night scenes editionprevious >>4501719
>>4503435
>>4503437
i finally got outside wiht a camera>>4503444trips of halationnice light but i have to question the composition. too much information to be specifically directing my eye at something. too narrow, not enough information to be a full survey of the space
>>4503522Sorry for all the dust spots
>>4503522My god, shit lighting can absolutely ruin the photos of most kino places. Disgusting.
The incompetent retards who run this site are never giving EXIF back to us /p/haggots, are they?
technically a twilight scene
>>4503536the mountains really are purple, damn.
>>4503538
>>4503539
>>4503540
>>4503541
>>4503540this is a cool framing, ever consider cropping?or is that sacrilege.
>>4503543ty. I crop sometimes, >>4503537 (which I realize now I also mega compressed for some reason) is a crop which I think better balances the scene but honestly neither are incredible images.
>>4503548
>>4503523What the fuck happened man?
>>4503550kek
>>4503561Change lenses frequently during a long trip, and you!ll get some dust
>>4503564You didn't take a little dust blower? The mini size Giotto can fit in pretty much any camera bag.
>>4503435Blade Runner seems like real life nowadays... very nice picture.
.
>>4503645So, /p/ turned my fox green. Great. Wonderful artistic choice.
>>4503645kawaii>>4503616>>4503548>>4503522cool
>>4503662Arigato.I like all the interweaving lines in your picture. I don't have the skillset to pull something like that off.
>>4503522Good morning saar!>>4503526Good morning saar!
>>4503675Looks fantastic, thank you
Back once again with the scuffed PP
From a weekend camping trip
>>4503675Very nice>>4503714Lovely retro feel>>4503716This is a wonderful capture >>45037242/2
>>4503726>forgets to attach image
>>4503726Thanks. Velvia 50.
>>4503747Crazy pic>>4503716Nice shot. Got it on the right time
>>4503647Does 4chan really manipulate uploaded images? Does it look correct if you open the local image in your browser? I think maybe your jpg is exported with adobe RGB instead of sRGB which is the only color space supported by browsers
>>4503647>>45037714chan strips EXIF data and that can include things like color profiles or brightness data. /p/ actually used to be the exception to that rule but the hack a few years ago meant EXIF couldn't come back online for /p/, so it now it strips data as standard like other boards.
>>4503778Pretty sure this is where John Lennon penned the line ‘I am the eggman’.
>>4503454I like packing my photos full of information, makes it feel more naturalistic, at least to me. I don't try to make a photo much more than a simple scene or setting, almost like something you'd see in a painting. Though I'll keep it in mind in future, thanks anon.
Love the shapes and colors, but the crop could be a bit better
>>4503876Cropping in on a phone picture was certainly an interesting choice.
>>4503771>>4503774I'm not sure... I re-exported this shot in sRGB>>4503667
>>4503891Well, that was it.
>>4503891>>4503892I guess I'll re-upload the first one. I was happy with this shot.
>>4503891>>4503892>>4503894so it was because of exif or something?what did you change to make it work?
>>4503895Lightroom was exporting in "ProPhoto RGB", whatever that is. I changed it to sRGB and everything looks fine now.
>>4503897>Lightroom was exporting in "ProPhoto RGB", whatever that is.Pretty much anything that isn't just sRGB is not something you'll use unless you do serious commercial work (as in you're putting your shit up on billboards or very serious printing). I'm a little surprised you hadn't experienced any issues anywhere else up to this point.
>>4503898I'm entering a photo contest soon. I have the pictures printed and they look good. I might do a little digging to see if they'll look better if I send them to the printer in sRGB. Live and learn, I guess.
ir
>>4503907Outstanding. Excellent color and lighting. Almost insignificant suggestion, lower the exposure on the handle to the right. Just a touch.
>>4503907Seems like you spent some time setting this up, good on you for taking on something ambitious. The colors are fucked and its underexposed. The composition does not follow any of the basics with respect to rule-of-thirds and leading lines. Its unpleadant to look at and it doesnt speak
>>4503938what's my grade, professor?
>>4503971thoughts?
>>4503976thoughts?
Fuji 200 isn't my favorite, but I kind of like this one.
>>4503981people would say it's too dark but I like vibes like this
>>4503971>>4503976either of these is fine. Depends on if you want mood or blue >>4503978too bright
>>4503714there are some weird blue halos around the out of dof foreground bits, did you brighten up the sky or something?
>>4504001I had to resize it on my phone to squeeze under 4chin's size restrictions.
>>4504001>>4504011Lightroom "I cant live without AI masks" users will defend thisAlso read the fucking sticky before posting. Actually never post again. Literal embodied tragedy, subway runner generation
>>4503988Thank you. I have a couple that are underexposed/ slightly blurry and I like them a lot.
>>4504011yeah i dont think this was done by resizing>>4504015wtf is your problem though
I really fucked up when I snapped this one and overexposed it. How did I do fixing it? Anything I need to work on more?
>>4503908>>4503938i agree
>>4503981>>4504016What settings are you using for night? I'm only just getting started with film and night has never been my best work even on digital. I like using Fuji 200 too, hence my asking.
