beforehand.

Give a raw for >>3945981.
Also what was color of a blouse? White or blue-ish white?
>>
>>3946331
Sorry, I shot it in jpg only. That was a huge mistake, model asked for raws too. The main reason is that I'm to lazy to pirate Camera RAW, so I don't have any raw editing software. The blouse was pure white.
>>
>>3946334
It is a no go.
You never edit JPGs. Either trust your camera processing, or go raw.

Especially if you want to correct lighting. JPG just doesn't have info required, so you end up with burning colors.
>>
>>3946310
For the case this is really, really not a troll thread.

Your #1 prioity is to get light on the subject. That means, your subject needs to have more light falling on it than almost everything else in the frame. Either using a flash, or, better, using late or early natural light. Existing lighting after sunset will most of the time not be sufficient.

Your #2 priority is getting the subject in focus. Ideally make sure the closer eye is in focus. If this is the *only* thing you miss in your photos, get sharpening software like Topaz Sharpen AI, it can remove camera shake really well.

Your #3 priority is composition. This actually is the least bad of these things in your photos, but it still needs some work.
>>
>>3946335
Ok, I understand now. What software will be better to a person with a lot of experience in photoshop? Camera RAW for it, or should I download Lightroom?

>>3946336
Thanks a lot. Is this a good or terrible idea to use a flash in daylight sun, so the background will become less lighted?
>>
So, I tried what I said above about shooting with flash in daylight. Did I succeeded?

RAW: https://files.catbox.moe/nhfuja.RAF
>>
>>3946374
Jesus wept
>>
File: 41515414515415145.jpg (31 KB, 960x837)
31 KB
31 KB JPG
>>3945980
>>
File: nhfuja.jpg (2.81 MB, 3949x2962)
2.81 MB
2.81 MB JPG
>>3946374
Wow.

You have managed to both underlight (contrast vs background) and overexpose (skin blistering) your model at the same time.
But actually this is a step in the right direction.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeFUJIFILM
Camera ModelX-M1
Camera SoftwareDigital Camera X-M1 Ver1.01
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)75 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2021:10:01 16:18:31
Exposure Time1/60 sec
F-Numberf/1.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating200
Lens Aperturef/1.0
Brightness-0.9 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length50.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
File: nhfujaa.jpg (3.65 MB, 4938x3274)
3.65 MB
3.65 MB JPG
>>3946374
Here's a quick shitty edit. I don't do portraits so there's a lot to imrpove, but this is just so you can see how important edit is.
You need to look into it if you want to make your images look more professional. There's a lot of material on how to do it available for free so you have no excuse.
I WANT to see you succeed anon, we're all counting on you.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeFUJIFILM
Camera ModelX-M1
Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.10.12
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)75 mm
Maker Note Version0130
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2021:10:01 15:42:07
Exposure Time1/60 sec
F-Numberf/0.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating200
Lens Aperturef/1.0
Brightness-0.9 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length50.00 mm
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
Blur StatusOK
Chroma SaturationNormal
Continuous/Bracketing ModeOff
Auto Exposure StatusOK
Flash ModeOff
Focus ModeManual
Focus StatusOK
Macro ModeOff
Picture ModeManual Exposure
SharpnessNormal
Slow Synchro ModeOff
White BalanceAuto
>>
>>3946374
i would
>>
File: 1626626975473.jpg (74 KB, 807x802)
74 KB
74 KB JPG
>>3945980
>>
TG Fuji chat suggested me using Capture One. Trying to make it work under Wine, hope to succeed soon.

>>3946380
My flash is way too powerful and it's exposure spreadsheet lies badly. This is shot at -1 stop from what was suggested and probably should have been shot at -2.

>>3946385
*releases one scarce tear from ones eye* I won't fail you, anon.
>>
>>3943550
Im 36 and done it all. Skip film. It’s just a rabbit hole, and the appeal of your photos then come from what film it’s shot on and how it’s processed, rather than the quality itself.

Unless you skip including my details about it, but unlikely, and you’ll just get circle jerking from other film users. It’s not a dead medium, but it’s more or less a ‘dead end’.

