Rank the Trump Portraits

>>4432114 (OP)
3>1>4>>>>>>>2
2 is so boring get it out of here

>>4432114 (OP)
4 looks better in almost every way on paper, but 3 is somehow better. Why is this? Is it the lighting?

>>4432117
I think it's the visible signs of stroke

>>4432114 (OP)
all trash

>>4432117
the pose

3 - staged with intent. goofy tho. needs edits.
4 - same. ai?
1 - tv appearance? meh. ok.
2 - chaos.

>>4432114 (OP)
1
>Did I shit myself?
2
>Oh thank god I'm wearing my incontinence underwear
3
>No, wait. That soaked through
4
>Nggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

>>4432167
(You) would have got updoots for this on rddit!

>>4432114 (OP)
>ears out of focus
ah nice and cinematic

2 might be the worst in terms of photography but he looks like a nice person there.

4 looks a fucking racist

>>4432114 (OP)
4 makes him look way more intellectual and serious than he actually is

that is not the face of a man that wants to invest in fossil fuels, ban criticism of a foreign racist ethnostate, and import scab labor from india while deporting scab labor to mexico. he looks like fucking noam chomsky.

2>4>1>3

>>4432114 (OP)
3 looks like a fuckterrible HDR-meme edited photo by a boomer. All it needs are ken Rockwell memecolors, and a Comic Sans MS font somewhere to make it even more boomercore.

>>4432167
that aint biden tho and his grapefruit sized prostate kek

>>4432645
>he looks like fucking noam chomsky
based

>>4432114 (OP)
>let's bump up the texture on this old man
>it definitely won't make him look like a mummy
modern portrait photographers need to run around with a film camera for a bit
less = more

>>4432114 (OP)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_portraits_of_Donald_Trump

Why does he have so many?

>>4432114 (OP)
4 looks like they actually captured the look that the absolute amateur was going for in 3. The first two are basic but passable.

this is better than all 4

>>4433282
This is the best Trump photograph ever taken.

>>4432114 (OP)
3 is nice, I'm currently experimenting with harsh light myself. Dunno if it fits a presidential portrait but it's certainly a dramatic style.
4 is very interesting, I'm not sure I've ever seen some shoot a portrait that wide open (on purpose) that only the front of the head is even in focus. I should try that sometime, looks kinda cinematic to be honest. Like one of those scenes where a character wakes up from being unconscious or something

What's a good lens to cover protests and riots?

I'm considering the FUJINON XF18-55mmF2.8-4 R LM OIS

I'm usually shooting an 18mm prime but it might be good to get some distance for this

Or the FUJINON XF18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 R LM OIS WR

>>4433667
Sounds like a good focal length
>>4433668
don't like this because I think riot photos are stronger if you go closer to the action rather than cowardly zooming from behind the police line
also 50mm is nicer to take photos from further away (picrel)

>>4433674
Very nice photo. I agree and prefer to be at 18mm distance but I can see from footage and experience that there are situations where this isn't an option. I have no idea if 55mm is enough or not because I never shoot a lens like this

Am I figuring this right? Full body shot at 30ft with 85mm full frame and at 100ft with 270mm? Holy crap

>>4433680
Forgot to post the picture of my nuts

>>4433681
That sounds fucked, but I'm not smart enough and don't care enough to actually go check or do math

>>4433683
The other thing I could do is not look at this, which sounds really good also. The 18-135 looks like it's just a little bit longer than the 18-55

I don't think I would want to keep any photos that were taken at 1:35. They look like telescope pictures.

>>4433667
Waiting for your kino shots anon

>>4432114 (OP)
1 = Garbage
2 = Garbage
3 = Garbage
4 = Garbage
Only a retard would think any of these look good. This is the leader of the free world, and his portraits are forever sloppified by shit retard photofaggotraphers and their infinite desire to overbake images with shit tier post-processing and "enhancements".
These might as well all be fucking AI generated because they don't even look professional.

