Thread 4442111

How do I get better at composition? Some guy in another thread said my composition sucked so I gotta get better, but how?

>>4442111 (OP)
If your photos aren't good enough, you aren't close enough

>>4442113
What does that mean

>>4442111 (OP)
take more photos
experiment with a bunch of comps for each scene youre shooting
look at art
look at others photos
look at your own photos

i dont know what 113 is talking about

and while everyone is here which do you prefer left right or neither? in hind sight i shouldve taken more. lesson learned for next time

>>4442116
I prefer the left one

>>4442115
It means what it means, but if you really want me to extrapolate, I will. One of the big things that people get wrong about composition is that they focus too much on *where* the subject is in the frame, rather than *how much* the subject is in the frame. For example, one of the most basic compositional techniques is the rule of thirds, but there's no point spending heaps of time getting your subjects eyes exactly on the intersection of two lines, you can just crop that later so long as you get it roughly correct. A bigger issue is how close you are, which applies to pretty much any compositional technique. Look at the photo you posted, the subject is the tree, and it fills the frame from top top bottom, with a bit of its shadow. Personally I would have gone a little wider focal length and gotten closer, but I guess it was shot that way to keep that leading lines from the pathway in shot. Personally I fucked up the other day because some fella wanted me to take his photo and I shot it as if I had a 50mm on my camera, but I was actually using a 24 and so I was no way near close enough. The dude had these sick face tats and would have been awesome to see them more, but I fucked it up cus I was in a rush and I didn't consider it enough. But it was a teaching moment, next time I'll know. If I think I'm close enough, I need to get twice as close.

>>4442116
They are both good in their own ways, but left is better. The one on the right has too much going on comparatively.

113 was right. If you're not isolating your subject, your subject gets lost in the rest of the scene. You CAN use that as an artistic choice, but to do so will require you to master isolating the subject first so that you can effectively break the rule.

reposting some from last related thread

>>4442127
and some different inspo

Thought we didn't allow shitposting

>>4442129
why'd you comment then?

>>4442130
You posting actual fucking garbage like >>4442128 is grounds for a ban/public execution

>>4442111 (OP)
Just think of composition as the arranging of elements within the frame. Try all different angles, from up high and down low, different crops or framing and perspectives.
If something doesn't add to the image, try to omit. Try to pay attention to what you do include, and how they interact together in the environment.

>>4442131
Some of these are good examples of clever composition.
Your comment and reply much more irrelevant garbage.
Do you have better examples of composition you would like to share with everyone?

>>4442133
LOL
Anon are you actually 15

>>4442134
>shitposting
>actual fucking garbage
>grounds for a ban/public execution
>LOL
>Anon are you actually 15
No, but you might be.

Did you forget to attach the better examples of composition?

>>4442135
>posts this
>>4442128
>expects me to take it seriously

>>4442136
Then maybe you can enlighten us all about why the composition of the images are so bad?
So far it seems like you're the one not taking it seriously
If I'm such a retard, this is a great opportunity to roast the fuck out of me for posting stupid shit with an awesome analysis

>>4442139
Wait until you graduate kiddo

>>4442140
What are you so afraid of?

>>4442141
It's the tryhard nontography of a fuji/leicafaggot that cares more about the aesthetics of being seen as a photographer than the art

I thought it just means the photo is not interesting for the viewer if they say the composition is bad.

The composition insists upon itself

take a art class / or read a book on composition reggin

>>4442140
>not shit posting

>>4442116
Left

>>4442123
>>4442124
>>4442126
>>4442127

>tfw someone saved my photos.
Thanks.

You don't really need to know anything past the basic rules of composition. After that it's just looking through a viewfinder and being able to tell if A looks better or B looks better, like an eye exam
>but I can't tell which one is better just by looking
than you will always be a hack

>>4442149
Sometimes bad compositions can be frustrating or dissapointing

>>4442163
>than you will always be a hack
>than

>>4442159
It was a good thread, thank you for being brave enough to make it

>>4442116
Both are complete and utter garbage.
Wtf, anon

just read art books about composition, watch countless youtube videos on the topic and then practice.

>>4442259
>watch youtube videos for composition
>youtube videos are all either shitty zoomer back of head streetshitters or boomer portrait photogs
i'm not sure that will help him very much anon

>>4442263
>>youtube videos are all either shitty zoomer back of head streetshitters or boomer portrait photogs
well, you gotta know what to look for i guess?

>>4442116
I like right more. For me, the forwardness of the trees in front of and behind the dude forces you to focus on the man and effectively serves to emphasize the smallness of the man.

