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

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.

08/21/20New boards added: /vrpg/, /vmg/, /vst/ and /vm/
05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
[Hide] [Show All]


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: _MG_1184.jpg (1.89 MB, 1000x1500)
1.89 MB
1.89 MB JPG
Get back out there edition.
>>
File: Original.jpg (155 KB, 2500x1250)
155 KB
155 KB JPG
>>
>>4457780
>Get back out there
I know dude. It's been a month. I'm lazy.
>>
File: _MG_1203.jpg (773 KB, 1500x1000)
773 KB
773 KB JPG
>>4457784
I didn't want trouble finding me again. Played safe.
>>
File: _MG_1218.jpg (1.49 MB, 1000x1500)
1.49 MB
1.49 MB JPG
>>
File: FXE36019.jpg (1.52 MB, 1769x2654)
1.52 MB
1.52 MB JPG
>>
File: FXE36016.jpg (2.78 MB, 5769x3248)
2.78 MB
2.78 MB JPG
>>
File: _MG_1423.jpg (1.55 MB, 1500x1000)
1.55 MB
1.55 MB JPG
>>
File: _MG_1360.jpg (2.09 MB, 1500x1000)
2.09 MB
2.09 MB JPG
>>
File: _MG_1449.jpg (1.24 MB, 1500x1000)
1.24 MB
1.24 MB JPG
>>
File: _MG_1469.jpg (1.25 MB, 1205x1000)
1.25 MB
1.25 MB JPG
>>
File: P1420059.jpg (1.66 MB, 2400x1599)
1.66 MB
1.66 MB JPG
>>
File: _MG_1746.jpg (1.98 MB, 1000x1500)
1.98 MB
1.98 MB JPG
You gotta embrace noise sooner or later.
>>
File: 096A4943.jpg (1.67 MB, 5760x3840)
1.67 MB
1.67 MB JPG
full moon maybe not the best for this
>>
File: IMGP6516.jpg (2.93 MB, 2100x1465)
2.93 MB
2.93 MB JPG
the Lord's chosen
>>
>>4457782
sony
haha
>>
>>4457845
Never!

>>4457806
Really nice one.
>>
File: DSC00214(1).jpg (1.25 MB, 2476x1651)
1.25 MB
1.25 MB JPG
>>
>>4457845
how do i achieve noise
>>
>>4457856
I've become sensitive to the weird artifacts from taking photos through fences more.
>>
File: 1.jpg (911 KB, 1000x669)
911 KB
911 KB JPG
>>
File: 045.jpg (4.59 MB, 2768x1846)
4.59 MB
4.59 MB JPG
>>
>>4457870
graffiti is so unaesthetic
>>
>>4457991
You just don't understand Western city culture (shitting up everything).
>>
File: delta.jpg (4.29 MB, 3570x3549)
4.29 MB
4.29 MB JPG
>>
File: southwest.jpg (3.97 MB, 3318x5000)
3.97 MB
3.97 MB JPG
>>4457998
>>
File: needles.jpg (3.39 MB, 5000x3360)
3.39 MB
3.39 MB JPG
>>4457999
>>
File: prickly pear.jpg (4.78 MB, 5000x3366)
4.78 MB
4.78 MB JPG
>>4458000
>>
File: solar cat.jpg (4.36 MB, 5000x3343)
4.36 MB
4.36 MB JPG
>>4458001
>>
File: flamingo hair.jpg (4.39 MB, 2370x3560)
4.39 MB
4.39 MB JPG
>>4458002
>>
File: pink light room.jpg (4.67 MB, 2370x3600)
4.67 MB
4.67 MB JPG
>>4458003
>>
File: fatburger challenge wall.jpg (4.25 MB, 3555x2370)
4.25 MB
4.25 MB JPG
>>4458004
>>
File: Lilies.jpg (2.82 MB, 2304x1728)
2.82 MB
2.82 MB JPG
>>
>>4458003
lol
neat
>>
File: IMG_9996.jpg (3.95 MB, 5184x3456)
3.95 MB
3.95 MB JPG
>>
>>4457832
>>4457989
>>4458002
very nice.

