File: [2026_06_02]_settings_bef(...).png (26 KB, 355x680)

26 KB PNG

I started with linear curves and adjusted them on the low end to prevent shadow clipping (that's why they're raised) but also pulled down the very darkest parts that remained to preserve contrast. There was an uneven cast of light in the original so I pulled down the highlights until the intensity had diminished to my liking. I still pulled up the lighter areas remaining though for contrast's sake. I applied these adjustments with a LUT already on (not how I usually work but in this case I found the colours I liked after I'd already done some tone curve adjustments and went back and started over). Cropped 4:3 with rule of diagonal guidelines and resized for sharing online.
Definitely curious how others would have approached adjusting the highlights and shadows in this one, if there were perhaps a better way or if I should have aimed for a lighter end result. I do like the end result but I'm still curious how else I could have done this.

File: shindig_after.jpg (996 KB, 1339x1080)

996 KB JPG

I tried an odd crop on this one. Using the rule of diagonal guidelines, I place the points of most interest along the diagonal lines, which led to this odd aspect ratio (1.24:1). I do like the original composition but is this crop more effective at showing the most interesting parts of the scene? ie the party lights and the players.

File: [2026_06_02]_shindig_settings.png (30 KB, 355x768)

30 KB PNG

This is what I adjusted to get the after. The two high points on the first tone curve are the guy on the left's face (the lower point) and the guy second from the right's face (the higher point). I pulled up the black point to prevent clipping but otherwise didn't adjust the shadows as they already seemed dark enough. On the second curve I did a small adjustment to the contrast in the crowd, pulling up the lightness on someone's shirt and bringing down a neighbouring dark area to just above the clipping point (this is easy with RawTherapee since you can ctrl click on areas of the picture to set points on the tone curve). I brought the saturation down to prevent clipping of out-of-gamut colours (this only matters for my display gamut) but I brought it down a lot more after that because the colours seemed really "inky" and "blotchy," still way too saturated.
Let me know if you think these edits were effective, if I could do anything better, etc., or if I should have taken the edits in a different direction (maybe more high-key, black and white, etc.)

This link will be active for 24 hours. If you'd like to get the files after that, reply to this comment. Don't pass these off as your own photos on your personal social media. I'm only sharing the RAW data for the purposes of this thread. If you do edit the RAWs, leave a description of what you adjusted in your post.
https://wormhole.app/qlQ1X1#c5y_KtocW56gnm5z7HFh5g

Anon get your fuckin eyes checked

>>4512370
>>4512371
Before is better in this case, in every possible way from exposure right through to the crop.

>>4512371
I don't have time to do better but the colors are colorblind tier awful, it looks like a film negative. The crop is exceptionally awkward, ignoring the natural flow of the string lights while keeping a huge black space on the right, which feels extremely unbalanced and uncomfortable.

>>4512356
I actually like this one. I would say it's stupid to take such an underexposed photo, but there is not too much noise, and the color of the light is eerie in a good way. I think it's a cool photo.

File: [2026_06_02]_shindig_crop(...).png (578 KB, 888x503)

578 KB PNG

>>4512429
>The colors are colorblind tier awful. It looks like a film negative.
I don't agree. I think you're overstating it. However, I'm open to hearing anything constructive you have to say about the colours. I'm not satisfied with the desaturated look I went for but I didn't find the fully saturated colours any better.
>The crop is exceptionally awkward, ignoring the natural flow of the string lights while keeping a huge black space on the right, which feels extremely unbalanced and uncomfortable.
I think you're exaggerating the awkwardness of the crop although I do tend to agree the lights are actually leading out of frame in the crop whereas their direction made sense in the original. I took on board what you said about the unnatural flow of the string lights and adjusted the crop. I think it captures more of their flow from the original shot while still cutting away some superfluous fluff.

>>4512441

Different anon here... I don't like the colpr edit and the pic aint great, but the edit does make me look at the stage, while the original directs my eye to the left side. It's because of the lit area. Make it dark so it doesn't pull attention towards the edge. It will not make the pic great though

Bro these edits fucking suck. Somehow the SOOC JPGs are actually the better photos.

File: Screenshot_20260603_153103.jpg (410 KB, 930x1067)

410 KB JPG

>>4512441
You can disagree but I was not intentionally exaggerating. The crop and colors were very bad. I explained what made the crop bad, so it is constructive. What makes the color bad, is that you tried to correct extremely saturated stage lights. You cannot recover neutral tones from a subject lit with colored light in the dark. The result looks very unnatural, because you dulled the colors of the stage lights but the tones of everything is still fucked, including skin tones which anyone can see are wrong.

