>>4512846
For me, it's P.

>>4512846
I just stick with M, don't even bother with A anymore, would never use S in any situation

for me, it's Fv

>>4512846
For me it's Auto
A when need close object in focus

I try sometimes for the sake of convenience, but I always go back to fully manual.

>>4512865
>tfw manual with auto ISO

>>4512846
ight. next time I'm taking pictures of a street I'll try street mode.

>>4512865
manual with auto iso is usually the best. my camera doesnt have auto iso so I shoot A usually or M if im using TTL flash.

>shooting in M
>still using auto ISO
I would much rather switch back to a priority mode than let ISO control for exposure

>>4512860
Same.
Mostly because I just want to make sure S doesn't fuck around with my aperture settings. I'm find with it fucking around with ISO more.

>>4512879
Well if you're shooting in manual how else do you control exposure? You should primarily be shooting in Av (with auto ISO of course), if you also want to control the shutter speed to a greater extent then you switch to M. So if you're picking both the aperture and shutter speed that you need then the only thing left is ISO.

>>4512860
>>4512893
With newer bodies A is fine because it's focal length aware, so if you're using say a 135mm it won't do something stupid like go down to 1/50 but it will if you're using a 28mm, and if you're using a zoom it will adjust accordingly. And you can also adjust how far above or below the focal length the limit is, say if you're hands are particularly shaky or you're shooting stuff that moves. It makes shutter priority mode completely redundant and makes it so you shouldn't need to go into manual unless you want a shutter speed beyond the range that the auto ISO in A will choose or need it to be something exact and stay there.

>>4512879
Why not just cap auto ISO to acceptable level?

>>4512903
>With newer bodies A is fine because it's focal length aware
>you shouldn't need to go into manual unless you want a shutter speed beyond the range
Neither is really relevant for my reasoning to use M over A

>>4512902
You use aperture and shutter speed to control for exposure, just like they did in the film days. A + Auto ISO is fine for quick snapshots, but M is easy enough to use and can only lead to potentially better IQ.

>>4512906
I don't like using ISO to account for exposure, and a big point of M for me is not having automated exposure settings. Shooting with auto ISO made me lazy about getting the best possible exposure, and it's not worth taking an IQ hit for trivial convenience.

>>4512909
>Neither is really relevant for my reasoning to use M over A
Well unless you need a specific shutter speed or one above what the body would choose you can just use A and save yourself the hassle of having to remember and adjust when you change lenses.

Say you're using a 24-105mm and shooting static stuff so you can use as low a shutter speed as you want. If you're in M you're probably going to stick it at something like 1/125 and leave it there. If you use A, when you're zoomed right out the camera can drop that to 1/30 and you've then just gained 2 stops of ISO.

>You use aperture and shutter speed to control for exposure
Yes, but if you're shooting in M it's because you want to control both of those. If you have those both set to what you require how do you then ensure your exposure is correct? You adjust the ISO. If you're leaving your ISO at a single value because you want to emulate the film experience for some reason then you're going to be choosing your aperture first, chasing the meter and adjusting your shutter speed and essentially shooting in a convoluted aperture priority mode.

Just because you're shooting in M and adjusting values until the meter reads correct instead of just letting the camera do it for you doesn't make you some sort of professional.

>>4512920
Use whatever mode gets you the shots you want, if A works for you, great!
>instead of just letting the camera do it for you
That's why I use M, to more easily override the camera because the camera isn't always perfect. Examples:
>series of family portraits at a wedding
You want things to look cohesive across a set of images, but priority modes might result in subtle differences in exposure thanks to differences in attire, irrelevant background stuff, hair & skin tone, etc. You then have to manually correct for each shift. Sticking with M ensures the same exposure for each shot, and should I need to make changes in post, it's much easier to do so to all at once.
>series of detail shots highlighting the atmosphere of a small shop or room
My goal is to make the room have a consistent feel, and I want to highlight the lighting. If the lighting isn't changing, neither are my settings. Priority modes will end up trying to expose for each shot separately, likely having differences in exposure, and losing that cohesion. It can be very noticeable when something like a door in the background has very different exposures, all because I pointed the camera at a different angle, same "subject", but different exposures. Same thinking can be applied to concert photography, you can expose for constantly changing light or keep exposure consistent and highlight all those lighting changes.
>snowy mountain on a sunny day
Apply the same logic of the room, to a snowy mountain. I can let priority modes attempt to expose me "properly", but I run the risk of snow clipping when it would otherwise not. With M, I can just ETTR based on the snow (or clouds) clipping, and leave it there until lighting changes, which could realistically be hours.

All of these can be controlled for by stuff like AE-locking, EC comp, metering type, etc, but I find M just easier than worrying about all that stuff.
Conceptually, I think of exposing for the "scene" instead of exposing for the "subject".

>>4512920
>If you have those both set to what you require how do you then ensure your exposure is correct?
This only really applies in one direction, because I can't expose lower than base ISO, but I never need to because that's fine for my fastest lenses in daylight without flash, but I can also use HSS, or ND filters to help there too. So assuming you mean what do I do when SS is at the absolute lowest usable and aperture can't change, but I need more? I raise to my 2nd stage ISO and leave it there, or raise to whatever 3rd ISO setting I've decided on a per camera bases (3200/6400/12500/etc). I would always rather shoot at ISO 100 and push 1 stop in post, than shoot auto ISO up to 200. With 200, you could run the risk of clipping thanks to the reduced dynamic range, where as sticking at 100 prevents that.

With auto ISO, aside from the exposure variance as described in other comment, you also can run into (very marginal) losses of IQ. You are right than A can be better than a lazy M shooter, but I see many people use A with a SS higher than necessary for every shot, which puts your ISO higher than it needs to be.
With dual stage ISO, you also have situations where auto ISO going to 320 might actually be worse than if it were to go to 400 instead.

One real situation where fully M is problematic, is with quick shooting between differently exposed areas, like a bridal party walking in from shade, but the altar is in sun and you want shots of both. Worst case, I could just switch to A and shoot like you. I could rely on tactile feel to shoot, turn dial x clicks, shoot, repeat. I could toggle from M to A and keep at least one of the two scenes consistently exposed. Maybe use memory recall to switch between 2 exposures quickly. In practice, I just have two cameras, and if I'm capturing two different scenes like that, it probably warrants different focal lengths.

I hope you can see M as more than simply "manually" chasing the needle.

>>4512939
To elaborate more on ISO, I just treat it the same way cine people do, tending to stick to certain specific ISO for maximum IQ.

>>4512938
You're missing my point. I'm not arguing that going completely manual and locking your settings has no place, you were saying you only ever use M and that A has no place. There are many situations where lighting conditions are changing and exposure needs to be adjusted, if in those situations you're staying in M and just chasing the meter (not at least using auto ISO) then that's dumb. Most people that do this are under the impression that auto anything = bad and makes them not a real photographer. Although funnily many of them still use autofocus because focussing manually is a bit more difficult and they'd lose more shots to that.

>>4512939
You're misunderstanding. My question was, if you're shooting in M but don't control your exposure with ISO then what do you do once you've set your aperture and shutter speed? If you're just leaving it at base ISO and setting your aperture and then adjusting the shutter speed accordingly then you're just shooting in a convoluted aperture priority mode, that's retarded.
>I see many people use A with a SS higher than necessary for every shot, which puts your ISO higher than it needs to be.
As I mentioned, this doesn't happen with a decent body with auto ISO that is focal length aware. If I put my camera in Av with my 135mm on then it won't go any faster than say 1/200 unless it hits base ISO. If I'm shooting something that is moving and want a faster speed I can set auto ISO to fast and it will target say 1/400, or I can set it even faster and it'll target 1/800. It will do what it is that you want, use the lowest ISO possible while still achieving a fast enough shutter speed.

It seems like a lot of people that shit on auto ISO don't actually understand how it works and how much control you can still have. It's not the same as putting your camera in green box mode and letting it make all the decisions.

>>4512951
>I'm not arguing that going completely manual and locking your settings has no place
Gad you acknowledge it as a valid reason to shoot M over A.
>There are many situations where lighting conditions are changing and exposure needs to be adjusted
What kind of situations are you shooting where it needs constant adjustment? I get to a new scene, find an exposure (or two) for the scene, and I'm good.
>in those situations you're staying in M and just chasing the meter
Again, a reason why I use M is to avoid chasing the meter. Priority modes are letting the camera chase the meter, that's not what I want.
> under the impression that auto anything = bad and makes them not a real photographer
These are just ways to get the camera to use certain numbers, its like having a math equation with several different routes to solve for it. Use whatever works best for you, for me, shooting M makes me less prone to errors in exposure. People should use whatever focus method gets them the shots they want, just like exposure mode.

