idk but cute pigeons

>>4329559
The Nikon D40.

>>4329573
D70(s)

Feels like we say the same things every time this comes up lmao

>>4329573
extremely braindead take, that camera was well liked because it was good for the price, not because the sensor was better than the other pro level Nikons of the day. D3, D2, D700, D200, D100 all would be better choices if you want the CCD look.

>>4329662
>suggests non-ccd cameras
very weak bait zoomer way to recommend cameras you haven't owned or used

>>4329669
D3 and D700 may be CMOS, but they have a more CCD-like color rendition than even some CCD cameras of the day. Hence why I said "CCD look". I own a D200, D700, D800. I have owned the D40 in the past. It is a toy.

>>4329673
>CMOS looks more like CCD that CMOS
No, you are a liar and a fraud
Or you are just a blind gearfag
Possibly both

File: d2001.jpg (691 KB, 2241x1500)

691 KB JPG

>>4329758
Unfortunately you're just too stupid to understand what people actually like about early digital cameras. It isn't that CCDs have unique colors nearly so much as it is that camera manufacturers were going for a much more filmic color science back in the day. The D700 and D3 have that in spades. The D700 even has the same D2X color profiles as the D200 - a camera constantly cited as being among the best "CCD sensor cameras" - and yet the D700 can produce identical results.

How am I the gearfag when I am suggesting MORE camera options for the same results, and you're the one saying "No, you need these SPECIFIC cameras, nothing else will do"?

You're a nophoto moron. I'm an actual user of these cameras.

Pic taken on D200 using the D2X Mode III color profile, also present on the D700.

File: DSC_6134.jpg (791 KB, 1804x1210)

791 KB JPG

who´s johnny b.?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D200
Camera Software	Ufraw & Imagemagick & Exiftool
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	301 dpi
Vertical Resolution	301 dpi
Exposure Time	1/160 sec
F-Number	f/6.3
ISO Speed Rating	100
Focal Length	45.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated

>>4329966
tl;dr

Anyways if you want ccd colors get a ccd camera
Not CMOS, lmao only a fucking retarded imbecile would suggest such a thing

PS, you hide the exif data because you are a liar and fake

>>4330053

but image looks like it could be taken in nikon color mode 3, look how bright moss is on house roof

>>4330055
>shoots in landscape color profile
Woooowww it's nothing

>>4330058
Share your photo then

>>4329559
Epson rd1/s

File: DSC_0218.jpg (2.86 MB, 2241x1500)

2.86 MB JPG

>>4330053
exif was hidden bc that was from a cloud storage vendor who strips it

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D200
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 12.4 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/5.7
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	770
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	315 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2023:08:25 23:26:59
Exposure Time	1/3000 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	500
Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Exposure Bias	-1/3 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	210.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Low
Sharpness	Soft
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

contax full frame ccd users around?

>>4329966
>It isn't that CCDs have unique colors nearly so much as it is that camera manufacturers were going for a much more filmic color science back in the day. The D700 and D3 have that in spades. The D700 even has the same D2X color profiles as the D200 - a camera constantly cited as being among the best "CCD sensor cameras" - and yet the D700 can produce identical results.
if this CCD shit is really all about color profiles then you don't need any specific camera to do it, you just need to process the RAW in a way the emulates those cameras jpegs

>>4330120
Indeed but some faggot seems to think that Nikon CMOS are CCDlike lmao

>>4330122
Yeah different Nikons DSLRs have their own fanbases that repeat the same shit every it comes up:
>D40 - "nobody needs more"
>D200 - "best CCD" (even though its the same sensor as D40X, D60, D80)
>D700 - "CMOS, but looks like CCD!"
>D500 - "the only good APS-C, if you shoot wildlife you must have it"
>D850 - "best digital camera ever, all you ever need ever"
Every other Nikon just works and does what it does, quietly, and nobody makes a big deal about them.

>>4330120
It's not "all about color profiles", but color profiles are designed to give a look based on the camera's color science. You can't cheat the camera's color science. Try it out for yourself - in Lightroom you can load any manufacturers color profiles onto any RAW image, but you won't get the same result since photos from another model won't have the same color science to begin with.

>>4330122
I don't think all Nikon CMOS cameras are CCD like. I think that the D700 and D3 are CCD like.