>>4458007
good!
>>
File: DSC_9208 copy.jpg (1.89 MB, 2242x1212)
1.89 MB
1.89 MB JPG
Lovely sunny day in Landan
>>
File: 1000022987.jpg (3.14 MB, 4000x2251)
3.14 MB
3.14 MB JPG
>>
File: ACR00581.jpg (2.5 MB, 5715x3214)
2.5 MB
2.5 MB JPG
>>
>>4458037
kek all those people raising their arms to take phone snapshits make me think they're doing the heil
>>
>>4457991
I think it's part of living in a medium sized city. Sadly, not much to do about it.
>>
File: 100S9813.jpg (2.47 MB, 3000x3000)
2.47 MB
2.47 MB JPG
>>
File: 1754821452387532_c.jpg (885 KB, 1020x1020)
885 KB
885 KB JPG
>>4458093
dont wanna be the guy but you should color correct your scans bud
>>
File: 1734119037477508.jpg (952 KB, 2700x1800)
952 KB
952 KB JPG
Does this look ridiculous? I'm never satisfied with my sunsets.
>>
>>4458162
Idk 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.
>>
File: 100S7043.jpg (1.31 MB, 3000x2000)
1.31 MB
1.31 MB JPG
>>4458096
two questions: why? and how?
>>4458162
bit garish to me, but i have a tough time with sunsets too
>>
>>4458181
what do you mean why?
use the curves tool
>>
File: DSC00293(1).jpg (796 KB, 1651x2476)
796 KB
796 KB JPG
>>
>>4458168
>>4458181
Thank you. I'll keep these things in mind.
>>
File: Lovey's-Landing-BW-small.jpg (553 KB, 1029x1440)
553 KB
553 KB JPG
I don't have a recent one handy, but I do have a recent B&W conversion from an old Snoy PNS.
>>
File: 1754400425159521.jpg (2.92 MB, 1333x2000)
2.92 MB
2.92 MB JPG
>>
File: crowd.jpg (4.16 MB, 4288x2848)
4.16 MB
4.16 MB JPG
>>
File: view2.jpg (4.8 MB, 4288x2848)
4.8 MB
4.8 MB JPG
>>
File: lovely dog.jpg (178 KB, 745x1016)
178 KB
178 KB JPG
>>
File: _DSC0048a.jpg (114 KB, 900x600)
114 KB
114 KB JPG
>>
>>
File: R0001069.jpg (4.79 MB, 6000x3000)
4.79 MB
4.79 MB JPG
>>
File: R0001068.jpg (4.07 MB, 5000x4000)
4.07 MB
4.07 MB JPG
>>
File: ACR00632.jpg (4.66 MB, 4409x2483)
4.66 MB
4.66 MB JPG
>>
File: 100S7048.jpg (1.3 MB, 3000x2000)
1.3 MB
1.3 MB JPG
>>4458192
ah! thanks i forgot curves tool can adjust colors channels, not just tone
i mean why correct?
>>4458314
this pic has two things i like: backlit plants and dramatic clouds
>>
File: 25-08-09-DSC_0289-4k_1.jpg (3.86 MB, 4096x2731)
3.86 MB
3.86 MB JPG
which wan