>>4512952
>if you're shooting in M but don't control your exposure with ISO
If you're only using ISO to control your exposure, you could just leave it a lower ISO and control that exposure with a slider in post.
> then you're just shooting in a convoluted aperture priority mode
Just directly changing my exposure settings is a lot less convoluted than setting min/max's and having to use AE-lock, EC comp, etc. The difference with a priority mode is that it only changes exposure when I want to, not when the camera thinks I want to.
Take your camera and point it around a room, you will see the exposure change, even though the lighting isn't. Things are lit differently, but the camera wants an equal exposure for everything.
>As I mentioned, this doesn't happen with a decent body
That is a valid point, but you make it seem like focal length and/or IBIS are the only limiting factor for a minimum shutter speed. There are other times where your minimum effective shutter speed might change, regardless of focal length.
> use the lowest ISO possible while still achieving a fast enough shutter speed.
That's great, and I just do the same by setting the shutter speed I want at the lowest ISO. Then all my shots can be more consistent with each other, and I'm less likely to run into something like accidental clipping.

> It's not the same as putting your camera in green box mode and letting it make all the decisions.
No, but it is giving up potential marginal IQ gains in favor of convenience.

>>4512846
For me, it's M with auto ISO.

File: AlikGriffin_Nikon_Z8_ISO_(...).jpg (270 KB, 1200x960)

270 KB JPG

>>4512964
>>4512960
To elaborate some more with examples, this is the same exposure (shutter speed and aperture) for both. The Z8 is particularly noticable for something like ths. Say you're using auto ISO, but need to push shadows in post. In this case, ISO 500 is much better for pushing than 400 would be.

File: Screenshot_20260607-055403.png (540 KB, 1080x1784)

540 KB PNG

>>4513019
Here's someone far more technically knowledgeable than I am on the same topic
https://blog.kasson.com/gfx-100/fuji-gfx-100s-exposure-strategy/
and his simpler take on exposure (and ISO)
https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/iso-setting-for-raw-files/

>>4513019
Both images are unusably bad

>>4513020
Isnt this the guy who said the z7 doesnt have worse noise than the z6 despite universal consensus being colors take a crap after iso 2800 on the z7? He might be colorblind. His actual photography is impressionist ken rockwell.

AFAIK a lot of older men tend to lose color vision over time

File: z6z7.jpg (1.31 MB, 2740x1187)

1.31 MB JPG

>>4513051
>Isnt this the guy who said the z7 doesnt have worse noise than the z6
You encouraged me to read his multiple posts on that topic, compiled what he said for anyone else that wants to see, thank you for the opportunity to further educate myself on the topic

>>4512846
>tfw no psam camera
I'm still living in the 80s

>>4513232
>z7 obviously has more chroma issues even after literal mental gymnastics to make it “fair” (unrealistic comparison, nobody processes images like that) and a green channel only noise chart
>magenta tinted grey squares from trying to edit out the green tint
Yep. Another nikon L.

The Z7 and Z89 really have terrible color science.

>>4513232
>tiny bit more noise
>looks like almost twice as much
The DXOmark sports score does not lie.

>>4512847
what does pee do anyway I never figured that out

At least for digital cameras, M mode is consequence not an intention.

>Start with P
>i don't like the DOP so change the aperture
>Camera goes into A

>Start with P
>i want faster shutter speed so change the SS
>Camera goes into S

>Start with P
>i need to change the both
>Camera goes into M

I don't see the point for AE... well for most of what I shoot anyway. I want to set the aperture, because it affects the shot the most, imo. Then I use the shutter to choose exposure. Only if the exposure needs too long of a SS I'll use the ISO dial. Camera doesn't know how I want to expose the shot so I would be using the exposure comp dial anyway... So why not just use full manual? Effectively I'll just be turning one dial to choose exposure anyway.

File: Screenshot_20260609-054355.png (1.13 MB, 1080x1041)

1.13 MB PNG

Thank you guys for another learning opportunity
>>4513236
>mental gymnastics to make it “fair”
Could you elaborate on that? Equalizing for resolution or brightness? Or the extreme pushing?
>green channel only noise chart
DxO has several of there own charts comparing the two that look basically the same.
>>4513237
>The DXOmark sports score does not lie.
You know what the highest rated FF models for that are? R3, which is probably due to the built in NR, followed by the a7III. I found it odd the D800 and RP both have a higher sports score than the Z7, despite looking like this, but they would never lie so what do I know.

File: Untitled.png (434 KB, 648x316)

434 KB PNG

>>4513280
No one takes pics from their $1600-2000 pro camera, scales them down to 2mp, and applies gaussian blur. The z7 is meant for big prints and deep crops. Not being a z6 with sharper edges and even worse color science due to its worse noise.

Even after max mental gymnastics this is as close as it gets to the ff/apsc difference without making the sensor smaller, and its a blurred downscaled image. The noise might be mathematically close but this isnt /p/ - astronomical imaging and the worse chroma component makes it perfeptually ass.

The nikon z7 and z7ii are shitty cameras.
>dpreview screenshot
We all know they cheat on exposure and fuck with the lighting now. Dpreview is a useless amazon owned shill website staffed by amazon trannies that ban their forum members for talking about hardware and firmware issues with cameras. I saw a thread linked here where their mods had a meltdown and banned everyone for saying fuji’s autofocus was still inaccurate after a firmware update.
>sirs, this is lies and disinfo! you are hurting fujifilms sales sirs! this is amazon marketing website!

>>4513280
Isnt the dxo sports score the ISO where the noise level crosses a standard level, not how steeply it declines after that?

>>4513280
>equalizing cameras meant for different things is making it fair
No, it’s mental gymnastics that stinks of a subvert admission that someone bought a 45mp camera designed to shoot exclusively at ISO 64 and be a cope for studios that cant afford medium format expecting it to be a normal 35mm snapper. But to be fair, nikon pretended the 45mp sensor was general purpose.

Nikon remade this mistake 4 times with the z7, z7ii, z8, and z9 and still hasn’t fixed their open aperture focus except on the z8 and z9. No wonder they’re headed towards being the #4 brand. If fuji somehow fixes their autofocus it is over for nikon. They have no competitive pro and hobbyist cameras, no competitive consumer cropmeras (they’re worse than fuji, even), third rate tech, green skin and unnatural colors, and manufacturing quality worse than china’s. All they have is megapixels and sharpness.

>>4513305
>>4513301
Reads like an awful lot of cope to me nophoto

>i bought this high resolution camera and the ISO noise is really ugly. its basically iso 64-400. what a letdown. guess i’ll sell it and look elsewhere to do my big prints and deep crops. maybe the canon r5 will be better.
>UH NO IF YOU APPLY GAUSSIAN BLUR AND SCALE IT TO 2MP IT HAS THE SAME COMPUTER SIGNAL TO NOISE RATIO AS…
Gearfags, especially nicucks, genuinely miss the point. Funny they were on the other side of this with d850 vs 5ds.

>>4513310

Spoken like a true gearfag. Sad.

>>4513312
Oh sure. So, why are you coping to defend nikons shitty cameras in a psam thread? Everyone knows the autofocus sucks, the build quality is randomly bad, the 45mps are noisy for their intended use, they dropped support for half their dslr lenses, etc…

Nikon sucks. (They always have in some way)
Just let it go.
If someone says nikon sucks don’t waste your time replying.
Is that hard for you?
How pointless is it to counter “z7 kinda noisy for ff” with “NOT WITH GAUSSIAN BLUR+EXPORT AT 2MP!”? Its totally irrelevant. Pointless. You’re just adding “nikons fanboys suck” to “nikon sucks”.

Please, take a deep breath. Say it with me…
>nikon cameras kinda suck
>not many people like them
>and that’s ok

>>4513315

Maybe you should take a breath. That was my first comment in the thread. The level of your gearfaggotry is insane and truly pathetic.

>>4513316
If you’re not the fanboy posting cope charts why even get mad and reply?

Just let people dislike shitty $2000 cameras anon. Nikon isnt going to pay you for this.

>>4513317

Not mad, but gearfaggotry is truly disgusting and pathetic. I don't use nikon either, but if I did the pictures would be great... Like on any modern camera.

