Tried this lightroom thing with some presets. Don't really get why this preset does things so much differently advertised.Left is what it's supposed to look like, right is what it actually does for me.>https://www.instagram.com/reel/DUbdhjLkpCz/What dis I do wrong? I copied the settings exactly as they are written.
>>4519486>Sounds more like you don't even want to learnYes. I'm not a photographer. It's not even a hobby. I just want to do what's said in the video for some pics to see if it looks good.
>>4519557Enjoy your failure then
>>4519557>I just want to do what's said in the video for some pics Yes, but you don't care enough to hear explanations of why or why it may not work, or how to get the look without using those settings
>>4519587There have been no explanations offered just condescending "well just make/learn it yourself".
>>4519596>There have been no explanations offeredIt's hard to give explanations when you won't answer basic questions like where you applying the same settings to the RAW file? What base profile did you use? Sometimes things might not work for a variety of reasons and none of us are psychic, you have to actually give us information to work with if you want genuine help.There have also been explanations given exactly for how to get whatever colors you want, instead of blindly copying some numbers.Again, if you shared the RAW, I'd be happy to do my own edit that matches the OP and share what settings worked for me. Unless you were trying those settings on like a screen cap of the before?
Gear Fail EditionPrevious: >>4516915
>>4519680Newfag>>4519682Bot
>>4519685>DSLRs are better photography cameras.How can a DSLR be better for photography when it can't show you what the photo looks like in the viewfinder?Yes, they work better as spotting scopes / monoculars, but the point of photography isn't SEEING through the lens, it's CAPTURING through the lens. Seeing what the camera sees and making adjustments to that in real-time is why electronic viewfinder is the superior photography tool.
>>4519783>How can a DSLR be better for photographyCLACK CLACK CLACK CLACK CLACK CLACK CLACK CLACK CLACK
>>4519845new thread
I will buy the Nikon z5 Good idea?
>>4503425Umm, why is the suns light not anywhere? Also, 58 day old post? Lmao dead board
>>4512272The sun is occluded by earth.
>>4512194adobe damage control hard at work
>>4512194kek
>>4504036It may surprise you, but the flight computers on Orion are from the 2000s
I want to start a /p/ monthly, or tri-monthly, photo competition where the prize is actually desirable and relevant to photography: film rolls. Of course, they’ll be cheap, readily-available film stock like Ultramax 400 or Gold 200, or whatever else is easy and inexpensive to get ahold of, but the problem is this: how shall voting stay honest, and how shall the winner’s address stay anonymous when I send him the prize? I don’t want the poll’s integrity to be compromised, nor the winner’s anonymity. Who has some ideas for how this could be set up?
>>4519353I've served as a judge for several local photo contests
>>4519191Sure, but it must be called The Incel Adams Award.
>>4519370Not here, you haven’t. Here, you’re nobody.
>>4519382Creative, juvenile, relevant: wish granted.
>>4519354As one of those you mention, there is a trip I have used in the past.>>4519383Well now's a great time for me to start here too then!>>4519191>they’ll be cheap, readily-available film stock like Ultramax 400 or Gold 200I have access to a pretty wide variety of stocks for fairly cheap, would be happy to contribute if I can just send to an organizer. Can probably see about some random camera related swag too, I just don't want to deal with organizing part at all.
Im going back to aps-c, pic related. I have finally gained wisdom and dropped the pretensions. It only took me a decade. Bros, 24MP is enough. Film is dead. Medium format, film or digital, is only worth it if you shoot professionally. save yourself the pain. Just shoot. Don’t be a gear whore.
>>4519367>The original A7 was fine given that it was the first FF interchangeable mirrorless cameraHow does that excuse throwing out decades of material science and camera design?