>>4330128
Lmfao 100% accurate

Why so much hate on nikonback?

>>4330128
>>D40 - "nobody needs more"
this is cope
>>D200 - "best CCD" (even though its the same sensor as D40X, D60, D80)
this is true in that it is the best built/best ergnomics compared to the three other cameras you mentioned.
>>D700 - "CMOS, but looks like CCD!"
this is true
>>D500 - "the only good APS-C, if you shoot wildlife you must have it"
this is true in that it is the most technically advanced Nikon APS-C for wildlife
>>D850 - "best digital camera ever, all you ever need ever"
this is true in that it is the most technically advanced Nikon DSLR

The best part about all of your comments is that for the most part, they are all compatible ideas and not in disagreement with each other

File: DSC_0458_01.jpg (3.95 MB, 3037x2013)

3.95 MB JPG

>>4330141
Nikon users are insufferable apparently
>Look at this photograph

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D70
Camera Software	darktable 3.8.1
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	7930
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	240 mm
Serial Number	-1000216
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2024:06:28 09:06:58
Exposure Time	1/1000 sec
F-Number	f/4.5
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	160.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3037
Image Height	2013
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Hard
Subject Distance Range	Unknown
Auto Focus	Single Area, Center Selected, Top Focused
ISO Speed Used	400
Image Quality	RAW
White Balance	AUTO
Image Sharpening	MED.H
Focus Mode	AF-S
Flash Setting	NORMAL
Flash Compensation	0.0 EV
ISO Speed Requested	400
Flash Bracket Compensation	0.0 EV
AE Bracket Compensation	0.0 EV
Tone Compensation	AUTO
Lens Type	Unknown
Lens Range	80.0 - 200.0 mm; f/2.8
Shooting/Bracketing Mode	Single Frame/Off
Color Mode	Landscape sRGB
Lighting Type	NATURAL
Noise Reduction	OFF
Camera Actuations	15417
Image Optimization	CUSTOM

>>4330167
I like it

>>4330167
Dogshit shadow lift. You should have let the shadows stay black instead of having a bland, low contrast image with a ton of noise despite being shot at ISO 400

>>4330179
You are a stupid faggot

That's actually the result of Darktable default noise reduction profile then sharpening

It's ok, you'll learn one day

File: DUZJxkEaibS0_fU22iKgldgRU(...).png (24 KB, 300x300)

24 KB PNG

>>4330180
>Heh, this guy doesn't even know the real reason my photos look like shit

File: 8vb423.jpg (139 KB, 893x500)

139 KB JPG

>>4330182
imagine being assmad at a crow lmao

>>4330184
>LUGADIS/P/HOTOGRAPH

File: DSC_0380.jpg (1.61 MB, 3037x2013)

1.61 MB JPG

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D70
Camera Software	darktable 3.8.1
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	7930
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	202 mm
Serial Number	-1000216
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2024:06:28 10:16:09
Exposure Time	1/1000 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	135.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3037
Image Height	2013
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Hard
Subject Distance Range	Unknown
Auto Focus	Single Area, Center Selected, Top Focused
ISO Speed Used	200
Image Quality	RAW
White Balance	AUTO
Image Sharpening	MED.H
Focus Mode	AF-S
Flash Setting	NORMAL
Flash Compensation	0.0 EV
ISO Speed Requested	200
Flash Bracket Compensation	0.0 EV
AE Bracket Compensation	0.0 EV
Tone Compensation	AUTO
Lens Type	Unknown
Lens Range	80.0 - 200.0 mm; f/2.8
Shooting/Bracketing Mode	Single Frame/Off
Color Mode	Landscape sRGB
Lighting Type	NATURAL
Noise Reduction	OFF
Camera Actuations	15333
Image Optimization	CUSTOM

>>4330184
>beat me to it because i was at work
>did it poorly
>didn't even respond with the next lyric
A sad day today.

>>4330200
teehee wagie you get what you deserve

>>4330203
Money?