Like, if you don't see what's wrong here, you are unironically colorblind.

i choose to believe this is bait because if its not its really sad for op

>>4512576
No, the skin tones are fine, they’re about a zone VI/VII. The bassist and guitarist on the far left are about zone V.
>bad
>bad
>very bad
>unnatural
>dull
>fucked
>wrong
The only adjective I agree with here is dull, the rest are not helpful. You at least acknowledged my goal was to correct the extremely saturated stage lights but after reading your comment I still don’t have a better idea on how I could approach that. If you are so certain the tones are wrong, which I don’t agree they are, you need to use less ambiguous language to convey that because I don’t understand why you think that.

>>4512667
>No, the skin tones are fine, they’re about a zone VI/VII.
One of the funniest sentences I've read on here in a while

>>4512668
You’re not helpful, you’re an abusive troll. I don’t find that funny, only very sad and pathetic.

>>4512667
everyone tells you your edit sucks. you just have too much ego to take my advice.

> You at least acknowledged my goal was to correct the extremely saturated stage lights
Yes I know because I did that 10000 times that's the point of asking for advice here

> you need to use less ambiguous language
when you use a very saturated light, you push together many similar colors on the spectrum. if you use just green light for example, you're gonna see 2 colors: green and black. That's physics. If you show a photo with green lighting, the brain understands that's green lighting and automatically recovers the original colors on the objects it recognize (see https://m.dpreview.com/news/8615103660/this-photo-of-some-strawberries-with-no-red-pixels-is-the-new-the-dress). But if you auto correct like you did, you remove the color cast while keeping the crushed tones, which gives this abomination. Now that was a thorough explanation, but if you seriously don't see the is something wrong, not sure it's gonna help you much.

>>4512671
that's not me but he's kinda right

>>4512667
> how I could approach that
unfortunately you cannot recover recover in post, especially when the original is underexposed and taken from too far away

>>4512691
working link:
https://m.dpreview.com/news/8615103660/this-photo-of-some-strawberries-with-no-red-pixels-is-the-new-the-dress

Is this a joke thread or is OP being absolutely serious?

>>4512793
Judging from the spergout, I think he was serious.

>>4512813
Tragic. The JPGs from his camera looked better than his edits kek.

This thread has to be some form of advanced trolling, I refuse to believe that anyone could actually be this retarded.

>>4512895
its been my favorite thread so far, it makes me want to see a general of just the very worst edits

>>4512371
4:5 is the best aspect ratio you bastard.

>>4512371
Why do you even want to have the picture look like this? I don't understand.

>>4513757
I wanted the picture to be less intensely saturated, so I lowered the saturation. I needed feedback on the saturation and I got it, it was too much for everyone who commented.
and I cropped it to bring more attention to the stage, and I got some feedback that it was awkward and cut off the natural flow, so I followed that advice and tried a rectangular crop that incorporated more of the scene but still focussed in on what I wanted beople to see
I'm not sure how to approach the colours so I haven't retouched those yet

File: rolling_hills-o-s.jpg (1.61 MB, 1629x1080)

1.61 MB JPG

another one

File: [2026_06_12]_2-1_crop.png (897 KB, 1416x1008)

897 KB PNG

tried this crop first
exposure settings on the right
didn't pull the shadows very hard
but I thought the highlights needed a lift

File: [2026_06_12]_closer_crop.png (1.39 MB, 1467x1009)

1.39 MB PNG

I wasn't completely happy with the centre of the frame on the first crop so I tried cutting closer on this crop
I think it's marginally better but I also like the panoramic feel of the first, feedback more than welcome
also my only other change here was a portra 400 lut which I applied before making the curve adjustments

please have a stab at a different approach if you are keen on demonstrating the best edit possible for this picture
https://wormhole.app/70vELk#sxveyHr4OA6fBHSTefScPw

>>4513760
If you took a good picture it wouldn't be so difficult to crop and edit it. Or are you just working with random snapshots to practice editing?

>>4513763
>Or are you just working with random snapshots to practice editing?
yeah, making the most of what I've got.

>>4513765
Before you attempt to edit a picture that has nothing going for it you should focus on capturing a scene that has nice lighting, a good composition, and interesting subject matter. Editing a picture should compliment or accentuate what an image already has going for it. If a picture has nothing going for it what is even the point of editing it? You could focus on making it as "true to reality" as possible, but that's pretty boring most of the time.