>>4442263
maybe you should just learn and stop being a whiny bitch about whos presenting

>>4442117
>>4442120
>>4442157
>>4442221
>>4442562
all feedback appreciated thank you very much and thanks to 120 for helping me understand it better.

the main focus of LEFT (atleast for me) is between the sleeping man and the massive dark tree and the way the tree towers over him. the rest of the scene doesnt distract the focus.
but with RIGHT, it less a comparison of the man and the dark tree than it is a comparison of the man and all the trees. since the comparison is with all trees, there's "too much going on." but imo still a decent shot

honeslty when I took the shot i was only thinking "wow guy sleeping in park with big trees cool" I was only really considering how to capture the size difference. i didnt shoot LEFT with the dark tree comparison in mind but i did shoot right with the all-tree comparison in mind. which is why i think RIGHT is better
the concept of LEFT's dark tree comparison is a post-shoot afterthought which is why i find LEFT's execution slightly underwhelming.

or maybe im just over analysing it and 221 is correct

more advice to OP: really take your time to think when shooting

>>4442914
nigga just shoot what you like holy shit

>>4442111 (OP)
someone calling your composition shit on /p/ is a normal occurence and you shouldnt let it bother you
half the people on this board cant take a good photo to save their lives and only knows about gear. The other half are great photographers that learned by doing and just looking at photos.

>>4442928
>great photographers that learned by doing and just looking at photos
this is cope
you are not a once in a generation genius who will actually make anything of artistic merit by learning like this
you have to at least learn the basic science of aesthetics

>>4442131
>posting photos on the photography dumping board is grounds for a ban
anon i have horrible news
you're autistic

>>4442929
cry about it
everyone learns differently
just because someone had to hold your hand the whole way doesnt mean it has to be that way for everyone

>>4442931
i'm not telling you to have someone hold your hand i'm telling you to read a fucking book retard
>noo huurrr durr I can also learn to paint and draw without actual education, despite 99%+ of people who are legitimately good at doing theset hings learn at some point

>>4442934
>getting this angry
Examining other peoples works is a good way to aid you in learning photography.
you're so angry you cant even argue properly and are jumping to conclusions that because i dont agree with you on anything that i must not do basic things like reading or educating myself on photography.
You arent worth engaging

>>4442929
>muh science of aesthetics
yeah, this might work if you're under adolf hitler, but the art world is owned and operate by ashkenazi jews. i am not being antisemitic. i'm a jew myself. i am being realistic. the entire art world was purchased, in cash, and now every gallery owner, tastemaker, educator, and the majority of the artists, are ashkenazi jews. and ashkenazi jews absolutely despise object aesthetic beauty in high art. i asked my rabbi why and he said it was too easy to make something look nice and too hard to make something interesting.

there will never, ever be an ansel adams again. that is distinctly white photography. it hangs next to portraits of king george.

the only value in the science of objective beauty in the western art world today is learning it just to cleverly subvert it, and they already got bored with that in the 70s so if you think you can do something new there go ahead and try but you probably won't. instead you should learn to be topical, subversive, and clever.

>>4442968
And this is a cancer of society
https://www.shareable.net/architectural-myopia-designing-for-industry-not-people/
https://thecritic.co.uk/modernist-architecture-melts-our-brains/
About architecture, but it applies to society as a whole. All of us have become obsessed with being modern and clever to signal our intelligence. This is not a higher ideal, but rather, a primate mating strategy. Producing and appreciating novel ideas are both strong signals for being a desirable mate. "It is too easy to make something look nice" and people who do things that are easy, and played out, are often assumed to be too stupid and uncultured to move on. Regardless of the consequences for psychology, which is objective enough for this trick to keep working in a peacock-like fashion.

>>4442111 (OP)
try scaling your images to about 2 inches tall. draw the image with every object simplified in grayscale, you can just trace. pick the pics you like the most and see how the objects work together in frame to make pleasing comp


wait shit i forgot where i was. kill yourself you retarded faggot, shove a leica up your ass and absorb its powers

>>4442111 (OP)
>How do I get better at composition?
Recreate photos you like.

>>4442972
>>4442968
Only losers concede art to a people they hate. Loser by definition and you lost to a bunch of guys wearing weird hats. LMFAO. Truly pathetic.

>>4442116
I just realized something. If I wanted to draw one of them, I'd pick the left. There's the big tree and there's the small person. On the right one nothing stands out. There's a building there at the top, but I can barely notice it. So the left one is better

>>4444065
even the person doesn't stand out because they're just sort of in a random spot

>>4442115
>>4442113
or maybe way too close, or the wrong vantage point.

but idk why I'm really good at it.

>>4444056
/thread

>>4442111 (OP)
Composition is for beginners.
Learn how to frame whatever you have in mind with different positions and focal ranges.
Over time you just know what works for any situation.

>>4442111 (OP)
Study and practice
Study: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLGEE7pGLuppT2MB0a7TYgBx_ZHDDHaEr6
Practice: take photos, ask for critique in /rpt/

>>4442111 (OP)
Easy, just do it better Opie.

>>4444639
>Composition is for beginners.
/p/ in a nutshell everyone

Well jeez anon if some guy said it sucks then he must be completely objectively correct

>>4446875
They will never post a photo to show they are bad at photography, but they will gladly spout nonsense to prove it beyond a doubt.

>>4446887
If you post a thread with shitty images in it, and demonstrate you don’t understand comp, it does not then fall on me as my responsibility to both educate you and post my own fucking work on here for free to impress you. Nothing is required of me, only you. So come down off your golden horsecock, no one owes you anything.

>>4446939
Thanks for proving my point, nophoto.

