so good she has to publish herself?

>>746872
nice attitude.

There's a chick who did a whole music video using an iPhone.

Woah, I was expecting some really stupid shit but that's actually quite good.

>>746876
attitude or facts

Yeah artfaggotry at its best. Good eye for composition though.

1. take pics on iphone
2. run all pics through photoshop macro to make it look cross processed with vignetting
3. self publish book
4. ???
5. PROFIT!!!

>>746897
>>746892
>>746872

Hater's gonna hate.

>>746901
go sell your book somewhere else

too much PP going on here, completely invalidates the street cred she was looking for. Why didn't she just call it "pictures I took at some point in time"?

Whats with the iphoneography crap? sure its taken with a phone camera its still photography though.

Every pic just has a grainy look to it, I could do that too. you guys gonna buy my book?

>>746910
This.

Also, don't let all of the teenage girls with iPhones see this, they'll go fucking crazy and then we'll have an entire army of iPhoneographwhatevers taking pictures of nothing.

FILTERS ARE ART!

-fake vignetting
-way to much PP
-Hipster looking shit

The whole 'book' it's full with hipster clichés.

I'm not impressed

Her book has better pics than /p/.

>>746913
Yeah, let's see it when you get off your ass and put it together.

"i could do it too"-ism is the fucking cancer killing /p/

>>746966

Most /p/hagots are insecure about their work and pretty much about anything. Like most people in 4chan.

Even if a bunch of people were good, they probably would never do something like the bitch in case. Cause they wouldnt feel ok being judge by others besides their own kind.

>>746916
this to, some girl at the protest was like EXCUSE ME COMING THROUGH PHOTOGRAPHER FOR THE PRESS, she was using an iphone.

A couple of 'em are pretty great.

HERE'S A PICTURE OF MY BOYFRIEND DRIVING LOLZ

yeah.. bunch of masterpieces in there.

She's like a semi-retarded hipster version of Erwitt.

damn i'm doing the same thing... printing out iphone photos.. she has a lot of better ones than i do though. she did well. i love a lot of these.

>>746943 I'm not impressed

thanks, I'll file this with the pope immediately

Wow, this shit passes for photography?

I'm getting closer and closer to just giving up on the whole thing.

This is terrible.

>>747362

i feel like there isn't one person on /p/ who would actually say that

If snapshots pass as art now, I see a bright future for me.

brb, downloading Photoshop...

>>747029
that's not the point
the book is called "A Year In iPhoneography", meaning the virtue of the work lies in the limitations of the camera and how she explored the limitations of her equipment to produce something of merit

Photoshop filters do not count as merit. The "iPhone camera-only" thing is purely a gimmick. Yes, there are some decent photographs in there, but are you as impressed by them if you knew that she manipulated the shit out of them after she took them?

It's like the steroids dilemma. Is Mark McGuire's home run record still impressive even though you know he was a juicer when he set it?

A lot of these are really good. Most of these are a lot better than the stuff I see on /p/.

I do not like this "the medium is the message" kind of approach at all though. I love it when people use bad equipment to produce good images, but I hate it when that equipment becomes more important than those images.

What happened to taking good pictures and let it be? Not take bad picture and shop it

>If I ever get an iPhone, it could be the end of this website, since I think the iPhone camera is so good that it could be the last camera I ever need
>Ken Rockwell

Quite ironic for someone who's constantly blabbering about the unsurpassed quality of film, how good the Mark II is and blah, blah blah.

I don't get the whole iphone camera thing... it is the expensive cellphone with the crappiest camera around. In order to get ANYTHING midly good, you must shoop the shit out of the images. Yet people use it as a normal camera.

I hope the term iphoneography doesn't become too popular.

>This chick did a whole series on an iPhone
I don't see why this is relevant, besides trying to use it as a selling point to reel in apple fanboys and lomofags. Well played, then.
>and her shots are really good.
SOME of them are. Others are shit. This book doesn't need to be 56 pages.

>>747365
He'll just send it to another board and order everyone involved to never post anything about it again, or report it to the mods.

It was bound to happen sooner or later. We all knew digital lomography was just around the corner. And there is no way of say this without sounding cynical but everyone is a pop pastiche photographer now, more then ever. Good or bad? I haven't decided yet. But I have to say it is getting harder to find photographers I really like these days. It seems 20th century ideas about and for photography are been exhausted, so much so, sadly I feel I'm binging to loath the thought of photography even been considered art these days, much like a painting of a bowl of fruit.