If I had to edit your picture I would reduce exposure a touch, increase contrast and drop the highlights to make the sky a bit darker and show off a bit more of the colors and clouds. The bottom of your crop is where I would put it, but I would include more sky. It feels way too tight in your crop.

File: KING4685-s.jpg (3.21 MB, 2814x1080)

3.21 MB JPG

>>4513766
>a picture that has nothing going for it
there's really no point in discussing this with you because you don't have a genuine approach to assessing my pictures. that's so absurdly reductive. there's rolling hills, clumps of trees and a farm house tucked away in the corner. that's just not a helpful thing to say in any respect. if the scene is not to your taste, I don't object to that at all, but saying it has nothing going for it is not true.
>Editing a picture should compliment or accentuate what an image already has going for it.
That is what my crop does: brings more attention to the most interesting parts of the picture.
I'm just not convinced by your assertions the picture has nothing going for it. if that's really true, you should be able to say it in a way I can't disagree with.
>I would reduce exposure a touch, increase contrast and drop the highlights to make the sky a bit darker and show off a bit more of the colors and clouds.
true, the highlights probably have more detail than my curve adjustment allows you to see
I hear your comment about the sky but I am more concerned that people will see the telegraph poles on the right hand side, so I aligned them with one of the diagonals. I can't have them aligned with a diagonal and still have a big view of the sky.
this is ultimately what I'm gonna settle on

>he's back and still sperging
I love this thread so much it's unreal. If this is just trolling, it's a masterpiece.

File: KING4766-0-s.jpg (1.64 MB, 1629x1080)

1.64 MB JPG

another one

File: [2026_06_12]_wuthering_la(...).png (881 KB, 1467x1009)

881 KB PNG

this is the crop and curves I settled on
could use some feedback on whether the lighting looks good or could use improvement, and whether the crop is effective
please take advantage of the raw file if you would like to show a better or different approach to editing this pic
https://wormhole.app/dL1Qe7#2lhu-pZ8TQNxa8FUzQ9zBg

File: KING4766-s.jpg (1.76 MB, 2117x1080)

1.76 MB JPG

the export
i used an ektar 100 lut and made the curves adjustments after applying it
auto wb

>>4513768
You're losing yourself in compositional techniques/rules that are doing nothing for your image. You can't just take a pile of shit and crop it to one third of your image and call it good.

Since you asked here you go...
I think the building tucked away is lost in the darkness and lacks any sort of presence or visual interest. Call me jaded, but your rolling hills have no grandeur or real beauty to them. It's a couple grassy hills. The grass isn't even nice looking.. The trees feel more in the way than anything you would call complimentary to the scene or compositionally interesting. The telephone poles and their wires on the left ruin the sky and clouds.
The lighting is extremely dull and makes the whole image feel dingy and ugly.(your edit made the scene even more dramatically ugly. You made the clouds look like smoggy pollution.)
The picture also has a distracting softness to it that makes it feel almost like you were in a car and snapped this pic out the window, or your aperture was too small and the image has too much diffraction.

>>4513774
Is your monitor calibrated? The image is way too dark.

>>4513770
It has got to be trolling.

>>4513768
the image was terrible to start with and no amount of cropping or editing will save it. you're a stubborn retard that is unable to to get things even vaguely correct at the time and just keeps trying in vein to correct it in post, all the while defending your mistakes and terrible fixes.

i'd honestly believe you had never even picked up a camera or knew what photography was at all until just a few weeks ago.

>>4513775
I respect what you have to say here, it's very detailed and I have a lot to go on if I were to shoot in the same location again
f/8 on an f/2.8 lens so yes, diffraction probably just started to be an issue.
>The lighting is extremely dull
a fact of the cloudy day, worth noting for when I choose to go out taking photos, though. i like the dinginess and ugliness of cloudy days, it does feel like home. could be pollution, actually, a lot of coal mining in this area. but yes, noted, cloudy days are dull and doing anything to exacerbate that dullness is extremely ugly in your eyes.
>I think the building tucked away is lost in the darkness and lacks any sort of presence or visual interest.
I don't agree with that, it is the first identifiable thing when I look at the picture.
>The telephone poles and their wires on the left ruin the sky and clouds.
I don't agree with that either, but I like telegraph poles in my skylines, it feels like home and I think they're interesting

File: [2026_06_12]_rolling_hill(...).png (17 KB, 338x212)

17 KB PNG

>>4513777
>you're a stubborn retard that is unable to to get things even vaguely correct at the time
that's not true. the raw histogram shows that. if anything, i could have gone 1 stop wider on the aperture. that's more than vaguely correct.

