Well nobody else is gonna so here we go, here's a RAW/EDIT thread. I've provided some of mine, a few of which I've edited in the past but also a few I've never touched. Links:>Daylight Landscape with Semi-Challenging Lighting. https://files.catbox.moe/9lc3dk.CR3>Backlit Wildlife (bin chicken) Scene. I was never happy with any edits.https://files.catbox.moe/ctd0mg.CR3>Interior Low-Light Figurines. https://files.catbox.moe/l1fmr2.CR3>Panning Motorsport Scene.>also pic rel own edithttps://files.catbox.moe/c84va5.CR3>This thread is less about the merits of a particular photograph, and more about how to edit and change them. CONSTRUCTIVE feedback is great, but aimless shitflnging is for the other threads>I wholly encourage more of you to post RAWs, as I enjoy giving it a crack myself, as do some other anons otb>Use catbox.moe to link uploads as there is no way you will upload your RAW with the board's anemic 5MB limit>If you post a RAW, thank you.>If you post an EDIT, it's handy to give a quick run down of what you did, how much NR/sharpening etc., and what software you used.-----
And give up my secret sauce? Hell no
sorry anon, board is for gear now
>>4488714Unironically, yes. Suddenly everyone is about SOOC jpegs and having built in film emulations.
>>4488575how do you numb your mind enough to actually enjoy editing? I have a computer day job and I fucking hate editing. I would rather fuck a photogenic husky than spend more time in front of the computer.
>>4488754>I have a computer day jobWow, I can't imagine why you wouldn't enjoy being in front of a computer after doing it all day for work. It sure is a mystery.
>>4488757thanks for solving that riddle for me, anon. now how can I numb my mind enough to actually do editing? what kind of drugs do I have to take to enjoy moving sliders around and cloning out dust? this sounds so fun and enjoyable - yet I don't enjoy it. I must be broken or something.ah well I better get back to getting shit right in camera and leave the editing to those who enjoy life lol
>>4488763You unironically are broken by being a desk jockey that has grown to just hate anything that involves a computer. Such is the fate of most people that sit in front of computers all day every day for their jobs.
>>4488763>now how can I numb my mind enough to actually do editingthe issue is that you are already numbed lol
>>4488754Do you not care about how your images look? You have to care first
Holy hell, I wasn't expecting much from the board but I sure wasn't expecting the thread to go this direction.Oh well. With such low engagement with actual photo-related topics I guess It's time to leave / only lurk.>shrug+sage
>>4488819what did you expect, based slider-sliding bro?
>>4488575dear anon atleast two of your download links do not work
>>4488819A wise decision, p is only a shell of its former self
>>4488575>Interior Low-Light Figurines.Not sure if you're talking about color grading specifically or just general stuff. I'm very new to post-processing and shooting with it in mind, so this might be absolute slop on a technical level, but I gave it a whack for fun.In Lightroom, I liked auto white balance more, so I went with that. Lately I've been messing with the "faded matte look". It seems way overdone by a lot of people, but I can't help but feel like raising the floor of the blacks a tiny bit so that nothing is ever totally black actually produces a nice 'cinematic' feel. It usually makes shadows feels less harsh and makes light sources feel more glowy. To me fading the blacks a little makes shadowed areas feel more tangible. Certainly not a good thing for image accuracy, more to give a deliberate sense of "this is a photograph".Overall what I tried to do here was make the light/color less harsh and balance the highlights/shadows so that you could see a little more of the reflections on the wall. Also added a mild vignette. Didn't mess with colors outside of WB because I'm somewhat colorblind and don't feel comfortable making any color choices beyond increasing vibrancy a bit. Used some denoising.
>>4489033Forgot to mention, I also rotated it slightly to correct the slight tilt. Used the back corner of the room and the wall fixtures to align. I welcome people to shit all over this, I'd like to learn if anything I've done is retarded, or if there are some better ways.I'm particularly interested to learn if there are any 'tricks' or basic general guidelines to follow for color grading if I'm slightly colorblind -- I literally don't have an eye for subtle color stuff, so I try to stay away from messing with color unless I'm deliberately drenching an image with it and throwing accuracy or coherence to the wind.picrel is all the exact adjustments I made.
>>4488575That's the RAW histogram in the top-left and it's blown out. Maybe there's a B- in here after some highlight recovery and gamma correction with the tone curve tool, probably gonna crop this too.
>>4489052what a terrible photo. why did this survive culling? why would you even try to edit this shit composition?
I wouldn't usually edit like this but I think it was warranted and turned out alright.
>>4488829Not sure actually. I had optimisim, and anything that isn't just a gear thread is nice to have.>>4488954Fuck. I'll see about dropping new links when I get home.>>4488966I want to have faith.>>4489033>Not sure if you're talking about color grading specifically or just general stuff.Anything. I just want to see what people can make of things that are different to my normal. >>4489052>>4489053>That's the RAW histogram in the top-left and it's blown out.>what a terrible photo. why did this survive culling?That's the point. It didn't survive culling. I didn't think it *was* salvagable, but I wanted to see if anyone could make something of it if they gave it a go.The rock is blown out and the head of the bird has no light on it. There was no winning.
>>4489057If there is any hope, you will look back on this and cringe someday.