>what we deserve
Timeless B&W film negatives
>what we should have gotten
100MP color digitial with studio flashes and no gay over-baking
>what we got
some shitty trash that looks like it came from a smartphone

This is not okay.
They need to release the RAWs.

>>4432114 (OP)
>1: class portrait
>2: iphone
>3: called in his relative who everyone thinks is a photographer (i can see the ISO noise/high ISO shadow crush and sharpening halos from here, and it's only the palm sized version)
>4: AI generated turtle trump
is he just not photogenic, has photography fallen this far, or is it because every decent photographer is required to side with outspoken liberals if they want to keep their career and they're meant to boycott trump or something?

>>4433689
I was watching some videos about the riots in California and it's so fucking gay how people go to protest to pose in hope of being in some iconic photo
Self absorbed as fuck
every video you see there's some rando posing doing a handsight or whatever and 4 photogs swirling around them taking pics like japanese tourists
it's fake and gay

>>4434017
We have truly entered the Age of Clout
I expect royallties, Civ 8 devs.

eventually you will meet a man named Babu

>>4433965
You don't really need anything more than the latest smartphone and Lightroom these days. Anything more is masturbatory jackassery for pixel hunters

>>4434017
modern protesting is just cosplaying as a terrorist and doing gang signs

>>4434197
>the bus and bike lanes are so fast you dont need a car! you masturbatory tiny dick speed racer!
Get a job, al.

>>4434210
Normal people don't care about high ISO pixel dotting and color halos dude, they care about visually striking pics and aesthetics. Only /p/etards give a shit about unnoticeable anamorphic subsampling artifacts. The average Joe is going to prefer the colorful Ken Rockwell image over boring, flat shitpix taken by autistic gearfags. Enjoy your monochrome snaps bro, I'm sure they're a hit at the nursing home lmao

>>4434213
>bla bla bla
Stop coping. Get a job. Everyone prefers real cameras to phones. The only obstacles are cost ($500 for a decent micro four turds setup is appalling to 80% of americans, theyre leveraged to the tits) and fashion/convenience

it does not help that the more fashionable and convenient cameras are the most expensive

>>4434213
if this was even 1% true then blumhouse would just shoot their movies on iphones, you think they give a shit?
there is a noticeable difference to anyone who isn't retarded between a camera and a phone

>>4434213
Normal people give up when they see the pricetags for anything thats both effortlessly good (modern apsc at least, not old canon m/ricoh gr apsc) and easy/non embarrassing to carry
>inb4 autist: skill issue i shoot raw and bracket on my four thirds blob. it matches my cargo shorts.

>>4434224
>I-I make bad financial decisions and... AND SO SHOULD YOU! AARRRRGH!
Lmao. Only broke niggas wealth check this way. Just put the fries in the bag little bro
>>4434225
What is "28 Years Later" for 500, Alex? Lol
Smartphones are the future of photography and moviemaking. Mobile technology will keep improving while you flannel finooks play around with overpriced camera setups for a 1% improvement in DoF quality noticeable only on 4k monitors zoomed in by 800%
It's not the quality that matters, it's how you use it ;)

>>4434228
>omg i cant afford that so no one can! you could have given the money you spent on a car to me!
Get a job. Holy shit.
Get. A. Job.

That is all.

>>4434228
yes you totally arent the fry cook. saving money by coping about real cameras is clearly your sole path to financial freedom and the very make or break moment that will define the rest of your adult life.

you have to be right, its totally not because you cant "justify" (afford) the small, stylish, high performing camera you want. you know what? its because you are a master investor and that small chunk of change is just what you need to be a millionaire! two more weeks! To the moon! You’re the money master!
(I am being sarcastic. You are unemployed)

>>4432114 (OP)
>1. Meh whatever
>2. Shit eating grin
>3. 14 year old trying to look edgy for his Facebook profile
>4. Basically the same as 3 but with different lighting

>>4434228
cameras aren't even expensive
other than leicas everything tops out at $4,000 for a photography body
a phone costs $2000
how is it much of a difference
>but my phone costs $20
you are a broke ass nigga and have no bitches then'