>>4513779
>I don't agree with that, it is the first identifiable thing when I look at the picture.
He's right though. You might have some form of autism or some shit, because it honestly doesn't. The eye just ends up being drawn to the empty space between the two trees on the left of the image, the house is barely noticeable and isn't the first thing you get drawn to.

>>4513780
>that's not true. the raw histogram shows that.
There is no way someone can be this retarded, I just can't believe it.

>>4513776
>Is your monitor calibrated? The image is way too dark.
yes, although I have the windows open in my room and the brightness on my laptop screen only at 70%, which are different conditions to the lighting when I calibrated it (blinds drawn, 55% brightness, no room lights on).

What's your gear? I have a strong feeling it's Nikon or Panasonic.

>>4513779
Every patch of tree and then the patch of trees with the building is tonally similar and there is barely any sort of leading line that brings your eye there. I wouldnt really even call the powerlines far right leading lines. The trees in front of the building obscure it even more.
IMO it is more that the building is the one different thing than just trees, hills and sky in the picture than having any sort of draw created photographically.
If you wanted to dramatize the ugly and dull sky/lighting it would have done you better to take a much closer shot of the building to show off more of the decay in the structure. I would imagine there would be much more you could work with compositionally if you got closer to the building as well.

Diffraction has to do with sensor size and pixel pitch, not maximum aperture of a lens, btw.

>>4512895
every darktable user is like this

>>4513783
>What's your gear?
Pentax K-5 IIs (16mp aps-c, no aa filter) and pentax 50-135mm 2.8 >>4513759, sigma 18-35 1.8 >>4513771 and pentax 28mm 3.5 on the first two pics ITT
>I have a strong feeling it's Nikon or Panasonic.
why?

>>4513784
>Diffraction has to do with sensor size and pixel pitch, not maximum aperture of a lens, btw.
I've never heard this before, the most I've heard about diffraction is that its a property of light bending around the edge of the aperture which is more apparent at smaller apertures. could you explain like I'm five how diffraction relates to sensor size and pixel pitch, not max. aperture?

>>4513784
>If you wanted to dramatize the ugly and dull sky/lighting it would have done you better to take a much closer shot of the building to show off more of the decay in the structure. I would imagine there would be much more you could work with compositionally if you got closer to the building as well.
it's just one of those things, private property and all that.
>Every patch of tree and then the patch of trees with the building is tonally similar
true, and I suppose you're implying that's a negative but I don't see it that way, it's a characteristic of the lighting, the trees and probably my curves adjustments as well
>there is barely any sort of leading line that brings your eye there
that's true. it's not possible for EVERY composition to feature leading lines, though. having said that, the hills themselves are lines and all the points of interest (such as they are) sit along those lines.
>>4513781
>There is no way someone can be this retarded, I just can't believe it.
plenty of info in the raw to work with is my point, possibly could have been a little more highlight detail but it's hardly as dramatically incorrect as you stated it to be

>>4513780
>>4513792
the criticism was also about the terrible composition, which you dodged in both your replies.

>>4513793
>the criticism was also about the terrible composition
not every criticism is merited

>>4513794
The one about composition absolutely is.

>>4512357
>>4512370
>>4513759
I would respectfully suggest that you'll get more skill improvement by shooting more and studying photobooks than by spending hours post processing photos that contain irredeemable technical mistakes.

Also, it's never nice to be clowned on, but when everyone in the thread agrees, there's usually a reason.

>>4513780
The is is not a good way to think about your images visually, and why I laughed above when you said
>skin tones are fine, they’re about a zone VI/VII.
Things like the zone system and curves are tools to help you, but they aren't like rules to follow and if you do everythings peachy.

Anyone not offering edit suggestions, or trying to show sample edits and just saying "it's bad don't bother" should be safely ignored. It is true that there is room for improvement with the shot, and you can only do so much with editing, but people are just using that as a cope to not bother with even trying to edit.

>>4513791
The practical answer is that larger sensors let you stop down more before diffraction becomes apparent.

I downloaded the file last night so I'll take a shot at it today.