>>4330204
Kek, nice

File: .jpg (1.79 MB, 3648x2736)

1.79 MB JPG

>>4330167
very nice lovely bird would give them a kiss on the beak
you should try nx studio

File: nikkorsbirbloversunite.jpg (2.58 MB, 4512x3012)

2.58 MB JPG

>>4330219
Ayy my fellow bird enthusiast, waddup
Nice up close shot
Just playing around on an old iMac w/ mint lol, usually use Dxo Photolab
I have the old Nikon Capture installed on a VM, might give that a shot sometime

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D3400
Camera Software	darktable 3.8.1
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/5.3
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	24964
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	285 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4512
Image Height	3012
Image Created	2024:06:28 11:22:32
Exposure Time	1/4000 sec
F-Number	f/5.3
Exposure Program	Shutter Priority
ISO Speed Rating	400
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	190.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4512
Image Height	3012
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Landscape
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Hard
Subject Distance Range	Unknown
AE Bracket Compensation	0.0 EV
Flash Bracket Compensation	0.0 EV
Flash Compensation	0.0 EV
Focus Mode	AF-A
Lens Range	70.0 - 300.0 mm; f/4.5 - f/6.3
Lens Type	Unknown
Noise Reduction	OFF
Image Quality	RAW
Shooting/Bracketing Mode	Single Frame/Off
Camera Actuations	24721
White Balance	AUTO

>>4330180
Cool story looks like shit tho.

>>4330184
>>4330239

File: dt_CRW_3507.jpg (1.04 MB, 2555x1277)

1.04 MB JPG

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon DIGITAL IXUS 960 IS
Camera Software	darktable 4.6.1
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/5.9
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	133 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2024:06:28 22:05:46
Exposure Time	1361/1000000 sec
F-Number	f/5.9
Exposure Program	Not Defined
ISO Speed Rating	74
Lens Aperture	f/5.9
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Subject Distance	6.30 m
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Auto
Focal Length	28.50 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2555
Image Height	1277

File: dt_CRW_3506.jpg (977 KB, 1697x2264)

977 KB JPG

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon DIGITAL IXUS 960 IS
Camera Software	darktable 4.6.1
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/5.9
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	133 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2024:06:28 22:27:46
Exposure Time	2863/1000000 sec
F-Number	f/5.9
Exposure Program	Not Defined
ISO Speed Rating	74
Lens Aperture	f/5.9
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Subject Distance	8.75 m
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Auto
Focal Length	28.50 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1697
Image Height	2264

>>4330290
Did it do a 360 w/ it's neck or is that just an illusion?

>>4330294
Neither. You're just a retard.

>>4330319
At least my pictures aren't trash
gj posting something though
Hope you don't quit photography and keep trying!

File: Cope.jpg (245 KB, 960x720)

245 KB JPG

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D3400
Camera Software	Ver.1.13
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/6.3
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	450 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:06:28 15:42:52
Exposure Time	1/1000 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	1600
Exposure Bias	-1.7 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	300.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	960
Image Height	720
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Landscape
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Hard
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>4330328
>and a new cope copypasta was born from the latest 11 year old
I guess we can call it a copeypasta?

>>4330334
Make like that bird and neck yourself

>>4329966
>"No, you need these SPECIFIC cameras, nothing else will do"?
You think you're on 4chan.
You aren't.
In this thread, you're on YouTube, or Instagram, or TikTok.
OP in this case bought out a lot of these camera bodies.
He's trying to hype them up.
He has dozens up for sale on Ebay, all under different seller accounts of course, but that's an illusion of choice. It's all him.
He needs people to buy his exact camera he's trying to flip. He doesn't make any money if you buy a similar one, it has to be his.
You're talking to an (((influencer))).

Does everything make sense now?

File: youreamemefaggot.jpg (553 KB, 1697x2264)

553 KB JPG

>>4330334
Here since you seem to like memes so much

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

>>4330348
You are literally schizophrenic.

File: learn.jpg (165 KB, 1278x482)

165 KB JPG

>>4330349
>snapshitter doesn't even know how to scale vector text
You expose new levels of your ineptitude with every post.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>4330407
>vector text
lmfao

>>4330410
>nervous idiot laugh
Basic CSS, snapshitter. It's all vector based. You're dumber than a boomer.

