'

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'Last one

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'I'm a liar

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>find "street", replace with "beach"';

'dope
>>4296916
this is my fav, because of the contrast and ice cream
>>4296919
also this one is neat. he looks like some sort of foamy golem';

'>equivalent focal length: 868mm
How heavily are you cropping for reach on top of that?';

'>>4296914
>>4296915
>>4296917
>>4296918
>>4296919
>>4296929
>>4296933
I dont even have to check exif. When everythings underexposed and everyone is shot from an indirect angle, thatsa fuji.

Why are they like this?';

'>>4296964
They’re afraid of being seen with a fuji so they’re never in front of people and they all shoot manual to pretend their super expensive gear came from 1970, hence inconsistent exposure';

'>C'mon sweatie, let's cover you up. See that weirdo creep with beanie holding a telescope-looking camera over there? He's taking pictures of girls.
>No, sweatie, we can't call the cops on him. He'll just say he identifies as a female.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4296914
Art, in a 1980s photography student way, don't forget your saxophone music

>>4296937
Cool action, not much else

>>4296935
Neat joke picture

>>4296936
Inoffensive snapshit, could be a stock photo

>>4296924
This man shares my opinions

The rest are abominable. Worthless creepshots. Absolute fucking shit garbage. The exif really adds to how disgusting it is because the longer your lens is, the more you are towards the front of the head it is, and the more you zoom out the more you are towards the back of the head. It tells a really creepy, pathetic, and disgusting story of a talentless photographer taking the tiny shred of skill they could have nurtured and letting it go moldy in the fridge as they take creepshots of the backs of peoples heads and the tops of womens tits at the beach, in the most cowardly way possible.

I am not kidding you or posting this to get a rise out of you. The vast majority of the photos in this thread are irredeemable. The only way you could improve shit like
>>4296915
>>4296917
>>4296918
Would be not taking it in the first place and never taking it again.

A court of law should order you to stay away from focal lengths longer than 35mm and limit you to 12mp cameras in the name of public safety.';

'>>4296974
I'll add your OP picture is the only good one because it approximates a cinematic fade, without the cultural context that allows us to assume you were inspired by the drama and emotion of cinema it would be a kitsch novelty instead.

Maybe you could learn from that and photograph from the movie in your mind instead of the shitty porn rag in your pants';

'>>4296974
>>4296975
Cinefag seething, can't wait for your ban to expire so I can filter you again';

'>>4296978
I'm not cinefag, I'm just pointing out the obvious. Double exposures are plain kitsch without the added context you get from coming from a culture with cinema, and you can get away with a lot of otherwise corny or boring styles if you take them from the greater art form. I'm saying not just more like this, but what this really is.

The rest of the thread is almost entirely pure crap. The very definition of creepshots without artistic value is taking photos of a random sleeping womans tits with a telescope-sized lens.';

'>>4296979
>the greater art form
Yeah you're cinefag no doubt';

'>>4296980
>everyone who's right is the same person';

'Didn't OP use to call Eggy a creepshooter? These are actual creepshots, bordering on PI-core if OP were getting paid';

'>>4297058
>PI-core
so, kino? Agree';

'>>4297058
that's because he was jealous he didn't have the courage to creepshot people. Now that he does it's no longer a problem';

'>>4297062
I maintain what Eggy does isn't creepshooting. He may be considered a creep by some, but what he does certainly isn't creepshooting. It's fashion, on the streets.';

'>>4297067
>I maintain what Eggy does isn't creepshooting
I don't think that it is either. What I mean is that Sarabande called it creepshooting, because he wanted too but was too afraid
>It's fashion, on the streets.
That's a fucking reach though. It's just street, full body, portraits.';

'WHO THE FUCK IS SARABANDE';

'>>4297072
>He doesn't know
Some pretentious dickwad unironically copied eggy. I don't even remember his name, but he did the same thing - full body portraits, full son or overcast, frontlit, of people confidently wearing off-beat clothing. He got a spot in a magazine or something but it was 1:1 what eggy was already doing for years.

Therefore it is fashion photography on the streets but only if you're close to the tribe.';

'>>4297084
A really bad photographer who spent like $4000 on an x-t5 and a bazooka lens to take photos of tits on the beach apparently';

'>>4296925
nice.';

'>>4296930
What does this one's face look like?';

'>>4297058
>>4297072
I wasn't even around when eggy was posting, I don't recall me ever discussing his photos';

'>>4297084
It's ISIL';

'maybe creepshooting is acceptable and I should try it';

'>sarabande
OP are you from Espana?';

'test';

'>>4296973
>He'll just say he identifies as a female.
I didn't think about that, but this might actually work';

'Why everyone is shitting on OP pics? they are nice, if you wanna talk ahit you must attach your pics next to your comment faggot.';

'>>4303887
Nobody here actually owns cameras or takes pictures. Just like how nobody on /k/ actually owns guns and nobody on /o/ actually drives. We all just sit around and argue about them.';

'>>4296973
>>4303182
And do you have any examples of this ever working, or are you just obediently outraged Republican sheep?';

'>>4306127
Imagine reviving a dead thread to post some kind of schizo demand for sources over hypothetical situations. Weird board to target, rabbi.';

'>>4304003
This.';

'

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]