I just went to a Vivian Maier exhibition, pic related, her Rolleiflex. There were great photos, sure, but negatives were also shown sometimes: from what I've seen on average one or two shots out of a 12 exposure roll were any good, and that made me feel like photography is a numbers game. I'm kinda new to photography, I've learned the technical basics, but I really don't know shit about composition, and seeing the other failed or sub-par shots made me question the whole theory behind it.

Most pictures were full frame prints made in the last 10 years, sometimes the original print she made was displayed alongside showing how she edited the negatives (mostly cropping, but I've noticed some dodging/burning), meaning that all the full frame prints were probably not the intended outcome, at which point I question what I'm actually seeing, whether the actual artistic intent or just an attempt to milk the negatives, which were but a step in the process.

Then there's the whole "she tried getting recognition, but went nowhere, just to be discovered after death by random chance". I knew about the second part, I didn't know she tried to get noticed. How insanely arbitrary that is, which in turn throws shade on the value that is given to her photos.

I'm not a /p/ autist, I know very little and expected to get something positive out of this experience, but it generated more questions and doubts than answers and knowledge. I want to know anons' opinion on the subject.

Holy shit, just take photos and keep what you like. What the fuck is all this mental shit

>>4449640 (OP)
6x6 is often times cropped to a rectangular format when printed. You can sort of think about square crop as taking the horizontal and vertical picture at the same time.

Have you shot film? Maybe 1-3 great shot from 10 rolls could be good. It depends a lot on subject matter IMO.

You can look at magnum photographers contact sheets and you'll see exactly the same thing. They know there's potential in a scene and will often "explore" the scene and various compositions along with bracketing shots. Good practice to take more than one shot of a scene you think is worthy of photography.

>>4449640 (OP)
>Then there's the whole "she tried getting recognition, but went nowhere, just to be discovered after death by random chance". I knew about the second part, I didn't know she tried to get noticed. How insanely arbitrary that is, which in turn throws shade on the value that is given to her photos.
Most photo jews have some manufactured story behind them, wait until you learn the truth behind Capa, Winogrand and others. It's not about the photography but about the lore.
Some jews' work stands out by itself but it's the exception (Haas for example) rather than the rule. For the most part it's just jews hypebeasting each other.

>>4449641
God forbid a nigga wants to talk about photography.

>>4449642
>have you shot film?
Yeah, but mostly snapshitting family moments or vacations. I enjoy fiddling with the camera and settings for the sake of trying, and every now and then I indulge in trying to take some artsy photo, but it rarely leads to satisfying results, not to mention I have to outsource the printing. It's interesting though: digital facilitates
>Good practice to take more than one shot of a scene you think is worthy of photography.
Good suggestion, thank you. That said, it gets prohibitively expensive quick nowadays. I remember a decade ago when I started shooting film I did it because even factoring in printing costs it was cheaper than digital for limited use (my use case was vacation snapshitting to make something higher value and quality than smartphone pics), as ColorPlus was still just a couple of euros a roll, but nowadays it's literally four times as expensive. It's insane.

That said, digital makes sense, as it allows unlimited attempts at producing a decent photo, but then it's back to the numbers game again, where it's just a matter of shooting enough that it becomes statistically probable that you get something good in the process.

>>4449643
I get what you're saying, but man, /pol/ has completely rotted your brain out

>>4449645
> talk about photography
vile

>>4449645
You don't need film unless you have the desire to go after the look/prints of a film/darkroom printing process.

The idea is not to simply snap everything to increase your chances of a great shot, but putting good thought into more than one photograph of a certain scene. You could take 1000 pictures, but miss the angle or timing that makes an okay pic into an incredible one. If you're out and about shooting it is better to avoid the "one and done" mindset, especially if you are using digital. Not always possible or necessary, but for her type of photography you may as well explore your scene with multiple photographs.

>>4449645
>That said, digital makes sense, as it allows unlimited attempts at producing a decent photo, but then it's back to the numbers game again, where it's just a matter of shooting enough that it becomes statistically probable that you get something good in the process.
Bingo, that's why street isn't art. It's more like gambling.

>>4449640 (OP)
photography and camera operator skill are two different things

photography can really do away with "camera-fu" and treat cameras as a device to scan reality that moment so the photographer can make the picture later. most photographers land on this hence you see most experienced, long term photographers use really good cameras that have some image quality to give when they make the photo they wanted to see.

camera-fu is kind the "using linux" of photography, it's a lot of extra work you don't actually have to do for a very minor IQ increase, in return for missed opportunities and wasted time. pic related, camera-fu. this guy is making sure his trees come out marginally sharper.

