whos paying for this?

>>780355
It'll be printed via an online company specalising in magazines, like Blurb do with books. The OP image is a sample. No outlying costs, they print as they're ordered. Cost should be $5-10 USD per issue, hopefully.

Fuck, I didn't realize we were printing anything. PM me later, I'll be online for a while tonight. I may be able to figure something out at work to get this shit printed for cheap.

>>780367
I don't really want to have to do an initial run. It would need to be printed as it's ordered for it to work.

man who deleted my colour picture from africa? it was very artistic.

>>780373
You needed 2 more images with it to make it Très Artisque broheim.

ITT Where I can get more info on how shots like this were edited in PP.
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TcCA5ujQTM&feature=related

Heavy PP photo are What I like best (it's art more so than photography -- I'm ok with this.)

Doing it wrong, dude.

Think these three would work?

1/3
EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	QuickTime 7.6.3
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2010:03:16 02:43:33
Image Width	1100
Image Height	619

2/3

3/3
EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D5000
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS4 Macintosh
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	682
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2010:03:28 16:40:21
Exposure Time	1/45 sec
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	2500
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1100
Image Height	731
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>780413

>Post sequences, not dangling images

also, the rest of you...

>Post sequences, not dangling images

Posted a thread with my set, if it's well below the required standard I'll delete it:

http://www.flickr.com/groups/_p_ublished/discuss/72157623898880728/

aawww... i have no sequences... just a shitload of one offs.
i feel left out...

>>780929
Me too...

They should totally add some section in there for single shots and such.

I don't think that my photos are nearly good enough, but I think I'll post 3 in the group tomorrow.

Safety level...safe.

So no nudes?

>>780354
hell yea, incentive :D

>>780949
Post what you think would fit the group best. Just make sure you actually give it thought, or you will be scathingly edited.

wait
so what the hell are you guys doing?

>>780988

your mom.

>>780988
your sister

>>780988
re word that
what are you guys making?
a book are pictures from /p/?

>>780994
It's all written on the front of the group page.

>>780994
Book? No. Books are too precious. This is a magazine, in a loose sense of the word I guess. But above that it's an exercise in getting /p/ to think about relationships within their work.
Basically it's a showcase.

>>780929
>>780934
You have plenty of time to work on something, and if the first issue works well there will be more. I'm a little bit apprehensive about one shot submissions because it takes considerably less thought and vision to take one good photo than it does to string together a really good 3 image series.

>Join the group
>Be a nice guy and say Hi in a "hello thread" (it's been deleted btw)
>See some of the admins have a childish rant in one of the threads because people are careless and load shit.
>Go to the pool to actually see the photos uploaded.
>Chewie's bubbles
>Soulr's snapshots of a crouched girl, and some workers
>DeadPicsL empty corridors
>etc.

Just stop trolling people into this. If that pool was a thread in /p/ it would be saged to page 15 instantly...

>>781507
man up and stop crying. there's intelligent, if harsh, discussion in there.

What magazine full of /p/'s best photos? I want one.....

>>781508
It doesn't really matter if the content of what is being said is intelligent when it's written in such a childish and elitist way.

>>781512
You've got a point, it was really unfortunate but I hope it's put to bed now.

>>781507
You need to realise that submissions to the pool aren't what'll be in the 'magazine' (thankfully, for the most part). That's why you need to make a submission thread. People have been far too eager to post though, so I hope people will slow down and give a lot of thought to what they'd like to submit, for the sake of the magazine. If people sign up and post stuff within the first day, it's not a good sign.

hahahahahahahaha so 90% of be nature guys shit?

>>781512
Really? You'd accept it on 4chan, why should it be different on flickr?
I'm not saying it's right, I agree it was childish and elitist. But regardless of the tone, perfectly valid points were made and if everyone's going to have a little hissy fit every time someone speaks mean to them outside 4chan the I don't know.

leave it up to /p/ags to make a mag a way no one else does or wants. put singels in the mag you fucking homos

EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D700
Camera Software	Ver.1.00
Photographer	www.mikelarremore.com
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	706
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	28 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2010:03:09 10:59:08
Exposure Time	1/50 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	1000
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	Flash, Compulsory, Return Not Detected
Focal Length	28.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D700
Camera Software	Ver.1.00
Photographer	www.mikelarremore.com
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	706
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	48 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2010:03:09 10:58:26
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/3.2
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/3.2
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	48.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

