Long Portrait is Long EditionPreviously: >>4474514
>>4476466What color info are you working with on this one ?what do we see if you lift everything up ? I'm very curious
>>4476467idk what that means I dont edit pictures.
>>4476460Sweet cat. Looks right into my soul>>4476464Love the flames above the window
>>4476467Please stop using Plenks. If there is one thing online that triggers me it's that shit.>>4476468Good for you. I suppose you don't save any raws then either?
>>4476502What's a plenk ? sorry for triggering you
>>4476509>What's a plenk ?That's a plenk !The space between the end of your sentence and the punctuation mark. I want to consider that you are trolling, or just being very autistic
>>4476513Yeah I am, and french on top of that
>>4476513I meant autistic, not trolling. And you must have ocd
>>4476513That's the resident instagram-filter-obsessed frenchoid, in french there are whitespaces before punctuation marks containing at least two elements
>>4476514>>4476526What a crazy world. And I thought I had hated the french more than enough, but no, they pull the obsessive plenks just like out of nowhere.
>>4476532Not our fault if anglo "logic" has poisoned everyone's mind, the French standard is much more legible. But I digress.
>>4476535>legibleCome to think of it , the french do lay a lot of purity in their language .But even if they were right , it just looks wrong .
>>4476540You didnt do it rightWe, type like this !We type like this.We type like this ?
>>4476502no I only do jpg cause it doesnt take up as much space on my memory card.
>>4476546The added whitespaces before full stops and commas are quite nice actually, it's probably more legible. We should add it to French
Please don't mind me or my noisy birb, just arguing with some local schizo.
>>4476574doesnt even look like a photo. looks like its made of wax or something stop polishing turds
Oh fuck, he followed me to this thread.Sorry guys, if you want some context you can check the late /wildlife/ + /bpd/That's it for me, I already spent way too much time talking to him.
>>4476582Original looks much better with no fake feather definition, I'm glad he bullied you into posting it.
>>4476583>fake feather definitionnta but I don't see any difference in the feathers, except maybe for a slight loss of detail.
>>4476587The denoised one looks like someone slicked its feathers back with hair gel and a comb, it's very unnatural. It made the downy feathers on the breast way too thick and wiry. There's nothing wrong with a bit of noise. It's a photograph, it happens.
>>4476591I also wouldn't have applied nr on the bird here either but you're being an autist of the wrong kind
>>4476595Maybe you haven't seen enough birds for it to immediately jump out to you as wrong. It's uncanny valley territory and detracts from the photo. Also if there's not enough noticeable difference for someone to point out, why do it to begin with? Looking at images at or close to full resolution isn't pixel-peeping, it's literally looking at the photo. A photo from someone who clearly wants detail, killing that argument completely.Those feathers have tiny ribbed structures that are too fine to see properly here and are nearly translucent. They have a misty appearance at this range... what you would call feathering in Photoshop, aptly named. When you make them this coarse you should be able to see the whole structure but you can't, and what you do see is unnaturally thick and well defined. The scale is completely off. The info wasn't there (which is totally fine since that's what happens over distance) and they have been turned to coarse hairs by AI. If you saw this difference IRL you would have found a new species, it's that big of a deal. AI is shit, keep your precious photos away from it.
>>4476598PP is the #1 killer of ok photos on /p/>install program>move slidersProbably the worst offender for newbs is Darktable but presets in programs of all kinds are bad too because inexperienced people just select some random thing that sounds right
>>4476603I like your shit Burt, but I think this one's a bit too saturated with bad white balance. Could be my phone, idk.
newfag, first time trying to take a meaningful picture, how'd I do? I did some photo manipulation but I just added grain and I don' t know if that's a valid thing to do or not
This is getting funny.>>4476583>>4476598I wouldn't call proving someone wrong as them bullying me, but sure.Let's see if I can bully you into proving me wrong.>A photo from someone who clearly wants detail, killing that argument completely.I denoise images because I want them to have less noise, not additional details, in fact I'm fine losing a bit of detail if it means all of this disgusting-looking noise goes away with it. And the reason I consider noise disgusting is because it's not a natural thing, it wasn't there, it adds nothing to the photo except making it look unnaturally coarse and doubles the file size in the process. The only reason I can think of why someone might want to keep it in is because they have some perverse nostalgia for "noisier days" when you had no options but to live with it. And can you make up your mind, do all of the fake feathers "immediately jump at you" or is there not enough difference to even notice? Here, since you are an expert ornithologist, and like to look at photos at full resolution (which totally isn't pixel peeping).Can you point out those fake AI feathers that jumped at you? Or the ones that are so thicc they basically constitute a different species?Lets measure them in pixels. >>4476602The only sliders moved here are WB (+200) Exposure (+0.5) and in one of the images - Denoise.No presets applied.