>>4449648
dont listen to this guy, he hates photography and wants to make up every reason it isn't art and mindlessly deny any reason it is while blaming the jews for something. he's actually from /tv/ and doesn't take pictures.

his friend cANON also hates photography. he's actually a schizophrenic gearhead from /o/ and he doesn't take pictures.

>>4449640 (OP)
>she tried getting recognition, but went nowhere
she really never did, it was her hobby and that is. The closest thing would be that she never was really good at the darkroom and wanted someone in specific (forgot the name) to print her photos for her.
>which were but a step in the process.
But they, are negatives are just to get the as much data and you could of your scene and then realize your vision on the darkroom.As Adams said
“The negative is the equivalent of the composer's score, and the print is the performance.”

You can say the same about RAWs, you can play with them as much as you need to get closer to the vision you had while taking the photo.

All the camera needs to achieve is the correct perspective, correct focus, everything in the frame, and non-fucked exposure/technicals

The photographer can do the rest later and doing it in camera is for people who like cameras not people who like photography. In fact, cameras are basically a whole other hobby hence why you see so many boring as shit photos that are basically just a technical exercise.

>>4449669
>pic related, camera-fu. this guy is making sure his trees come out marginally sharper.
He's actually avoiding having blown highlights or crushed shadows or having to do bracketed exposures that waste time in post. Grad ND filters aren't about sharpness. In fact, if your filter isn't of excellent quality you'll be sacrificing some sharpness to use it.
>>4449670
>his friend cANON also hates photography. he's actually a schizophrenic gearhead from /o/ and he doesn't take pictures.
The only true thing in that sentence is that I'm a gearhead. It's been a while since I last visited /o/.
I also miss fe2fucker for gearhead reasons, his car was pure eye candy. And yes, one of my favorite photos of all time includes a car.

>>4449691
>I also miss fe2fucker for gearhead reasons
Not only for gearhead reasons of course))
He was fun in general, the "film or digital" threads are sorely missed

>>4449696
At what point is /p/ just dead from the actual talent leaving, due to the massive faggorty and brandwars? We've crossed that delta already haven't we.
I might be unabashedly retarded at times, but why can't nig nogs just go take photos and try and pull each-other up instead of shitting down the throats of anyone who doesn't contribute 11/10 gold.

>>4449696
i liked his frankestein old gear experiments, i like to fuck around with stuff the same way so it was always fun.

>>4449691
>He's actually avoiding having blown highlights or crushed shadows
Hey look, a retard that has never used a good camera.

That is a D850. It has enough dynamic range to capture the most contrasty shit. GNDs are more typical for film because film neither has DR (it has latitude instead) nor shadow sliders. The GND is just to improve shadow SNR so the tree leaves will be more distinct.

>>4449698
Rpt behavior was embarassing today. Very discouraging.

>>4449676
>The negative is the equivalent of the composer's score, and the print is the performance.
OP here. Very insightful, I've never considered the distinction thank you anon. That might explain some of my dissatisfaction with the prints I received, how often I thought "I wish I could crop this out", or how many times I decided not to take a photo because what I was seeing through the viewfinder wasn't what I could see with my eyes: it's the darkroom that's missing.

>>4449677
I guess that's fine, as long as people recognize where their actual interest lie, but it's easy to conflate the two. Hell, I have yet to figure it out.

I'm sure a lot of people would be a lot happier if they didn't have to rationalize their interest as an excuse for an objective.

>>4449640 (OP)
>I'm not a /p/ autist
So just a regular autist then?

>>4449701
Eh, bright areas of an image still breaks down. Debayering algorithms fuck with color near the camera’s white point, often just desaturating it. Also CMOS sensor wells start “slowing down” as they become more saturated (a saturation effect). they aren’t perfectly linear, and they lose “roll off” in tonality the closer they get to the camera’s white point.

If you’ve ever tried to pull the highlights on foliage you know that dynamic range in the last few stops doesn’t mean much. Those highlights quickly turn into flat gray areas far before clipping.

Grad NDs can make a huge difference in subtle tonality, such as when a dramatic sky is important. Preserving that tonality gives you more latitude.

(Essentially, the closer you are to a camera’s white point, the worst latitude the camera exhibits).

>>4449677
Based

A camera is simply a scientific instrument that measures light. The technical role of a photographer is to know its instrument well enough to optimize the light gathering. The rest is the exciting and creative part

>>4449703
Threads just keep devolving into NOPHOTO NOPHOTO REEE. How do we even address that?