Full res was too large to upload for this image.
EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D700
Camera Software	Ver.1.00
Photographer	www.mikelarremore.com
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	706
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	27 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2010:03:09 10:50:40
Exposure Time	1/200 sec
F-Number	f/3.2
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/3.2
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	Flash, Compulsory, Return Detected
Focal Length	27.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

There are my three contributions. Contact info can be found via the exif data in the photos if this is a serious endeavor. Similarly, if this goes through to completion I would be happy to purchase a copy or two.

1/3
EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XS
Camera Software	Digital Photo Professional
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	200 dpi
Vertical Resolution	200 dpi
Image Created	2010:03:18 15:14:54
Exposure Time	1/8 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/5.7
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	55.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3888
Image Height	2592
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard

2/3
EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XS
Camera Software	Digital Photo Professional
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	200 dpi
Vertical Resolution	200 dpi
Image Created	2010:03:18 15:14:32
Exposure Time	1/8 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/5.7
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	55.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3888
Image Height	2592
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard

will these work? 3/3
EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XS
Camera Software	Digital Photo Professional
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	200 dpi
Vertical Resolution	200 dpi
Image Created	2010:03:18 15:14:35
Exposure Time	1/8 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/5.7
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	55.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3876
Image Height	2584
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>781508
>man up and stop crying.
Uhm...you are taking my post as a butthurt rant. It isn't.

>>781517
>You need to realise that submissions to the pool aren't what'll be in the 'magazine' (thankfully, for the most part).
I suspected it but I was not sure.

>so I hope people will slow down and give a lot of thought to what they'd like to submit, for the sake of the magazine.
I'm really okay with this, it's the main reason I still have not submitted anything yet.

Anyway, if the things already accepted in the pool aren't what it's gonna be published, most of what I've said before become invalid.They idea is good, let's see what happens.

>>781549
>Uhm...you are taking my post as a butthurt rant. It isn't.
Fair enough.
You see my point though?

>>781527
I can't say I'm particularly blown away by how sharp the 24-70 is. I thought it would have been loads sharper.
>>781538
>>781539
>>781543
Damnit, babies are creepy.

>>781549
Sweet. And check out the threads (non) trolling that have been made so far, although there's only been a couple of them. That's where the submission goes, and there's room in that environment for feedback and (hopefully) provided growth.

bump becouse i have seen this about 4 years ago on /p/ and guess what...no mag was produced, so shocking

>>781507
>Soulr's snapshots of a crouched girl, and some workers
EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS4 Macintosh
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2010:04:21 11:42:29
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1884
Image Height	1200

I submitted a set. Now, I must say, "Oooh, pick me! Pick me!"

1/3
EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 450D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS4 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2010:04:21 13:57:23
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/1.4
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	85.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1068
Image Height	712
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

2/3
EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 450D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS4 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2010:04:21 13:48:06
Exposure Time	1/80 sec
F-Number	f/1.4
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	85.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1068
Image Height	712
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

3/3

dunno of this shit is good enough
EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 450D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS4 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2010:04:21 13:33:33
Exposure Time	1/80 sec
F-Number	f/1.4
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	85.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1068
Image Height	712
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

Suddenly TRIPFAGGOTS EVERYWHERE

but whatever happened to this magazine?
EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS3 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2009:01:07 16:22:09
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	921
Image Height	1196

2nd issue
EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS3 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2009:01:07 20:20:46
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	921
Image Height	1196

Hey dear tripfags. May I tell you something... As much as you crave for attention, just nobody will buy your piece of shit magazine.

>>781673
>>781677
/p/ is full of lazy non-writers? Or perhaps just non-writers?

Altogether /p/ has a lot technical knowledge and practical experience, but getting everyone together to coalesce that into a viable resource seems damn near impossible.

>>781683
We'll buy it.

>>781696
To see some other pretentious tripfags and your own art in it.
You're laughable.

>>781704
>You're laughable.
The same could easily be said of your pathetic attempt at trolling.

>>781683
I'm pretty sure everyone who contributes to it will want a copy, and that's all that matters. No profit will come of it, and it'll be printed to order, so what's with the tears?