>>4446939
Someone trying by posting a shitty photo is 100x more valuable to this board than the nophoto whiners

>>4442118
Stopped reading at crop in post.

>>4447004
Literally nothing wrong with cropping in post if it's going to be posted online. A normal quality camera shoots at 60MP and you can only post like 4MP max on most platforms.

>>4447004
>yes, it's my first month doing photography
Welcome to the hobby

>>4447004
That guy is giving good advice, you should listen anon.

>>4447004
>>4447009
>>4447008
>>4447006
There's a difference between cropper's cope, and cleaning up things like shit off the side of the frame or not being level

>>4447014
Sounds like something a beginner would feel the need to point out where experienced shooters already understand the distinction

>>4447014
>you can just crop that later so long as you get it roughly correct
That's what he said, retarded nigger.

>>4447018
Can you blame them? If they are someone that just stops reading at a scary word, they probably don't have the best reading comprehension

>>4447019
You're right, it's my fault for expecting different.

>>4447016
>>4447018
>"Fell for the Ragebait Again" award

>>4446884
lel

your framing would probably be better if your photos weren't tilted just slightly enough to mess with perception. also you shouldn't be retarded enough to overlap your subjects and wonder why your framing is fucked

1) Look at a lot of pictures.
2) Keep a folder of all the ones you like. This is your "innate preference." Look at them frequently.
3) Analyze them consciously. You don't have to use fancy art school terms. Just describe them to yourself. Write it down.
4) Find similar arrangements of things in the world using just your naked eyeballs. Just go out and walk around and look at the world and look for scenes that are similar to the pictures you like.
5) Take pictures of them and (THIS IS KEY) try to imitate the pictures you like as closely as possible. Do your damnedest to plagiarize those pictures.

Repeat the above for the rest of your life. You'll start to notice patterns that feel right for you. It will also get you out of the noob habit of picking up your camera and saying "I'm going to take an interesting picture" even though there's nothing of visual interest around you. If you look around and there's nothing there, guess what - there's nothing there. You can't force a good picture out of your boring living room.

>>4448578
>You can't force a good picture out of your boring living room.
What if I fill it with hot babes

>>4442914
The right one is better...

>>4448588

I considered mentioning human subjects but didn't for simplicity's sake.

But one way to make your pictures more interesting is to put 1) people and/or 2) beautiful things in them.

Pictures of people but with boring composition and lighting can become riveting if there's clearly some kind of drama going on among the people in them.

For that kind of thing, your only compositional rule is "make sure there's nothing distracting in the frame." That's it. If you want to capture the quiet poignancy of a woman mourning her dead husband at his grave and there's a massive Mickey Mouse billboard across the street from the cemetery, keep the billboard out.

And if you have a beautiful woman willing to strip, then you're going to be able to take pictures people will want to look at. Whether the pictures will be good or not is a totally different question but hey maybe she'll let you bang her (the reason 99% of "erotic" "artistic" photographers do it).

If you're talented you can take a picture of a beautiful woman and make the picture itself beautiful too.

>>4442116

oppose the guy and the tree so the two compositional elements "in conversation"

>>4448614
>the reason 99% of "erotic" "artistic" photographers do it
not true
at least 2% do it just to get a cut of the OF cash and/or are women

>>4442111 (OP)
I will say the actual truth

If you don't spontaneously understand good composition and it doesn't come natural to you to frame stuff in a good way, it's over for you. Find a different hobby or do some shitty corporate photography where everything is just standardized poses and lighting

>>4448634

"You're either Ansel Adams or you're shit"

People can learn, you know.

>>4449016
>People can learn, you know.
explain how, otherwise you're perpetrating a lie

>>4449018
I read a story about a guy taking up bird photography, he shared some of his first photos and they were utter shit, just birds on a stick, awful composition.

About two years later he had a photo published by nat geo.
You can learn. Just like any hobby pt anything in life, if you're interested enough to keep at something and it brings you joy, pr fulfillment you'll find ways to improve.

>>4442111 (OP)
This might sound insane but I used to go to the reference library and literally draw photos that I liked from photo books. But I would throw up the rule of thirds before I drew them to kind of study it.

>>4446875
What, do you "compose" your photos. Goddamit that's just stupid. Limiting yourself to rules instead of framing at will.

>>4452168
To truly free oneself from the limitations and impositions of artificial rules of structural composition (bc such pedestrian formalism is merely a social construct of ones pathetic little regional tribal culture anyway) one must free their work from all human intereference. Only when unburdened by flawed human perception and self-interest can a work be free of corrupting intention, and a pure artistic expression judged on its own merit.

Hurl your camera into the sky, and where it falls, whatever image it takes in whatever direction as it strikes, will be its swan song. The only thing more artistically pure in photography is to refuse to engage the camera, and simply taunt the infernal machine from a safe distance, denying it the ability to take photographs, its entire purpose of existence, while it is yet still perfectly able. Then you will have acheieved pure photographic mastery.

>>4442111 (OP)
unironically painting classes
do some watercolors man

>>4452168
>rules
You said it not me. Composition begins with perspective.
>>4452179
k3k

Take the Dalipill

>>4452179
You can't read it seems. I mentioned framing, which is a completely different approach.
If you have to use a memo for composition whenever you go out to photograph, I got bad news for you.