>>4513806
>you'll get more skill improvement by... studying photobooks
that gives me an idea and some encouragement to get a book I saw on marketplace recently: the folio society book of the world's 100 greatest photographs...

File: IMG_1055.jpg (1.49 MB, 1284x1840)

1.49 MB JPG

>>4512793
With edits like these no wonder half of /p/ a thinks that in-camera JPEGs are terrible.

File: lake_view_flat.jpg (1.62 MB, 1629x1080)

1.62 MB JPG

another one
wanted to show a good view of the lake and the suburbs around it
f/4, 2s, 100iso, 50mm, tripod

File: [2026_06_12]_lake_view_cr(...).png (1.56 MB, 1466x1004)

1.56 MB PNG

my settings
(not pictured: Fuji FP-100C Cool LUT)
crop with poi circled

File: lake_view_crop.jpg (1.44 MB, 1239x1080)

1.44 MB JPG

how's the shadows? too dark?
how's the colours?
how's the highlights?
what stands out that seems overlooked?
please feel free to use the raw file to make suggestions and improvements
https://wormhole.app/pv7APZ#qDapEGzH7gj25f24HLzlpw

>>4513841
dude you need to look at your light meter

>>4513843
the exposure triangle was overlooked

>>4513844
i agree, i could have gone one and a half, possibly two stops more without clipping

>>4513821
Attempting to put lipstick on a pig is the true cope, my friend.

File: PEASANT4840.jpg (3.29 MB, 3428x2743)

3.29 MB JPG

>>4513843
Behold the power of CRAPTURE ONE and an OLED that hasn’t been calibrated in a year

>>4513821
Saying not to bother if using darktable would be correct. It is useless software just like every communist copy of a real program. Good programmers are paid for their work. Bad programmers are not.

File: PEASANT4766.jpg (3.3 MB, 4928x2464)

3.3 MB JPG

>>4513774
Support my growing family or I will cast you unto the void of eternal torment in sheol

File: editing.jpg (2.28 MB, 3100x2700)

2.28 MB JPG

Which does /p/ like best?

>>4513859
Not taking an opportunity to practice your editing, even on bad pictures, is the real true cope, my friend.

>>4513869
these all suck

>>4513868
BASED

>>4513870
>these all suck
Thank you for the compliment friend

>>4513869
No. Those red lines and circles you put on your snapshots is the true cope.

>>4513872
Well, you should tell that to OP, not me. Did you forget to attach your own examples of editing it?

>>4513873
>those terrible edits in that collage werent op dicking around in dorktable
oh no

>>4513876
>I can't participate because I don't know how to edit
Very sad, this is a good opportunity for you to practice your skills.
How cool would it be for you to show me up with your superior editing?

>>4513877
This isn’t reddit, sis. I don’t need to show you my post history to be qualified to tell you that you suck.

I already posted a better edit than your entire collage btw.
SATURAREM MAXIMAM ADDE

>>4513878
>I don't want to participate, I'm just here to complain
It's always so sad. Maybe one day you'll get the confidence and skills to post here, I believe in you!

>>4513879
Are you stupid?

>>4513880
Sometimes, but at least I know how to edit a photo

>>4513878
This. I liked your edit the best.

>>4513882
Thank you for another compliment! Love it guys

>>4513881
Clearly you don’t. An entire collage of struggling to find the right white balance. There’a no way you’re a crapture one or even lightroom user.

I only needed to post one edit. I could turn the green vibrance down a little. Use a slightly different camera profile. But why? Saturation is good for you.

>>4513883
>>4513881
>>4513879
Are you high again, nikek?

>>4513884
The electric green grass is based. It brings a sense of danger to an otherwise boring photograph.

>>4513886
Greens so radioactive they can’t be viewed in iran

>>4513885
Nope, just enjoying the positive feedback, it fuels me now

The fact that people can't even engage with the initial prompt, tells me all I need to know about the "feedback" I'm getting

>>4513884
I don't see the point in arguing with people that aren't going to share their own attempts at editing, and if you legitimately think >>4513868 is best, than I would be glad you don't like mine because we such different aesthetic taste

>>4513888
>why won’t people reply to me the way I asked them to?
Because this isn’t reddit

>>4513889
Thank you for another compliment bb

>>4513890
buck broken and mentally fried by the SATURATION

>>4513888
If you had more than just snapshots people would be more willing to actually help you.

>>4513892
I this edit >>4513865 of the lake actually elevated it a bit but the poor symmetry from the vantage point kills it. The “hill” peaks too far to the left so it points at the background land not the water and sky.