>>4330413
please do continue

>>4330419
mate you blew up a screenshot like a 75 year old on facebook, you need to do better

show me which snapshit you got assblasted over and i'll give you some crit so you can stop wasting everyone's time with failed memes. also sage when you post such bullshit so we can keep the first page somewhat relevant

>>4330422
more please

>>4330328
You thought that snapshit was mine? He's a snapshitter and you're a retard. You were meant for one another.

File: dt_CRW_3462.jpg (1.33 MB, 1524x2052)

1.33 MB JPG

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon DIGITAL IXUS 960 IS
Camera Software	darktable 4.6.1
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.7
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	91 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2024:06:29 07:35:01
Exposure Time	187/100000 sec
F-Number	f/4.6
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	74
Lens Aperture	f/4.7
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Subject Distance	65.54 m
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	19.55 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1524
Image Height	2052

>>4330436
>everyone frowning at you
You must be pretty autistic looking.

File: dt_CRW_3324.jpg (1.27 MB, 1975x1467)

1.27 MB JPG

>>4330437

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon DIGITAL IXUS 960 IS
Camera Software	darktable 4.6.1
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.9
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	36 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2024:06:05 12:11:47
Exposure Time	4851/500000 sec
F-Number	f/7.8
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	74
Lens Aperture	f/7.9
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Subject Distance	65.54 m
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	7.70 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1975
Image Height	1467

>>4330438
>being insecure enough to respond with this
>being too autistic to see her awkward fake smile and literal frown
I was just joking before but you confirmed it, kek.

>>4330184
>LOOKATTHISPHOTOGRAPH, IT REMINDS ME WHY I BOUGHT CANON INSTEAD

>>4330437
Still laughing at your ignorance and lack of self awareness lmfao

>>4330517
>thinks everyone he interacts with on /p/ is the same person
If people are scowling at you in a photo you fucked up some social interaction. It could be as simple as being annoying.

I don't know who you think you're arguing with here, but I am telling you that this person >>4330288 >>4330290 >>4330436 >>4330438 posted bad photographs. Poor technical quality, poor composition, poor exposure, poor subject matter. Just really ugly, awkward snapshots. If you'd like me to be more specific:

>>4330288
>>4330290
Blurry, boring and back lit, desaturated, noisy, shot against a featureless boring sky. A roof poking awkwardly into the bottom of the frame, and at an awkward angle.

>>4330436
Out of focus, smudgy, desaturated, busy, noisy, harsh lighting, ugly people, an annoyed looking woman gesturing at the photographer, hideous beast frowning from the shadows in the background, awkwardly posted ugly man with gross skinny legs, and another person cut off awkwardly at the right side of the frame. Truly a terrible photograph.

>>4330438
Out of focus, smudgy, horrible flat lighting, ugly busy construction staging and fencing in the center of the frame, half a boring van, motion blur on the only subject including her face, bottom of the bicycle clipped.

These are very bad photographs. They are just snapshots, and very boring ugly snapshots at that. This is a photography board.

>>4330438
>this photo is so bad, its not shaaaaaaahp
one, i actually like that he committed to the blur. its a digital sensor, foliage will never be sharp on a digital sensor unless you bought something with 61-200mp and excellent lenses, and got close to the tree.

two, if this were a B&W print it would be passable in most art galleries. color just adds nothing to it.

>>4330528
>This is a photography board
Yes I agree! So...

>>4330528
>These are snapshots
Then feel free to report them
If the jannies agree with you they will remove the offending images
But they don't, thus you can infer that regardless of what your small brain thinks of the photos, they certainly are not snapshots

>samefagging snapshitter can't handle basic crit, has nervous breakdown
Many such cases

This is photography board not photographers board, fuck off

File: dt_CRW_3461.jpg (1.94 MB, 2986x1492)

1.94 MB JPG

Nice to see my stuff is giving you something to discuss. Maybe even learn a something.
Don't worry, I'm not holding my breath ;)

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon DIGITAL IXUS 960 IS
Camera Software	darktable 4.6.1
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.9
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	36 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2024:06:29 18:44:10
Exposure Time	521/125000 sec
F-Number	f/7.8
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	74
Lens Aperture	f/7.9
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Subject Distance	7.45 m
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	7.70 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2986
Image Height	1492

>every photo in the thread is terrible
Yep, it's /p/ alright.