>>4434230
>I spent 8000 dollars for something that could be done with 800! this will surely own the /p/honechads!
You got scammed by Big Lens dude. Hate to break it to you but that rare Nikon lens from the 60s you bought on Etsy wasn't actually developed with lunar regolith collected from the apollo mission and consecrated with sasquatch blood for reduced ISO infetterance. That's slightly less pathetic than spending loads of dosh on fake Jordans
Stop posting you're just embarrassing yourself lmao
>>4434231
Bro's psychoanalyzing off-topic like he just lost a youtube comment section debate LOL

>>4434235
>big lens
take your meds

>>4434235
>lunar regolith collected from the apollo mission
>sasquatch
can't tell which one is the bigger hoax

>>4434245
That's exactly what I'm saying lmao. These guys keep falling for scams and try to shame you for not falling for the biggest con. Really fuckin sad to see these guys bite the gear fraud hook, line and sinker. Barrelbrained behavior t b h

>>4434245
>>4434247
These guys know what's up. I work at CNN and they just use smart phones to record news broadcasts now. Cameras are pseudoscientific and look worse than a $20 android phone

>>4434235
tldr get a job

>>4434249
to be fair that's only done so they can fake more stuff on the go, smartphones would be more aptly called slyphones

>signs you may be developmentally delayed:
>when other, wealthier men spend money you dont have, you get angry at them for "wasting money"
an adult could recognize that the wealthier men are their superiors. but you are not an adult. you have the mindset of an autistic child who thinks adults are dumb for buying houses because you’re fine living in your room. it is time for you to grow up and realize the adults are your superiors. you sat on your ass. we succeeded. you can’t balance a budget and simply fear spending money. we can keep track of our finances and can simultaneously save, earn, and spend and come out wealthier than you regardless. it is time for you to accept this. it is time for you to grow up.

>>4434256
TLDR learn financial responsibility, critical thinking and the most valuable skill of making well reasoned decisions. Jeremy Fragrance goes over this in his guides
>>4434257
The devil is in the 1% of detail smartphones don't cover. They're WAY more noticeable on the Ari Aster Mini camera than smartphones but it's inconsequential to honest photographers
>>4434258
It's not anger I'm just pointing out that you got scammed lmao. Keep posting incel fanfiction

>>4434259
Get a job kid

>>4434258
ironically you don't even have to be wealthy to own a camera
I have a $30,000 Leica and I'm a NEET

>>4434264
You snap with a $300 secondhand Fujifilm cam with $5k in gear. I snap with a $1.5k Sony Xperia 1 V. You want to know my job? That's my job lol. Photography is a man's game and if you can't make money in a man's game you should just put the fries in the bag, because it's over for you. Go back to muckraking on grandpa's farm and ask for an allowance for your lens wipes lmao

>No way could full frame be better than my toy camera
>Everyone must be a scam victim but me! I have monetary sense!
No you have a poor sense of scale due to a lifetime of poverty.

>>4434272
I'm a full time photographer. I take pictures with my 2009 iPhone, nobody, literally nobody, can tell the difference between the photos and those from your camera. You wasted money boomer.

>>4434274
Oh man, now you're lying. I'm revising my narrative from lifetime of poverty to 30 years of no sex.

You know, you're not smart when people on the internet actually think you're stupid. You're just really pathetic. It's like you pulled down your pants in public to revel in the jeers.
>They could just ignore me, but no, they tell me to put my pants on! RENT FREE I WIN
Man, have sex. Seriously. And no, not with your dog.

>>4434275
he doesn't realize he's not trolling. he keeps going because the responses hurt.

>>4434276
Well yes, he's here every day because the responses inevitably hit a little too close to home lol.

>>4434275
Sex is a fucking scam. Using my hand feels just as good. You boomers get scammed into paying for dates and shit when you could just be jerking off, pathetic.

>>4434277
Kek this. He must have had his jimmies rustled if he keels coming back.

