Get back out there edition.
>>4457780>Get back out thereI know dude. It's been a month. I'm lazy.
>>4457784I didn't want trouble finding me again. Played safe.
You gotta embrace noise sooner or later.
full moon maybe not the best for this
the Lord's chosen
>>4457782sony haha
>>4457845Never!>>4457806Really nice one.
>>4457845how do i achieve noise
>>4457856I've become sensitive to the weird artifacts from taking photos through fences more.
>>4457870graffiti is so unaesthetic
>>4457991You just don't understand Western city culture (shitting up everything).
>>4457998
>>4457999
>>4458000
>>4458001
>>4458002
>>4458003
>>4458004
>>4458003lolneat
>>4457832>>4457989>>4458002very nice.>>4458007good!
Lovely sunny day in Landan
>>4458037kek all those people raising their arms to take phone snapshits make me think they're doing the heil
>>4457991I think it's part of living in a medium sized city. Sadly, not much to do about it.
>>4458093dont wanna be the guy but you should color correct your scans bud
Does this look ridiculous? I'm never satisfied with my sunsets.
>>4458162Idk how I feel about the foreground being almost completely crushed, as in, I'd either want it absolutely crushed or brough up a bit for detail.The long exposure on the right with the car lights adds something interesting to the frame, but it could be longer and not as intense (slower shutter for same exposure).The sky itself is kind of bleh. The colours above the treeline are nice, and give a good contrast to the rest of the bluer sky, but most of the sky is just a grey washout.It's nice in a way, but I also wouldn't be completely satisfied with it either. I'd maybe want to zoom in and lessen the amount of featureless sky, or go back when the cloud coverage isn't so thick. Bring a GND if you want the foreground to be detailed.
>>4458096two questions: why? and how?>>4458162bit garish to me, but i have a tough time with sunsets too
>>4458181what do you mean why?use the curves tool
>>4458168>>4458181Thank you. I'll keep these things in mind.
I don't have a recent one handy, but I do have a recent B&W conversion from an old Snoy PNS.
>>4458192ah! thanks i forgot curves tool can adjust colors channels, not just tonei mean why correct?>>4458314this pic has two things i like: backlit plants and dramatic clouds
which wanthisor kenrockwell.com https://files.catbox.moe/rlxe05.jpg
>>4458328holy shit a ufo
>>4458329Heh, I wish! Sadly, it appears to be "just" a leftover chunk of a different colored cloud in the scene that I cropped out.
>>4458332>Uncropped photo is betterMany such cases
>>4458336Different frame / focal length. Here's the non cropped version of the other frame.
I took photos of fireworks
>>4458352
>>4458353
>>4458355
>>4458356
>>4458361
>>4458362
>>4458363
>>4458364
>>4458319>i mean why correct?to get rid of the color casts? sorry but are you color blind and dont see the reds?
>>4458374yeah i see it and it looks awesome
>>4458374I am and dont lol
>>4458327>>4458491Do you people edit on HDR monitors?
>>4458390why are you answering for me after i already replied?
>>4458168>>4458037Very important photo contest. We need judges if you wouldn't mind placing a vote. Everyone is welcome to vote, but I was hoping the trips could be the main judges to avoid any shenanigans.>>4458499
>>4458498No. Why?
>>4458194Mine is bigger
>>4458500Wasn't to answer for you, I just had no idea there was reds in there
Just a random shot I took in Manchester a few days ago. Its pretty crap, but I STILL want to know whats going on with that guys head.
>>4458553Fried his hearing with earphones I guess.
>>4458553A snipers dream
>>4458553Looks like heat shimmer from the asphalt to me. You can see it affecting the lampposts and pretty much everything else as well.
newbie here. Feedback welcomed, especially on editing
>>4458604Just needed a little higher shutter speed/higher ISO to get those wings frozen. Maybe add some brightness.
>>4458037>25% white at best
>>4458617>100% tourists
>>4458622>why it's 25% white instead of a whopping 36%You're a good poster but this is cope.
>>4458624I literally lived in London for 6 years. Londons about 60% chalkasians. The stats say 53~ but that doesn't account for people who commute in and students. Yeah I would agree though, 60% is too low, but, you know the civil wars probably coming, that might change.The sample area you're griping about here is literally 100% tourist.
>>4458617Won't be an issue when Adobe adds AI race correction.
>>4458604>>4458608NTA. agree on brightness, but I disagree about the higher shutter speed. sometimes varying from the standard and reminding the viewer that a moving object is indeed in motion can add to the image.