>>4519340GR has absolute shit AF, probably worse than Fuji if such a thing is possible. But it is the most compact setup you can get for the sensor size. It's interesting that full frame film compacts could get pretty small and no one, even Ricoh themselves, has been able to replicate the film GR size in full frame. Pentax seem fine with doing weird cameras and I can't think of a technical reason now that sensors have microlenses and BSI.>>4519265Not a fan of PASM myself although it seems to be what Sony ended up adopting with the NEX-6 and 6000 series. Strange reason to specifically pick the z30 since pretty much every mirrorless camera has PASM these days.>>4519344I'd be happy if Sony did an update of the NEX-5 just for APS-C. There is no FF pancake in any system that comes close to the 20mm APS-C pancake size although I would want a viewfinder and flash and would be willing to live with a tiny screen to keep the dimensions.
>>4519371the zve10 i bought and kept for a short time didnt have pasm, while the z30 did. im just saying i would've been happier with the z30. plus theyre cheap...$400 refurb from nikon at one point with the kit lens (now like $600)
>>4519369Design flaws aren't uncommon even for things that should have been solved (oily shutters, foam gaskets, sensor rusting) because some engineer screwed up. Someone makes a metal replacement for the plastic shim for the A7 which would be a pretty cheap fix for any ebay camera with that issue. Granted they fixed that with later versions but none of those are as thin.
>>4519373no that's fair and that is a great deal. The ZV series are Sony's video focused "vlogging" type cameras and they don't have a PASM dial and some other photo oriented features. The rest do.
>The Ansel Adams Publishing Rights Trust has raised concerns over what it describes as the unauthorised use of Ansel Adams’s name and work in an “AI-generated colour version” of his iconic photograph shot in 1942 Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico, which was recently exhibited and offered for sale at a major international photography fair.>In a statement, the Trust said the work “exploited Ansel’s name, reputation, and his most iconic image, while failing to identify any human artist responsible for its creation. The Trust did not authorise, endorse, consent to, or acquiesce in the ‘AI-generated colour version’ of ‘Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico’ exhibited and offered for sale by Danziger Gallery at The Photography Show presented by AIPAD in April. The Trust was not consulted or notified before the work appeared. Once alerted, we reached out to James Danziger in real time, notifying him of the Trust’s rights, and asking for the work to be removed. Correspondence shared with the Trust shows that, despite our formal notice, Mr. Danziger subsequently leveraged Ansel’s name, ‘Moonrise,’ and the AIPAD presentation while pursuing a proposed commercial AI colourisation venture involving other artists’ estates.”>James Danziger made a response on the Danziger website to Ansel Adams Trust's condemnation by not only mentioning that the image is technically in the public domain, but also wrote: "As for the print itself, while A.I. served as the starting point, the final image involved extensive human intervention, editing, proofing, and refinement over many months."
>>4513113ken rockwell as a slur has made me edit my photos less out of fear of making them look like his
>>4519262I am, too, scared that it's how it looks like. (my monitor is shit)I need advice cause I'm a newfag if you got any.
>>4519262>>4519274I’ve recently started giving my color photos a little chroma bumpI tell myself it’s because I’m moving away from a real-light purist and learning slightly idealized reality looks betterbut I have a nagging suspicion it’s just the age-related color sensitivity loss kicking in
>>4519286what, that's a thing??
>>4519288yes60-70yo boomers lose color sensitivity, low light vision, and visual dynamic range over time until they see in micro four thirds and think the shots from their $2000 om3 look exactly like real life with lovely realistic colors and more detail than was there to begin withfrom birth to your 60s you see in phase one iq180 visionremember this, and that there are old fucks on 4chan. they just stopped acting any different around 25-30.
Seems like a very shortsighted decision. Loads of baloney reasons given like "cost" and "too much work to moderate" etc.It was probably because it easier was for users to keep tabs on how little leaked information they have access to and how the site operators are pulling info out their rear ends.>We have officially shut down the forum, and it will not return. There are many reasons for this decision, and we won't get into them publicly.In a way, it's sad to see it go. In other ways, I am happy this decision was made. All data on the forum will be deleted on September 16, 2026.
>>4517643Is anyone going to archive that shit?
>>4518630>buy snoy >become a trannychecks out
>>4518761Is it worth archiving?
>>4519250I don't know how long this site has been running, but I think there's historical interest in what people were yaking about, and what they got wrong/right.
