Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and they are all shitty.

It would probably be best to filter out people's opinions and apply whatever knowledge they may provide. You can learn a few techniques, learn some concepts, even learn some tips for programs like photoshop or lightroom, but like I said, you'll have to filter out the bullshit and apply what you've learned and follow what works best for you.

>>1502734

Not mine! Asshole I mean. I keep it pretty clean. My opinions are still shitty.

I often compliment shitty photos. real /p/ros can see it is clearly a troll.

if i give negative criticism it's always because I think either the image or the photographer has potential and i want to see them improve.

that's just how i thought it worked around here. correct me if im wrong.

Just post and ignore everything.
You will probably recognize useful comment if anybody ever gives it.
The reasonable people post images, or lurk, browse in silence, and appreciate seeing photography here weather they like the individual photos or not. The assholes are just angsty kids wishing to impress their peers, or armchair critics, following the tards lead.
TL;DR: this >>1502737

>>1502730
some folks like technical stuff, some folks like visually appealing stuff and some folks just want to watch the world burn.
its not 2deep4u.
its art.
and sometimes trolling is a art.
we all know dogshit when we see it... but sometimes we just gotta smear it around a little for kicks.

look forward to my drunken shitpost that i'm almost sure to leave laying around later tonight.

it's just butthurt gearfags

mainly m4/3, nex, x100 users, and alphon

just lurk moar op u butthurt beta.

inb4 alphon 2 deep for u. I'm a local fine art photographer.

>inb4 somebody dumps 512px blurry images of street cones and piles of yard waste

EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1000
Image Height	667
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2012:01:28 14:50:26
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	512
Image Height	342

EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1000
Image Height	800
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2012:01:28 14:50:49
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	512
Image Height	410

....still better than eglington

>>1503385
I've seen /p/ eat up shit like this. Except it was in focus and a good resolution, of course. Particularly stuff by yall and one of the other tripfags. Might've been Pantsuit, but I'm not sure. They always say it's "fine art photography," but it just looks like mundane everyday shit shot on film and with no thought put into the composition besides putting the subject in the middle. I fail to see the "art" part of it. I know art is subjective and all that, but seriously.

>>1503396
Nobody says you have to like it. Enjoy your sunsets and flower macros.

>>1503401
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying people can't like that stuff. I just don't see any possible way for people to do so or to call it artistic when it's more documentary than anything else.

And I'd much rather look at this "fine art" stuff than sunsets, flowers, and bicycles.

>>1503404
I was confused too when I first saw it. Over time, I developed an eye for it. The problem is that the photography most people are used to is much more in-your-face with its contrast and colours - it's so *obvious*.

You are right in a sense to refer to it as 'documentary' photography, but that doesn't mean there's no thought in the composition. On the contrary; the photographer can spend quite some time deciding how best to place the objects in the scene. The rusted railway barrier is lined up with the crossing signs above it, with the road and rail lines extending outwards in a shallow 'X' formation. The tree entering the frame on the left is carefully balanced by the power line at an equivalent position on the right hand side. Also worthy of note is the use of colour as an element of the composition. See how the red contrasts with the green grass (remember PhotoshopR's color theory?)

tl;dr - keep lurking, you might see that there's more to it.

>>1503416
I loled at this. there is little composition here and your comments on color theory are really reaching.
>The rusted railway barrier is lined up with the crossing signs above it
you centered your subject and there are some centered things above it
>the road and rail lines extending outwards in a shallow 'X' formation
that's really reaching too. the "x" is not deliberate enough, or strongly emphasized enough to cite as a compositional element. basically, it doesn't look like you intended to do it regardless of whether you were thinking about it while shooting or not. plus it's not much of an x anyways, the road turns at the rail, or at least, you didn't choose the perspective that would make it appear as a continuous line.
>The tree entering the frame on the left is carefully balanced by the power line at an equivalent position on the right hand side
that's just bat shit retarded. the tree is cut off, the power line is not balancing anything except maybe the yield sign.

the horizon is too close to the middle, also, it isn't level. the diagonal in the foreground is weak. there are too many distracting elements that do nothing, like the car and the wooden rails - and the foreground grass is way too prominent. if you're trying to tell a story about a rail ending and another one continuing, you really missed it with this composition. there are too many competing subjects in the picture and you did a very poor job framing.
>The problem is that the photography most people are used to is much more in-your-face with its contrast and colours - it's so *obvious*.
i'd rather my shots be obvious than completely nebulous and fucktardedly pretentious. your shot is purely documentary. it looks like you took it for an insurance claim or something.
EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>1503430
Yeah it's not my shot, it's yall's. I'm sure he would give you a better reading of it.

>>1503433
oh, nevermind then. I take back everything I said.

(pic related)

>>1502730

Art is nothing more than what you can get away with. A guise if you will. Nothing really worth arguing about.

>Please tell me, should I go somewhere else if I want to learn about photography

hell yes. the only value this place has is simply as a warning to others not to turn out like this.

>>1503466
>not to turn out like this.
Like what exactly? Gearfags were gearfags before they came to /p/, autists were autists etc. When it comes to photos, /p/ can do you a favor in telling you that you suck. If you go just about anywhere else, you could end up continuing for years under the delusion that you are actually good. With us, it won't be easy, but you have a chance.

>>1503474
>/p/ can do you a favor in telling you that you suck
that's not a favor, the "shit sucks" comments around here are mostly just an attempt by the butthurt newfags to feel better about themselves after they post some snapshots and get assraped. if you want to contribute and do people "favors", at least demonstrate you have some photographic knowledge and experience under your belt. I know it's difficult for all you peabrains but since it's anonymous board, you can at least try because you don't have to worry about losing face - for instance, if you look at one of yall's photos and read into it as being well composed when his style is literally "post-composition." if you have an open mind, you can learn a thing or two by being wrong. what yall does works for him because he has a clear vision of what he wants to accomplish and presents his images in thoughtful sets that invite thought. a single image apart from his others typically makes zero sense, but in a group tends to effectively invite you to continue viewing his work.
plus he's alpha as fuck.

>Gearfags were gearfags before they came to /p/, autists were autists etc.

yes, but they all came HERE, because they aren't welcome on real forums. the dross of the photo world were like this before they came here, still doesn't make it a better place for newbs to try to learn anything.

>>1503483
>his style is literally "post-composition."
Are you telling me that in a photo like this, he didn't deliberately take care to line up the cones and the telegraph poles?
EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi

>>1503489
that has nothing to do with classical composition, does it?

the diagonals and the s-curve are all leading out of the frame. if this was reframed in a more conventional and traditional compositional manner, the stripes and curbs could lead your eye into the picture. but it's yall. he plays by his own rules.