>>4457823nice pic>>4457825sex>>4457832cozy>>4457999Nice!>>4458096much better>>4458247nice>>4458292pretty>>4458364shame its out of focus/loss of file size for 4chan
do i have potential?
>>4457851Yeah, let's hope for good weather in two weeks time.
>>4458728visible halos along the tree edges, composition is unbalanced, the large dark mass on the left dominating and the subject (the bridge?) pushed too far into the background without a clear visual lead-in. bright sky pulls attention away without offering meaningful detail, and the mid-ground feels cluttered.
Tried something new and played around with the color balance RGB tab in Darktable this time. Not sure if I overdid it.
>>4458850
>>4458635Ty for saying my dog is pretty, made my day
>>4458635>shame its out of focus/loss of file size for 4chanyeah it's just out of focus i think, i barely know how to use a camera
>>4458936cool areago inside and take flash photos
>>4458515Kek
>>4458988bruh this is the state of street photography
Newfriend here, what do you guys use for editing your photos?
>>4459002samsung's gallery on my phone
>>4459002Lightroom, always. Don't bother paying for it, find other way
Dmping pics I took recently
>>4459057By recently I mean today
>>4459057
>>4459057.
>>4459057..
>>4459096neat
>>4459068great pic but the repulsive fat elephant in your frame ruins it
idk about the colours
Only sony I saw on my trip belonged to an indian. Only nikon i saw belonged to a monopod boomer
>>4459212Let me guess, everyone else had a lolympus.
>>4459215Actually now that I think about it I did see one girl with an em10 and kit lens
>>4459212Nikon is an expensive brand for people who know camerasCanon is what the NFL photographers use so normies just buy it
>>4459212
>>4459218Uh yeah nope.
>>4459220It's accurate.I wouldn't bring a nikon on a safari. They're simply too expensive.
>>4459218And Sony is an expensive camera for people who know cameras, AND get paid to use them.
>>4459222Sony is just canon with worse support and slightly better mtf charts and slightly smaller lenses
>>4459224>>4459221>>4459218> two nofotos arguing over which camera they can't afford the most.Grim.
>>4459219>>4459221Yeah I wouldn't bring a nikon either lol
Every nikon body with good autofocus for snapping wild animals is at least $2kEvery good nikon telephoto lens is at least $2kWhy the fuck is nikon so expensive
>>4459229Boomer gatekeeping
>>4459228>ancient dog that barely moves>nose still out of focus
>>4459233You don't focus on the nose you focus on the eyes
>>4459233nigga your nose is out of focus
>>4459232Which is weird cus you'd think they'd take awesome photos considering how much they spent, but they pretty much just look like holiday photos from a bridge camera.
>>4459228giwtwm>>4458542oh lel MMMVT
>>4459233>Eyes in focus>"nose out of focus reee">Nose in focus>"eyes out of focus reee">Increase DoF to get both in focus>"f/32 diffraction reee">Walk backwards to reduce magnification and increase DoF>"Subject too small reee">Zoom in>"nose out of focus reee"
>>4459242Pick an angle, use your vision and make the image how you wanna make itretarded nophoto niggers can garn get fucked
>>4459242we need a sign for the newfags that says DON’T FEED THE TROLL
>>4459210
>>4459295
>>4459295> He's filming me again isn't he?
>>4459201>>4459206oh yeahthat's the stuff
>>4459281I like the color grading on this. Mind sharing a bit how you approached it? Looks like you've got some junk on your lens or sensor, btw.
>>4459242Skill issue
Taken before a monsoon earlier in the week
>>4459363pretty
>>4459470forgot textfirst time posting here
>>4459363What the fuck are you doing on 4chan when you can produce things like this?>>4459296Doggos are always 10/10
>>4459477
>>4459478>What the fuck are you doing on 4chan when you can produce things like this?fr
>>4459477I'm bored of Instagram and its algorithm, of photo contests and their judges, of the mainstream
>>4459303>I like the color grading on this. Mind sharing a bit how you approached it?fujifilm. it's a straight out of camera JPG.it's the pacific blues recipe.https://fujixweekly.com/2022/08/04/fujifilm-x-e4-x-trans-iv-film-simulation-recipe-pacific-blues/p.s theres nothing on my lens, i was shooting through a window in the loftanyway here is a few more examples of that film simulation recipe
>>4459607this magenta tinged stuff is something i sometimes run into while editing and run away from because it only looks passable for building corners at 4pm
>>4459607
>>4459609im not a huge fan of it myself, i hardly ever use this recipe or other very warm recipes myselfthis one does work nice on sandstone buildings and clouds though
>>4459607last one
The cool thing about fuji film recipes is if you note you're using the same recipe I can save them all and slap them into capture one's match look tool in the future :^) free fuji!