>>4452279
It's already implied. It's known and has been mentioned. Composition and perspective are not the same. Framing and perspective is.

>>4452340
If you have to use rules for composition (unless going for a specific style) then you're kinda fucked. However if you think composition doesn't matter you're even more fucked unless you happen to compose unconsciously and have deluded yourself into thinking it doesn't matter. A lot of people just throw shit at the wall to see if it sticks, and most of it doesn't. When I say I care about composition I mean I visualize what I want there. If you do cinema or one of the more artistic types of still photography (editorial fashion, tableaux, well pondered landscape, etc) then it's more obvious. To compose is to arrange.

>>4452380
Are you conscious of what you write, in context with what you have accomplished?
https://archive.palanq.win/p/search/tripcode/%21CiNE%2FYT%2Fe6/filter/text/
Most of what you post is just memes or stolen from other people

This is the only original photo you have posted in the past 12 months. You don't know a thing about composition or art. You just make shit up because you're a typical NPC pretender attracted to art because the vague terminology necessitated by english's vocabularic insufficiency makes it easier to thoughtlessly bullshit and fit in. Look, people would rather take advice from retards like the corgi-husky-doghair gearfag complex lol

Let's break it down
>If you have to use rules for composition then you're kinda fucked
All conscious and intuitive composition follows rulesets
>(unless going for a specific style)
So using rules is bad but it's also not bad? Every photo is going for a specific style.
>However if you think composition doesn't matter you're even more fucked
>unless you happen to compose unconsciously and have deluded yourself into thinking it doesn't matter
This word salad says literally nothing. Kamala-tier. Biden-tier. Trump-tier. Senile babble.
>A lot of people just throw shit at the wall to see if it sticks, and most of it doesn't
Filler statement, senile babble.
>When I say I care about composition I mean I visualize what I want there.
You are unable to prove you do this. Someone who only orders doordash can claim that they pre-taste food in their head and they're an artistic chef, can't they?
>If you do cinema or one of the more artistic types of still photography (editorial fashion, tableaux, well pondered landscape, etc)
Man who has never made anything resembling art or even journalism attempts to define art to mean only things he likes
>then it's more obvious. To compose is to arrange.
Another non-statement. Bidentrumpharris tier senile babble. You are dumber than a politician.

>>4452387
https://archive.palanq.win/p/thread/4220006/#4221290
Holy shit cinefag is a zoophile

>>4452387
He is stupid fucking faggot. You're giving him too much credit by effortreplying to him. He started his tripfagging shitshow by spamming "photography isn't art" rage bait.

Just call him a faggot next time.

>>4452391
i think that has a better shot at hurting his feelings tho

>>4452389
>read the whole convo
>he dropped his trip to say even more awful shit
This is what cinefag actually believes
https://archive.palanq.win/p/thread/4220006/#4221733

>>4452396
>>4452389
>i half-assedly implied i was this tripfag as a joke
Oh my fucking god. I didn't know. "k3k".

Cinefag, when will you livestream your suicide?

>>4452398
>heather
oh god, it's female
the dogussy is being assaulted

>>4452403
Put your trip back on cinefag

>>4452403
>tripfag known for dropping his trip to make zoophillic comments drops his trip to make a zoophillic comment

>>4452398
I'm sorry bro i thought you were a dogfucker just because of the cinefag hints

Is cinefag the same guy who thinks doghair wants to fuck his german shepherd?

>>4452396
>>4452389
cinefag suicide when? after the cops go trough his computer?

>>4452404
>>4452405
>>4452407
triggered for being called out as the dogfucker you are pal?
ok buddy

>>4452409
Stop trying to deflect your zoosadism fetish onto others and off yourself freak

>>4452403
>cinefag: oh shit i got caught actually being a dogfucker. what will i do? oh that guys dog is a girl i bet he has sex with her
Even when cinefag pretends he isn’t a dog fucker, he can’t stop thinking about fucking dogs

>>4452405
Huskyfucker is on a cross-board tangent again.

>>4452413
You’re coping schizophrenically, cinefag.

>>4452398
Dying out

>>4452413
>still trying to deflect onto the husky guy
It was never likely he was actually you. All he did was say k3k to confuse some schizos.

You on the other hand are on the record detailing your zoophillic fantasies

>>4452417
It's okay to admit you raped your dog, we all know it's true anyway.

>>4452418
He never did such thing to heather. He's a good guy after all.

>>4452416
Stealing /dog/ memes without your trip is dishonest. You will never be the real hound schizo.

Why don't you show us your compositional skills with your GH5 instead of trying to deflect and distract from that time you told /fgt/ about your sick nazi bestiality fantasies

>>4452418
No one rapes dogs except for cinefag >>4452389 >>4452396

>>4452422
doghair quality. what piece of shit camera is this? did you turn off the unsharp mask and then export a 50% quality jpeg?

>>4452432
That's his m43 rig.