The whole thing seems off to me. Arguments about cost and time etc. It does not require much time to moderate a forum of that size and the cost is minuscule, yet it was put forth as if it set them back 10k usd or something like that per year which is just retarded as forum software is largely free or a one time cost, bandwidth usage should also not really matter. The only work required is doing normie-type moderating which is to give people timeout if they call each other faggots. Furthermore a forum is something that generates traffic to the site on its own, slowly becoming more relevant for the search algorithms over time.It is like shutting down a money printer.
Why does it happen anyway? I feel like this is something which adobe could work on giving us a tool for in Photoshop. Something which cancels out edge glow but also can be adjusted by depth etc.(I know edge glow can be removed with a new layer and clone stamped with Darken mode on)
>>4501417>Why does it happen anyway?Some clever programmer (with no photographic experience) decided that the way to make edges look sharp was to increase the contrast among pixels that border very light and very dark areas. So he cleverly wrote some code that does exactly that, and now it looks like the Anime cartoons he's used to wanking off to.
> ITT: I want to boomer-overcook my photos without them looking like I boomer-overcooked them> ITT: why can't Adobe use AI to make it look like I did not miss focus and used the right aperture with a good lens?
>>4519021Work on your bait.
>>4519027Work on your photography.
>>4501448>Darktable>propietary anythinglollmao
I feel like this picture, and some more, are a bit soulless. How to make it gain some charm while still sticking to God's creation, as-is ? Not editing, rather how to shoot.
>>4518986Shoot in raw instead of letting your phone process the image.
>>4518986Take photos of things you are interested in. For landscape, different times of day and weather conditions can add interest. But if you photograph something you like it will always have soul for you.
>>4518996>if you photograph something you like it will always have soul for you.Based post
>>451898670% of soul comes from the concept not the technique. What are you trying to show or express here? Make series. Photo is weak alone.
>>4518996100%doesn't matter what you use to shoot, or how good you are, if it makes you feel something.
Leica are the only cameras that inspire as much genuine art as the beautiful machines are able to create. You won't get real artists so invested in a Canon or (lol) a Sony (shudder). Why is anyone on this board who actually cares about photographer using anything BUT a Leica?
>>4513270But exif peeping is the only form of critique people on /p have mastered.
>>4511440>$190 for a LEICA!! lens cap
>>4511556>Look, a guy in a suit and a homeless woman sitting on the bench together!!!It's funny how every photographer now is a technical expert but every shot they take is prosaic and deep as a puddle.
>>4519193You wouldn't pay less than 1.5% of the investment cost to protect your purchase?
>>4519204I know this is bait but I just got 3 cANON lens caps for $5
Some people say that to get rich you gotta do what others don't wanna do. For a photographer it means going to a warzone. What are some other fields in photography that can make you rich and famous but you just hate doing it?
>>4518495Weddings and probably some other pivotal moments in people's lives.
>>4518495Never been a combat photographer so I have no clue either. But regarding the main topic of the thread I’m still thinking about doing something worthwhile with my current setup (a7iii + 2470 GMaster) and maybe do nat light photoshoots but I still have to make a portfolio out of thin air. Still thinking whether I just advertise free photoshoots somewhere while I build my portfolio then start charging money when I have something decent to show to clients or do something else
>>4518501Learn what fill flash and reflectors do, find a quick print shop that also does yard signs, do graduation portraits. Portrait tips: always use f2.8 around plants and f/16 around buildings, avoid pedestrians/cars like the plague( shoot at night if you have to), shoot raw and lower/refine sharpening and tweak skin tones so people don’t look ghoulish or like wrinkly alcoholics, use google images to research cropping guidelines, never use rule of thirds with boring empty spaceEz money for very little skill
What about making hornbait pictures for dating app or artsy nude pictures of aspiring models? Is it straightforward to earn money this way?
>>4518707>artsy nude pictures of aspiring modelsYeah, you're about 15 years to late for that one chief. Even then most of that sort of stuff was TFP. These days you'll be the one paying the model.
...