He definitely got close with that one. Other than the initial exposure and editing being terrible.

>>4513892
I'm not OP, these are not my photos, good cope

>>4513896
Oh, well if you had more than snapedits people would be more willing to help you.

>>4513897
Thank you for another compliment on my edits bb

>>4513898
Buck fried and mind broken by the saturation

Saturation is the power of God
To breathe life into the nothingness

>>4513899
Every day is just more confirmation of how retarded (and actually a nophoto) most of the board actually is

What an incredibly easy opportunity to embarrass and humble me by simply providing a superior edit, the fact that people would rather just say "bad" dozens of times than simply edit a photo, tells me all I need to know

>>4513900
I already did. Twice. You tried editing the same photo multiple times and posted a postage stamp collection of shitty white balances.

Without saturation there is nothing. The world is dead. Without saturation there is no creation. Without saturation it’s just a copy, a derivative. Saturation is the original - saturation is superior. Saturation IS God! Kneel before your lord and savior SAT+100, and may your family grow vibrantly

>>4513899
Based.

>>4513901
Then we're back to
>if you legitimately think >>4513868 is best, than I would be glad you don't like mine because we have such different aesthetic taste
So thank you again

>>4513901
Based beyond belief

>>4513905
But your aesthetic is purple or blue grass.

>>4513905
>its jus diffunt
This? >>4513869
Its all dead wife flashbacks in postage stamp format

>>4513910
>>4513908
Thank you again! You guys are just making my day

>>4513912
Glad to help! Have fun with your transition btw

File: PEASANT4840.jpg (3.62 MB, 4019x3215)

3.62 MB JPG

Alright poorfags, snoyim and nicucks, here’s your chance. Can YOU, THE VIEWER do better than THE SATURATOR? Reply to this post (yes, this one!) with your edit of 4840
OP’s pooptax snapshit: https://files.catbox.moe/mfmt4n.DNG

File: PEASANT4766.jpg (3.33 MB, 4928x2464)

3.33 MB JPG

Or do you have enough hue in you to tackle the imposing 4766?
Remember kids, NO POSTAGE STAMP COLLECTIONS

Go!

Pootax raw pile: https://files.catbox.moe/d35fkb.DNG

File: mfmt4n.jpg (3.07 MB, 2956x1958)

3.07 MB JPG

>>4513929
Saturationmogged you big time lil chuddie.

>>4513934
nice. i really like this. you replaced the calm slide film vibe and replaced it with cocaine.

>>4513934
I don't like this at all
>>4513930
I don't like this, but I don't hate it either
I would probably never intentionally edit one of my photos like this, it's not my style
>>4513868
better but still too radioactive for me personally
>>4513869
hard to say, they're all so similar
I don't think you got the colour of sky right in any of them, maybe bottom middle. it's still quite blue but it's the most subdued, or bottom right, although that one has slightly cool grass.
>>4513865
I probably did need to go another stop of exposure higher than I did in my edit here >>4513843, or at least I *could* have

all in all, having seen some attempts from my fellow anons, I feel quite encouraged to keep pursuing my own ends since my own edit looked quite different from what anyone else chose to do. I think the highly-saturated style is probably better suited to photos without so much high-frequency detail, like the lake view suburb area, it feels very intense.

thank you to everyone who had a crack, I do appreciate having other styles to compare my own editing style with.

I hope other anons feel encouraged to share their own photos in a similar format (sooc/editing decisions/final result) along with raws.

having said that, I think I need to stop desaturating my images to prevent out-of-gamut colours on *my* monitor, since my monitor can only display 61% of the sRGB gamut. I'll look into how else I can gauge color accuracy and depth with scopes and such until I can lay a hold of a decent monitor with at least 100% sRGB coverage.

File: d35fkb-1.jpg (2.27 MB, 4292x2861)

2.27 MB JPG

>>4513771
>>4513930

>>4513959
moody but still saturated
although I don't like the orange, but maybe only because it's too saturated, not because it's orange
I like the grass and trees, feels earthy

File: KING4840.jpg (1.81 MB, 1629x1080)

1.81 MB JPG

played with it some more
left the LUTs out this time
left in as much saturation as could be output in sRGB
curve is a lot more high contrast without crushed black though
I don't mind the crop I went for earlier but there's also a "vista" quality to the shot I did get that I wanted to keep for this one.