>>4513323
>ugh, stop caring. stop asking questions. just give companies money. consoom.
very reddit opinion. on 4chan we hate 99.9% of products and have detailed reasons why. you may now buy a 5dII or if you’re smart, an eos 1v, and realize we’re right about modern cameras being shit. tootles!
>great photos from a modern camera
sure just edit the soul back in after correcting all the aliasing kek

>>4513326

Well, you keep gearfagging, I'll be taking photos. Toodles!

>>4513326

Btw I'm on my second digital camera body. Bought my first one back in 2008 and second in 2016. I think I may buy one this year too! Consoooom or what ever :D

>>4513328
Wow your mom let you buy a camera when you were 8?

>>4513317
>why even get mad and reply?
Why do you all the time?

>>4513344
oh look a nikek that thinks everyone who says nikon sucks is one guy

>shill nikon on /p/ for months
>now /p/ says nikon sucks
>HOW?
(Its cuz nikon sucks)

>>4513254
It's called Programmed Auto which makes sense. You can also do something like locking the ISO, so in that circumstance adjusting the wheel will change the shutter and aperture to get correct exposure.

what's a decent setup for a newfag when you're just walking around and suddenly see something cool and you don't have any time to fiddle with the settings you just need to take the picture right there and then?
preset shutter speed at some level where motion doesn't blur too much and aperture isn't too shallow and then auto iso? what about metering? I always have trouble with metering when doing any of the auto settings so it pushed me to manual, but I dont have the skill to switch settings that fast and figuring out how much to switch them.

>>4519405
P, then A + Auto ISO

If you set things right manually, you generally don't need to be constantly tweaking settings, and if you are, probably shouldn't be in manual

>>4519405
f11 1/500
Winogrand used stand development
You can use auto ISO

>>4519405
Good thinking. For me, I think of what depth of field I want which is usually f/8 or f/11, then use Auto ISO and just like you said, set a minimum shutter speed for the subject you want so 1/500th minimum for people moving depending on the lens. For a quick photo, just use the auto metering and shoot in RAW and maybe use a +2 -2, 3 burst bracket if your camera struggles to get it right.

Bind AUTO ISO minimum shutter speed to a button or quick menu so if you decide to shoot something static, you can dial down the shutter speed.

>>4519419
use P + auto ISO
>>4519423
use M + auto ISO
>>4519429
use A + auto ISO

hmmm...

>>4519437
based M only and never auto ISO user

i shoot mostly landscapes on my D850, A mode it is.

>>4519419
feel like my problem is metering. I point at things slightly differently and suddenly meter goes -2 or +2

>>4519423
isn't that super fast? like birds in flight fast?

>>4519429
I thought people were 125...
also issue is that in manual you can't set EV comp I guess I'll have to use A or P
can't bind auto iso on my d3200. also no bracketing unless you mean manual


how do I figure out proper settings? like I have no idea how film-fags are doing it, I can't possibly react to all these light changes and feels like even slight ones have large impact

>>4519479
That means you need to learn how your camera meters better and when to use exposure compensation
Also, pay attention to what settings are being used even when on auto, if you shoot enough you should get to the point where you can ballpark within a stop or so for a given situation

File: nikon-d3200-iso-sensitivi(...).jpg (74 KB, 640x480)

74 KB JPG

>>4519479
1/500 is good for freezing people in motion but review the shots you've taken and see what works. You might be able to go lower but in my experience, 1/125 is not enough. 1/250 or 1/320 might be a good compromise. In the field, chimp away to see what works. Once you figure out your minimum shutter, figure out your minimum depth of field.
Set that in A mode. Then go into auto ISO with a max set even higher than 3200 because it's worth at least getting a noisy usable shot than a blurry less noisy one. Binding the autoiso is just a nice quality of life thing but as long as you know how to navigate to the setting it's fine, or for slow/static subjects you could just use S or M.
Review your photos to see what annoys you about the photos. Blown highlights annoy you? Dial negative EV comp. Backlit subject ends up too dark? Switch metering modes or dial up EV comp. Setting negative comp is generally safer because shadows are easier to recover than highlights it all depends on what you are looking for. Negative film is very forgiving. Slide film shooters have to be a lot more careful.
If you could post an example of a shot gone bad, we could help figure out how to avoid that.

File: OVEREXPORSE.jpg (340 KB, 1190x918)

340 KB JPG

>>4519482
yeah that's fair, I try to do it honestly only had a camera for a week and I've been making progress.

>>4519520
I do get lost sometimes cause so far it's been: very overcast day, intermediate overcast, night, low light evening, and one mostly sunny from like 17 to 22 hours. hardest is intermediate overcast, and high contrast because matrix metering will fuck something up, and stppt metering to either -2 or +2 ev on the zone scale takes a bit of time and controls, and if I use auto iso it's even more fiddly cause to change ev need to switch off manual and switch back, and it might change shitter or aperture while doing that.
I can control all 3 in M with holding buttons and the wheel, so when I was trying to do night with lights or moon or sun or overcast I ended up spot metering the brightest thing and overexposing +2 to not clip and not have it muddy, cause I heard that: 1 digital has more trouble preserving highlights, and 2 that exposing to the right makes less noise.
I'm slowly getting better but sometimes I completely spill my spaghetti and misunderstand metering I guess cause something like this happens (even made a meme about it).

File: 1000184964.jpg (2.88 MB, 4000x6016)

2.88 MB JPG

>>4519524
though today on a clear day I was in matrix all day and I think it was mostly pretty well exposed with auto iso.
I did mess up on the shutter speed couple times cause I didn't realize that it was too slow for some movement. cause I tried compensating with shutter to get lower iso.
also during the day a crow flying got blurred slightly at 1/125.
probably should have had the aperture more closed cause I think the second cow is a bit blurry.
I think I'm trapping myself into being scared of iso, cause on the first days I messed up so badly there was a lot of noise, and I also was scared that my camera wasn't actually good and a lot of people on the net say that d3200 has bad iso and low light. but I'm not sure I even mind the grain I've just been trying to figure out too much.

currently also struggling on figuring out picture control settings that would have realistic contrast and saturation, so I could later edit it based off that, but another issue is that my ThinkPad only has 68% srgb or something, so I have to open them later on my phone, it's a bit of a pain.
PLUS I have to use NX studio cause Lightroom color profiles seem crazy oversaturated and over contrasted even on my screen, and the "camera" profiles don't look the same.
I went into a hardware store and picked up a bunch of color swatch cards from the paint section to see if I can diy a color board and maybe try making my own Lightroom profile. todays outing though I just end up playing around with contrast and saturation moving them by 1. seems to be alright.
also shooting in Adobe RGB cause I read that in camera histogram and preview are actually an embedded jpeg, so with larger color space both histogram and preview will look closer to what the raw captures (on the first day (super overcast) everything was so blown or underexposed and contrast was off the charts with SD Nikon jpeg, so it was really hard to figure out.

jesus fuck I rambled sorry

>>4519524
>1 digital has more trouble preserving highlights, and 2 that exposing to the right makes less noise.
This is true but if you want highlights preserved, gotta make the compromise of noisier shadows (muddier subject). Post processing should be able to help a good bit in that case. Overcast days are definitely trickier than the "giant softbox in the sky" theory suggests. If you don't want the muddy subject/preserved highlights, then flash can help. Was that jpg after dialing the highlights down in RAW?

>>4519525
that shot looks well exposed and you are right, stopping down a little bit and maybe even a faster shutter speed might have helped. But that does mean more noise. Have you tried shooting continuous high speed at a slower shutter? Say instead of f/8 1/200 do f/8 1/100 but do a burst of ten shots and hope one of them doesn't have motion blur? Cows probably don't move that much so it could work. A cheap tripod might be worth a shot as well. But the photo looks fine on my 100% SRGB calibrated monitor, I wouldn't be too harsh on myself!

File: 1000184965.jpg (2.22 MB, 2660x4000)

2.22 MB JPG

>>4519526
yeah pretty sure it was even more cooked then that.
though when the light wasn't behind him like that I had some decent photos.
looking at the data it was still matrix but I put in -0.7ev and used shutter priority. probably switched to it to change the EV. maybe would be better to use aperture priority. it's f4.5 1/500 1600 a-iso, so I think I pissed a couple stops of iso for nothing cause was too panicked to think in the moment not wanting to miss shots.