>>781659
I saved this when you first posted it.
>>781660
Now it's slightly ruined by knowing how ugly the girl is.
>>781661
Is nice though.

Too samey though. What would your text be?

first page right here

id have submitted some of my work to be used, but i dont think /p/ likes any of my work.

>>781796

lol, i know.. i had a hard time getting decent shots of her.. normal profile was impossible... I don't know. Any suggestions?

I'm not good enough.

>>781829
T.r.a.c.k. I've enjoyed some of your stuff for sure. I'm just a hypercritical prick most of the time

>>781673
>>781677
issue 3 just in...
EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS3 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2010:04:22 22:38:18
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	921
Image Height	1196

ITT: "GIVE ME YOUR PICTURES SO I CAN PRINT AND SELL THEM FOR MONEY"

ITF: "POST YOUR PICTURES SO ANYONE BROWSING CAN STEAL THEM AND SELL THEM"

ITP: "DON'T UPLOAD PICTURES. JUST EVERYONE SEND ME $5 THRU PAYPAL AND SAVE ME A LOT OF WORK"

you fags implying pictures on /p/ are worth selling?

>>785175
>>785193
>>785206

ITT you're clueless and bad at trolling.

>>785175
>>785193
>>785206
>>785215
yawn

there are some really shit photos in that flickr group. that is far from the best of /p/

>>785256
I'm sure that's what the intention was; to get the best of /p/. Btw, where do you think that is? In all the secret pictures that anons are stashing at home and refusing to post?

By the quality of "daily shit you shot" threads, /p/ is a fucking embarrassment.

>>785263
bump for truth

>>785145
That one isn't even funny. :(


Anyhow, I'd gladly post, but it's going to take a while.

>>785263
just like the real world, there is plenty of tripe; and one must muck through the shit to find that one diamond to make it all worth it.

these worth your time (i'll be posting a couple here).

i don't, and don't plan on, having a flickr account.

i generally post as anon, with my email addy posted into it.

2

3
EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D3X
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS4 Macintosh
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	770
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	85 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2010:02:19 20:33:59
Exposure Time	1/160 sec
F-Number	f/7.1
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/7.1
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Subject Distance	2.37 m
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	85.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1920
Image Height	2880
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

4
EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 5D Mark II
Photographer	Magda Horodenska
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2009:08:15 22:31:29
Exposure Time	15 sec
F-Number	f/13.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/13.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	100.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard

5

>>785403
>>logical and cohesive series/look/personal style.
I doubt it.

there is some bad shit in that group - the bubbles - eh...hokay?
also, natureguy, two of the six images you submitted are alright, the rest should go.

>>785580
ITS ART, DIDNT YOU READ THE TITLE? FORMS, LINES, SHAPES, COLOURS.

UNEDUCATED PROLES!

"Necromantic Pants? No please!"

who the fuck is this guy, he reminds me of kimmo alm, talking down to everyone in the group when his photography is hipster trash at best

>>785590
Well, if you really can refute his arguments, make sure to do that in the group or in this thread.

We're all waiting for your highly esteemed opinions. Until then, keep your shit in your pants.l

How is it that you verify the submissions again, when it's anon? Where is the publication made available? Are you gonna follow any rules for copyright, etc? A good idea, but what happens when someone sues that ass?

http://www.flickr.com/groups/_p_ublished/discuss/72157623791321071/

posted a set, don't know if it suits your standards though. guess i'm about to find out.
EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 40D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 (12.0x20100115 [20100115.m.998 2010/01/15:02:00:00 cutoff; m branch]) Windows
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2010:04:24 00:11:21
Exposure Time	1/4000 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Exposure Bias	-1 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	37.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	500
Image Height	1781
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

And this one is from the groups admin...

Much though about submitting something in your personal style...your personal style being Parkinson, right?

>>785672
Congratulations. You don't understand why images are submitted together as a set rather than individually. You can shit all over that image as much as you can, but it doesn't matter because what matters is the context all 4 build for each other.

You truly are the best of /p/. If you want to keep trolling the group, at least show a modicum of understanding for the principles behind it.

