[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/p/ - Photography



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: 20171229_000738.png (1.72 MB, 1080x1355)
1.72 MB
1.72 MB PNG
How do I get my editing skills to pic related?
Got this off a photographers Instagram. The username is lucancoutts
>>
>>3212167
under expose, basic tone curve adjustments, crush blacks, blow out highlights, add radial filter to sky with bumped exposure and highlights
>>
>>3212172
this
>>
>>3212167
This is terrible though anon, don't strive to be like this. You can be better.
>>
>>3212227
What's wrong with it? My current skill is shit so this is God tier in my eyes
>>
>>3212230
Not the guy you replied to but take a long look at the photo and ask yourself. What is it a photo of? Why are you looking at it and why did this person take this? If you can’t answer those two questions you’ve got yourself a shit photo. Maybe this guy thought the fog looked cool? Who hasn’t seen fog. It’s not like it’s the top of a well known building.
>>
>>3212230

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2048
Image Height2048
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>3213876
Huh
>>
>>3212230
Nothing's wrong with it. Autists here don't understand that different people like different things.
>>
>>3214280
>le everyone likes something so it's not objectively bad
1. Filled with noise
2 .Under exposed
3. No real subject or any sort of story being told
5. Blacks completely crushed to avoid actual lighting effort
6. Insane glare
Someone just aimed their phone up and took a picture then slapped a filter on it and used the instagram editor
>>
File: wew lad.png (2.21 MB, 1082x1354)
2.21 MB
2.21 MB PNG
>>3212230
Highlights are so blown it completely erases any detail in the sky. That's not as unforgivable at the two large splooges the photographer didn't even bother to edit out..

>>3214280
You're either blind or you're too dumb to calibrate your monitor.
>>
>>3214288
>Hey why is that guy over there eating shit
>"You're autistic man everyone likes different things"
Just ignore >>3214280 the guy is clearly new and fucking retarded
>>
File: 1514827588646.jpg (1.33 MB, 1082x1354)
1.33 MB
1.33 MB JPG
>>3214288
3deep5you

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution96 dpi
Vertical Resolution96 dpi
Image Created2018:01:01 09:30:45
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1082
Image Height1354
>>
Hurrrr durrrrr the most important thing in photography is a perfect histogram.
>>
>>3214296
Nobody said that spazzo
Maybe just don't blow out highlights and crush blacks because it looks like dogshit. We were just telling OP that this looks terrible and he should not strive to be like it but be better. You'll learn baby, you'll learn.
>>
File: PAR73850.jpg (173 KB, 1121x704)
173 KB
173 KB JPG
>>3214299

>Dogshit

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2015.5 (Macintosh)
Photographer© JOSEF KOUDELKA / MAGNUM PHOTOS
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width7232
Image Height4658
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Pixel CompositionUnknown
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2016:10:07 10:53:47
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width6927
Image Height4351
>>
>>3214303
Thank you for another example, having only one in the thread wasn't very good
>>
File: koudelka_0006-1024x662.jpg (231 KB, 1024x662)
231 KB
231 KB JPG
>>3214303
>JOSEF KOUDELKA
just because a good photographer takes a shitty photo every now with a film camera doesn't mean it justifies taking constant shitty photos with a phone and editing them to look even worse
He's a good photographer but that is a worthless photo, here is an amazing photo of his
>>
>>3213876
?
>>
>>3214299
You’ve made the mistake of conflating “this photo has technical flaws” with “this is a bad photo”. It’s an easy and common mistake to make since beginners are always given advice like “be careful not to overexpose or it’ll blow out your highlights”, so you start thinking that blown highlights must be a bad thing. And, to be fair, in a lot of situations, they are. Technical flaws correlate strongly with a photo being bad.

But, and this is something that it’s VERY important to understand if you want to git gud, they are not the same thing. The history of photography is filled with great photos that have something “wrong” with them.