>>4459618fuck me that’s nice color gradingare these LUTs proprietary?
>>4459544it’s hard being a misunderstood geniusyou’ll fit right in here m80
>>4459618Darude - sandstorm ass color grading
>>4459625fujifilm magic
>>4459625it's a preset. the $50 preset pack is baked into the price of a fuji, plus an extra $250.You could do similar with cobalt image presets for capture one or snagging a bunch of representative images and playing with match look
>>4459637if you think you can replicate fuji colour science with a lightroom preset and some sliders you're a fucking idiot.
>>4459627Hahahaha. No, I'm just looking for new things to see. Don't you get tired of seeing the same photo taken by different people over and over again?
>>4459649>replicate fuji colour scienceWhy would anyone ever want to do that lol. Fuji's colours are muted and the palette crushes black. Their colour science is gross.
>>4459658gr8 b8
>>4459657I’m tired of taking the same photos I’ve already taken. I’m planning on going to a bunch of events in my area just to see something different. That’s a sick shot btw. Is it a concert? I’ve been thinking about going to plays or dance thingies to photograph the performances, even.
>>4459649What’s so special about Fuji’s color science? Does it go all the way down to the different sensor pattern, leaving replicating the Fuji ‘look’ on Bayer pattern sensors impossible? or what? I don’t understand what’s so special about Fuji’s post-processing that you can’t match it with typical RAW development software.
>>4459617this is nice
>>4459711>What’s so special about Fuji’s color science?it's just really nice. they had a huge amount of data and experience from producing film stocks and then, more importantly, producing scanners to accurately scan the films. theyve put this knowledge and experience into their sensors.also, it's superior to a post process filter because it's done at the sensor level, i.e the parameters being controlled and changed are different. fujifilm film simulations react differently in different light, like film does.
>>4459734>fujifilm film simulations react differently in different light, like film does.neat
streetlampsand edges of buildings like god intended cameras to be used
>>4459740
>>4459711Film sims are just fancy presets.You can absolutely get any Fuji look with any brand + processing.If anything, developers like Dx0 suggest that x-trans has ~10% less color accuracy when all is said and done. X-trans does have a bit less chroma noise too.Doesn't matter at all if you just learn processing, turn any brand into whatever look you want.
>>4458553Luv me Metrolink, simple as
>>4459747>xtrans has less chroma noiseit doesntit has chroma smoothing baked into most conversion processes because it has more false colorif you use darktable or something you can turn this off i think
>>4459817>it doesn't>but it does when using supported software
>>4459826>my camera has zero noise because when i open it in my raw processor the noise is removedIn other words xtrans doesn't actually have color inaccuracy problems (rows without green vs. diagonals without green), the inaccuracy is from preset raw conversion settings to make editing less involved, and a dedicated user can circumvent this and still get normal color accuracy out of fuji (at the cost of having to selectively edit out xtrans' unique aliasing pattern in the many places it occurs)
>>4459838The inaccuracy comes from the array, not the processing of that arrayI do agree any capable editor can get whatever colors they want out of Fuji (or any other brand)
>>4459845No he’s right. The color inaccuracy issues disappear with 3 pass demosaicing but moire comes back with a vengeance.
who gives a shit about colour accuracy?can you name one famous photographer who values colour accuracy?
>>4459854The vast majority of them, because most high end photography is fashion/portraiture. Anyone using hasselblad/phaseone definitely does. Do your own research.
Meanwhile, 4chan rangebanned my home ISP again.
>>4459296Our dogs look similar, But mine is large lol. Good photo,happy.
urban wildlife ir
>>4459916Your dog is fat and needs brushed
>>4459921Yeah, both are true. Ive really fucked it up.
>>4459281reminds me of that BF1 map
>>4459854Nope, Fuji aps x-trans good enough for vogue, should be good enough for anyone here
>>4460022im not paying a premium for fujis shitty autofocus or dogshit build quality no matter how many low quality magazine prints of posed, artificially lit portraits it was good enough for>brand fanboy: BUT PROFESSIONALS!>Professionals: gear is rented, backups on hand, clients pay for everything rental or purchase, every shoot is fully controlled, end product is a toilet paper tabloidfucking hobby prints are held to a higher standard than the trashy, nepotistic, wannabe rock star world of professionals that do not contribute any true unique skillvogues photographers are so disposable and interchangeable annie leibovitz isnt even a photographer anymore. she’s a brand. the actual images are made by a team of 30+ assistants.