Its that time of the month again
What nice long legs you have
Chemtrails expo
>>4476668>Denoise You did that to the left one, amirite?Sweet kisses, where to find that button though?I found an app "Foto mate" which is fairly nice to use, but tablets suck ass for editing. LR I can't afford and I fear the virus. ... capture one is the open source one? Sucks ass of an interface. What to use, Anon. What to uuuuuuuse?
>>4476674I'm fine with pirating, so I just get LR from one of the links monkrus posts on his website (monkrus.ws).This dude's been at it for decades now and no one ever managed to prove that he does anything shady to his releases, unlike others who make repacks of his stuff.That photo is denoised with DxO, which i get from rutracker, specifically from "Гидpoкypицa" author.I find that LR's denoise is good enough for light/medium noise, and DXO PureRaw/PhotoLab works best for bad cases.Duade Paton made a bunch of decent videos about denoising wildlife photos specifically. The reason I consider that photo a "bad case" is because although the base ISO is only 1250, the noise looks terrible in low-light even if the number itself is low, especially on a cropped sensor. A 3600 or even 6400 would look better on a sunny day.I already had to go down to 1/100 (shooting at 800mm equivalent) and still the end result was this dark, even with +0.5 stops in post.
>>4476681One thing I forgot to mention about pirated LR, Photoshop and such - cloud-based AI generation doesn't work here. If you do anything that requires actual AI model to process your image (try to use their new remove tool in LR, for example), the program will complain about license.So in a way, you have protection from evil ai tools destroying the genuinity of your pics, lol.
>>4476668He likes smelling his own farts, you're wasting your time. Never argue with namefags. There's a reason why they use names, they are thirsty for recognition. They don't care about the content of a post they simply seek e-fame
>>4476681Thanks for the link and your explanation. Did I understand you correctly, that a photo taken in daylight with high iso won't have the same noise as a photo taken in low light with lower iso? Given both were correctly exposed
>>4476464the grain looks terrible, the yellow is too saturated and there is a blue cast in the top border for some reason>>4476502learn to protect your highlightsthat's too brightthat's white>>4476516>>4476547terrible framinghalf of some wispy gray clouds along the top edge on the former and a tilted horizon and some chopped-up silhouettes along the bottom edge on the latter>>4476603truly awful coloursi mean maybe squirrels look like they glow blue idk, never saw one irl so I can't say if it's accurate colour but the saturation is too much
>>4476686>too embarrassed of his photos to own them>too insecure and inexperienced to own his words>just safely casts both into the void like a pussyMany such cases. I bet you're ugly too.
Sony a7ii & Sonnar T* 55mm f/1.8f/9.5, 1/30s, ISO-100, AWB, IBIS onI hate EVFs
>>4476704Wrong on all accounts but whatever.
f/8, 1/15s, ISO-100, AWB, IBIS onI love IBIS
>>4476708>whateverExactly. This is the extent of your passion and it shows.
>>4476710See the problem is that I'm not a namefag, so you don't see the stuff I post. Meanwhile all you do is bitch around
>>4476502really good but I would have done just a portrait shot of just the door area, maybe just the pillars either just fully barely framed, or cut them off at the frame and use them as the border, keep it a bit cleaner. the sky and other half cut off arches are distracting from the really cool framing you've done with the door and the path beyond the door with the trees that seem to follow the same lines as the archway.not saying my work is any better or anything. just brain farting out loud. good shot.
No weird grading this time just snail eating flower
Had to touch it up to make the boat stand out
>>4476719Thank you, Anon! I appreciate your feedback. I did it similiar to your suggestion when I was there. Which was exactly today, one year ago. I find this version to have too much foreground, but cropping in without the sky would be a good idea. I find it very difficult to decice which version to pick, when I did several shots of a subject.
>>4476712everyone posts here for a reason you turd, nobody believes you don't like attention or feedback
>>4476700I always have trouble getting a level horizon even with the lines on in the viewfinder. I thought the silhouettes filled in the pic a lil more. I tend to avoid taking pics of people but they walked in front of me after I was taking pics. I wanted to get the boat and the sun but my camera couldnt handle the lighting and the boat is really dark in this one but the sky came out decent imo.
