/p/ - Photography

Is this thread about photography... or feet?

As you might be able to tell, im a bit frustrated and just want to lick some cute asian feet. But dont think im crazy, because even lomography.com admits that feet are the main lomography subject.

http://www.lomography.com/magazine/228497-is-there-anyone-who-doesnt-like-taking-photos-of-feet

http://www.lomography.com/magazine/181885-an-ode-to-the-feet

http://www.lomography.com/magazine/215117-lift-your-feet-up

>>1126

gross broseph. you crossed the line

I love lo-fi film photography if that's what you mean, but I can't stand the Lomography company themselves or their "don't think, just shoot" philosophy that discourages emphasis on photographic composition and encourages unnecessary consumption of film. On the positive side, they're helping to keep film photography alive, but I still don't like them.

>>1102

>Good? Bad? What is your opinion?

Altering the film process to get unusual colour scheme and using specific objective to get specific look both can be artistic methods.

However, most photographs produced with these methods were produced not to express the author's PoV but rather to be liked by wide vriety of people. There is no specific concept behind these photos in most cases - these cases might be bad, not lomography itself.

I myself alter the images from my digital camera in a way which I have never seen to be used to get the specific look which I like but that isn't lomography for sure.

>>1135

Show us some shots of your 'specific look'. Im curious

So im pretty sure Kai Wong is one of us. He coincidentally released this video a few days after we were talking about lomography.

Kai if youre there, please give us nudes of Alamby. Cheers.

>>1151

>Why is 'originality' something that you are trying so desperately to attain?

http://blog.xkcd.com/2008/01/14/robot9000-and-xkcd-signal-attacking-noise-in-chat/

Try to post a chain of photos without coments and see what happens. Also try to read the recent announcement.

Ignoring the rest of your post: are you sure in that I gave any reason for you to act this way? You may try to find the post which I posted photos in reply to and see what was discussed before you decided to post what you posted.

>>1152

Before you posted all those fecal stained images, we were discussing the finer points of images stained with feces. You are correct that your images belong in this thread.

Regarding the r9k filter, I concur; it should be disabled in the board settings.

>>1153

>>I myself alter the images from my digital camera in a way which I have never seen to be used to get the specific look which I like but that isn't lomography for sure.

>Show us some shots of your 'specific look'. Im curious

>>It is not anything superspecial but those few viewers which I have recognize the colour scheme and appreciate it.

And then suddenly...

> these shots are mundane with no subject and no story.

>If an 'artist' refuses to exert effort into basic composition, then why should anybody strain to tolerate such ineptitude?

>I guess lomographys marketing, "shoot, dont think" has been thoroughly absorbed by your psyche.

>All things aside, you should definitely post more shots because criticism will only improve your work.

>Before you posted all those fecal stained images, we were discussing the finer points of images stained with feces. You are correct that your images belong in this thread.

>>1102

hipster cancer

Ugh. Worst form of photography out there.