this
or kenrockwell.com https://files.catbox.moe/rlxe05.jpg
>>
File: ACR00637.jpg (2.58 MB, 5776x3245)
2.58 MB
2.58 MB JPG
>>
>>4458328
holy shit a ufo
>>
File: ACR00636~2.jpg (998 KB, 4869x3244)
998 KB
998 KB JPG
>>4458329
Heh, 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 better
Many such cases
>>
File: ACR00637~2.jpg (1.72 MB, 6201x4121)
1.72 MB
1.72 MB JPG
>>4458336
Different frame / focal length. Here's the non cropped version of the other frame.
>>
File: DSC_6464.jpg (588 KB, 1486x1486)
588 KB
588 KB JPG
I took photos of fireworks
>>
File: DSC_6467.jpg (283 KB, 1394x1394)
283 KB
283 KB JPG
>>4458352
>>
File: DSC_6471.jpg (428 KB, 1448x1448)
428 KB
428 KB JPG
>>4458353
>>
File: DSC_6494.jpg (718 KB, 1484x2464)
718 KB
718 KB JPG
>>4458355
>>
File: DSC_6495.jpg (633 KB, 1640x2464)
633 KB
633 KB JPG
>>4458356
>>
File: P8100320_08.jpg (2.76 MB, 4608x3456)
2.76 MB
2.76 MB JPG
>>
File: P8100310_01.jpg (3.2 MB, 4608x3456)
3.2 MB
3.2 MB JPG
>>4458361
>>
File: P8100346_01.jpg (2.14 MB, 4563x3397)
2.14 MB
2.14 MB JPG
>>4458362
>>
File: P8100306_01.jpg (1.77 MB, 4315x3021)
1.77 MB
1.77 MB JPG
>>4458363
>>
File: P8100287.jpg (3.4 MB, 4545x3372)
3.4 MB
3.4 MB JPG
>>4458364
>>
>>4458319
>i mean why correct?
to get rid of the color casts? sorry but are you color blind and dont see the reds?
>>
File: 100S9436.jpg (3.61 MB, 4000x3000)
3.61 MB
3.61 MB JPG
>>4458374
yeah i see it and it looks awesome
>>
>>4458374
I am and dont lol
>>
File: 1754373690332044.jpg (1.94 MB, 1333x2000)
1.94 MB
1.94 MB JPG
>>
>>4458327
>>4458491
Do you people edit on HDR monitors?
>>
File: 100S7116.jpg (1.49 MB, 3000x2000)
1.49 MB
1.49 MB JPG
>>4458390
why are you answering for me after i already replied?
>>
>>4458168
>>4458037
Very 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
>>
>>4458498
No. Why?
>>
>>4458194
Mine is bigger
>>
>>4458500
Wasn't to answer for you, I just had no idea there was reds in there
>>
File: dfgfg.jpg (1.11 MB, 1359x906)
1.11 MB
1.11 MB JPG
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.
>>
>>4458553
Fried his hearing with earphones I guess.
>>
>>4458553
A snipers dream
>>
>>4458553
Looks 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
>>
>>4458604
Just 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.
>>
>>4458624
I 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.
>>
>>4458617
Won't be an issue when Adobe adds AI race correction.
>>
File: egg-lint-ir-lit.jpg (233 KB, 2424x1275)
233 KB
233 KB JPG
>>
>>4458604
>>4458608
NTA. 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.
>>
>>4457823
nice pic
>>4457825
sex
>>4457832
cozy
>>4457999
Nice!
>>4458096
much better
>>4458247
nice
>>4458292
pretty
>>4458364
shame its out of focus/loss of file size for 4chan
>>
File: _MG_1514.jpg (1.4 MB, 1020x1000)
1.4 MB
1.4 MB JPG
>>
File: _MG_1527.jpg (770 KB, 1500x1000)
770 KB
770 KB JPG
>>
File: _MG_1679.jpg (660 KB, 1521x1000)
660 KB
660 KB JPG
>>
File: DSCF2613.jpg (1.19 MB, 1333x2000)
1.19 MB
1.19 MB JPG
>>
File: DSCF3842(1).jpg (2.34 MB, 1687x3000)
2.34 MB
2.34 MB JPG
>>
File: DSCF3774.jpg (4.33 MB, 4000x2666)
4.33 MB
4.33 MB JPG
>>
File: 1000013542.jpg (3.52 MB, 4064x4065)
3.52 MB
3.52 MB JPG
>>
File: 1000013505.jpg (3.79 MB, 4000x2667)
3.79 MB
3.79 MB JPG
>>
File: 1000013790.jpg (632 KB, 955x1434)
632 KB
632 KB JPG
>>