>>4330561
>darktable
You're actually processing these? Damn. I guess that explains the completely flat, hazy, de-saturated colour rendering... it's too bad to blame just the camera. You're adding another layer of incompetence on top of your picture taking.

Believe it or not, there are people on /p/ who could actually help you with this. Very few pros, but certainly people who are much better than you. Post these in your own thread asking for crit and edits. Learn some things instead of deluding yourself into thinking you're good. You are not, but you could be if you bothered to learn things like composition and how to expose and edit. These really are just snapshots.

TL;DR: Instead of getting mad, get good.

>>4330573
>completely flat, hazy, de-saturated colour rendering
I notice this is a running theme with literally every darktable user except for those blessed noobs who just crank the velvia module

Even eggy, who is supposedly competent and put a lot of effort into his DT settings, has flat/hazy/desaturated colors

>>4330576
I thought it looked familiar but only just looked at the EXIF and it made sense. People don't understand that you're presented with a baseline when you open a RAW in Darktable, and that it's up to you to work from there. Simply clicking export is going to land you with this trash.

>>4330580
It's not even a baseline. It is below a baseline. It's an incorrect generic guess. You're expected to profile your camera yourself with swatch charts before starting anything, and even generate lens corrections by shooting the appropriate charts.

>>4330530
>sharpness
Don't pull that meme. There's a difference between a photo not being super sharp and a photo with very poor clarity suffering from haziness and smudginess. It looks like the result of an oily lens + incorrect exposure in harsh light.

Forget the motion blur, everything else is bad enough. These are the kinds of problems that have no artistic value either, they are just glaring technical issues that scream amateur with his first camera. The highlights are all blown to shit with haloing and chromabs bleeding everywhere. It all has a horrible blue/magenta tint as well. These shots (as bad as they were when taken) have been fucked with to look even worse.

>>4330583
Yeah, that's what I meant by "a" baseline, not baseline. It's just a generic starting point. At best your highlights are ok-ish. The most common first-time DT user's question is "why do my photos look like shit?" and it's a good question to ask if you're a noob. What is bad is never questioning it, which is what we're witnessing ITT.

>>4330585
And the most common long time DT user's question is "why do my photos STILL look like shit"
>Because you are not a colorist on the level of those employed by phaseone, dxo labs, or even adobe
>You do not have the finely calibrated equipment they use to create their camera profiles
>Neither do the unpaid pedophiles behind darktable
>You are yanking curves and dragging sliders in the dark, long accustomed to the drab colors and weird contrasts like ken rockwell being blind his thrice-edited jpegs saturation and artifacts
>Once you notice it you can't un-notice, once you go blind again it takes fresh air to notice it again
Unless you are like artreprofag, and essentially a human scanner, and actually have commercial equipment for making sure everything is right, you would be better off shooting jpeg

>>4330586
>the majority of people are bad at x
Yes. Goes for everything.

File: disgusting.jpg (68 KB, 507x801)

68 KB JPG

>>4330586
>artreprofag
The guy who selects shadows with 0 feathering and deletes them and pretends he doesn't?

https://archive-media.palanq.win/p/image/1685/94/1685940797498.jpg

Chromabs don't just disappear in front of a shadow. Look at the bottom of the pole. You can even see the highlights on the other side of the chromabs.

Visible here too:

https://archive-media.palanq.win/p/image/1687/49/1687496840455.jpg

https://archive-media.palanq.win/p/image/1685/94/1685940706344.jpg

He's terrible, why would you ever cite him? Are you him? Shadows don't work like this:

https://archive-media.palanq.win/p/image/1682/36/1682366828907.jpg

This is selective color + delete. Garishly amateur LARPer.

>>4330591
Actually, I'm even willing to amend this to wand tool over selective color, it's that bad.

>>4330588
But here being good at "x" requires standardized test targets and good equipment that would defeat the point of darktable for most people (being too poor to spend $14 a month on a half decent editor - or, let's put that in real world terms so the jobless can comprehend how little it is - one hour and five minutes of labor at mcdonalds as a cashier still at the starting wage).
>ok now that i have finally got the hue twists right and checked both standard illuminants and some non standard ones for inaccuracies and metameric errors i think i finally have a good profile to use as a baseline
>oh wait no red's still a bit wrong
>time to bust out the IT8.7, recalibrate my display, and make sure my interior lighting is still close enough to CIE-whatever
People are paid to do this. It's like digging a ditch. Foundational, but architects and contractors are different people for a reason.