>>785683

if you continue to be this elitist you're going to end up with a magazine full of 3 pretentious street photographers

just sayin

>>785684

Right. Thanks for changing the topic though.

Doesn't bother me one bit actually. Better than 10 shitty photographers who thinks that shitty landscapes are what MORE people need to see.

You're making it sound like the editors are responsible for the content, and not the shitty contributors. If you want good stuff in there, shoot it and post it, and stop bitching.

not >>785672 but apart from PPF-2_02_005 all three of those series are bad shots - i dont care what the photographer thought, maybe in his train of thought it is absolutely mesmerizing, but for an outside-viewer these look just bad, any kind of "concept" doesn't change that.

even PPF-2_02_005 is just interesting, because of the achieved effect, but in no way a stunning photo.

>>785692
There you go again, failing completely. You're evaluating the pictures independently as if there's any meaning to any single image. Are you expecting pulitzer quality images in this? You're approaching from the wrong angle.

If you think this pool is only supposed to be full of the cream of the crop, you're totally wrong. It's about building coherency with editing. The fact that you're still talking about individual images means that you don't get it. Too bad.

>>785684
What do you even mean by elitist in this case?

Being contrarian is really easy, but what do you guys even want to see in the magazine? The fucking "daily shit" thread?

>>785697

>pretentiousfag admitting his pretentiousness without realizing it

>>785719
>useless poster not able to refute arguments without using the popular words of the week.

You're really making a case for yourself here.

>>785697


yeah, actually the pictures dont look better if you view them side by side, as "one" or whatever you want to call it. i dont know wether your "concept" just sucks or wether it was the execution.
also errors in a single picture are still errors in a single picture, even when that picture is part of a larger series.

>as if there's any meaning to any single image.

0+0+0=0


>Are you expecting pulitzer quality images in this? You're approaching from the wrong angle.

no, i simply thought these are supposed to be very good pictures - which they are not in my opinion - they aren't a good series either.

>>785722
>admitting being called pretentious in the last week

>>785729
my hero

more like /p/retentious amirite

>Being contrarian is really easy, but what do you guys even want to see in the magazine? The fucking "daily shit" thread?

no, but somehow you made an ass out of yourself (not judging by /p/ standarts though) and it would be nice to see WHAT you accept and what not - right now, there are a few pictures in that group that i think are stunning, a lot aren't and i would think again wether you really want series because that doesn't seem to work too well right now either.
for example, there is a one really nice picture of a dune by natureguy, flanked by two quite mediocre ones - in my opinion, those two don't add anything the good one, contrary - they make it seem "less".

what do you view as good as not, what are your criteria and are you the only one who decides?

i mean, whatever, it is your magaine, but i wouldn't call this a "/p/eriodical" or anything with /p/ in it's name, because you pretty much barred most of the "community" here.

>>785737

spelling errors and general retardation aside, there are quite a few things wrong with this post.

>think again wether you really want series because that doesn't seem to work too well right now either.

elaborate please?

>one really nice picture of a dune by natureguy, flanked by two quite mediocre ones.

be more vague please.

>you pretty much barred most of the "community" here.

it's not his fault the "community" sucks. you people are the ones who can't grasp the concept of forming a cohesive set rather than treating the group as a personal dumping ground of shots you thought were pretty or "rare" or whatever the fuck.

>go to a pig farm
>rage when they don't give you beef

>>785746
>spelling errors and general retardation aside, there are quite a few things wrong with this pos

ad hominem aside (and the fact that english is not my first language)

>>think again wether you really want series because that doesn't seem to work too well right now either.

series = sequences, wrong choice of words probably. i think that allowing good, single shots would improve the quality instead of insisting on sequences.

>be more vague please.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/alexburke/4142779862/in/pool-_p_ublished

excellent picture in my opinion, the other two of that sequence are nothing out of the ordinary concerning natureguy (and pale in comparison with that one)

>it's not his fault the "community" sucks. you people are the ones who can't grasp the concept of forming a cohesive set rather than treating the group as a personal dumping ground of shots you thought were pretty or "rare" or whatever the fuck.

why in gods name would you then want to publish a magazine with shots from a community that sucks?
this is so abstruse and illogical, it might just be a 10/10...