Man, Myth, Legend
>>4511641>>4511643Sorry for the late reply, been super busythe projector needs to use three lenses to project all three images at the same time for viewingI would say this is "obviously" because humans can't understand red, green, and blue images projected sequentially as a single image, but that's not actually trueif you project them quickly enough in sequence it does trick your eyes into seeing a single image, many modern projectors actually work this way one we have at work projects each at about 1/3 of 60Hz (180 frames per second total) and you can tell if you move something quickly enough through the path of lightthat said, that kind of technology didn't exist in Gorsky's time so he had to settle for three lensesthe projector almost certainly used lens shift to align the images on the projection surface — the same shift that technical (bellows) cameras use for perspective correction (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/View_camera#Movements)taking an image this way doesn't work because the three lenses introduce parallax, but the developed images are on a flat plate so that doesn't happen for projectionhere's an illustration: https://files.catbox.moe/revi9k.png
>>4517322checkedThank You for coming back.The concepts and tech for this project are impressive.Having put all the questions to rest is a small victory for me and your insight put the pieces together.I find it strange the Gorsky did this work at the highest level the times would allow and then no more photos. Gone. A Ghost.Maybe it was the fall of the Empire and his exile. Turning away from that time and success may have helped live past it.It did happen quickly after they were taken.Looks like there will still be some unanswered questions after all :)
>>4517424>I find it strange the Gorsky did this work at the highest level the times would allow and then no more photos. Gone. A Ghost.I wonder if it has something to do with his main sponsor being deposed and murdered, his country turned into a hellhole wasteland and him being forced into exile.
Half of these pictures could have been taken yesterday, lmao what a shithole
>>4518696thanks dickhead i addressed that in my commentBut you are an uncouth faggot and the reason this board is dead.You will never be a woman
5.4 is out, what do we think bros?
>>4521264This is in the in-camera JPEG, the main differences I see are>no lens correction so the geometry is slightly different>a slight yellow cast compared to the one I edited, not sure if this is "better"
>>4520197It's true, darktable is weak on colors. I think the washed-out look comes from the RAW file TOO MUCH dynamic range blacks and whites, even after tone-mapping from filmic rgb, sigmoid, or AgX. I really recommend AgX since it condenses ACCURATE colors. I didn't even know I had so much salmon when I was using filmic rgb last year. shudderYou really want to start with a strong baseline. Double-check your color calibration module, adjust as needed. Go to exposure and auto-set exposure (resize or reposition the box on your subject or scene if needed). Go to AgX and auto-set with "auto tune levels" (the camera icon) and the next two eyedropper settings. Do NOT touch the other sliders yet.Scroll down to the "look" panel and start playing with the "slope", "lift", and "brightness" sliders. (I typically don't touch "saturation" or "preserve hue" sliders.) To my eye, "slope" sets the midtones, highlights, and speculars (necessarily washing out some colors) whereas "lift" sets your blacks, shadows, and midtones. Negative lift DEEPENS colors. I'm not fully sure what "brightness" does but it can either recover compressed midtones depending on positive/negative values and how the image is skewed from your slope/lift settings. I personally like a slightly punchier look.For very difficult scenes, you may have to keep playing with slope/lift/brightness, use tone equalizer (auto masking works perfectly), and/or reduce the contrast slider. ONLY when you've exhausted the "look" panel and tone equalizer should you mess with the "input exposure range" or "basic curve parameters" because shit goes crazy quick (just like filmic rgb lmfao).If done right, AgX should get you ~80% of the color density, and color balance rgb gets you the last ~20%. color balance rgb is VERY weird and not intuitive either but I can send some global presets in the next post. I want to play with the 4-ways color panel soon, which looks even more powerful.
>>4520197>>4521888color balance rgb presets — for unwritten sliders, assume "0". After applying presets, you may need to adjust sliders to taste for each photo.---Preset 1 derives from "basic colorfulness / standard". It's very saturated. Great for low-contrast and low-color scenes, like architecture, overcast days, lush plants and foliage. However, the aggressive highlight/shadow saturation can make skin and golden hour look overcooked.global vibrance: +10%contrast: +5%global chroma: +10%global saturation: +10%Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Do I need a PhD to be able to use this module?
>>4521888>>4521894Didnt notice your repost, sorry. Thanks for advice!