>>4330591
I'm not him, but he's an example of someone who put in so much effort that they basically lost their soul when they could have just, iunno, shot portra and not fucked with the colors too much?

>>4330591
Kek, you can see he used box select but since the pole wasn't perfectly vertical he has more chromabs left at the bottom than the top. This is so bad it looks like it was done in MSPaint.

>>4330596
average expert foss editor user

The pseuds are at it again bwahahaha

>>4330598
It does remind me of every "I made this in GIMP" post I've ever seen.

>>4330591
holy shit, what a talentless autist this guy is lmao
https://archive.palanq.win/p/search/username/Art_repro_fag22/filter/text/page/1/

>>4330607
average film hater

You know /p/ is a bad place to learn when you see self-assured posters like >>4330586 holding namefags like >>4330591 to a high standard

/p/ is a dead end

>>4330611
Did you seriously think I was praising your nemesis anon

I was using him as an example of a soulless autist. "essentially a human scanner". He has commercial equipment for getting colors in rawtherapee right, supposedly. It has totally replaced any artistic sense he has. "Essentially a human scanner". What using these shit "compile ur color science from source" programs does to people.

>>4330612
>nemesis
I literally never heard of him until you mentioned him. I had to see what you were talking about and was shocked at the level of incompetence he displayed immediately.

>human scanner
>commercial equipment
>getting colors right
Pictures speak louder than words which was my whole point. Maybe you should stop reading what he says and start looking at the photos he posts. I wouldn't refer to him in any of these ways, anon.

>>4329559
>for that superior CCD look
What does that even mean, what makes it 'superior' in any way?
Just muh grain and soft images?

>>4329559
There is no CCD look.
CCD and CMOS difference very slight.
Color difference is non-existent.

>>4330613
His colors are very accurate. He has been paid to duplicate paintings despite using $0 software.
His artwork is awful. Meanwhile, the best photographers in history basically deferred the majority of their color decisions to other people.

That's what I meant. Scanner and artist are mutually exclusive. Artists create, scanners duplicate.

>>4330615
99% of the time its
CCD look = accurate vibrant reds and inaccurate everything else
CMOS look = pink or orange reds and accurate everything else
capture one has a color editor tool that makes this easy!

>>4330617
>99% of the time its
>CCD look = accurate vibrant reds and inaccurate everything else
>CMOS look = pink or orange reds and accurate everything else
So literally nothing doing basic editing you normally would do on an image, and it's just a consoomer thing.
Got it, thanks.

>>4330618
dont forget the low dynamic range (doable by just raising your ISO)

>>4330637
I just don't understand the appeal of this and P&Ss, like I'm turning 30 this year and used stuff like that as a kid, it's just mind blowing people purposely pursue worse gear for dumbass 'aesthetic' reasons and pay a premium for it, but it's easier to separate money from morons I guess.

>>4330640
its not about the photo, it's about the ~experience~
buying
appreciating
blogging about
buying some more

>>4330640
Get one and shoot (maybe even post pictures!)

>>4330645
Why would I ever waste money on a subpar product when I have better gear?
Here's a image I posted in another thread with my r6mkii + rf100-400
>>4330555
and here's two from my r50 + rf100-400mm
>>4330568
>>4330569
Please, educate me, how is it superior in any way?
Post some photos you've taken.

>>4330617
>colors are very accurate
No, he just posts about accurate colors. One scroll in the archive tells you everything you need to know. He's just an autist with copypastas and links like many people on this board who also can't take or edit photographs.

This is my first and last deep dive on the guy and it's safe to say he isn't worth listening to.

>>4330646
Not him, but the first pic is missed focus which is an impressive fuckup at f/8.