At this stage might be worth getting into NFTs with personal work, but have better return value.

Also post your stuff outside of /p/ instead of on /p/. All you get on /p/ is feedback from other people taking photos.

Is your target audience other people into photography or also trying to make it in photography?
>>
>>3946402
> My flash is way too powerful and it's exposure spreadsheet lies badly.
So you should have underexposed further so background is darker than model. This way you can later make model ‘bright’ and bg ‘normal’ processing raw. As of biw both of them are equal indistinguishable grey mud.

>…should have been shot at -2
It would be better compared to what you got, but actually you should have shot on M as on this is totally controllable slow shoot and there is no reasoning to not shoot on M.
Also it looks like you really need to spend few days training your eye on working with exposure. I suggest you go out and shoot on full M without referencing camera suggestions for few days. You may start with golden f16 rule and progress from that.
>>
File: екекеккеке.jpg (30 KB, 500x439)
30 KB
30 KB JPG
I spent 3 hours trying to run numerous windows software under Wine, just to finally google open source alternatives and install one (Darktable) within minute.
>>
Here's what I ended up with. My main focus in editing was an attempt to recreate the coat colour.

Also, this is probably my best photo so far.
>>
File: nhfuja-1.jpg (278 KB, 1500x995)
278 KB
278 KB JPG
>>3946374
here's my edit, and I basically only shoot B&W

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeFUJIFILM
Camera ModelX-M1
Camera SoftwareRawTherapee 5.8
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)75 mm
Maker Note Version0130
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width1500
Image Height995
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2021:10:02 03:21:26
Exposure Time1/60 sec
F-Numberf/0.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating200
Lens Aperturef/1.0
Brightness-0.9 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length50.00 mm
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
SharpnessNormal
White BalanceAuto
Chroma SaturationNormal
Flash ModeOff
Macro ModeOff
Focus ModeManual
Slow Synchro ModeOff
Picture ModeManual Exposure
Continuous/Bracketing ModeOff
Blur StatusOK
Focus StatusOK
Auto Exposure StatusOK
>>
I failed miserably to shot the building behind symmetrically.

https://files.catbox.moe/n9o3xc.RAF
>>
https://files.catbox.moe/jt9yd3.RAF
>>
>>3946961
If you want to do natural light shoots, makes sure the light is good outside. also those flowers really don't mix well with her hair color.
>>
>>3946966
The point is it isn't natural light, it's flash.
>>
Ok. So, to finalize that week of a numerous shootings, I clearly don't have a skill enough to shoot for money, But a.) anon and b.) a friend of mine believes in me, so I don't want to abandon such a goal. This probably means that I need to teach the theory in some way and only then go find new models.

Guys, what youtube tutorial would you suggest for me?
>>
>>3947052
I'm a different anon that also believes in you. This thread is an interesting attempt at getting criticisms and trying to improve every time. good shit.
>>
>>3943550
> make this hobby a profession
Why would you do that? Taking photos of other people having fun in weddings and shit is a horrible work with shit pay, super long hours, unreliability, and you have to put up with a lot of bullshit for being a freelancer.

It will kill your hobby and make you poor and miserable.
>>
>>3943550
>>3943551
>>3943553
>>3943555
>>3943678
I wish I could make bait this good, this is branchanon 2.0
congrats, i bet you take great photos when you turn auto mode back on.
>>
>>3946426
cute semen demon
>>
>>3947052
honestly, the biggest thing to me is that in the span of a week you've basically lined up a new model every day. which I think is your greatest achievement in all of this.

you already have your marketing down. which is arguably the hardest part. I really think you can make it anon. once your photos get to a certain level, so many people will want you to shoot them that you'll have to start turning people down.
>>
My psychoanalyst totally agreed that a should go into pro photography and shouldn't try shit-grade jobs like waiter. So I will.