>>4519529
I did a bit of bursting and a lot of them had blur cause there was a lot of licking.
I went down to 1/20 and took me couple bursts to realize that that was dumb. I also have a VR lens so I get spoiled with the free 3 stops but I dont know well what kind of movement what shutter speed can capture.
I would like a tripod cause I want to do some landscape and night shooting as well, and astro, but I can't find any actually cheap tripods that could hold (though light) DSLR.
> look fine
thank you, does the contrast and saturation look alright too? not sure if it's hard to judge in that kind of light. not sure if it tells you anything but I set NL +1 contrast +2 saturation, in that particular one it looked alright, but in another photo of a red car I took after that on my laptop the colors are fine but on my p3 screen phone it looks too saturatedeven though I did NL +2 contrast +1 saturstion. hard to judge these things, and some people said nikons oversaturate as well.

File: 1000184966.jpg (4.34 MB, 6016x4000)

4.34 MB JPG

>>4519531
pic related.
maybe the car could be that red as an artistic thing. realistically I think maybe in good lighting but this was 21:08 and those leaves look a bit overcooked..
maybe I should just go 1 or 2 saturation less than what I see on my monitor to compensate.
it's definitely a lot easier to edit things when you expose properly in the first place, so I have a lot more practice to do either way. and raws aren't going anywhere.

>>4519531
The P3 color space is just way too saturated for sRGB files. My monitor also does wider gamut but I set it to sRGB because most content is sRGB and everything gets way oversaturated if in P3. Everyone has different contrast and saturation tastes but it looked natural to me.

Basically any tripod that isn't marketed for selfies will be fine and those are $20 or $30 bucks.

-0.7EV and matrix is a pretty reasonable setting. You might have been able to do 1/250 800 or 1/125 400 but of course the odds of motion blur go up quite a bit. On the other hand, given the overexposure, maybe -1.5 or -2 might be the ticket and you keep 1/500 but at ISO800 and hopefully keep the highlights. I'm pretty sure the D3200 has blinkies to check.

>>4519532
this also looks good to me, very natural. Of course without knowing the original scene I can't actually say but it definitely doesn't give Ken Rockwell vibes.

>>4519479
>feel like my problem is metering. I point at things slightly differently and suddenly meter goes -2 or +2
Depends on the scene. Most cameras have matrix metering (or some similar name) where it takes in four or so parts of the scenes and makes an average to get the metering right, then there's the more basic ones like center weighted and spot metering.

Most people will be fine with matrix, but I find myself using center a bit more often and I've started experimenting with highlight metering to get some really rich shadows.

As for some general stuff, maybe check out something like a basic aperture+light chart (which is what I use for film as I don't trust my meter). So a regular sunny day might be as simple as f/5.6 and shutter 1/125 with a 100ISO to get roughly ideal exposure (give or take just a little bit on the shutter speed).

File: 1000184981.jpg (1.24 MB, 4848x2160)

1.24 MB JPG

>>4519535
>P3 is way too saturated
man this is way too complicated... I switched my phone to srgb and now it looks fine too. but does that mean that the picture file itself has that saturated amount of color since it's also adobe RGB and not normal RGB? should I switch my camera to normal RGB or is that not how it works? I don't think I can choose a color profile in NX studio...

it has blinkies but as far as I understand it's based off the embedded jpeg which has a lot more range so when it blinks supposedly you still have some room in the raw. why I switched to a-srgb, pictures became less contrasty too.

>looks good to me, very natural
thanks this puts me a bit at ease that things arent so bad. with my phone set to srgb it looks close to what it was I think. with p3 it was way saturated.
as soon as I learned about ken rockwell the other day it scared me that I'm editing too much so I only try to do subtle changes. it's insane how much you can do with a raw file... my cam doesn't have HDR but I feel like raws have enough in them to just do HDR with one shot through all the sliders.

I looked at kf concept tripods around 30$ and they look nice but there's always a couple reviews about sag. though I only have the kit lens right now which is pretty light I'm gonna get a heavier lens as well so not sure if it will be ok... guess I could always return. another concern is would it be compatible with the cheapo backpack bracket (looks similar visually on the bottom, not sure if that's standard) or would I need to unscrew it, guess it's just a little inconvenience maybe it's not an issue. (I attach my cam to the camera on the left and on the right to the bottom where the bracket is, so when you carry cross body the grip always points out a bit and is never blocked by the strap)

>>4519554
how do you do highlight metering? I spot meter the brightest thing and overexpose by 2 or something like that, is that reasonable?
I'll look at a chart, I need to memorize the sunny 16 thing. at least stops of light make sense so I get how to balance, but my base understanding of how fast or bright something is is very lacking.

>>4519525
>PLUS I have to use NX studio cause Lightroom color profiles seem crazy
You mean because you can't figure out the literal most commonly used, especially by beginners, editing program

If I was struggling so much with the most commonly used program, I would want to take a step back and wonder what I'm doing wrong

You are still doing the pointless side quest to distract from learning how to edit

>>4519531
If you're struggling this much with exposure, you should try bracketing. It's not just for exposure blending, let the camera take a few different exposures and you can see what's best.

>>4519586
no I can edit with it, it's incredibly better for that than NX, I just don't know how to make a profile yet. and all the ones in Lightroom look bad. I'm just spread too thin between trying to figure out all the camera stuff and this. I only got my first camera last week.
I only use NX to compare the in camera settings in post since trying to tweak settings while shooting and then comparing is a lot harder.
my goal is to have to do *absolute minimum* editing and just having a good exposure and colors out the camera at least tommy own level of satisfaction, and if I choose to edit more I can, but I want a good baseline.

>bracketing
I tried manual but didn't go anywhere yet. camera doesn't have auto bracketing.

>>4519566
sRGB is the default for cameras but if you changed it to adobe RGB or saved using adobe RGB, it could have extended saturation viewable for people using wide gamut displays. The web is designed around sRGB and sRGB is still mostly the standard. Since blinkies are conservative, what I do if I want to keep the sky is dial EV comp down until only a small part is blinking with the assumption that I can recover some of that later.

As for tripods, if you want a sturdier one, check out used listings but a cheap lightweight tripod is always worth having. If sag is an issue, you can usually upgrade the head so if that is something you are worried about, make sure the tripods you are looking at allow you to do that.

>>4519567
highlight metering means spot metering the highlights to keep that detail. It's basically matrix metering with a negative comp.

>>4519588
>no I can edit with it
If this were true,
>all the ones in Lightroom look bad
You wouldn't be saying this lol

Incidentally, I also have a D3200 on my shelf, I'll see if I can find the charger and play around with some RAWs to better understand your issues

File: 1000184940.jpg (2.81 MB, 4096x3072)

2.81 MB JPG

>>4519599
hmm I see... I only switched to a-srgb for the preview on the camera screen to be more accurate to the. and the histogram. might not be worth the trouble.

>highlight
oh I misunderstood. I don't have highlight metering on mine so that's just what I did to figure out how far I could push right not to clip highlights.

>>4519609
I want there to be minimal editing so I want things to set well.
if I take 100 photos a day and have to spend 5 minutes per Foto editing it compared to 2 hours per foto editing... I'm just not going to bother or be extremely conservative with even taking pictures. maybe that could actually help be more mindful of composition and setting but I'd rather just have well calibrated base for a start.

I picked up some color cards from a local paint shop obi section and if I can find what values that these colors are I'd be golden.
at this point im just setting my monitor to display gamma for grays properly with the old school striped line calibration pictures, other than needing to remove some red it shows gamma and contrast well, but since it's only 67% srgb im worried about oversaturating.

I'd be thankful if you can give any insights with your D3200. so far I'm setting my picture control to NL, 1 sharpening, +1 or +2 contrast and saturation is where I'm a bit stuck, so I'm floating between -1 0 +1 or +2 like with the cows. or SD but going the other direction with contrast 0 and - saturation.
when I did it on the first day with camera set to SRGB dynamic range was also more compressed and contrasty in the jpegs and embedded jpeg previews, with a-rgb it looks better with less clipping and more detail and less contrasty.

so I plan to tune it in camera to be more or less accurate, then make a Lightroom profile that repeats that, and as well try to make one with the paint color cards. (pic is a phone pic but I also took one with my DSLR. I got 5000k 95cri flashlight and some daylight lamps too so hopefully I can figure something out).

>>4519622
>if I take 100 photos a day and have to spend 5 minutes
If you are spending more than 5 minutes to color correct basic shots, you don't know what you're doing.