I saw this pale blue 50s looking building and thought the pastel look was pretty cool. >>4504035I think it looks pretty well saved but maybe a little overcorrected, so it has a bit too much of a HDR look going on. I'd personally push the exposure back up just a little bit.
>>4504035>>4504067thoughts?
>>4504035looks good to me, green and vibrant>>4504068don't let any anons psyop you into thinking this is an improvement or that you did something wrong in the first instance.
>>4504068I personally like the colors in the first version more (especially the greens), so maybe just stay with the first version. The exposure on it is still fine but my personal preference was for a slight bump in brightness.
>>4504069>>4504071The green was so fake and oversaturated, why would anyone like it, stop trolling
>>4504072you're nuts man one looks like a nice landscape and the other is a crispy blue casted wasteland
>>4504068Quick shitty edit of what I meant by a little bit of exposure. I bumped it by one stop and desaturated it just a little bit.
>>4504073on the first pic you can only see the green, and on the second pic you can focus your attention on the beautiful mountains, they're dangerous and very big, like in Skyrim
>>4504035First of all, crop it. Left and bottom of the picture way too busy and distracting.
>>4504068Original photographer here, way too blue and the highlights in the clouds got blown out.>>4504074Closer to what I’ll probably end up with but still feels too blue.>>4504077I think the grass creates a visual path that leads you to the valley and helps you imagine exploring the mountains. That’s how I felt when I took the photo, the expectation of an adventure to follow.
>>4504015OK boomer. Here's some more film scans for ya that had an AI mask or two applied to them.
>>4504081How about this one?
>>4504081Problem is the white building in the middle of grass field imidiately leads the eye away from the picture. The left 3rd of the picture also more or less just distraction.
>>4504082the virgin "underexpose for the sky or overexpose for the foreground" vs this chad right here "why not both"
>>4503435What kind of shopping cart are those?
>>4503454Love the monotone and postive and negative space. Good work!
>>4503543Looks great to me, Love the overcast.
>>4503875Felt like I've seen this wall paper before. Looks familar.
>>4503978>>4503978Prefer it without the brigtness adjustment. Sets the mood better.
>>4504127Know a guy who could always win one before he passed away.
>>4504011Love the close up with the deph of field and no HDR. Plenty of detail. Good job!
>>4504120Great framing. Nice tones too, looks like slide film.
>>4504135thanks! ive been trying to make the saturation my bitch for a looong time, the slide film look is very much my goal (dont want to end up on the ken rockwell side of things lol)
>>4504127they're robot delivery vehicles
>>4504142>>4504120I like the colors here. nice
Took this one with my phone yesterday. Best shot by far. Looked up and there it was
>>4503540Nice one
>>4504135Love the colors in this one>>4504084Nice >>4503900This is my favorite of the 3
>>4504256What phone?
>>4504268Samsung S23
>>4504274Fuck, was considering upgrading my a33 i got for free but even flagships do this retarded alteration to photos. I was more happy with pixels than this unnatural looking pics
>>4504120>>4504142>>4504276these look great assuming its the same anon, whats the setup? lens looks so sharp
>>4504287I’m only the last one you replied to.It’s actually a Fujifilm x20. I mostly shoot film now but the Fuji is small enough to throw in my bag without having to think.
>>4504287cheers, i posted the first two shots linked - its x100v, camera raw denoise (it helps with the worms, raw detail on its own introduces weird artifacts), add some grain to get the texture back and sharpen after downscaling
>>4504246thanks! i look at slide scans way too much so... glad someone likes it lol>>4504287btw, you would be surprised with how much detail you can get by using just a bit of sharpening when you resize for web - i know that its a touchy subject for some but...(overdid it on this one a bit, but sub-pixel smart sharpening set to lens blur can make the image pop. damn i sound like ken)
>>4504311wtf is it?
>>4504275That is quite a sperged out version of saying your photo sucks.
>>4504330No. I m saying that there is no reason to buy a flagship samsung if photos turn out like this. I ll keep my phone until it dies then get another midrange one
>>4504288damn 12mp never looked so good>>4504292i could never get on with my x100 but looks like it was worth learning>>4504296ive never touched smart sharpening and i dont tend to spend long on edits but this is impressive, originally i was just messing around with a new lens and a 100% ish crop, appreciate it
>>4504348>i could never get on with my x100i totally understand. i am not the biggest fan of the camera either, but imo theres just nothing in the price range that compares for walks or this sort of "slow paced" street photos (pocketabilty, viewfinder, dust/wr)
>have a lot of shit photos>start croping them>suddenly they look good don't delete your photos bros, even if your original pic is shit maybe there's something else you can't see rn
>>4504389I kinda liked the thumbnail a little better, had a painterly quality to it.
got some of my first film photos back recently. fucked up pretty badly with the 1st roll. Only 1/3 were usable. But I'm pretty happy with what I got.
>>4504393
>>4504393>>4504394Looks comfy, what film stock? I'm just starting with film and I'll probably fuck up too. I hear that the first half dozen rolls always suck, so don't take it too hard.