File: ducks (1 of 1).jpg (3.01 MB, 4366x3493)

3.01 MB JPG

>>4330649
Focus is on the eye, and the muskrat was within 8ft of me, I should have stopped down, wasn't able to step back from it without spooking it to be honest.
Not saying it's the best shot, just one from my walk yesterday.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS R6m2
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 13.4 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2024:06:27 17:48:02
Exposure Time	1/800 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	1 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Focal Length	400.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated

>>4330646
The motion blur on that musrat is horrible

Reminder to all: You can have the best gear in the world and still be a blind piss poor photographer (poster I am replying to case in point)

>>4330657
Not motion blur, was too close for 400m f8 and should have either decreased FL or stopped down. That was a miss on my part.
Can you point out motion blur here? >>4330650
Post a picture as a comparison.

>>4330650
more motion blur and poor editing, your camera 100% produces nicer jpegs

>>4330658
I'll say it again, you are blind lmao
Best of luck to you
My photos are already in thi

>>4330659
>>4330660
Highlight exactly on the birds where the motion blur is.
And post recent photos you've taken after for comparison, piclets.

>>4330650
No, it's motion blurred

Were you moving or the muskrat? It looks like the IQ I get when I'm playing with my dog so anything under 1/8000 is soft and the autofocus never keeps up

File: Z72_7106.jpg (4.55 MB, 2400x2400)

4.55 MB JPG

>>4330650
Dog snap image quality

File: Z72_6029.jpg (2.51 MB, 4500x3600)

2.51 MB JPG

>>4330663
awful tamron zoom in dx mode quality

i did not enjoy taking photos of birds enough to pursue anything beyond sparrows

File: bunny (1 of 1)-2.jpg (2.56 MB, 3478x2782)

2.56 MB JPG

>>4330662
It was breathing heavy when I accidentally stumbled upon it, literally have never been so close to a muskrat without it bolting so think it froze in fear, dunno if that'd be the cause of the chest area being soft at 1/200s as the eye focus looks fine.
I didn't need to crop that image for comparison of how close I was(did slightly for image size and removing some stuff from the right border) which is why I'm more inclined to say it's a DoF issue.
Could be wrong though and it's entirely me, but this board is filled with piclet faggots who don't know what they're talking about half the time or can't post a picture they've taken for comparison or for education.
>>4330663
handsome pup
Educate me, what exactly would have improved the IQ of that image? Or for it not to be 'dog snap quality'.
Genuine question, would love to improve.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS R6m2
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 13.4 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2024:06:27 17:42:17
Exposure Time	1/800 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	640
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	0.7 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Focal Length	400.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated

>>4330668
>would love to improve
>denies objective criticism and feedback
lmfao gearfag

>>4330669
Point out the constructive criticism and post a pic as an example.
>lol motion blur on birds camera would produce better jpegs
>can't point out motion blur on the birds
>can't say exactly what's wrong with the editing
That's not constructive criticism in any way fag.
And I'm not a gearfag lmao, I don't give a shit about brand or have some grandiose idea that because I have a r6mkii I'm better in any way, I'm still new to the hobby and learning.
What exactly would you have done differently in editing that photo?
Better yet, here's the raw:
https://files.catbox.moe/3ygmb8.CR3
Edit it how you would and explain why you edited it that way.

>>4330668
You have magic canon IBIS and magic canon autofocus from paying ZF+$500 prices for a pro body, so if your duck's head feathers are softer than your duck's body feathers, consider: animals react and move really fucking fast and shutter speeds under 1/1000 are unlikely to yield many keepers.

>>4330670
Best of luck to you
With that attitude I'm sure you'll go far (not!)
I mean really, why do you think being an insufferable faggot would lead people to help you for free?

>>4330671
First valuable feedback, appreciate it, figured 1/800 would have been fast enough for it but apparently not, that's a good thing to look out for going forward. I'll stick with a min 1/1000 unless it's a really static subject then.
>>4330672
>still can't provide any constructive criticism or post a pic

>>4330675
>wah wah spoonfeed me the motion blur otherwise it doesn't exist!

>>4330676
>piclet
:^)
Seriously, just post a photo you've taken in the past week or two, it's really not that hard.
Doesn't need to be a crazy special composition or subject.
I want to see what I may be missing or doing wrong, and what good editing looks like.