>>4452422
cinefag is the schizo gh5 fag that stalked /an/? knew it

>>4452387
k3k, you don't get half of what I said as expected.
>All conscious and intuitive composition follows rulesets
Doesn't have to. You can simply put something somewhere because it looks good there.
>So using rules is bad but it's also not bad? Every photo is going for a specific style.
Using basic bitch rules as a crutch because you can't compose for shit is bad. Deliberately using specific rules to create cohesion between shots can be good if innovative enough. Let's say for example every shot in a set has something placed at the same area.
>This word salad says literally nothing. Kamala-tier. Biden-tier. Trump-tier. Senile babble.
I'm saying some people compose without realizing they're doing it, and then they dismiss composition as something pointless because they do it unconsciously.
>Filler statement
It's really not. Just look at some of the thoughtless snapshits that get posted here.
>You are unable to prove you do this.
It's self evident.
>Man who has never made anything resembling art or even journalism attempts to define art to mean only things he likes
I've never shared much more than crops and throwaways here, doesn't mean I've never done it.
>Another non-statement. Bidentrumpharris tier senile babble. You are dumber than a politician.
If you're doing the genres I mentioned you compose from the moment you craft the scene to photograph. You put the things where you want them or you place yourself at the right place for the composition you want and the right time of the day for the light to hit where you want it in landscape's case. This isn't some well guarded secret but common knowledge.

>>4452396
Such posts are called outrage porn, anon. Still not that terrible of an idea £:^]

>>4452440
You dont take photos. Your entire wall of text can be disregarded. OR do you have some gh5 snaps to show??? its ok no one respected that alter ego of yours anyways

>>4452442
>calls his dog sex fantasies outrage porn
Theyre just porn. You are a schizophrenic nophoto notphotog with a bestiality fetish.

>>4452445
I'm not a schizophrenic you are

>>4452398
>Cinefag, when will you livestream your suicide?
>>4452407
>cinefag suicide when?
I'm no Evelyn McHale or Francys Arsentiev so I guess I'll pass. The closest thing to kino I've seen was Shuaiby, even surpassed R. Budd Dwyer. But male suicide isn't aesthetic enough to truly be cinema. That's a privilege for women, the ultimate artistic sacrifice.

>>4452440
This big wall of horseshit can be distilled down to
>You either got it or you don't, le magic artistic touch
>But, I don't take photos, I mean, my photos go to another school
You don't take photos.

>>4452454
Everything you say ends up being so unhinged and disgusting. This is almost as bad as your freakish fantasy about worldwide dog rape and your trip-off attempts to accuse huskyGOD of fucking his dog.

>>4452461
No, it can be developed. Thing is, trying to follow some hard and fast set of rules mechanically is a dead end.

>>4452432
It's a 8#% quality jpeg from a d750 with a shitty lense. I was going through a soft lens phase. My dog is a real life test chart. Add in 4chan compression and IQ shits itself but it wasn't that good to begin with.

>>4452440
You are a gigantic retard who talks out his ass and is afraid to post the most mediocre snapshit
>>4452442
AND a coping dogfucker. Holy shit. Fucking kill yourself.

>>4452468
You are dumb as hell. Following some hard and fast rules is how you develop a basic skill. It's the literal opposite of a dead end. Your "advice" sounds like this
>Stop practicing drawing circles! Stop practicing drawing cubes! you'll never learn to draw that way! t. tried and failed to draw a smiling sun over a tree once
And you're a fucking zoophile who wrote hundreds of words about planet bestiality in the middle of /fgt/. Kill yourself, fuckface. You are the dumbest fucking piece of shit. Go die. For real.

>>4452472
I'm not a dogfucker, I was just sick and tired of the "white women fuck dogs" spam when statistics say its not them.
>You are dumb as hell. Following some hard and fast rules is how you develop a basic skill. It's the literal opposite of a dead end. Your "advice" sounds like this
You're misinterpreting it on purpose. Sure, at first the rules are a decent support. Later on they become a cage unless you use a minimalist distillation of them for some conceptual project. A bit like Weston's peppers but instead of produce the common element is a single rule or a small set of them followed in each picture of the set.

Holy shit just take the loss cinefag

>>4452474
>I'm not a dogfucker I just wrote a mini essay about "knotting" and nonwhite genocide through bestiality
Shut the fuck up you retarded fucking faggot dogfucker. Go die.

>You're misinterpre-
I'm interpreting it perfectly fine. You are absolutely, 100%, a non-doer who just talks out his ass to feel smart whenever he isn't jacking off to animal abuse.

If you feel around your neck and find a lump near the end of your jaw, that's the closest lymph node to the carotid. Happy trails!

Husky got teeth!

>>4452474
I wish nothing but death upon zoophiles…and then… there's you…who wants to be buddies with them.

>>4452476
Et tu, cANON????
>>4452484
I don't want to be buddies with them, I want nonwhites to stop reproducing.