>>4504425Looks like he’s about ready to bite me, right?Nope, just stifling a sneeze in a very smoky temple
>>4504426
>>4504416portra 400. Got my second roll back today, had a much better exposure rate. All 36 were developed, but one came back burned and another accidentally became a double exposure.This is from the first roll though.I'm coming from a background in digital so the adjustment hasn't been too rough. In some ways its easier.
>>4504431Same location as >>4504394 looked better on the second roll.
>>4504431>one came back burned and another accidentally became a double exposure.Probably overcocking it a little. The first being half burned is also pretty typical, I've had a few like that too and it was always the first photo on the roll, but double exposure means you went too far and it whipped back.>portra 400I'll get some at some point, for now I've got a lot of expired Ultramax 400 from COVID to get through and some new rolls of Fuji 200.>I'm coming from a background in digital so the adjustment hasn't been too rough. In some ways its easier.Same. I think the issue for me isn't that I'm limited to 24 or 36 photos, but that in my mind I estimate how much each photo will cost me in dollars kek. I get the Fuji film pretty cheap but developing costs is where things get expensive, along with shipping my film since there are no film developers left in my city now.>>4504432Nice work, that's a pretty cool location. I really need to get out more and do some nature film photos.
post your photos I can edit and maybe even crop I'm interested in how people see my edits
>>4504434>>4504435cool
>>4504327That's a "white-faced saki". I call them "Douche Monkeys". Hideous little things.
>>4504327Indian Male
>>4504590
5MB max file size? What is this, 1995?
>>4504616This is why people mock those that say "phones are as good as cameras"
>>4504617It’s actually a go-proIs it that bad?
>>4504621Pretty bad, sorry anon. The perspective is warped, the shutter speed was way too slow and the ISO denoise is horrific. If you're going to use it for photos, only use it in daylight. They're just really not made for taking photos at all.
>>4504626It’s what I had atm, and sometimes you just gotta make due Regardless of the noise and perspective issues, I rather enjoy this picture all the same
>>4504636>make duenever seen this spelling before. it seems more sensical to me than 'do' but upon reference, it appears that 'due' has been phased out
>>4504639Get a life
pre-dawn, high ISO, but Mr. Fox got the squirrel and I got a shot. There's noise, but what can you do. Sun wasn't up.
Canada Goose at sunrise.Nikon D750 and Nikon 28-300mm 3.5-5.61/800, f/7.1, ISO 100, 230mm
Tried to catch the reflection... 400 1/250 f/5.6 >>4504650Lovely mood >>4504638Cool light!>>4504590 Fun decoration>>4504576Cool lines but the colours are almost nauseating ngl, did you try monochrome>>4504426dawg
>>4504678better?
>>4504706the skin tones fell odd
>>4504709feel*
>>4504709Bit larger than life, perhaps, but I thought it fit.
is this too dark or is it just me?
>>4504721>>4504714>>4504706>>4504705>>4504638nice!
>>4504731Back at you!
>>4500396>chemtrails5 seconds in Photoshop.
>>4504736>no photo
>>4504636I think it's a good photo too, but it suffers from the noted issues. With a better camera, you would've had some true kino that you could print off for your collection.
>>4504915
>>4504917
Oracle at Delphi
>>4504951Neat!
name at least one world famous photo that is not a portraitinb4: space pictures
>>4505044The Windows XP wallpaper Bliss, which is considered to be the most famous and most viewed photo of all time.
>>4505046well yeah but It was known because of the XP alone, I meant to ask what are some non-portrait photos that are famous because they're greatFor some reason you can't make a great photo without a person in it, or animal, or stars/plantes. It's almost like everything else doesn't matter.
>>4505074>For some reason you can't make a great photo without a person in it, or animal, or stars/[planets].Not entirely true. I distinctly remember the photo that Dutch guy (no, nobody gives a fuck about the guy who took the photo, EVER) of a road and treeline where he made it look like two seperate photos. Pure landscape photo, but because he did something interesting it sticks with me.Nobody ever EVER gives a single flying fuck about the person who took the photo. Without looking it up there is a 0.05% chance any anon here knows the name of the guy who took the Bliss photo.
>>4505044Iwo Jima flag rasing, it's not a portrait and it's even a reshoot
>>4505044Winter Sunrise, Sierra Nevada, from Lone Pine, California, 1944.
>treesYes
>>4505088>Iwo Jima flagI also asked AI bro, but there are people so it doesn't count, without those people It would be just a flag
>>4505091It is a good photo, I guess, but I've never heard of it before so yeah - not as famous as the Afghan girl for example
New thread:>>4505100>>4505100>>4505100
>>4505097"I've never heard of Kanye West so how can he be famous?" retarded ass reply
>>4505095>There are people in the photo so it's a portrait I know this is bad bait to begin with but at least put in some effort
>>4505074>I meant to ask what are some non-portrait photos that are famous because they're greatHindenburg maybe? Or the Lochness Monster? The thing that makes pretty much every photo great or famous is the story they tell and that always involves people or some event unfolding (such as the first photo of the moon in space because it's the very first).
>>4505107I love Kanye West, he is famous.The Afghan girl = KanyeWinter Sunrise, Sierra Nevada = his Pablo merch