Picture control stuff doesn't matter if you are shooting RAW and using LR, which is the best option for getting the best results in the most efficient way.


Yes, keep on the treadmill of distracting yourself with side shit so you don't have to actually learn.

>>4519625
well the goal is to spend zero minutes.
and yes I don't know what I'm doing I just started.
picture control embeds nikons own color logic and I'm getting to liking it after tweaking some sliders a lot more than things in Lightroom, is the point.
I'm focusing only on color contrast and saturation for now till I get everything set up properly.

>>4519630
to clarify, priority is learning how to expose properly > camera settings for descent base saturation and contrast > figuring out monitor calibration > proper color profile in LR > THEN editing whatever.

I think that's reasonable.
learning how to use the camera isn't "distracting with side shit", making sure I'm not skewing things due to shitty screen isn't either.

>>4519632
Expose properly with RAW and you are good. As for jpg output, find something that ends up looking good for you on your Thinkpad because you are the one who is going to be looking at these photos the most.
I'd work on getting a calibrated 100% sRGB monitor rather than trying to fix the 68% one. I had a similar monitor and used an iDisplay colorimeter to calibrate it. It was helpful but I hated dealing with icc profiles and just having one that works for color work out of the factory is great. You could probably get a 100% calibrated monitor for not too much more than a colorimeter. Keep in mind a huge proportion of people are on uncalibrated lower gamut monitors like your Thinkpad and some are on higher gamut so it's a crapshoot as to what the viewer sees. You might be thinking that editing on a 68% monitor and then going to 100% might end up looking oversaturated but in practice the colors just look richer, not like viewing sRGB on P3. But it sounds like you want to get your ducks in a row so just get the 100% sRGB monitor. You can always go back to the RAWs if you find otherwise.

>>4519639
really? I thought most monitors were srgb at least, and I just have this cause it's an office computer. but at least it shows gamma and contrast well.
plus phones should definitely have good colors with their high bit oldest even on budget ones...
>You might be thinking that editing on a 68% monitor and then going to 100% might end up looking oversaturated but in practice the colors just look richer, not like viewing sRGB on P3
I see, that puts me more at ease.
yeah I might get an external monitor if it comes to that, I'll play around with calibration for couple of days maybe I'll get mine to a decent place and maybe proof on my phone or something.
I've been mostly just going out to shoot, and figuring out exposure, but contrast and saturation and color profiles make it harder since blinkies and histogram and the in camera preview itself changes a lot based on srgb and a-srgb and raw is even wider so it was just confusing me a bit.

>>4519645
since they are based on the embedded jpg even when you shoot raw*

>>4519645
they are sRGB but most laptop and office monitors aren't able to display the gamut. Phones usually have good screens but I can't imagine editing or checking output on one although it seems like a lot of people do just that. I don't use instagram but I think there's a lot of people who edit on mobile.
>>4519646
If you shoot the neutral color profile with contrast dialed down, the blinkies are a good enough substitution for RAW clipping. If you use vivid with high contrast, you can pull back more but that doesn't sound like your photo preference. Adobe RGB has a wider color gamut but not wider dynamic range so the blinkies work the same.

>>4519647
yeah I wouldn't work ah phone editing on anyone but if I can get my laptop to the point where they don't look that weird or different then that be nice. given of course that the phone screen itself is not messing something up.

oh I see. maybe I will try neutral with lowered contrast for that sake.
yeah I don't like oversaturated, or too contrasty without a purpose, or "HDR" look. it always just looks weird and fake to me when I see it. I want to make things look how they did when I saw them cause I thought they looked cool and I wanted to take a picture of them, maybe with a slight bias to tune things to make it convey the emotion better that I was feeling.
> Adobe RGB has a wider color gamut but not wider dynamic range so the blinkies work the same.
huh... I specifically took a picture in srgb and a-srgb with the same settings but the a-srgb looked like it had more dynamic range.
maybe I messed up something or it's the way they view, another layer of this stuff. I think it looked different on the camera screen as well. guess I'll have to test it in a more controlled environment again and see what's up. if I can switch back to srgb that would be easier.
though, would histogram and rgb histogram work the same in both? if it's wider color it would look different, no?

Holy shit just leave everything on auto at this point bro

auto sucks

>>4519651
In theory, Adobe RGB and sRGB should display the same on your monitor. Both are 8-bit so their dynamic range is the same; 255,255,255 represents the brightest white your monitor can display and 0,0,0 the darkest. But some applications are not properly color aware, have different ways of doing the conversion, export settings in camera or conversion software are different etc. I used Adobe RGB decades ago for print work and I hated it and I really don't think it's worth it when everything is standardized around sRGB. Even for prints, which is what my photography is geared toward, I use sRGB even though Adobe RGB is meant to be better for printing.

>>4519660
I see, thank you.

File: future.jpg (639 KB, 1920x2560)

639 KB JPG

>>4519632
>learning how to use the camera isn't "distracting with side shit",
No, but going to a store to get color swatches at your current ability level absolutely is.
If you want to lift weights, you can talk theory, read different programs, learn about macros, but at some point, you just need to put the hours in at the gym.
If you want to play a game, you can talk benchmarks and optimal settings, strategy within the game, but at some point, you just need to put the hours in playing.
If you want to take better photos, you can talk about all this stuff all day, but at some point, you need to put the hours in with shooting (and editing).

> expose properly
Yes, but also the creative side like composition, which is significantly more important to a meaningful image than grading.
>camera settings for descent base saturation and contrast
In terms of lighting and exposure and how those affect saturation and contrast, yes. In terms of picture control styles, absolute waste of time if you are shooting RAW. If you are shooting RAW, focus on that stuff in post. If you don't want to do that in post, stick with JPG.
>figuring out monitor calibration
This will help with editing, but finding a proper color profile and learning how to edit are both more important. Knowing how to edit on a shitty monitor is better than having a good monitor with now editing ability.

Have you ever considered what happens if you stick with photo, but end up getting a new camera? Are you looking forward to starting from scratch on this whole process again?

>>4519764
>Knowing how to edit on a shitty monitor is better than having a good monitor with now editing ability
You can't even view photos properly on a shitty monitor let alone think you are improving them through editing them except to make it look good for your specific garbage monitor that crushes blacks, has color shift in the shadows, has a fucked up gamma curve, has a white point that is way off, enormous color accuracy issues, poor gamut, etc. A shitty monitor will have a user blame their camera for crappy color when their viewing device is introducing all kinds of errors. A good monitor won't have those issues.

>>4519767
This.

>>4519764
If you aren’t willing to do editing RIGHT stick to shooting jpeg or black and white.
If your monitor is inaccurate you can’t edit. You literally can not tell what your edits do.
And if you have no way to calibrate your camera or start with a good calibrated profile (capture one does this, and when they profile lenses they included calibrations for lens color casts as well) you can’t do anything with a raw file. Your cameras jpeg is going to be better in natural/standard. Just drop saturation and sharpening and turn on whatever they call their shadow push (dro, active d lighting, dr400, w/e) because the default tone curve is too contrasty and in line with what boomers liked. Because for most of digital camera history all the boomers shot jpeg and only young tech literate people shoot raw.

This is still true but the boomers are dropping out or dying off, and being replaced by equally ignorant and tech illiterate zoomers

>>4519767
>>4519768
It's interesting you guys feel so strongly about this, but never contribute in the actual editing threads. Makes you wonder...
>(dro, active d lighting, dr400, w/e)
These are not all the same thing. Good example of the limitation of your own knowledge.

>>4519773
They are all basically the same thing. Different implementations of an automatic shadow push in jpeg, sometimes with the ISO relabeled to reflect the added shadow brightness. Because the defaults are way way way too contrasty and kenrockwell.com-ish.

Dont fool yourself into thinking fuji and canon actually have magic dynamic range boosts lol sensors dont work like that and it looks the same as underexposing and pushing with raw.

Please do not edit on a bad screen. I’ve seen how it ends for other people and i’ve done it myself. Don’t do it.

>>4519776
>They are all basically the same thing
Nope.
DRO is just jpg only processing.
Active D lighting is part processing, but also biases metering / exposure for RAW (but does nothing for RAW if fully manual).
DR400 changes the actual exposure captured, then applies processing and always affects RAW.

>>4519779
DR400 just underexposes, applies preset sliders, and records a higher ISO in exif. It is the same actual thing as pumping up active D lighting while underexposing.

Regardless it should be on to avoid boomer tier photos.