This photo is called "cure for zoophilia"

Observe the rules that make it good
>rule of thirds
Encourages the eye to explore the image. People explore rule of thirds images starting from the top right first, and then look to the bottom right and through the center to the top left. First you see the stern face of the man wearing sunglasses, concealing his emotion but not his intent. Then you look down, and as your eyes pass through the center, behold, the gun!
>mid-low angle, ~45 degrees off from subject
Gives a sense that you are seated and the action just started. You expect to look to your right and a bit behind you to see what he's shooting at. This creates some anxiety and excitement. Imagine it's cinefag mid-sentence from this post >>4452396
>tight framing
The man holding the gun is cut off, lessening his importance in the image relative to the gun. This image is about violence, not a man holding a gun. He is the prime mover, the higher force, larger than the image. The image is ultimately about the gun being aimed and fired. His eyes and face are left in to show the purposefulness of the gun.
>focal point
The muzzle of the gun is in sharp focus. It is the most important thing here. The environment is a blur. What's happening? This guy's shooting some bitches. Is it in the woods? It could be any forest. It could be his backyard. It doesn't matter where it is. Violence is the universal problem solver.

>>4452487
>normal nazis: gas zem. bomb zem. shoot zem. put zem on ze boat to madagascar.
>cinefag: how about they rape puppies and their men all get sex changes OwO

>>4452490
How can they rape when they're the ones being fucked? They're merely offering themselves as flesh toys for their furry companions.
>>4452489
A better application of the rule of thirds than most attempts on this board. Optimal amount of subject separation too.

>>4452422
Hey man, it hurts my feelings when you call me a schizo because I meme’d too hard. I look up to you and all of your autistic debates about dog training got through to me and helped me better train my dogs. It changed my relationship with them for the better and I really love them and they love me too now. I'll always defend you even if you refuse to acknowledge me or brush me off, fella.

Does anyone have cinefags parents on the line? I want to show his dad the stuff he's been posting

>>4452496
That's not what I'm saying, I'm just saying a woman can't possibly rape a dog by just letting it fuck her.

>>4452501
>I'm not saying animals can consent, I'm saying bestiality isn't rape -cinefag !CiNE/YT/e6, July 25th, 2025, 7:37 PM UTC

>>4452501
ill rape ur mum lel

>>4452501
>i am not ze zoophile i am ze bestiality expert

/p/ee can be so deranged sometimes, holy shit kek

>>4452514
Its just cinefag and cANON
cinefag being the worst because he fucks dogs

>>4452524
I don't fuck them I make sweet love to them

>>4452506
I'm not the one arguing that if you don't stop an animal from doing something you're raping it

>>4452498
I thought you were cinefag since he mucks around on /an/ sometimes. Wtf are you doing on /p/ you don't even own a camera (but if you buy one, it should NOT be a sony or a micro four thirds, like, ever). You're going to have to accept your name is hound schizo. It's just the way things work.

t. husky schizo

>>4452567
The only thing that needs stopped is your pulse, zoosadist.

>>4452498
You should post lots of pics of your dog on /p/ we need more dogtographers on /p/

Key takeaways from this thread about getting better at composition:
> its important to practice
> the jews control the art world
> experiment more
> look for/copy inspiration art
> cinefag is a nazi dog fucker who daydreams about non-whites being raped by dogs and castrated AND he doesnt even post photos

you learn something new everyday

>>4452576
> if you buy one, it should NOT be a sony or a micro four thirds, like, ever
wtf a dogposter said something based

>>4452576
>I thought you were cinefag since he mucks around on /an/ sometimes
You'd be wrong, huskyfag.
>zoosadist
You base this on nothing, also the word seems like an odd neologism presumably used by zoophiles to deflect. All I said is that I'm all for nonwhite females becoming the dogs' bitches in even higher numbers than they already do so that they stop reproducing. You may question the methods but the goal is noble.

>>4452584
I'm not a dog fucker and I don't daydream about them getting raped

>>4452576
>you don't even own a camera
I purchased a film camera around a year ago, the learning curve was too much for me so I sold it and went digital.

>dont buy a sony or micro 4/3
I'm starting with the Canon EOS Rebel T6.

>>4452583
yes…YES!!!

>>4452605
How to photography:
Use a prime lens 28mm or something
Hold the camera level before you try to dutch angle
Never overexpose
Shoot raw
Add film sim in lightroom
Never listen to ken rockwell

Have fun

>>4452605
Extremely based. Can't wait to see the absolute kino you pump out with that beast of a camera.

>>4452476
Are the other canon? You have a different trip.

>>4452617
Yeah, my old trip died with the hack but habits are hard to break and I keep going back to it.

>>4452617
>>4452618
See? Same guy

>>4452618
Gotcha ty for clearing that up

>>4452608
>prime lens
I’ll add it to the upgrade list. (file: Canon 24mm f/2.8 STM)

>histogram
crushed blacks lel

Solid advice.

>>4452616
Thx. Dog plog soon.

>>4452814
I owned this for a while, bretty good. The pancake aspect is a meme since Canon cameras are huge but it's certainly a high performer per dollar.
Looking forward to the RF 28mm soon since it's such an optically great performer.