>it's not his fault the "community" sucks. you people are the ones who can't grasp the concept of forming a cohesive set rather than treating the group as a personal dumping ground of shots you thought were pretty or "rare" or whatever the fuck.

It sucks not in small part due to your contribution shoes.

>>785757
>why in gods name would you then want to publish a magazine with shots from a community that sucks?
read
>let's highlight and celebrate those who prove to be creators of good shit

ITT, /p/ can't even fucking read the group description

why does it not surprise my that the worst pictures in the entire pool are, in fact, posted by the harshest critics.

i, too, am leaning toward 10/10. nobody is this retarded.

>>785761
>they wouldnt accept my pictures I will cry and pretend their pictures are bad

>ITT, /p/ can't even fucking read the group description

>description has nothing to do with what is published in the group

>>785760


also, you still didnt say why you would chose this community...

You guys should stop being so butthurt your photos of cross processed cats and flowers werent accepted

>why in gods name would you then want to publish a magazine with shots from a community that sucks

diamonds in the rough. i think it's worth showing off that some people here really know their stuff and produce good work. this obviously doesn't apply to the vast majority.. especially with the rise in photography's popularity as of late.

>>785758

ocean of piss at this point, man. report button does nothing, same shit.. different day.. EVERYDAY, it's tiring. this project is an attempt to work around some of that samey grind. it's trying to get people to think about their work in a way other than "purty color press buttan".

10/10

why don't we each make our own individual magazines?

>>785781

we do :)

Hello, I edited the shit ouf of the group, I am sorry.
EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Elements 4.0.1 Macintosh
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2007:08:07 18:17:13
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	615
Image Height	465

>>785788

>>785788
EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop 7.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2008:08:28 14:11:32
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	405
Image Height	348

what the fuck is this bullshit

>>785788

i support this (and yes i know i dont use a real trip, i usually post as anon and forgot to remove the sage from saging, but this way you know this was me. i'll stop using it from now)

>>785813
You shouldn't have deleted that B&W mountain by Henry Cook or whatever his name was, it was good and fit with the rest. Ditch Kloppervok's most recent submission too.

mount doom gets removed but blurry asian fuck stays?

you call this curated?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kloppervok/4125159706/in/pool-_p_ublished

LOOK AT THIS SHIT

fucking ghastly

So do we care about dangling images anymore? It appears there are no more sets of 3-5

>>785841
yay, more petty squabbles and mediocre work!

is the3-5 sequence rule now still in effect or not?

also, i'd say turning this into a heavily curated group would be the best decision.

limit the submissions on 1-3 per day and see what you'll get together.
if you dismiss a photo try to give some valuable criticism (if you have time) though make clear that it is your (the group admins) final descision wether to publish something or not.

>>785828
why are you still so butthurt about his pictures?

Get off landscapes, there's too many of them, and it's fucking boring.

soulr what the fuck are you doing
post delete post delete
get your shit together

>>785668
This stuff is brilliant. I'm continually amazed by you.

>>785888
>this stuff is brilliant
>implying intent exists in photography

>>785896
>implying it does not

I don't feel the publication should be limited to only sets of photos. Some photos don't have or need a set and work well on their own. So far, the sets have all been the same or very similar subject but from three different angles. They don't vary enough from each other and look dull. Also, it is not good to just show 3-5 photos from one set as if it were that photographer's only work. It would be bad if it looked like we only had one style.

EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	GdPicture - http://www.gdpicture.com
Image-Specific Properties:

>>785935
implying implications.

EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

You fucking faggots deleted my submission and the paragraph that I wrote. I'm not submitting that shit again.

>>785992
Yes, in fact, that's exactly what I was implying, that photographs have implied intent.

i think a best of /p/ book would be better than this series shit. i would honestly buy one.

>>786066
>>786066
>i think a best of /p/ book would be better than this series shit. i would honestly buy one.

No it wouldnt. Continuity and consistency in sets would be way better than just "OH LOOK I GOT LUCKY AND TOOK ONE PHOTO AT SUNSET". Pick up any respectable photo book or magazine (not gearfag magazines) and see what i'm talking about

I dunno. There is a difference between having sets only and having representative examples of a /p/hotog's work. I totally agree that one lucky shots vs. 2-3 good one makes a difference.

>>786110
i don't think 99% of /p/ can accomplish that