>>4519780
>DR400 just underexposes,
At capture, via ISO, which is an important difference. A DR100 and DR400 shot with the same exposure settings will have different highlight and shadow information in the RAW file.
>as pumping up active D lighting while underexposing.
Yes, with D lighting, you have to actually underexpose yourself (which if you're doing makes the setting pointless since you just correct in post). A RAW with the same exposure settings and Active D lighting off will have the same highlight and shadows as with Active D lighting on high.

These are not the same, but all are unnecessary if you shoot RAW and post process.

>>4519782
Does the base technical implementation really matter if its just underexposing and pushing shadows?

No.

It is a jpeg setting that makes shadows more visible and a bit more noisy instead of like a boomer’s photography.

>>4519782
A dr400 shot is just an underexposed raw with an incorrect ISO in exif
That is all it is
It is literally the same as pumping the tone curve in jpeg settings up while underexposing yourself

No actual difference. Stop falling for fuji marketing.
>we changed the ISO in exif so its speshul

>>4519784
>Does the base technical implementation really matter
I mean it does matter. If I shoot fully manually with both, the settings will end up working differently.

You might think underexposing via ISO would help to retain highlights, regardless of active d lighting, it will on Nikon. However if you went from ISO 800 DR400 to ISO 200, you get the same highlights.

Again, DRO is a JPG setting, but the other 2 do impact RAWs in different ways.

>>4519785
>A dr400 shot is just an underexposed raw with an incorrect ISO in exif
I never said it wasn't. In fact, I explained that to be true!
>It is literally the same as pumping the tone curve in jpeg settings up while underexposing yourself
Absolutely, I wouldn't say otherwise. DR100 with underexposing and processing can get you anything DR400 can.

>>4519786
Fuji just writes the wrong ISO on your screen that’s all it is and that’s all they can do
Otherwise its the same. You dont have to lower the shutter speed, open the aperture, or raise the REAL ISO to make the shadows brighter.

Fuji just writes the wrong ISO when they make the shadows brighter.
This is the same brand that uses a different ISO labeling standard to begin with (a fuji ISO label is actually 2/3s darker than a nikon one and 1 stop darker than a pentax one)
ISO on digital is fake

>>4519785
>It is literally the same as pumping the tone curve in jpeg settings
Except again, remember a DR100 and DR400 with the same exposure settings will have different highlights and shadows at capture, one might be clipped where as the other isn't
With active d lighting on/off and manual exposure, either both will be clipped or neither, because the exposure is the same

>>4519788
Yes, now notice how this is different than what DRO does and what active d lighting do

>>4519791
Its really the same as using DRO/ADL to expose less and not blow the highlights the shadows are already brighter. The raws are affected the same way (darker if the raw processor doesnt respect the DRO/ADL setting). The jpegs are the same (brighter with more noise but less blowout).
Except they lie about the ISO even more than they already do. Functionally it is the same and this part is irrelevant because ISO is made up, unlike db of gain.

This wouldn’t bother a non-autist like at all

>>4519795
The intent might the same, to preserve highlights and recover shadows, but they all operate very differently
It's like saying different cameras are the same because they both take pictures

It only bothers me when people talk like they know about stuff, without having an understanding of what's actually happening

>>4519806
They operate the same but fuji writes an even wronger ISO than usual to the metadata and I think DR800 pushes shadows a little harder than sony or nikons presets do

>>4513019
Left one has a green cast in shadows while the right one doesn't. Maybe the left one seems a bit less grainy.

>>4519773
>>4519767
here,
You don't know why someone feels strongly about having a calibrated monitor? Anyway, I rarely participate in editing threads because people have different tastes (and oftentimes monitors that will display those edits differently anyway).

>>4519764
I get what you mean, but you don't try to learn how to play on a out of tune instrument.
I do take photos almost every day, and I might change contrast and saturation in NX a bit and export a jpeg or two, but to switch to LR I need the frost step of the process when I import the raw not to be "it looks weird", and I'm trying to figure that out.
I'm more or less satisfied with the output from the camera either way and don't feel like I'm gonna need to edit much either way.
>waste of time for raw
thing is, Nikon applies picture controls to the embedded jpeg and when you load in the raw in NX it applies the same things here, it's 100% consistent between the camera and the editor.
LR doesn't have nikons profiles so the "camera" profiles look off, I'd rather have everything consistent in baseline.
>finding a proper color profile and editing are more important
but that's the thing, I haven't found a color profile. I know about basic LR editing, curves, mask stuff. was looking up about HSL and calibration the other day. I don't plan to use much of any of that unless I have a specific vision and so far the extent of my postprocessing vision is a little less or more contrast or saturation, or turning things B&W but I haven't started figuring that out yet. white balance out the camera has been pretty good also.
>what if new camera
well yeah, I'd have to configure things, any device I get I go through all the settings and set everything up.
not going to be anything from scratch though. I'll already know how to make profiles and have a color swatch board to see if anything is super out of wack or not. I'll probably have a better monitor by the time I get a new camera.

also not sure why you think editing is end all important.

>>4519814
> I need the frost step of the process when I import the raw not to be "it looks weird", and I'm trying to figure that out
This is an any editor that isnt capture one/dxo problem and a bad screen problem

You gotta calibrate it under a standard illuminant (more swatches = more accurate) AND have a monitor that doesn’t "look weird"

>>4519809
>They operate the same
Clearly not given the examples above
>>4519812
Having a calibrated monitor is good and will make anyone's editing process better. Cope more nophoto.

>>4519822
pictures on the camera screen, on my laptop screen in NX, on my phone after exporting from NX look decently fine.
anon with a better monitor said that they looked fine too, and I've calibrated a bit after, which oy required getting the red tint out which was easy, gamma was already well set out the box. so I'm slowly getting there.
I just haven't got to making a lightroom profile that is closer to camera output profile that I have that I like. cause I chose to go out and take pictures instead and learn more about the camera.

if I fuck up the exposure so bad that I feel the need to go to Lightroom, I may as well just learn how to expose properly. otherwise not sure what I'd do there.
though, today I was shooting a lot into the sun and colorful objects in dull shadows of bright day, and that might need some color work cause it's very dull in the camera and it wasnt very colorful irl either cause of the lighting but I wanted to try and bring some of the color back. so when I get to it I'm gonna try that.

>>4519826
You'd get better advice too if you shared more of your images. Or even just images that aren't yours but you like the colors of, and of course ones you don't like the colors of.

It's hard to give advice for you to reach your color goals when you haven't actually shown much in terms of what you want or don't want.

>>4519824
>Having a calibrated monitor is good and will make anyone's editing process better.
Read it again. The guy I was replying to thought it was strange that I felt a calibrated monitor was very important for editing. Maybe he has valid reasons, but I doubt it.

>>4519830
>strange that I felt a calibrated monitor was very important for editing
Read it again. He said that it was strange to care that much for the sake of editing, while also not contributing to the board when it actually comes to editing.

>>4519831
You also don't understand why a calibrated monitor is very important for editing?

>>4519831
If you’re so quick to make up fantasies about Anonymous whenever reason alone can not discredit him… then give us your facebook, twitter, insta, furaffinity, grindr, and flist so we can judge you even better

>>4519814
>LR I need the frost step of the process when I import the raw not to be "it looks weird", and I'm trying to figure that out.
Are you really trying to figure that out though? Why do you think you are so unique in your struggle with this when everyone else just uses LR and calls it a day?

>also not sure why you think editing is end all important.
Because editing is an integral part of photography, and has been since it's inception. You think editing is important too, hence why you're going through all this effort, you just think you're doing it the "right" way, because you are struggling too much otherwise apparently.

>>4519832
Of course it is, which is why I said
>Having a calibrated monitor is good and will make anyone's editing process better.

>>4519835
>everyone else uses LR
the youtube preset crowd and their followers sure do but in my experience most professionals either use capture one, deliver LIVE with carefully crafted jpeg presets, or have a complex, colorchecker inclusive workflow

>>4519836
>him: knowing how to edit on a shitty monitor is better than having a good monitor and not knowing how to edit
>me: you can't edit properly on a shitty monitor, a good monitor is more important
>him: why do you feel so strongly about this?
>me: you don't understand why a good monitor is important for editing?
>your reply to me: a calibrated monitor will make anyone's editing process better. cope more nophoto
>me: read it again (because that's not what the issue is) unless you agree with him that "knowing how to edit on a shitty monitor is better than having a good monitor and not knowing how to edit"

Are you not able to follow this simple conversation?