>>4452880
>>4452894
I'll be looking for lenses that punch above their weight. If I can thrift it, that's a plus, too, because I don't want to invest more than, say, $315-$325 to start. im too unsure if I’ll like this hobby. It depends on how easy it is. The post-processing stuff seems too complicated already, lol. So far, the camera, kit lens, and accessories have cost $239, leaving me about $50 for a decent secondhand lens. I probably overpaid for the camera but it's all I could find on eBay for less than $300 with everything included and a low shutter count. I mean hell, they took like 10 photos and never used it again. It's new.

>>4452922
>The post-processing stuff seems too complicated already, lol
Capture one users call editing easy
Everyone else calls it a slog without presets or engages in linux user-isms

Capture one perpetual goes on sale for about $200 once or twice a year (spring and fall, not counting student discounts) and none of the cracks are trustworthy, everything else is rented software

Capture one is made primarily for the literal best cameras on earth and is sitting so comfortably they axed their free version without losing users, so that might have something to do with it. They don't even include AI enhancements (for now, hopefully never), just AI masking, because honestly they don't need them and they make images look worse.

You should wait to buy capture one since you won't even know how to use a camera for another few months.

>>4452926
You mean I can't use GIMP?

picrel: my GIMP skillz

>>4452926
>student discount
That's not even all that pricey all things considered. I mean, if it makes editing simpler then I don't see why I should go with the other options. I may try darktable though and if it's just too annoying I'll consume.

>AI enhancements
This must be like the fake frames thing where they just add pixels or something. Fake and gay.

>>4452930
AI is based and redpilled. It can turn a 2 MP picture into a terapixel masterpiece instantly

>>4452933
‘Togs dying out

>>4452930
>if it makes editing simpler
Now you just find images you like the look of, select up to 20
Click 1 button, and your image has the look too now
Picrel, no adjustments or tweaking or sliders, just finding a few images I like the look of already and hitting apply

>>4452926
Match look (above) is AI
The new facial retouching tool is AI (and works amazing)
Dust removal is AI

>>4452950
>Match look (above) is AI
This actually is quite amazing. It takes the garbage images on the left and fixes them into the good looking ones on the right? Wow.

>>4452926
But this guy >>4452931 is a capture one shill and that looks horribad

>>4452950
thank god we have ai to move the contrast and dehaze sliders for us

>>4452950
This is quite an interesting application of AI. It's useful for entrants into photography who might not know exactly what's needed to recreate a look. Thanks again.

>>4452960
>horribad
>horriblad
>hassleblad
Of course hes been lying about having a z7. Its an x1d.

>>4452960
You could make your pictures of your dog-wife look just as bad with any program. He just pops the saturation and contrast way too high. But I think you're just not the target audience. He's doing pin-up playboy style sexy photos but of his dog, the entire point is to make the dog look sexy and fuckable. Yiff Yiff...

>>4452975
That’s not a normal way to look at dog pictures. It’s just a dog. It looks like a cotton ball. The only one seeing sexy there is you.

>>4452976
You hit the nail on the head. Poor guy probably has a severe porn addiction.

>>4452976
>>4452977
>dogfucker and huskyfag coming in to the rescue
nice try ZIDF

>>4452978
>xier finds picrel sexually attractive
saaaaar

>>4452978
You thought a grainy photo of a cotton ball was sexy lmao. Never seen a pussy? Scratch that you probably tried to fuck the family cat

>>4452987
Cine(zoo)phile put your trip back on

>cinefag is now going after huskyfag after being given detailed suicide instructions
Huskyfag you really gotta stop giving zoophiles detailed suicide instructions. They never follow them correctly. They can’t hit the right species why would they hit the right artery?

>>4452978
>sexualizing picrel
I'm actually theorizing that Zs have a rare congenital disorder.

>>4452989
>>4452991
It's not my fault you fuck dogs you freak. Dogs are meant to be eaten not fucked. Normal people just grow them to maturity and butcher them with pig.

>>4452991
Cute dogs.

>>4452991
why does the dog on the right have such a huge penis

>>4452993
>>4452993
>um actually youre zoos
They should rape you
Porn brained faggot
Couldn't even shake off a couple of zesty 4channers

>eating dogs
Reject commie degeneracy. Tang Chinese are known to be cowardly dicklets. It's been proven since they never invaded the western Turkic khaganate despite barking at them since ever. Imagine being afraid of turkgaos. Might as well honorkill themselves for shamefur dispray..

>>4452993
>sees a cotton ball next to a pepper plant
>gets a boner and starts thinking farmer joe is boning the q-tip
God only knows what goes through your head when you see the eggman’s eggographs

>>4452998
Turks also ate dogs prior to 1800s

>>4452999
I think he smashes the eggs all over himself and jerks off after he takes the pictures, he's a freak

>>4453002
who really wants to be a turk pre-1800s

>>4453004
I long for the ottoman empire

>>4453005
Is it because they castrated their jannies?

>>4453003
I force your mom to eat all the eggs after I am done photographing them.

>>4452975
The saturation of a Nikon is as inescapable as the mental institution you belong in.

Should I just scrape /fag/'s desaturated worm collection off the archive and hit match look?

>>4453024
With Cane’s sauce?

>>4453033
Depends on how she has been behaving.