>>4460099>fucking hobby prints are held to a higher standarbut fujifilm is massively popular with hobbyists?
>>4460122>hobbyistsNormies. What do they know?
>>4460099>more cope and dishonesty
I don't get why people take pictures of murals. You're just copying someone elses art. At least include something new, like people, interesting lighting or angle, the process of its making, etc.
>>4460122>but fujifilm is massively popularlolno. fujifilm is massively unpopular. almost no one buys it. if you were to step outside there is a 99.9999% chance you would never actually see a non-instax fujifilm camera in person. you would have a great chance of seeing a canon or a sony. singular.influencer shilling is not reality. the internet makes things look bigger than they are to people who don't realize it's a sample size of 9 billion. fuji produces products in limited numbers to sell out and drive hype, and has grown their ILC business from puny to tiny and then hit a plateau. the influencers are now starting to realize fuji is overpriced. the x100vi didnt even fix the grinding autofocus motor. there goes what little sales they did.the only popular fuji product is instax. instax and printer paper are their entire company. they even sold the rights to their film to kodak and the chinese. the majority of people who buy mirrorless cameras buy a sony or canon crop sensor ILC. the minority of people who buy full frame ILCs are basically evenly split between canon/nikon/sony with the share fluctuating meaninglessly year to year.>>4460421he's not coping or being dishonest at all. fujifilm does not make good cameras for the money. if all you do is a4 prints you could get a canon eos m6 and a lightroom preset pack and do the same thing as a fujishit (but with better autofocus).
>>4460433Fuji X had massive success in China, but people there are catching on to the poor af and shitty performance in general. The only segment where Fuji still reigns supreme is MF mirrorless, because DJIsselblad sucks.
>>4460427>thing looks cool / interesting / I want to maybe look at it again some day>take photo to remember it>"durr, why even take a photo of it"Have you faggots unironically forgotten the main reason people use cameras? And I mean like, people, not faggot hipster geartubers or art hoe wannabes.
>>4460436People can take photos of whatever for their own enjoyment for all I care, but why post it here? It's just another full frontal mural, and brings nothing new or to discuss. If the only value of the photo is for your memories, then post another, simple as.
>>4460427imo same for statues and artworks in general. a mere documentary or expository image of an artwork doesn't have much photographic value. unless you're trying to promote the artist or exhibit, you need to do something creative or capture a specific moment, or there's no reason for anyone else to look at it.
>>4460435>Fuji X had massive success in vain NPCs: the country
>>4460460This.My problem with murals specifically is that their surface is completely flat, and it's hard to find a moment during the day where the light does something interesting. With sculptures the light will at least change from moment to moment.
>>4460460It's an area of professional photography nonetheless, my partner works for a major museum system and she coordinates several photographers mostly to take catalogue images of everything in the collection.
>>4460433>more dishonesty
>>4457782Why are those people seemingly, calmly transforming into some sort of super-Saiyan Shrek?
>>4458065can't see about 40% of your photo but that's a nice-looking sky
>>4460852Originally posted as "which shots are from Sony" because people bring up the Sony green so oftenSomeone else made it all green for the memesNo one could pick out the Sony(s) in the original btw, just got>doesn't count if it's edited>the point is you shouldn't have to edit>you should edit, but sony editing requires more extra work
>>4458181Needs more contrast and b&w correction. It's too grey. Also, there are a lot of artifacts that you need to clean up. Often they're not distracting but these are because they're in places where your eyes are going. >>4458319Better. Still lots of artifacts - especially on the black of his shirt.>>4458689I like this, comp is good, but the grad filter is too much. Makes the sky muddy. I'd probably have just ditched the sky all together.>>4459186Very good. Best in the thread.>>4459363I'd like to have seen a tight crop to get the people with cellphones out of the shot.Everything else is snapshot tier.
>>4460855As we speak the 4chan specific sony hate brigade is making shit up in another thread. Are they paid?
>>4460856>Needs more contrast and b&w correction. It's too grey. Also, there are a lot of artifacts that you need to clean up. Often they're not distracting but these are because they're in places where your eyes are going.>Better. Still lots of artifacts - especially on the black of his shirtnoted. i wanted the first one to be gray since it was quite overcast. thakns for the tips
>>4459221lmao I don't work and have 2 nikon's your statement is BS
>>4459229nikon ain't expensive I got 2