File: 1000013788 (1).jpg (781 KB, 1561x1040)
781 KB
781 KB JPG
>>
do i have potential?
>>
File: DSC06070.jpg (304 KB, 1067x1600)
304 KB
304 KB JPG
>>
File: DSC06042.jpg (574 KB, 1067x1600)
574 KB
574 KB JPG
>>
File: NZF_6693.jpg (115 KB, 1736x1255)
115 KB
115 KB JPG
>>4457851
Yeah, let's hope for good weather in two weeks time.
>>
>>4458728
visible 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.
>>
>>
File: 192A9938_05.jpg (2.63 MB, 6112x3438)
2.63 MB
2.63 MB JPG
Tried something new and played around with the color balance RGB tab in Darktable this time. Not sure if I overdid it.
>>
File: 192A9919_06.jpg (4.42 MB, 6976x3924)
4.42 MB
4.42 MB JPG
>>4458850
>>
>>4458635
Ty for saying my dog is pretty, made my day
>>
File: P8100305.jpg (2.05 MB, 4515x3327)
2.05 MB
2.05 MB JPG
>>4458635
>shame its out of focus/loss of file size for 4chan
yeah it's just out of focus i think, i barely know how to use a camera
>>
>>4458936
cool area
go inside and take flash photos
>>
File: 08731.jpg (2 MB, 3681x5521)
2 MB
2 MB JPG
>>
File: IMG_7385.jpg (573 KB, 1818x1228)
573 KB
573 KB JPG
>>
>>4458515
Kek
>>
>>4458988
bruh this is the state of street photography
>>
Newfriend here, what do you guys use for editing your photos?
>>
File: DSC00370(1).jpg (809 KB, 1586x2379)
809 KB
809 KB JPG
>>
File: DSC00362(1).jpg (836 KB, 1651x2476)
836 KB
836 KB JPG
>>
File: DSC00339(1).jpg (1.47 MB, 2476x1651)
1.47 MB
1.47 MB JPG
>>4459002
samsung's gallery on my phone
>>
>>4459002
Lightroom, always. Don't bother paying for it, find other way
>>
Dmping pics I took recently
>>
File: 1000014070_edited.jpg (3.41 MB, 2667x3999)
3.41 MB
3.41 MB JPG
>>4459057
By recently I mean today
>>
File: 1000014058_edited.jpg (3.05 MB, 2667x4000)
3.05 MB
3.05 MB JPG
>>4459057
>>
File: 1000014066_edited.jpg (3.22 MB, 4000x2667)
3.22 MB
3.22 MB JPG
>>4459057
.
>>
File: 1000014075_edited.jpg (3.86 MB, 2667x4000)
3.86 MB
3.86 MB JPG
>>4459057
..
>>
File: 1000014062_edited.jpg (2.49 MB, 2667x4000)
2.49 MB
2.49 MB JPG
>>4459057
>>
File: 1000014064_edited.jpg (3.1 MB, 2667x4000)
3.1 MB
3.1 MB JPG
>>4459057
.
>>
File: NZF_6517.jpg (223 KB, 1067x1600)
223 KB
223 KB JPG
>>
File: 00394ch.jpg (1.45 MB, 2048x1365)
1.45 MB
1.45 MB JPG
>>
>>4459096
neat
>>
>>4459068
great pic but the repulsive fat elephant in your frame ruins it
>>
File: P8121901.jpg (4.25 MB, 3000x4000)
4.25 MB
4.25 MB JPG
>>
File: R001009.jpg (2.97 MB, 5618x3083)
2.97 MB
2.97 MB JPG
>>
File: image.jpg (3.14 MB, 5690x3012)
3.14 MB
3.14 MB JPG
idk about the colours
>>
>>
File: ACR00707.jpg (732 KB, 2615x1745)
732 KB
732 KB JPG
>>
File: _MG_2002.jpg (890 KB, 1000x1433)
890 KB
890 KB JPG
>>
File: ACR00723.jpg (2.03 MB, 2746x1825)
2.03 MB
2.03 MB JPG
>>
File: ACR00725.jpg (836 KB, 1566x1045)
836 KB
836 KB JPG
>>
File: 250813026.jpg (3.52 MB, 1800x2400)
3.52 MB
3.52 MB JPG
>>
File: IMG_9895-2.jpg (4.7 MB, 4521x3014)
4.7 MB
4.7 MB JPG
Only sony I saw on my trip belonged to an indian. Only nikon i saw belonged to a monopod boomer
>>
File: ACR00736.jpg (1.46 MB, 5618x3163)
1.46 MB
1.46 MB JPG
>>
>>4459212
Let me guess, everyone else had a lolympus.
>>
File: ACR00740.jpg (4.02 MB, 4223x2376)
4.02 MB
4.02 MB JPG
>>
>>4459215
Actually now that I think about it I did see one girl with an em10 and kit lens
>>
>>4459212
Nikon is an expensive brand for people who know cameras