>>4489082even if it was perfectly lit it would still be shit. the composition is just trashtypical forums autism: it's all about specs, sheets, exposure - all the autistic techno babble shit - and composition is just ignored
>>4489086>even if it was perfectly lit it would still be shit.You're arguing with yourself. Stop talking, I agree with you. This thread wasn't a showcase of my bangers because who in their right mind is uploading their best RAWs.>>4489085Cringe is reserved for making embarrasing choices and situations. I'm more likely to go "huh this wasn't great" but I'm already doing thatthat.I'd love to edit some of your RAWs if you'd rather post some masterpieces.>>• Raw Files which can be collectively edited for discussion of post-processing techniques are encouraged.Or just keep whinging like a woman, not fussed.
>>4489088Checked. There's been some people here lately that have been needlessly stuck up over stupid shit. Don't expect him to share any RAWs of his own.I have some I could share once I get off work and get back to my PC. I'll look at the others too.
>>4489082>faithJust look at the disaster that was this thread >>4485327
>>4489082>Not sure actually. I had optimisim, and anything that isn't just a gear thread is nice to have.Every post lately is just some retarded SNOY post or about Fuji being perfect because it does a fake film look SOOC. I've seen some megatards claim photo editing didn't exist before computers because they didn't understand the concept of being able to adjust film photos; this board is just in shambles now.Maybe all the old posters hung up their gear during COVID since they couldn't go outside and moved on from photography, who knows.
>>4489117>a bait thread turned to shitwhat a surprise
>>4488575>Cows in Northern Scotlandhttps://files.catbox.moe/o9ktx3.CR3Disclaimer: I was still just figuring out how to use my camera, didn't know how to balance settings and exposure properly, and even if I did, many of my photos were taken from the passenger seat of the car driving pretty fast. I kept it in Tv mode with high shutter speed to freeze what was zooming by. It was very shaky, so I think I have a bit of an excuse for retarded overall form, though even with ideal conditions, I don't really know much about composition and framing. So please keep that in mind when shitting on my shitty photos. Also interested in general tips on my editing - picrel is my noob attempt.
>>4489085Why?
>>4489420He either won't elaborate, or he'll come back with feedback that tries harder to demoralize than to help. Either way, he'll ignore that the photos were already uploaded with the admission that they were lacking.
>>4489255There's no detail at all in most of the black cow (too high iso) so I decided to run with it and go for the fake film lookwtf is this captcha ffs
>>4489494your mistake was to take photos in that lightno amount of editing will fix this idiotic beginner mistake
>>4489506>Sees a nice looking cow>won't be back in the countryside for months if not years>want to take a photo to remember and look back upon trip away from wagie cagie>swiftly remember that random anonfaggot #378 wouldn't approve if I took the photo right now>get lawn chair out and wait for le golden hour because omg muh heckin 4chin updoots>waste entire day for one cow photoOnce again we find an anon not understanding the idea of the thread. Learn to read you ESL
>>4489494I actually like the crop putting them on the other side. Nice. I need to learn to stop avoiding cropping so much.>>4489506That wasn't my edit, but as I said when I posted the RAW, these were among the first photos I took on my camera, and it was done out of a car window while driving fast. I didn't know yet how to properly expose, let alone dial in different settings at a moment's notice. I took over 10,000 photos on that trip and a great many of them are ghastly from a technical perspective, but I caught some really interesting moments, and many of them were accidentally exposed nicely, or are serviceable enough to salvage and show to people who don't care/know any difference.I would much rather be someone who takes photos in poor light conditions so I can practice and learn, than to be someone who takes no photo at all. :)
>>4488575>Goats in their house>1/8000 sec at f / 1.8, ISO 100>50 mm (RF50mm F1.8 STM)https://files.catbox.moe/y42vip.CR3picrel my attempt at an edit
this is funmight do all of them
last oneall done in darktableas to what I did, nothing fancy:1. denoise, lens correction, sharpening, checking white balance2. setting appropriate exposure3. working on tones in contrast equalizer, where needed3. setting dynamic range in AgX4. cropping5. further work on contrast in color balance RGB, some very slight color grading sometimes6. softening or adding micro contraststill have a lot to learn about colors and composition so any criticism is very welcome
>>4489506post your raws anon
>>4490589I'm quite new to this as well, so take my advice well-salted, but something I've been trying to do in my own post-processing that I think yours could use more of is crushing the dynamic range down a bit to make details more visible, specifically in the highlights/whites. Even if the whites don't happen to be blown out and there's still technically differences in the pixels, if they're extremely close to being the same values, then one might not be able to tell just by looking at it.For example: in this lego photo, the specular highlights in the blonde female's hair, or the specular highlights in the sitting female's shoulder. Those regions are so bright that there's almost no contrast with the actual specular reflections of the light source. >>4489033 is my edit, and while I wouldn't confidently say my version is some great example to look to, I will at least point out that I tried to preserve all of the contrasting details in the image. Every specular reflection is a small detail, rather than large regions being extremely bright and basically white. I like that yours is brighter overall, but I feel like reigning in the exposure a bit will help keep details visible. I think of bright specular reflections almost like stars in the sky, and you want less light pollution so that the stars are more visible. If that makes sense..I think I like your edit of my cows the most, but I might just be biased :)
>>4491111that's useful critiqueI am still not sure if it is fine to blow out the highlights a bit when it has no negative effect on the subjectBut I tried bringing back some details without making it look less exposed or dull and I think it works