From the other hand, previous week surely proved that I do not have enough skill. I think I will cease on finding new models and focus on studying theory.
>>
>>3944451
>>3944453
wow these are actually good, or at least instagram tier acceptable. Or it could be that the chick is hotter though so i'm biased
Also you missed the catchlights, lrn2use a reflector

>>3945612
>top of head cutoff
>face underexposed
>no catchlights in left eye
garbage pic

>>3946380
>>3945980
>>3945981
lolno
>>
>>3948295
>I think I will cease on finding new models and focus on studying theory.
Do both at the same time, practice what you learn, try to replicate good pictures. Studying theory alone won't do much
>>
>>3945980
the moment OP went too far, this meaty earthworm suddenly tastes like a hook
>>
>>3946374
чeл..
>>
>>3946179
>tfw I started with an old-ish film camera and now I use even older film cameras
I don't really even think I take good photos but I will admit I feel superior. I'm trying to learn how to get better at estimating the exposure value of a scene as well to shoot my cameras without light meters.
>>
OP, any updates?
>>
So, I took a week-of on which was, besides everything, studying photography. The best book I found was the Fred Archer — On Portraiture (1954). What I learned 1/3 tho it:

1.) The model should be sitting for their body be more relaxing. I will literally took a chair from home with me for shootings now.
2.) The eyes direction of a model should NOT be directly to the camera. The quick advise on setting it right is asking the model to look on your hand,
3.) The best portraits are shot with a model's shoulder aligned to the camera and head twisted to semi-profile. I should use this statement.
4.) Fuck composition, up to the point where even rule of thirds can be ignored. Posture is everything.

Today. an hour from now, is the first shooting that will depend on those rules. Wish me luck.

>>3951013
I was about to write right now.
>>
>>3951018
>The eyes direction of a model should NOT be directly to the camera
>Fuck composition
Wrong.
Also Archer was a studio man, not a location worker.
>>
>>3945980
>>3945981
Holy kek anon.

>>3946374
>>3946961
>>3946962
>f/0
You fell for the vintage prime meme didn't you?
At least stop down the lens a bit to like f2.8 or f4. It will improve things a lot, many of your pictures are out of focus.
If you want to go chasing bokeh consider getting an AF prime (buy it used).
>>
>>3951027
>You fell for the vintage prime meme didn't you?
You wouldn't? he's a ruskie so he can find them for 50 bucks max unlike in the west.
>>
>>3951018
Good luck!
That's good, but that's just one of many approaches to photography, and again this is for studio photo.
Look at street photography and portrait pages, or find a cool location on instagram, I'm sure there are many in Moscow, and replicate the good photos that you see there.
>>
>>3945980
This is a trolling masterclass.

I hope this is a trolling masterclass.
>>
https://files.catbox.moe/aq7r4z.RAF
https://files.catbox.moe/s21jgx.RAF
I'm gonna photoshop 'em hard, since the chick got skin problems.

>>3951027
Yeap, Sonnar 85/2. I already learned to

1.) Narrow aperture at the very least to f4 to avoid softness.
2.) Use picking on model's *eyes* to avoid miss-focus.

Thanks.

>>3951030
Even in Russia *truthfully* great vintage lenses costs more. My Sonnar 85/2 costed me 110$, the Helios-40 I'm gonna acquire soon will cost 190$. The significant exception is Sonnar 50/2 which costs only laugh-raising 19$, but who the fuck shots portraits on 50mm?

>>3951039
> that's just one of many approaches to photography

Yeah, you right at it. But if it will work for me, aren't we cool?
>>
…and, regardless of what I just FUCKING said, I'm a huge idiot and focused on hair again. Just what the fuck wrong with me?
>>
>>3951055
>but who the fuck shots portraits on 50mm?
Do i have news for you...
>>
I tired to salvage it with «smart sharpness» in photoshop, so at least girl might obtain instagramm-quality material. For the future shots I will remember for SURE to focus on eyes.

Btw, if we *forget* about the miserable fail with focus, all them advises from the book payed off and this shot is way better than my previous ones.
>>
>>3951063
>flat lighting
>no pose
>gaze looks like a candid street snap
Anon...
>>
>>3951055
so you are using a vintage manual lens on a camera without a viewfinder? No wonder your shots are out of focus.