Canon is what the NFL photographers use so normies just buy it
>>
File: IMG_9944-2s.jpg (2.22 MB, 3466x5199)
2.22 MB
2.22 MB JPG
>>4459212
>>
>>4459218
Uh yeah nope.
>>
>>4459220
It's accurate.

I wouldn't bring a nikon on a safari. They're simply too expensive.
>>
File: ACR00754.jpg (653 KB, 1123x1400)
653 KB
653 KB JPG
>>4459218
And Sony is an expensive camera for people who know cameras, AND get paid to use them.
>>
>>4459222
Sony is just canon with worse support and slightly better mtf charts and slightly smaller lenses
>>
File: ACR00750.jpg (389 KB, 1696x1128)
389 KB
389 KB JPG
>>4459224
>>4459221
>>4459218
> two nofotos arguing over which camera they can't afford the most.
Grim.
>>
>>4459219
>>4459221
Yeah I wouldn't bring a nikon either lol
>>
File: IMG_0042-3s.jpg (2.25 MB, 5616x3744)
2.25 MB
2.25 MB JPG
>>
Every nikon body with good autofocus for snapping wild animals is at least $2k
Every good nikon telephoto lens is at least $2k

Why the fuck is nikon so expensive
>>
File: ACR00756.jpg (514 KB, 1328x889)
514 KB
514 KB JPG
>>4459229
Boomer gatekeeping
>>
>>4459228
>ancient dog that barely moves
>nose still out of focus
>>
>>4459233
You don't focus on the nose you focus on the eyes
>>
>>4459233
nigga your nose is out of focus
>>
>>4459232
Which 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.
>>
File: 100S8078.jpg (2.42 MB, 3000x2000)
2.42 MB
2.42 MB JPG
>>4459228
giwtwm
>>4458542
oh 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"
>>
>>4459242
Pick an angle, use your vision and make the image how you wanna make it
retarded nophoto niggers can garn get fucked
>>
>>4459242
we need a sign for the newfags that says
DON’T FEED THE TROLL
>>
File: DSCF4134(1).jpg (2.42 MB, 2000x3000)
2.42 MB
2.42 MB JPG
>>
File: DSCF4132(1).jpg (927 KB, 1999x3000)
927 KB
927 KB JPG
>>
File: 250813028.jpg (3.38 MB, 1800x2400)
3.38 MB
3.38 MB JPG
>>4459210
>>
File: 250813032.jpg (1.93 MB, 1800x2400)
1.93 MB
1.93 MB JPG
>>4459295
>>
>>4459295
> He's filming me again isn't he?
>>
>>4459201
>>4459206
oh yeah
that's the stuff
>>
>>4459281
I 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.
>>
>>4459242
Skill issue
>>
File: DSC06214.jpg (763 KB, 1960x1307)
763 KB
763 KB JPG
>>
File: NIKON Z 8_40mm f-1.2_0_3.jpg (274 KB, 2000x1600)
274 KB
274 KB JPG
Taken before a monsoon earlier in the week
>>
File: DSCF3071-2.jpg (851 KB, 3500x2333)
851 KB
851 KB JPG
>>
>>4459363
pretty
>>
File: ACR00763.jpg (2.16 MB, 5920x3333)
2.16 MB
2.16 MB JPG
>>
File: 1000023362.jpg (3.4 MB, 4000x2252)
3.4 MB
3.4 MB JPG
>>
File: 1lSbnJ3.jpg (1.47 MB, 3448x3754)
1.47 MB
1.47 MB JPG
>>
>>4459470
forgot text
first time posting here
>>
File: FXE36078.jpg (2.32 MB, 6000x3378)
2.32 MB
2.32 MB JPG
>>
File: PSX_20250814_232415.jpg (2.72 MB, 1333x2000)
2.72 MB
2.72 MB JPG
>>
>>4459363
What the fuck are you doing on 4chan when you can produce things like this?