>>4513957
>editing on 61% SRGB
>gamma is probably super fucked to compensate for a cheap dim screen too
So, you know why ken rockwell HATES raw? Because for over a decade, from the d200 to the d850 your situation was all most people could afford after paying for the camera. The high end screen, the storage, the processing, and the capture one perpetual license would triple a guy’s gear budget. In this 2008-tier scenario, just shoot jpeg. Forget clipping this or clipping that because you won’t be editing anyways. Until you get a cheap laptop with a nice screen like an older lelnovo p1 or used macbook.

You can NOT edit raws on a shit screen especially not in half finished “software” like darktable, which doesn’t start you out on a usable image and often doesn’t even use the correct demosaicing method or order of operations without deeper analysis and configuration.
You can’t see what you’re doing and have no idea it’s already fucked.

>>4514258
I can upgrade my laptop with a 72% NTSC screen for ~$100. Worth it?

It is calibrated, too. I bought a used Spyder X for ~$100 and followed the instructions in DisplayCAL.

>>4514258
>how to shoot jpeg properly
Buy a gray card. Most cameras can not manually set g/m tint in the kelvin setting and do it in the separate wb bias setting. But one shot white balance off a gray card or photo of a gray card under the same lighting as the subject does it automatically. You will use a gray card to get correct white balance from now on.
Begin trusting your light meter instead of underexposing for safety. For ultimate light meter trust, try spot metering the sky and see how many stops you need to go up from there to get everything right. For portraits its common to spot meter skin and go up +2. Every camera is a bit different.
Crank dr400/DRO/active d lighting or whatever pentax calls it to the max for normal photos and only lower it to crush the blacks.
If you already shoot like a tripod autist use a square graduated neutral density filter to dim the sky and a circular polarizer to dim reflections on foliage.

Yes it’s a PITA
Get good enough shit to use raws like everyone else soon

>>4514259
72% NTSC can technically cover less than 99% SRGB. Ensure it actually covers SRGB. You also really want an OLED, and when you calibrate make sure you aren’t working at max brightness or you will always produce dim photos. Displaycal should make you turn it down but always edit 3-4 clicks dimmer.

Strong consider using literally anything that isn’t darktable.

>>4514262
>72% NTSC can technically cover less than 99% SRGB.
It's the best I can do without getting an external monitor (and also more affordable). It will also mean if all I have is my laptop at least it's the widest color gamut possible. I understand OLED will be better, though, and wide gamut better too, but also more expensive. I'm doing this on a budget.
>When you calibrate make sure you aren’t working at max brightness or you will always produce dim photos.
I calibrated at 55% and edit at max of 70% when I have the blinds open and it's bright outside.
>Strong consider using literally anything that isn’t darktable.
I use RawTherapee. I've tried Darktable and I don't like it. I don't have many other options on Linux. If I win the lottery, I'll buy a Macbook Pro 16", a Capture One perpetual license, etc.

>>4512370 IS WAY BETTER THAN >>4512371

>>4514271
Ikr I can’t comprehend how a healthy human mind can look at the second image and go “yeah I made it better”.
The source is a bit oversaturated, but it’s a stage light - it’s supposed to be bright and colorful.

>>4514271
LOL no

>>4514269
Dude, if you cant afford good srgb coverage and an accurate black level, do not shoot raw, at all, especially not with half baked software made by western communists. If you can verify the upgrade screen at least covers most of srgb (more than 95%) then you should be mostly good.

Also all of your edits are dark as fuck. Print one and realize your photos are basically invisible and so vague that pixel peeping is required to tell whats in them instead of a fun exploratory activity. You are doing something very wrong on a useless screen or are blind yourself.

>>4514271
Wait not a LOL no, I had it backwards

LOL yes

>>4514352
At least have a courtesy to double check the result on your phone. Most phones released in the last decade have OLEDs with an optional “natural mode” which is way more accurate than most casual desktop monitors.

File: kkk.jpg (1.2 MB, 3020x2000)

1.2 MB JPG

>>4513929

File: mfmt4n.jpg (2.31 MB, 4928x3264)

2.31 MB JPG

>>4513843
>>4513865
>>4513929
>>4513934
>>4514252
>>4514369

File: nnn.jpg (450 KB, 2390x1001)

450 KB JPG

>>4513868
>>4513930
i agree with the crop

>>4514370
Retarded edit. Hdr and satmaxxing is better than than fhis trifling shite.

>>4514398
Are you catlic?