>>4449744
maybe start posting photos

>>4449640 (OP)
>that made me feel like photography is a numbers game
I feel like it's the same for videos, you do lots of takes, lots of editing. Don't know much about other arts, especially traditional like painting, do painters do that too? For music, at least for recording I think they do a few takes too, but when you have a live performance like with theater it seems like you have to be good each time

>>4449724
This is flat out wrong

People who have never used nice cameras shouldnt open their mouths

When a channel has not clipped overexposure does not change colors. Period.
>if you are close to the white point
if a channel has not clipped colors do not change
modern cameras are linear
your d200/ccd rebel is not
if you had a problem on a real camera you accidentally clipped a channel

>>4449746
If you provide a reasonably good critique you should not need to post a photo every time. Some of the picture were so very bad that you couldn't say much about them lol.

>>4449804
>If you provide a reasonably good critique
No one here does that though

>>4449807
Wrong. Anon said that many of the pictures were too dark, blurry, or of absolutely nothing.
This is obvious and excellent critique. Get closer is also excellent advice.

>>4449746
You know that isn't the problem. You speak like one of the people perpetuating it. We're getting sick of your bullshit.

>>4449746
Real critique does not need a photo attached to it to be valid. Everyone knows that your overly defensive ass would talk shit about a great photo if they said anything critical of your snapshit.

I am sorry, but this is not your safespace hugbox to spam your shitty pictures on.

>>4449698
I just popped back in /p after maybe 3 or 4 years - the shitposting is the same but there's not even a stable post your pictures post that gets traction. I think the actual talent is long gone - I remember the high watermark was PANQ poster and the nature guy that did macros of his preying mantises and that was like 7 or 8 years ago.

>>4449640 (OP)
Vivian is one of my favorite photographers, not for talent or vision or whatever, but because she is essentially a proto-/p/ shitposter just like me. her work is all selfies, "hey that looks cool" snaps, pictures of the things she's interacting with daily without some greater artistic implication. the kind of shit we call boring in /rpt/. she's literally me, TLR and everything.

>>4449984
If you don't lie constantly about your name to people and pretend to only speak french then no

>>4449989
>If you don't lie constantly about your name to people and pretend to only speak french then no
well that seems like an aside to her photo pursuits and just being a weirdo frog, comes with the territory. the french (disgust), blech.

>>4449829
Saying it's good critique doesn't make it good critique lol
A part of good critique is posting examples too

>>4449847
>Real critique does not need a photo attached to it to be valid
True, but people here don't give a real critique
You don't need to post your own photo, but a real critique would in fact have photo examples

>>4449992
>>4449991
The people crying nophoto are not asking for example photos to learn from. They are asking so they can say your pics are shit. Go look in the previous rpt, fucking lol that guy is salty.

Many photographs posted do not need a "good" critique because they fail at such a basic level or have no real effort put into them. It's also quite impractical to only give critique if you have example images of a similar, but better photograph. It is not strictly necessary, but it is helpful.

>>4450014
>They are asking so they can say your pics are shit.
They are asking to see where the advice is coming from first and foremost, because most of the time the critique is just bad, like you are saying photos are just bad.

People afraid to post their own work should be excised from the board straight up. Anyone that claims hasphoto should have 0 problem linking to their posts, I do all the time when asked.

The previous rpt is more than one person and only started from a nophoto giving low effort critique.

>It's also quite impractical to only give critique if you have example images of a similar
Not at all, and that's not what people are asking for.

Picrel, why did OP not choose to even up the top or crop based on the pathway? It feels imbalanced in the original.

>>4450016
Good point I missed that.

The photos being posted did not merit more than a too dark, get closer, it's blurry, it's just a fucking picture of a bike. Writing an essay on a half dark picture of something blurry is not necessary.

I said do better and then the guy got really really mad at me and so I gave more detailed, but quick critiques of a handful of the bad photos in the thread. I could have done better providing more detailed critiques, but I don't put more effort into a critique than the person did taking the picture. What is even the point when the photo was doomed from the beginning?

>>4450014
Also, notice how there's an entire Vivian thread, largely shitting on her, with no one even posting examples of her work.
For all the critiquing people seem to want to do, they sure aren't putting any effort into it.

>>4450016
Basically no one can post in context of anything contentious or disputed on /p/.

portraits? on 4chan? maybe if you photographed prostitutes.
weddings and events? do not, you will lose your career permanently.
family? fuck no.
friends? maybe if your friends are 4channers too, and we know they aren't
pets? /p/ hates pets, HATES
landscapes? /p/ hates these too
street? here come cinefag and cANON and the other antisemitic trailer trash.