>>4476737Your work can still gather attention by posting anonymously. Using a name means you want the attention to be directed at your person ie you are conceited
>>4476747Man, you zoomers are so broken inside. You have no idea what it means to be human. You've been so demoralized by propaganda that you don't have kids and feel guilty for even existing.Everyone here is a real person. The internet isn't some magical realm, it's just people. Thinking that having an identity is conceited is next level dead inside. Stop being so pathetic and dramatic. Grow up and grow a spine too.
>>4476700>truly awful coloursI know, im just farting around with a rather boring photo
>>4476610Yeah no its bad, I was just messing with cross processing filters for giggles
>>4476698No problem, another thing in case you decide to pirate adobe/dxo stuff.While monkrus is someone renowned in the community, the best I can give the other guy I mentioned is: "I grabbed a bunch of his releases over the past two years and nothing bad has happened to me yet". So they are not equal, and the main reason I'm so nonchalant about the latter guy is because I run all of this on a spare machine that has nothing of value aside from RAWs I occasionally transfer from the camera for processing. As for ISO, yeah, kinda. Dark areas = less photons to extrapolate information from = more prominent and disgusting-looking noise, as far as I understand.So even in direct sunlight, if you crank up ISO(+shutter speed) and you have areas with some really dark shadows in your pic, the noise will look much worse there than in the rest of the scene.>>4476686I'm okay with people wanting internet fame.When I came to that thread and checked out earlier posts, I liked stuff he posted a lot. An entire portfolio of good wildlife photos, assembled over many years, it seems.Was kinda surprised that he caught this much rabid criticisms from some guy who basically tried to throw anything he can think of at him.The only one that stuck was that he apparently doesn't post new stuff, only dumping his old best photos from years before.So I decided to do the opposite of that, and spent my day off wandering some forest I've never been to looking for whatever I can find.And I did find a bunch of birds, and took some decent enough shots, all things considered.I post some of them and boom, some other (or maybe even the same) schizo starts going off on how this particular pic is AI generated and has nothing to do with the "actual one" I took.And then the tripfag himself, joins in.Man, I do hope the allegations of tripfags "losing" their codes to stir shit up aren't true. That would be really pathetic.
>>4476762NewfagThere’s an entire internet tied to your identity (ie: reddit) and then there’s 4chan where your opinions don’t matter and the content you produce does.
>>4476774And since I've said before that DxO denoise is better for bad cases, I want to bring a counterpoint to that, from the same very day.Some subjects like this moorhen hiding in a really dark area, looks alright with old-fashioned manual denoise in LR.
>>4476779but DxO does something really bad to it and the surroundings. This, unlike the thrush I posted before, does look uncanny and there is plenty of objectively bad artifacts around. So maybe in really bad cases, LR loops to being the best again.Or it's water/wet surfaces that DxO algorithms have most problems with.
>>4476762>malding this hard for being called out for namefagging >he namefags without even a tripcodego backpool’s closed cunt
>>4476762>muh zoomerswrong again. You seem to have a hard time with the concept of anonymity
I've been coming back here intermittently for over a decade. Damn, maybe 15 years. I've never dropped my trip because, at one time, a guy threatened to kill me if I left it turned on. Several times. I reported him. His comments stayed up. He gave me shit for about 6 months. He even triangulated where I was. I told him that I will never drop it now. I never have. Not sure if anyone is still here from then who remembers it. I don't care if there is or isn't anything wrong with tripping. I do it to make that guy angry. Because fuck anyone who gets that mad over some pixels.
probably the only interesting picture ive taken in awhile and its still shit :/ ill get around to editing it someday
>/p/ people angry at irrelevant shit
>>4476805what does dropping your trip mean and why can it be turned off and on, whats tripping
>>4476768Ah, gotcha.>>4476776Total cop-out, you distance yourself from your snapshits because you have low self-esteem and are afraid of anons.>>4476803Kek, I thought to myself earlier "he's just gonna deny being a zoomer and nothing else" and that's what you did. Your words are meaningless however, because you are just another anon snapshitter who doesn't stand out from the crowd in any way. I'll just assume you took this: >>4476570>>4476805Your biggest problem is posting good photos. Combine it with a trip and it makes the jealous lunatics seethe.
>>4476825Does it matter which one he took? Every photo itt is terrible....
>>4476824wow grok seems to know all about 4chan, now i know what tripping is
>>4476668You have so little respect for your photos that you let some program replace every single pixel in post to stamp out a bit of noise. You'll quit taking them before long, photography requires passion.