Are you actually poor anon?

>>4434275
>And no, not with your dog
Don't invoke dogfucking in any context, not even as a joke to own the poor phonefaggot.
There are worse posters lurking /p/ that you don't want to attract.

>>4434280 #
Never forget the poster who thought the dog pictures here were uncomfortably suggestive

>>4434286
Exactly. Just mentioning specific things summons certain anons like evil spirits. Someone mentioned a niche topic earlier and a particular tripfag showed up. They comb the archives. They never sleep.

>>4434289
Crop your cropped pixel pitch equivalence for reach

>>4434290
Noooooooooooo. Es ist verboten!

Why did this thread turn into a bunch of faggots whining

>>4434650
In fairness that's every thread that isn't /fgt, /rpt/ or people's personal threads

>>4432114 (OP)
Two is the best, makes him look like a cartoon dad.
4 is literally hitler.

>>4434650
It's 4chang

>>4434867
this
1, 3 and 4 just make think of Ben Stiller in Zoolander too much

>>4436397
pic related

>>4434197
You are a poor retard.
>>4434213
They don't, until they do.
The single most important thing for normies is whether an image looks good. Most of this is subject, but if the subject/light is good they can then appreciate quality or be disappointed.
Most image quality comes from the lens, next the image processing, then the sensor quality.

Smartphones fail at the lens but so did old point and shoots, they don't fail bad enough to complain about unless it's for portraits or important shit. Snapshots, they're fine. Biggest issue with this is people DON'T CLEAN THEIR LENSES but clean phone lenses are good enough for most things, including landscapes.

Smartphones majorly fail at the image processing. This is what defines "the look" of the image beyond the subject/lighting and is where things go horribly wrong. You can get around this by using 3rd party apps and shooting RAW but most don't bother, and wind up with the "Samsmug" or "Applel" or "HuaWHY" look on their images and then blame it on the lens, and think a new one will do better, and it doesn't, it's just more of the same with different post-process/ai shit and they become repeat customers never understanding why their images look so fake.

Smartphone sensors are actually good enough for a lot of things but for single-shot (no bracketing or multi-sampling possible to increase IQ+DR) capture they are a bit too noisy, and this results in copium attempts at de-noising, and this just circles back into shit image processing with fake looking NR artifacts. In a well lit scene within the DR of the sensor (not extreme contrast) and for a subject that doesn't require cropping/digital zooming, they're fine.

Problem is people want to crop/zoom, not shoot RAW, and shoot under shit lighting, never use a tripod, never clean their lens, and shoot without blocking sources of glare, so it all adds up to BAD. Mostly user error, but a good chunk is the device.
Used $100 DSLRs do better in the hands of retards.

Should have an Israel flag behind him

>>4434213
normal people care

you think 12 people on /p/ and another 50 between fredmiranda and dpreview prop up the camera industry
or literally anyone who has a mac or a computer with a screen about as good

>>4436457
>they're fine
Lolno. They look turbo shit. Phone photos have a look, just like HDR cope always did and still does.

>>4438895
And anyone who prints. All but the best chinkdroid phone cameras shot in raw produce worse looking prints than the sooc jpegs than a point and shit from 2011. the phone look stands out, bigtime, unless its a boring photo with no detail of note ie: office building, car.

Unless you bought some ccp spyware slab with a 1" sensor that only works on asian networks, phone lenses and sensors are not good enough. They are worse than most older compacts, but they have auto HDR.

Better to choose a phone thats better at being a phone and get a ricoh gr or sony zv1 or something. save your phone battery. take photos that are out of the reach of global corporations.

>>4433328
This one yeah GOAT
>>4433282
This goes hard tho

Does anyone know where the full body shot of the portrait comes from?

>>4438888
chcked

cool btw

>>4432114 (OP)
3 is the best one.

>>4432114 (OP)
4 is def the best
would say 1 is second just because it was the first one and was funny at the time
2 is kinda boring
3 is shitty, one of his eyes looks way too bigger than the other to the point where it's weird