>>3951063
pic related
>>
>>3951063
You number 1 worry should be to get the focus right.
This is an absolute priority, before composition, before light, before anything else.
>>
File: aq7r4z2.jpg (4.5 MB, 4938x3274)
4.5 MB
4.5 MB JPG
>>3951055
We got a nationalist boi over here!
Lots of problems with light. I get this was probably a cloudy day, but you need to learn to orientate your models to not get such a flat lighting.
In rawtherapee: lowered the exposition, this was way overexposed. Fiddled with the contrast curves to try and get a bot more texture on the face.
In gimp: Boosted contrast in the eyes. Cut the highlight on the face, probably overdid it and lost some detail. Cleaned the girls face and shirt, erased the wrinkles around her nose.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeFUJIFILM
Camera ModelX-M1
Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.10.12
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)75 mm
Maker Note Version0130
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2021:10:14 16:42:06
Exposure Time1/160 sec
F-Numberf/0.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating800
Lens Aperturef/1.0
Brightness0.3 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length50.00 mm
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
Blur StatusOK
Chroma SaturationNormal
Continuous/Bracketing ModeOff
Auto Exposure StatusOK
Flash ModeOff
Focus ModeManual
Focus StatusOK
Macro ModeOff
Picture ModeManual Exposure
SharpnessNormal
Slow Synchro ModeOff
White BalanceAuto
>>
File: 1529654524475.jpg (57 KB, 550x467)
57 KB
57 KB JPG
>>3945980
>>
>>3951139
*sight* I already understood that editing was shit. I really regret posting it. And yeah, oink you frogposter.
>>
>>3951055
>Yeap, Sonnar 85/2. I already learned to
>1.) Narrow aperture at the very least to f4 to avoid softness.
>2.) Use picking on model's *eyes* to avoid miss-focus.
And yet everything you post is amazingly out of focus.

I am genuinely curious what gear you own other than the Sonnar 85 and the X-M1.
>>
>>3951411
Sonnar 85/2
Sonnar 50/2
Sonnar 135/4
Tessar 50/3,5
for Fuji

Pentax Spotmatic SP
Sonnar 85/2, now for Pentax
Super-Takumar 55/1,8

Kiev-88 TTL (copy of Hasselblad-1600F)
Vega-12 90/2,8
Mir-28 45/3,5

Moskva-2 w/h Tessar 110/4,5

Polariod SX-70

Unomat B-24
>>
Mah bois
>>
File: file.png (123 KB, 330x318)
123 KB
123 KB PNG
>>3943550
Oh, buddy. Sell your gear and use the money to buy picrelated.
Don't forget to read it.
>>
Ok guys, did I succeeded now or at least sterted getting better?

https://files.catbox.moe/68uhhg.RAF
https://files.catbox.moe/66rld8.RAF
>>
>>
>>3951896
>>3951900

This is acceptable, I guess. I wouldn't pay for those images, or to have you shoot me in a similar manner. Do you have any siblings or are you dating someone? Or do you live with your parents?
Watch a few dramas, with setting that isn't too tricky to recreate (don't watch WW2 films). Find a bunch of favourite shots, pause the film, screencap.
Now try recreating the shot with your mum or sister or whatever, they don't have to dress in costumes. Try to get the composition and the lighting as best as you can. You're using a fuji ffs, just use a film sim and stop editing so much in post.
For example: I only have a 50mm lens on an XE2 so i don't really get wide angle shots. So I started pulling up some frames from Wes Anderson movies and I try to recreate them on my phone camera. Since this a high effort bait, you already know that the images aren't just soft - the composition is horrible and exposure is weird.
Anyway, enable focus peaking too.
>>
Haven’t been on /p/ a while. I feel bad for this anons poor cameras.
>>
>>3951924
> you already know that the images aren't just soft - the composition is horrible and exposure is weird.

The main problem is that I don't.

I kinda get it only from other people messages, that the composition is shit, but i can't understand what's exactly wrong since I don't have any skill in it. And I'm honestly surprised that something is wrong with the exposure, bc either I fuck in my eyes nor I can't see what.





Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.