>>4476825What is wrong with my pumpkin picture?
I think I'll sell the K10D. I'll definitely sell this DA* 50-135 f/2.8 lens, not because it's a bad lens but because the FOV is too narrow for "normal" photos and the telephoto end isn't close enough. I think it'd be great for portraits doe. I'd rather have a really good 16-50mm zoom, or 24-70mm full frame, and a supertelephoto prime for playing around in the bush.>>4476820>what's trippinglurk moar newfag>>4476827We lost something with the advent of AI: JPEG newfag guides.soz meant to delete this earlier and repost with a photo, repostan to confuse everyone
I feel like frankenstein when i bully my photos into looking like this
>falling for fake ambush namefagsAlmost as sad as being a fake ambush namefag. How does he stretch their assholes so effectively?
>>4476836walk softly and carry a big dick
>>4476828>You'll quit taking them before long, photography requires passion.Been a casual shooter i.e snapshitter for almost a decade now, so both your points are moot.Passion comes and goes, what I have is lingering interest.>you let some program replace every single pixel in post This is an argument against any processing as adding 0.1 stops of exposure does the same thing, that is - it replaces every pixel of the image with a brighter one, according to some program's internal algorithms you've never heard of.Same thing happens when a RAW is converted to JPG, or when you post an aRGB photo and it gets converted to sRGB by most online resources that strip color information. Same argument can even be made against film photography, as you let some bozos transform your entire picture with some weird preset they cooked up.So unless you do everything by hand in some truly antique way - you have no respect for your photos?Let's get to the point - where do (you) draw the line? Cause my "line" I already demonstrated with thrush/moorhen example.>>4476836Well, doesn't help that the "real" one dumps his photos without a trip.And then starts posting with it attached, and then drops it again.I'll just assume I'm talking to the "real" one, as I don't want to engage in this childish drama anymore.
>>4476460
>>4476913Ambush hasn't posted here since November 2024. His trip is !!zJbpV0948+w
>>4476979Quick rundown on who “ambush” is?
>>4476979Things are this bad, huh? Fake namefags arguing with each other, dumping other people's photos?Okay, maybe anyone else wants to voice their opinion on post-processing, algorithms and all?>where do (you) draw the line?
enjoying my zf!11!
>>4476988>draw the line Anything you do to your image is legit. It's your photo, you made it and it's your ever given right to work out details, crank up the noise, oversharpen it or mutilate it any way possible. It never was any different either. Post processing is a part of photography. And after all photography should be about bringing your vision of a scene, or moment, or a human being or a morhen or whatever into a frozen state.The photo should be an excerpt of what you have seen and experienced in this particular moment. That is the reason why everyone can "feel" a good photo, whether he knows two shits about composition or colours, and so on, in the first place.
>>4476995It's very important to enjoy the gear we use. Good for you, Anon!
>>4476960Love it
>>4476996The second you give your photo to AI it's gone and you're just looking at a reconstruction of it.
>>4477011If you only give it to Ai, nothing would actually happen. Just uploading it doesn't trigger anything. I could imagine, that an Ai is capable of lifting shadows, denoising,...If it does the same things with a prompt that you would do with the controllers in LR, what's the difference?Or go one step futher: if you can articulate a prompt so precisely that an extraordinary photo is the result, did you still make the photo?
>>4476460Survivor from 89. Old school BMW. Maybe I'll paint it soon. Maybe I like how rough & raw she looks.
>>4476547lovely photo mate
sony full frame cameras are fun
>>4476996Reasonable.My view is similarly utilitarian, when applying any tool I just ask myself if I think this made the photo better/closer to how I perceived the stuff being depicted. If so, I'll use it.Sometimes I doubt myself and ask for second opinion, but not this time. So when some schizo told me my thrush is ruined by evil AI tools and looks nothing like the "actual" photo I took, this caught me by surprise, and I decided to get to the bottom of this. Probably should have just ignored those ramblings instead.To be clear, I don't consider any of the photos I took that day to be particularly good "photos".Although the thrush one has redeeming qualities, the pose is nice, the intense stare, the face is well-framed and all the surroundings add context.But really, they are just sightings, which is good enough for me, as I love meeting animals.And they are good enough for my friends, who always get surprised when they realize our city has wildlife that's not pigeons and crows.
>>4477082you'll stop liking how rough it looks when some bit of road debris ruins your radiator