>>4513957
desaturating my images to prevent out-of-gamut colours on *my* monitor, since my monitor can only display 61% of the sRGB gamut.
>>4512667
the skin tones are fine, they’re about a zone VI/VII. The bassist and guitarist on the far left are about zone V.

What the fuck did I just read. OP is your autism diagnosed or undiagnosed?

File: IMG_6705.gif (283 KB, 220x147)

283 KB GIF

>>4514524

>>4514524
OP is genuinely retarded.

>>4513957
you are editing blind you retard. in gamut for your screen is colorblindness simulation to everyone else. listen to this guy
>>4514261
>>4514258
shoot jpeg. never underexpose to protect a highlight again. you can not edit raws. you do not have the correct software or the correct display to edit raws. when you have an decent display that covers almost all of SRGB and capture one, only then should you bother with raw (i have never seen a good photo from a darktable user)

>>4514532
you know a lot but you use it to optimize things that don't matter to anyone

File: peter-woah.png (772 KB, 783x593)

772 KB PNG

>>4513957
Anon you do realise even some $100 amazon monitors have 95% sRGB gamut and would be fine enough for non-professional editing, right?
You don't need an Asus ProArt or anything, just something that isn't as horridly dog shit as
>...checks notes
61% coverage? What the fuck. Did you rip a car's center dash out and use the touchscreen as a monitor? I can't remember the last monitor to be that bad since the Acer Nitro laptops circa 2018.

Be advised, that you technically can edit blind using a histogram, but you'd need to
a) be exceptionally good at interpreting a histogram
and
b) use software that isn't turd-world like Darktable.

Just buy Capture One. Wait for a sale and buy a lifetime license.
>inb4 linux
Run a VM then buy Capture One. Winboat if you must.

>>4514656
Oh I by no means recommended it, but I figured it was worth mentioning that it's technically possible.
If OP truly didn't want to spend any money on a better screen but wanted to improve a bit, then it's a non-completely retarded method.

File: IMG_3968_.jpg (3.75 MB, 2304x3456)

3.75 MB JPG

original

File: IMG_3968.jpg (1.35 MB, 3456x3456)

1.35 MB JPG

>>4514670

>>4514671
crop the out of focus pole and the wire ffs. are you blind?

>>4514671
Better than the previous photos, but The main subject, the village, is compressed without an interesting lead. We end up looking at the grass, the mountain, and the village is kind of a messy dark band. It's always better to have a foreground interest and cut out the boring areas. Here you could have used the river, or even better, the cows.

File: 178a1807165631367.jpg (1.8 MB, 1541x2313)

1.8 MB JPG

>>4514670

File: IMG_6158.jpg (1.1 MB, 1962x2057)

1.1 MB JPG

>>4514671

>>4514747
fix your verticals

first of all, I'm an absolute noob, especially at editing. But i really wanted this pic for personal reasons.
>>4514710
>blind
from one eye yes, but that's not an excuse
I swear it wasn't there last night, i feel like an absolute retard now
>>4514757
i know. I tried my best to get it straight in camera, but it was a terrible position to try taking a photo without falling and breaking my leg.
Whenever i tried fixing in post the village, mainly the church, always looked weird and fake
>>4514744
Appreciate the critic.
I am now noticing there's way too much grass in other pics i took there. I do like lots of green for some reason, but especially after seeing the other anons better edits i see your point
>Here you could have used the river, or even better, the cows.
I wanted to have the river more centered, starting from the bottom getting into the village, and keep that gorgeous mountain in the back, but due to other fences being present i couldn't get closer to the river.
Are there other ways i could have taken a better pic? Since i might go back there by the end of summer, i want to retry doing a better job
>>4514746
wow, nice!
can i ask you how did you achieve this look?
I'm trying to recreate it but I'm not getting this result

>>4514790
>can i ask you how did you achieve this look?
>https://github.com/andreavolpato/spektrafilm
if that feels overwhelming, which 99% will be, and youre on windows/mac, maybe try the rust port and the gui - not as good, but good enough.
>https://github.com/turbasvin/spektrafilm-rs/releases/tag/v0.1.2

>>4512370
KINO!

>>4513841
This looks best.

>>4513844
Nah he's exposing for an extreme dynamic range scene, he's already clipping windows at this point and should have exposed for less time if anything.

Photographing dark night time scenes doesn't mean your photo has to end up being bright.

i shoot jpg and if the picture doesnt come out perfect i delet