I now seem to only enjoy photography that contain strong satirical realism with tragic and self-indulgent overtones. I do care for camera tech or photography visual codes and conventions as I once did as a photography and art student. There are no surprises anymore just new renditions.

so what, cell photos are 4 wanna bee new bees

>>747714
Implying that photography is an elite 'SLR only' group you can only join once you have aquired an SLR and passed various 'tests' on your ability to capture 'good' photos.

Stop being anally retentive. Photography covers many different bases. Just because YOU don't like it does not mean it's not enjoyable to others.

>>747667
BAWWWWWW! Someone took away some of your ability to stay pretentious and elitist by providing tools that allow the great unwashed masses to 'cheat' in photography instead of doing the hard work you slaved so many years over to achieve. BAWWWWWWWW!

yea you know, the camera doesnt matter, faggot.

though its an advantage to have the control over aperture, exposure time and iso and being able to manual focus and all the +functions a dslr has.

>>747732

pfff no. Why do people call you 'pretentious and elitist' because understand photographic theories and histories? It's almost saying if you know something about anything it means you're uncool educated fag.
Nigga please, I'm just saying if everyone expresses the same ideas it begins to become boring, to me, regardless of format and capture method.

>>747732
>>748193

id say that its alright to a pretentious elitist fag, on the condition that you have used a film SLR, or medium format or something that requires knowledge and understanding, (in certain cases i would accept DSLR but only in manual mode; but thats still PPing to get good pictures)

i will get my <rant> out the way and say, this and every other fag on this site that only owns a P+S, or a DSLR (in Program Mode OBVZ + kitlens) and has never tried film photography, please go and sell your equipment immediately.

photography used to be looked at as an art form, now due to all the shitty digital everything and them being so attractive and available, its like OH WOW its a photographer. im a photographer too, so is my neighbour, and his uncle, and my brother.

so we are all now 'THE SAME'

FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

</rant>

>>747732

BAWWWW I KNOW SHIT ABOUT PHOTOGRAPHY AND ONLY SHOOP MY SHIT OUT TO MAKE PEOPLE BELIVE AM A GOOD PHOTOGRAPHER BAAAAWWWWWW

>>748207

Why is so bad to use a DSRL?
I know that today anyone can buy a entry level DSLR and go shooting shit and belive
"HUUURRR I'M A PHOTOGRAPHER DUUUR DERP DERP"

But most of the people with a dslr and real passion or love for photography would work their way out of that level shitness.

>>748216
true, i just believe that if you havent tried analogue photography then you cant truely call yourself a photographer to a full extent.

inb4 rebel faggotry rage.

on a side note
>zone focussing
the fuck is this shit? is it just some faggot that doesnt like saying zone system.

>>748227
get the fuck off your high horse man. A photographer is someone who takes photos with a camera, thats all there is to it. Youre not special because you use film youre not part of some super elite group who are better than all us mortals who have not tried film.

>>748247
what he said

>>748227
dude you're such a faggot. Why does it matter if the image is captured by a sensor or film? FU

A friend of mine studying photojournalism at the university in oslo says that everyone in his of his class don't give two shits about film. Why would they limit themself to an inferior format for what they do?

>>748258
>>748252
>>748247

butthurt digifags

>>748260
Yeah I sure am butthurt anon you got me there. I really hate that I use digital instead of film I cry myself to sleep every night because of it.

looks like hipster bullshit to me.

if i was on a high horse, id go on to explain why film is better and how much more /p/ro it makes me,

but im not saying this, im merely saying that film photography generally governs more skillful procedures than digital.

p.s the shit about photojournalism is understandable due to digital's practicality

>>748319
Im assuming this was you as you mentioned the high horse.
>i just believe that if you havent tried analogue photography then you cant truely call yourself a photographer to a full extent.
Saying that makes you a pretentious cunt. You are trying to elevate film above all other forms of photography because it is what you seem to prefer. You are missing the point that photography evolves, you take a photo with a camera you are a photographer. You could be photographing pictures of your cock while you fuck a birthday cake and youre still a photographer. using film has no effect on that.

>>748376

film>digi

U MAD?

>>748384
Not really you are entitled to your opinion. Because thats all it is. We could argue all day but neither of us would be correct because it is preference, I acutally like the idea of film but for me to shoot film id want to devlop my own photos and I dont have the space or time at the moment. So for me the preference is digital.