>>4453031
>nikons are actually that saturated by default
Now burt’s editing finally makes sense

>>4453034
Cane’s sauce

*powergap*

Honey mustard

.
.
.
.
*POWERGAP*

Bbq sauce
.
.
.
.
:
:
:
:
*POWERGAP*
Ketchup

>>4453031
Oh god it looks like doghair’s sinar

>>4453038
Sinar mogs Nikon. Sorry! I am just completely useless at editing digital photography because I'm not a gigantic nerd. I prefer exposing myself to harmful chemicals to produce stunning physical prints rather than sitting in front of a screen for 9000 years editing pics that innately look worse than film! Yep.

Some nerd had to tell me how to do moire reduction on C1 lol. If youre reading this, thanks bro! My pics look way better now!

>>4453047
Prove it. Take a photo of your schizo-triggering fuzzball in front of a plant bucket. I am convinced you are both the same person.

>>4453049
Im busy developing film right now. What the hell is a plant bucket? Lol. Maybe later.

I forgot to mention that my based Sinar camera was immediately recognized without me mentioning it or even hinting at it in the pet photo thread. The meganerds started bitching and whining almost immediately after I posted them. It was beautiful.

Anyways since this is the de-facto editing thread and the editing thread is the composition thread
I have been sperging out over why my pics look like pixellated shit on 4chan and just realized 300% zoom in capture one ~= 100% zoom in the browser
brave's ~300%
chrome's ~250%

Whadda fug? Why are web browsers like this? I've never viewed or shown a photo to anyone IRL at more than 100% this is literally enforced pixel peeping 3 times harder. I've been editing EVERYTHING assuming 200% zoom is max pixelpeep and only the biggest retard would go 300%

Well at least they look sharp on my phone, pc, and in prints but what the fuck
i knew color management on windows would be ass but this is a loonix tier scaling issue

>>4453058
Buy a hasselblad
Use phocus
Use a mac

Capture one, non-hasselblads, and windows are shit for retarded amateurs. Real photographers use haseslblad, phocus, and macs.

>>4452971
It's also just better for anyone that uses a preset / LUT
>>4452965
Does a lot more than that

>>4453058
>Whadda fug? Why are web browsers like this?
I went through the same exact realization like last year

>>4453059
real photographers use their iphone pro and then upscale it with AI

>>4453063
Real photographers shoot film so their good photos go to another reality

>>4453064
On the cusp of being too based for /p/.

Do you think different elements/metals have unique spiritual/alchemical properties? Silver is most commonly used for film, but you can make prints with a wide variety of metals. Gold, silver, copper, platinum, palladium, selenium, mercury, etc.

>>4453066
Silver makes your photos cooler, gold makes them more valuable, mag-al makes them go faster...

>>4453067
What about platinum?

>>4453066
>spiritual/alchemic property
Hi based science wizard. What does this mean?

>>4453071
sends them to the nubian dimension because niggas love they some platinum grillz

>>4453058
There is a reason artists use macs/ipads and you just found it. Im on an iphone and your photos look sharp without excessive contrast. The only shit part is you’re doghair tier and take nothing but photos of a dog on a farm and have corgifag’s taste in edits.
>dude vibrant greens and fake grain lmao

Windows does not handle displaying anything properly unless its a video game.

>>4453077
I'm using a monitor with 99 CRI and the better contrast than any screens apple uses in their products and his pictures look plasticky with overblown saturation and HDR levels of contrast
awful

>>4453078
>>4453077
Bros... are we proving doghair right? Are the only photos that matter physical prints, because otherwise whatever you intended is going to be mangled by some retards ultra HDR gaming monitor or rajesh's faded 720p thinkpad?

>>4453067
>mag-al makes them go faster
Kek'd

>>4453078
>artists use macs
>use gaming monitor thats "better" (higher contrast wider gamut) than the de-facto standard
>wtf everything is more hdr and contrasty
Try installing mac OS so color space clamping works!

>>4453086
It's just a fact bro.

>>4453086
>>4453092
It's not even a gaming monitor it's just a monitor for editing video. If your pictures wouldn't look good on a digital IMAX projector they're probably shit

>>4453102
Are you the reason why every netflix original either has crushed blacks or zero blacks?

>>4452976
Behold, cinefag's raunchiest fantasy

>>4453671
is that your other fetish when you get tired of advocating for worldwide puppy molestation?

>>4453678
tldr (toota-loo dogfucker retard) lol

>>4442111 (OP)
It just kinda comes with time, I think. As for me, the understanding went as follows
>rule of thirds, keep camera straight, yadda yadda
>then realized that trying to get a clean frame with things I want in it and with as little other objects as possible is a big deal
>then started thinking about the frame more in terms of geometric structure, from basic tricks like using environment to create a cute little frame around the subject, to attempts of leading lines/shapes that either lead towards, or wrap around the subject
>then started hearing "nice composition" from people every now and then
And I think I'm currently still in progress of trying to get good at last two points. Regardless, I've heard an unrequested "nice composition", so as far as my amateur ass is concerned, I think I'm doing an okay job. Last one is particularly important, it rarely happens, but when I find something in the environment that I can use to point at the subject, it always looks lovely.

Take your time, it'll come on its own as long as you keep thinking about it.