File: 8x10-3ygmb8.jpg (3.07 MB, 3000x2400)

3.07 MB JPG

Its just not a very good photo man

>>4330675
>1/1000
1/2000 for safety, whaddabout that magic canon high iso huh

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS R6m2
Camera Software	Capture One Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Exposure Time	1/800 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	1 EV
Subject Distance	13.76 m
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	400.00 mm
Image Width	3000
Image Height	2400
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: 8x-3ygmb8.jpg (3.61 MB, 3000x2400)

3.61 MB JPG

>>4330678
Hmmm, too fuji

Now we're cookin

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS R6m2
Camera Software	GIMP 2.10.34
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:06:29 13:58:38
Exposure Time	1/800 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	1 EV
Subject Distance	13.76 m
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	400.00 mm
Image Width	3000
Image Height	2400
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4330678
>Its just not a very good photo man
agreed, it's okay at best.
Lol yah I can try going to 1/2000 if light permits, will say for the edit it was a lot warmer WB wise due to the sun setting, but there's no way for you to know that since you weren't there.
Mind sharing the light values you set for that?
I do like the cropping on that a lot better than what I did.

File: mysides.gif (1.96 MB, 615x413)

1.96 MB GIF

>>4330679
>the kenrockwell.com sig
12/10 edit thank you for showing me the ways sensei

>>4330680
Mostly it's just overexposed (but not blown) and your white balance was wrong (daylight is 5200-5600 no tints ever)

>>4330683
>no tints ever
Oh fuck, think LRC applies that automatically, didn't even think about that, I'm retarded. I'll have to keep that in mind as checking the raw it shows +14/+15 for the ones I took that day
>5200-5600
So for sunsets with a lot of orange cast, should I follow that same rule?
WB changes for let's say birds against the sky I usually go cooler on the WB side in general.
Being 100% serious, this is great feedback and advice.

>>4330678
>>4330679
>cranks saturation and sharpening as a joke
>it actually looks better
ken was right

>>4330684
>he doesnt know
Tint is for artificial lighting. Green and magenta gels are used to match different lights to daylight balanced film. AWB adds magenta at random if there’s green things and green if there’s magenta things (like skin tones)

>>4330689
That's helpful, to be honest I've been more focused on exposure/histogram that I didn't even realize the tint setting should be set to 0.
Like I said, I'm retarded lmao. Learned a lot the past 4-5 months, but still don't know shit.
>>4330687
Unironically there's a couple of his images where it actually makes it more interesting instead of the completely fried stuff he does. Like his lightpost ones it's actually pleasant.

File: 3ygmb8.jpg (2.95 MB, 5206x3471)

2.95 MB JPG

>>4330679
This is the best by far topkek

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	DxO PhotoLab 7.4
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:06:29 14:23:25
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	5206
Image Height	3471

File: 3ygmb8.jpg (3.27 MB, 5206x3471)

3.27 MB JPG

>>4330691
turd polishing for turds

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	DxO PhotoLab 7.4
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:06:29 14:31:44
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	5206
Image Height	3471

>>4330690
>4-5 months
You don't say
>I'm retarded
Oh sorry, I didn't know you were actually mentally disabled. Would have been nicer had I known about your special challenges. Again best of luck! (I mean it this time)

>>4330694
Nah not actually a rere, but that's valuable feedback and I appreciate that cause I learned something.
95% of this board is just saying "it's shit" or "cause you're using x camera/lens/whatever", for example when I was asking about the blur on the birds, I was being genuine, I was only paying attention to the eye focus and making sure they were good until either you or the other anon pointed out the difference in sharpness on the head vs chest feathers. That's something I need to pay attention to and a good tell about shutterspeed being either too low for that subject or me messing up with my handholding technique.
When I take people shooting for the first time(pew pews not cameras) or doing precision shooting, I don't just say they're shit when shooting, I give advice and demonstrate it based on what I see.
It's a big issue with /k/ and this board in general when the majority of people just giving blanket shit statements without demonstrating the why.

Sincerely, have a good one mang.

>>4330693
>Water
>That's blue instead of green
Why didn't I think of that

>>4330650
>should have stopped down
Wut
f/8 is plenty, you just missed.

>>4330699
Why didn't canon's legendary colorists think of that? Canon blues have always been weird as fuck
>then: dark indigo
>now: light cyan?
Probably has something to do with the way veins show on asian women since canon colors have always been about making japanese girls look like dark haired swedes