>>4450021
>The photos being posted did not merit more than a too dark, get closer, it's blurry, it's just a fucking picture of a bike
If that's all you have to offer as a critique, you should just remain quiet and watch and learn from others. Give me a specific image from that thread and I can give an example of better critique.
>Writing an essay on a half dark picture of something blurry is not necessary.
Neither most of the "critiques"

If you don't want to put the effort into something, either don't do it or don't get butthurt when someone calls you out on it

>What is even the point when the photo was doomed from the beginning?
So people can learn what small changes could make it not doomed from the beginning

>>4450023
Lots of us here post portraits
A few have posted weddings and events, I post stuff from my photo work often
I've posted myself more times than family, but have posted friends a few times
Posted lots of pets, posted lots of landscapes, posted lots of street

You are right that cine and cANON are some of the worst parts of the board and I would support permas for them, once you realize they are retarded 90% of the time, it's easy to just ignore them

>>4450024
I already admit that my critique could have been better, but part of it was to shit on the extremely low effort snapshit posters after the guy was being a little crybaby.

>>4450016
>why did OP not choose to even up the top or crop based on the pathway?
the most realistic answer to this is he probably meekly shot from the hip and was afraid of getting caught doing so or something.

>>4450034
I was using a leica and often times carry a flash to use on the street with it. I do not give a shit lol.

>>4450023
>>4450025
Imagine if /tv/ banned everyone who didn't support slop, /film/ would be dead by now or full of idiots that think capeshit is high art, arguably a fate worse than death.

>>4450036
well you claim it was purposeful but purposeful inherently doesn't make the work good. think of homer simpson trying to build a spice rack. i mean it's a 'hey that's neat' moment and there's something to that, but i feel like you're just arguing to protect your ego now trying to convince us that there's some greater artistic thing going on here and "we just don't get it".

>>4450038
It's not about what you like or dislike
It's about how you contribute to the board, and the board would be better off without you

>>4450041
You're entitled to your opinion.
What have you contributed to the board to cast such harsh judgment on me?

>>4450043
lots of relevant example photos
effort posts for critique and learning threads
attempts to alleviate gearfagging
my corgi

>>4450039
Not at all, and I mainly mention my camera because the nerd was saying I was meekly photographing a random old man through a puddle, which is factually incorrect.
Let there be meaning in the shot or not. Personally, I see something more than just a reflection in a puddle, but maybe you dont! It still looks sweet and would make a really nice looking print that provides satisfaction if analyzed on a deeper level.

I give it a 7/10.

>>4450045
Oh you're the owner of that thing, I can safely disregard your opinion lol
I don't think you've tried to alleviate gearfagging btw

>>4450052
you have a manner of typing which is oddly reminiscent of doghair, is it you buddy? did you finaly leave the farm?

>>4450056
Just as everyone here disregards your opinion lol
>you've tried to alleviate gearfagging
I am a giant gearfag, but I always advocate for using "lesser" gear and am rarely critical of gear in the same ways the actual gearfags here are

>>4449640 (OP)
Behind every good photo there is probably hundreds if not thousand bad ones. Nobody churns out gold after gold outside of a studio setting.

>>4449645
>I get what you're saying, but man, /pol/ has completely rotted your brain out
So he speaks the truth, but you are still somehow reluctant in accepting it because you are a redditor?

>>4450076
Correct.

>>4450076
If doing spray and pray yes.

>>4450084
even when shooting a group photo you have to spray, because for as much as you're able to control, someone will always blink or move strangely the moment you press the shutter.
negating the aspect of randomness and pretending that some magic "skill" is going to get the picture always at the first try is retarded

>>4450086
There's a difference between that and needing hundreds of shots.

>>4450025
Add LakersMonsters to the list (cinefag's alt)

>>4450090
Meds

>>4450090
At least doghair is creative, a good amount of crazy too
Burt and Sugar are pillars of the community
I miss fe2fucker, artrepro, etc
I would celebrate if who you named left for good

>>4450099
fe2fucker left because anons kept telling him to leave so he decided to give them what they wanted

>>4450109
He got permanently rangebanned for saying jannies knowingly allowed shills to post and protected their threads to drive traffic.

>>4450109
>so he decided to give them what they wanted
and when will you leave?

>>4450099
>Burt and Sugar are pillars of the community
>Burt

Fuck that guy