There is NO SUCH THING as knowing how to edit on a shitty monitor

Your results will be wrong no matter what
You will learn nothing more than the basic controls that are self evident
Not one single adjustment you make will translate to print or even a phone screen

For his time, when storage wasn’t cheap and most people had dogshit screens, a software upgrade was $400, and a camera upgrade actually improved more than crutches and semiobscure video codecs, ken rockwell was right about raw being a waste of time.

>>4519837
>most professionals use
Notice how you didn't say NXStudio lol. Most overall still use LR.
C1 is definitely better, I agree, let's get OP to use that instead so he complain about their profiles too.

Which do you use? I've used C1 for about 7 years now, but LR for a decade before that.

>>4519842
Wait so when OP posted his examples above where those with his shitty monitor?
The ones that got compliments like
>this also looks good to me, very natural.
How could he possibly have done that with a bad monitor? Impossible!

>>4519922
These?
>>4519525
>>4519532
He’s saying desaturated, low contrast images look overcooked mate
He’s blind

>>4519922
You could make minor edits on a Kindle and it would look fine most of the time. But if you have a specific vision of an image you want to communicate, trying to do it on a monitor that doesn't faithfully reproduce your edits is a waste of time.
>>4519927
Or his monitor is way off. Or he could be the anti-Rockwell and think the normal photos he posted really are oversaturated.

>>4519934
If youve ever used a bad monitor, they compensate for the limited range by making everything punchier than it actually is.

>>4519935
Could be. I have no idea what he is seeing.

File: _DSC0511_NL+2-1.JPG.jpg (3.93 MB, 4000x6016)

3.93 MB JPG

>>4519829
I guess that's fair though I'm mostly going for realistic right now.
here's another one I think looks pretty nice, I'm mostly playing around with adding 1 or 2 contrast and figuring out if adding or removing saturation makes it better, in NX.
haven't had time to do anything yesterday and today so I should start figuring more out.

>>4519835
well it's on my next to do list thing. using my free time to shoot mostly.
>everyone else just uses LR
autism (mine)

I don't consider setting up camera as editing but I'd say it was more like picking what film stock to shoot. (if you don't so your own developing)

>>4519921
I mean I literally have NX, LRC, darktable, rawtherapee, lightzone, and tried every one of them but their interfaces were kinda weird and I'm used to adobe stuff and used light room in the past already so id stick to that, I just wanted to see what camera specific stuff NX has and the color differences is what I noticed and it bugged me so that's why it's like this.

>>4519927
>He’s saying desaturated, low contrast images look overcooked mate
no?.. I said those looked good to me and realistic, but I was worried that they are overcooked and I just couldn't see that cause shitty monitor. also confusion with SRGB, A-SRGB and P3.

seems like things are mostly fine. after I set my phone to srgb from p3 it looks fine on both my phone and laptop. I also started using an old school gamma scales calibrating wallpaper and contrast and gamma looks perfect on it, and I removed the red tint that I had now things looks more or less proper as far as I can tell, but I haven't tried making a LR profile or using the color swatches for anything.

my yesterdays batch of photos definitely need a lot of color editing so that will be the next step. and for the ones I posted already I might add some contrast or saturation too, when I get sure that I'm not overdoing it due to bad calibration.

also not even sure how 4chan displays there between devices

>>4520012
yeah okay I uploaded this, in the picker it looked a lot different than now when I open it so I need to disable adobe srgb since it probably makes things look duller
it looks now like it has a lot less contrast and saturation from what I thought was good

>>4520013
guess i shot myself in the foot trying to fix on issue and created another so i need to take some steps back actually and just build the whole system from the ground up and only then i can start editing.
thats also illustrative of my point since if step 1 is wrong and um up to step 10 its all gonna be a clusterfuck.

File: SRGB_DSC0511_NL+2-1.JPG.jpg (3.45 MB, 4000x6016)

3.45 MB JPG

>>4520012
test

>>4520019
okay now its the right profile.
looks a bit duller on the laptop, more saturated on the phone.
I think it's more or less realistic? maybe a bit too saturated on the phone at least, but it's hard to tell cause it was late and sodium lights are also very vivid why I even took the picture. and also because I don't know if the phone itself is calibrated well out the factory or not.

basically I'm in a lot of autism.

anyway anyone have any recs for a 100% srgb monitor on the cheap end?

>>4520021
The Asus Pro Art 2K 27" regularly hovers around $350-450 and would be my first pick for budget accuracy. Its little brother the 24" 1080p is even cheaper.

File: SRGB_DSC0720_NL+2+1.jpg (4.16 MB, 6016x4000)

4.16 MB JPG

>>4520024
damn, thats the cheap end? i was thinking something around 100 bucks.
ASUS ProArt PA248CRV is 250 eurodollars
ASUS ProArt PA247CV is 180 and gets less complaints in the reviews though i think the expensive one is supposed to be calibrated... guess i could save up but i dont have much cash laying around.

also ive looked up other pics and they were also not converted to srgb (skill issue) so im going to repost them

>>4519532
looks (i think?) more realistic with the desaturaded by 4chan adobe rgb

and here the SRGB it looks a bit too saturated especially the greens i feel like.

File: SRGB_DSC0694_NL+1+2.jpg (3.69 MB, 4000x6016)

3.69 MB JPG

>>4519525
here cows. here i was adding more saturation since the lighting was dull and i shot with that in mind.
also feel like now that it SRGB, the saturation might be too much (at least on the phone). but contrast seems alright.

i see now that i was also really confused cause i was trying to compare photos not only between devices but also color profiles and local and online which was a huge mistake.

any opinion would be welcome, and im sorry that ive taken over the thread with my autism.

File: SRGB_DSC0511_NL+2+1.jpg (3.73 MB, 4000x6016)

3.73 MB JPG

>>4520019
since that was several days ago, i tried doing it again with the new calibration on my monitor and this one looks better i think (similar settings as the other pics, nikon NL neutral profille +2 contrast +1 saturation in this case)
looks good on the laptop, a bit oversaturated on the phone, might just go there again tonight at the same time and see how it looks again with my eyes. sky should be similar.

sorry again. im just bumbling around like a retard with all these issues.

>>4520016
>>4520020
>>4520025
>>4520026
>>4520028
100% sRGB guy here, all of these look fine to me. The truth is being autistic about color accuracy is MINIMALLY useful.

Most people aren't using calibrated displays and if they are, monitors drift out of calibration over time and need to be recalibrated. Most people don't do that. The official sRGB reference setup is for the room to be lit with diffuse high quality D50 light sources. The monitor white is meant to be 80 lux which is pretty dim. The room is supposed to be dull gray and much dimmer. So you get blackout curtains and dimmers and fancy bulbs, take out anything colorful in your peripheral vision and do your edits. Most people don't do that. Will you? Normal people have lights on or windows open and brightness cranked up. But you are committed to "accuracy" so now you have your autist editing room and wonder "does this look realistic" and maybe adjust the colors of that red car and green foliage. The truth is there is a wide range of saturation and contrast that can look realistic because light environments change a lot and the human brain can rationalize many scenes as "this looks a plausible accurate representation". No, you want "real-life" accuracy, which means you have to deal with the HDR clusterfuck which isn't nearly as standardized as sRGB. Maybe you standardize around BT.2020. Is your image accurate? Your lens might not be so you pore over MTF charts, CA samples, coma, and flare samples to buy an accurate lens. But there's sample variation and so you buy a bunch and test them and keep the best them like the autists at Fred Miranda do. Insanity. Do not end up like this.

From one fellow autist to another, just get the cheap ProArt, set brightness to what you like, then edit the photos to how you like it from an image captured using the neutral/natural baseline.