If you ever find yourself thinking that a photo is objectively bad—especially if you find yourself thinking “a lot of people like this photo, but it has [flaw] so it’s bad”—then you’re falling into this trap. Photography is an artistic, creative medium, so there is no true objective bad or objective good, only photos that are commonly agreed to be bad or agreed to be good. You can say that you don’t like photos with blown highlights and crushed blacks, but if you claim they’re objectively bad, you’ve fucked up.
>>
>>3214360
>Yeah look I know your car has fucked up wheels but it's not bad lol
Tripfags being retards again, what's new
>>
>>3214361
The fact that you think that’s a valid analogy probably demonstrates my point way more eloquently than my wall of text.
>>
>>3214360
>You’ve made the mistake of conflating “this photo has technical flaws” with “this is a bad photo”
>This car has technical problems but it's not a bad car
>yer dum lul
How about instead of me listing everything that is bad with the photo, again, how about you tell me what actually makes the photo good?
>>
>>3214360
you think this has a FEW flaws
everything about the photograph is fundamentally bad
the framing is bad the lighting is bad there is no clear subject there is a massive glare in the shot on the building there is noise everywhere the highlights are blown out and everything else is underexposed and crushed as well as being shrouded in a terrible blue haze
it not only tells no story (which of course it doesn't have to) but it also has absolutely no redeeming qualities
many of the photographers photos are quite good but this is terrible and you shouldnt encourage op to strive for this
>>
>>3214365
>how about you tell me what actually makes the photo good?
It does an excellent job of conveying the sense of scale of the buildings through the use of the wide angle plus shooting on a day when there was some fog to put the tops on the buildings in the clouds. The “blown highlights” you keep bitching about are actually a nice bit of negative space, framed to guide the viewers’ eyes through the photo without there being anything there to detract from the main subject (ie, the cityscape).

The color palette is mostly a dark black/blueish with some nice contrasty orange from the lights in the buildings.

It’s not the best photo I’ve ever seen, certainly, but it’s not a bad photo, and it’s definitely not a bad photo for the extremely superficial reasons you guys keep claiming.
>>
>>3214374
The fog literally counter acts the "scale" that you thought was good. The blown highlights don't guide anything except your eyes away from the photo so you don't have to look at it. Even if it did guide your eyes around the photo it's just guiding your eyes to underexposed noisy buildings. If the main subject is the cityscape then why is the cityscape so terribly framed and edited? The color pallet is literally just a blue haze similar to when you have a broken polarization filter. It genuinely just would've been a step better in black and white as much as it hurts to say that.

The human eye naturally either focuses on a center or reads from side to side meaning no matter what your attention is ALWAYS just brought to the middle blown out whiteness. None of the reason I have been claiming are even close to "superficial" because they are all objectively true, the highlights are blown out, the framing is bad, there is no apparent interesting subject, the colors are bad, there is noise everywhere, and there is still a massive distracting left glare on the left building.
>>
>>3214383
>None of the reason I have been claiming are even close to "superficial" because they are all objectively true
Any flaw in a photograph that can be held up as being objectively true is, by definition, superficial. If it’s an objective fact, it falls outside the realm of artistic, aesthetic discussion.

I’ll try to continue this discussion in a bit, but it’s hard to type it out on a phone and I have a photoshoot starting in ten minutes.
>>
>>3214374
>It does an excellent job of conveying the sense of scale of the buildings
Every upwards building photography is supposed to do that
>through the use of the wide angle
It's portrait, there is no wide angle
>plus shooting on a day when there was some fog to put the tops on the buildings in the clouds
only serves to cover the frontmost interesting building and obscure everything in its path
>The “blown highlights” you keep bitching about are actually a nice bit of negative space
No they aren't, because they bleed over onto the buildings
>framed to guide the viewers’ eyes through the photo without there being anything there to detract from the main subject (ie, the cityscape).
No they don't
>The color palette is mostly a dark black/blueish with some nice contrasty orange from the lights in the buildings.
The orange contrast is so few that it barely matters and the blue was clearly not intentional and its not a flattering blue either
>and it’s definitely not a bad photo for the extremely superficial reasons you guys keep claiming.
Not him but the majority of what he said was completely right except for the noise part as im a film photographer and I like that
>>
>>3214390
If you're in a pottery class and everyone is making a nice vase and still add their own artistic style while you sit there and make a fucked up vase for the sake of "being different and art maaaaaan" then there is a problem. I can't just take a badly lit photo and claim "well that's like your opinion man I was trying to be different". There is a difference between creating your own artistic style and taking unique photos, and taking bad photos and claiming it's unique because everyone else was smart enough to NOT do what you did.

Gross over saturation is bad.
Do some people like it? Yes
Because you like it does that mean it's good? No

I LIKED jumanji but I still recognize it's a terrible movie. People too often confuse what they like with what is good.
>>
>>3214290
>le eating shit meme
why do people still do this
>>
>>3215998
Hi newfag you’ll get used to things confusing you




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.