>>4459296
Doggos are always 10/10
>>
File: PSX_20250815_003458.jpg (2.11 MB, 2000x1333)
2.11 MB
2.11 MB JPG
>>4459477
>>
>>4459478
>What the fuck are you doing on 4chan when you can produce things like this?
fr
>>
File: bma web.jpg (4.33 MB, 3008x2000)
4.33 MB
4.33 MB JPG
>>
File: DSCF2951 1.jpg (268 KB, 1080x720)
268 KB
268 KB JPG
>>4459477
I'm bored of Instagram and its algorithm, of photo contests and their judges, of the mainstream
>>
File: DSC00359(1).jpg (1.18 MB, 1651x2476)
1.18 MB
1.18 MB JPG
>>
File: DSC00360(1).jpg (674 KB, 1651x2476)
674 KB
674 KB JPG
>>
File: DSC00366(1).jpg (757 KB, 1651x2476)
757 KB
757 KB JPG
>>
File: DSC00394(1)(1).jpg (484 KB, 1603x2404)
484 KB
484 KB JPG
>>
File: IMG_1978.jpg (3.09 MB, 4007x6012)
3.09 MB
3.09 MB JPG
>>
File: DSCF3620(1).jpg (3.37 MB, 2394x3000)
3.37 MB
3.37 MB JPG
>>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 loft
anyway here is a few more examples of that film simulation recipe
>>
>>4459607
this 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
>>
File: DSCF3622(1).jpg (2.73 MB, 2399x3000)
2.73 MB
2.73 MB JPG
>>4459607
>>
File: DSCF3750(1).jpg (2.5 MB, 1999x3000)
2.5 MB
2.5 MB JPG
>>4459609
im not a huge fan of it myself, i hardly ever use this recipe or other very warm recipes myself
this one does work nice on sandstone buildings and clouds though
>>
File: DSCF3663(1).jpg (3.79 MB, 2493x3000)
3.79 MB
3.79 MB JPG
>>4459607
>>
File: DSCF3819(2).jpg (4.32 MB, 4000x2857)
4.32 MB
4.32 MB JPG
>>4459607
last 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!
>>
>>4459618
fuck me that’s nice color grading
are these LUTs proprietary?
>>
>>4459544
it’s hard being a misunderstood genius
you’ll fit right in here m80
>>
>>4459618
Darude - sandstorm ass color grading
>>
>>4459625
fujifilm magic
>>
>>4459625
it'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
>>
>>4459637
if you think you can replicate fuji colour science with a lightroom preset and some sliders you're a fucking idiot.
>>
File: DSCF7687.jpg (1.74 MB, 1600x1067)
1.74 MB
1.74 MB JPG
>>4459627
Hahahaha. 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 science
Why would anyone ever want to do that lol. Fuji's colours are muted and the palette crushes black. Their colour science is gross.
>>
>>4459658
gr8 b8
>>
File: P8121920.jpg (1.52 MB, 2655x4000)
1.52 MB
1.52 MB JPG
>>
>>4459657
I’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.
>>
>>4459649
What’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.
>>
>>4459617
this 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
>>
File: DSCF3873.jpg (735 KB, 1280x854)
735 KB
735 KB JPG
streetlamps
and edges of buildings like god intended cameras to be used
>>
File: DSCF3888.jpg (966 KB, 1280x854)
966 KB
966 KB JPG
>>4459740
>>
>>4459711
Film 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.
>>
File: IMG_9940_.jpg (3.22 MB, 5055x3370)
3.22 MB
3.22 MB JPG
>>4458553
Luv me Metrolink, simple as
>>
File: leaf-ir-full.jpg (995 KB, 4896x3264)
995 KB
995 KB JPG
>>
>>4459747
>xtrans has less chroma noise
it doesnt
it has chroma smoothing baked into most conversion processes because it has more false color

if 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 removed
In 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)
>>
>>4459838
The inaccuracy comes from the array, not the processing of that array
I do agree any capable editor can get whatever colors they want out of Fuji (or any other brand)
>>
>>4459845
No 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?
>>
>>4459854
The vast majority of them, because most high end photography is fashion/portraiture. Anyone using hasselblad/phaseone definitely does. Do your own research.
>>
File: P8111799.jpg (2.52 MB, 3000x4000)
2.52 MB
2.52 MB JPG
Meanwhile, 4chan rangebanned my home ISP again.
>>
>>4459296
Our dogs look similar, But mine is large lol. Good photo,happy.
>>
File: 2deer-ir-bright.jpg (380 KB, 1958x1306)
380 KB
380 KB JPG
urban wildlife ir
>>
>>4459916
Your dog is fat and needs brushed
>>
>>4459921
Yeah, both are true. Ive really fucked it up.
>>
>>4459281
reminds me of that BF1 map
>>
>>4459854
Nope, Fuji aps x-trans good enough for vogue, should be good enough for anyone here
>>
>>4460022
im 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 tabloid
fucking 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 skill

vogues 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 standar
but fujifilm is massively popular with hobbyists?
>>
>>4460122
>hobbyists
Normies. 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 popular
lolno. 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.

>>4460421
he'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).
>>
>>4460433
Fuji 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.
>>
>>4460436
People 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.
>>
>>4460427
imo 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
>>
>>4460460
This.
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.
>>
>>4460460
It'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
>>
>>4457782
Why are those people seemingly, calmly transforming into some sort of super-Saiyan Shrek?
>>
>>4458065
can't see about 40% of your photo but that's a nice-looking sky
>>
>>4460852
Originally posted as "which shots are from Sony" because people bring up the Sony green so often
Someone else made it all green for the memes

No 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
>>
>>4458181
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.

>>4458319
Better. Still lots of artifacts - especially on the black of his shirt.

>>4458689
I 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.

>>4459186
Very good. Best in the thread.

>>4459363
I'd like to have seen a tight crop to get the people with cellphones out of the shot.

Everything else is snapshot tier.
>>
>>4460855
As 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 shirt
noted. i wanted the first one to be gray since it was quite overcast. thakns for the tips



[Advertise on 4chan]

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.