>>4520035
yeah you're right, thank you anon.
I don't need it to be 100% super accurate just dont want things to be too out of wack. I'm not planning to print or work with it so it ultimately doesn't matter.
>The truth is there is a wide range of saturation and contrast that can look realistic because light environments change a lot and the human brain can rationalize many scenes as "this looks a plausible accurate representation".
yeah, I want more or less to be around these parts, but just in case I decide to go over, I know how far I can actually push it.
>do not end up like this
I will give my best not to. I've already went through something like this with audio, thankfully I'm a poorfag so I didn't spend much, put a lot of time in though. always better to just say fuck it, pick up whatever IEMs or headphones you have and enjoy music, fuck.

and honestly, seeing Ken Rockwell's pictures kind of traumatized me.
as well as in his d3200 ""guide"" he says to "put on vivid profile, max sharpening, max saturation, JPEG BASIC (cause no one can tell the difference and they take 1/4 the size)"
and
"Small (6 MP or 3,008 x 2,000 pixels).
No one needs 24 Megapixels, or even the MEDIUM setting of 13.5 MP.
At the default of LARGE NORMAL you get 6 MB files, while at SMALL BASIC, I get pictures which look identical with only 700 kB of data."
and
"The D3200 looks swell at ISO 6,400 when it needs it. Set a higher value, like Hi 1, to let the D3200 use a higher ISO in dim light"

I get they were different times but GOD DAMN. I guess maybe if you resize down 4 times the noise becomes a lot less apparent but damn.

also (finally) on the actual topic of the thread.
I try to do M for learning, and was dabbling into auto iso, but got a bit frustrated cause sometimes you want to change EV and I can only do that if I switch out of M.

for things like street and something more spontaneous, would it make more sense to use A and setting the minimum shutter to something like 1/125 with auto iso, matrix metering, to guarantee decent exposure and movement freezing, or P or just sticking to M and getting good with switching things on the go, or ACTUALLY getting good like filmchadas and setting my settings properly from the start based on the weather and time of day (I'm assuming it's how they do)?
maybe the issue is that I'm bad with metering so should I focus on trying to figure that out more or try to figure out full manual to better understand the triangle and ETTR?

>>4520035
>Most people aren't using calibrated displays and if they are, monitors drift out of calibration over time and need to be recalibrated. Most people don't do that.
Truth, but OP will just ignore like the other times he's been told that

>>4520069
Most modern displays are so close to calibrated and 100% SRGB that caring that they aren’t exact is irrelevant. The outliers are poor people using thinkpads.

>>4520026
This is still really washed out

>>4520028
This looks more normal

>>4520054
everything ken rockwell writes comes from a tech illiterate partially colorblind man who is still living in 2009

ken rockwell occasionally complains about obama

>>4520054
Audio is a very good example of how easy it is to go off the deep end. Did you go through the same process on the /iem/ general in /g/? Glad you could avoid getting trapped in that world.
Ken Rockwell is like the guy who enjoys V-shaped headphones. They're super inaccurate but people like what they like. Ken's advice sounds crazy but it makes sense based on the way he appreciates images. I think he views images as a whole and doesn't go looking at corner detail or all the things pixel peepers online do nor does he want to post process. So if the overall image has the composition and color he wants and the process is straightforward, photography is enjoyable for him. 6MP on an 8x10 at arms length really does look good enough but I bring my autistic pixel-peeping bad habits and start looking for eyelash definition or a lack of foliage and texture crispness and lose the forest for the trees.

>>4520055
Yes, for general purpose photography, I use A and Auto ISO using this method >>4519429. The advantage over M and Auto ISO is that I don't have to change shutter speed if the proper exposure requires faster than 1/500 and I'm at lowest ISO. Back in film days, I used P and program shift if I didn't like the combination. Have 100 speed in your camera and now it is dark or indoors? Bring out the nifty fifty and/or flash. imo, ETTR is a relic that was useful when sensors were a lot worse than they are now.

>>4520070
Kind of true. The 45% NTSC panels are still really common especially among poverty tier (under $600 new) machines today let alone some cum-encrusted eBay special. You can spec out even mid-range machines today and companies will often stick the 45% display as the base option with a nicer panel as an upgrade. Most of THOSE are reasonably calibrated and Apple usually has good displays by default I think from their history of being favored by graphic designers.
You can visit notebookcheck to see what panel you have and see its coverage and accuracy. If it is 90%+ coverage and delta E under 3, it's good enough.

>>4520076
Ken is also an abject failure in photography below even nepobabies like lua whoever of magnum and 90% of museum photography is effectively well over 200mp (MF film), so maybe pixel peeping is good for you

>>4520082
pixel peeping is an underrated hobby. I shot a pixel shifted image and I was impressed by the detail at 100%

>>4520055
Since your a minmax autist, consider never using auto ISO.

>>4512865
I'm convinced auto and priority modes are just a crutch for nobody in the industry understanding ergonomics. There is no reason for any camera to NOT have physical, dedicated controls for shutter speed, ISO, white balance, and exposure compensation, and there is likewise no reason for a lens to not have an aperture ring (unless you're a barbarian and actually prefer to have aperture control on a completely unrelated part of the camera, I guess).
I repeat, this should be the standard - EVERY camera should have this, from cheap point-and-shoots to multi-thousand-dollar Snoys and Pentaxes. And they should ALL be backlit. There is zero reason not to do this all the time, every time.

File: WB_DSC0511_NL_0_0.JPG.jpg (4.12 MB, 4000x6016)

4.12 MB JPG

>>4520069
I didn't ignore that though... I just wanted to know how bad it actually was for me. like how much outside of that "normal regular common displays" I was, cause I learned that my display is only 45% NTSC.

>>4520070
you think the cows are still washed out?
lighting conditions were pretty din.. what about the sun itself, the green of the trees, and the colored tags they have? they seem pretty saturated for me. particularly the green tag on the nose.

>lamp
I went out yesterday in the same time and conditions and actually the contrast and saturation were closer to nikons plain neutral profile so I guess it's not bad at it.
compared to >>4520028 there was less contrast, so the gradient of the peak of the tree was a lot more visible and prominent, and the lamp light was more yellow than orange, I did also notice auto WB gave me a bit of a green tint so it's why I was having trouble getting rich light cast and sky at the same time, cause in person the complementary of the blue sky and yellow orange light cast seemed a lot more vivid in my memory than it actually was when I went to check again...
I think this is more true to life but I might still add just a little saturation to make the orange blue contrast stand out a little. or actually try in Lightroom to change just the lamp glow since with proper WB the sky looks nice and not overly popping.
it's hard to capture the feeling that colors the memories cause before I went I felt like it was a lot more dramatic than it actually was. not sure if that's my issue or just how it is.

>>4520076
>did you go through the same process on /iemg/
oh yes. except for months instead of weeks, though the gear was a lot cheaper than the camera (strictly budget china iems and a couple dongles). definitely over it now and just listening to music. you really don't need anything other than 15-30$ iem with the tuning that doesn't hurt you. everything else is just functional differences. (also went through a whole ordeal trying to figure out which lossy codec to compress to, comparing spectrograms and shit. just went with whatever apple and others are using for their streaming site, AAC 256 I think, still listen to my old mp3s as well so it really doesn't matter just enjoy music)
>ken
I guess that's true. hunting tiny pixel differences that don't even show when you actually look at the photo at it's intended scale doesn't do much. and for colors if it's something you enjoy, then fuck it.
I was looking at an old blog review for a soviet lens and guy has some really nice looking pics and turned out it was like a d40, but they looked great at least to me. always too easy to get consumed in autism and >lose the forest for the trees
is nice to be able to crop though... but it also just means I'm bad at composition and my lens isn't long enough for some shots I guess.

>using this method
shit that was also me you replied to I forgot in all the autism about it.
>ettr
I guess it's just me trying to maximize again, I was worried about noise on the d3200 but when things are well exposed and there's no rough colored noise, I actually like the grain. it feels like it adds some nice texture to it. guess I should have been doing film but I'd go bankrupt.

>>4520079
don't forget high refresh rate low response time gamer monitors. have to balance the price somehow.

>>4520143
I guess I am a min max autist... ironically, all I want is to take pictures and not think about these things or edit, but I end up sucked into all the technical stuff.

>>4520200
isn't it just another corpo way of distinguishing entry vs pro gear? like d3200 is entry so it has only 1 wheel, to change aperture in M you have to hold a button while rotating it, same with iso. but to change ev it's the same button as aperture so you need to switch off M.
it also has a bunch of baby modes and a SUPERBABY guide mode that has a bunch of DVD menus for kindergarteners that explain how to take pictures of something interactively. I guess it's cool for like a kid or someone tech unsavy but I'd definitely prefer more control wheels and a top screen.
and definitely aperture preview button and a manual focus ring with more travel. on the kit lens it has like 30° of travel or something. barely anything. I get it's an autofocus lens but still.

>>4520200
Same. I want to know my camera settings at a glance without using the LCD. The dials should be labelled so I can immediately set what I want instead of jogging through and checking. The blank dials sometimes change functions depending on the mode which is annoying. Just have it do one thing. Fuji and Nikon do this for some of their cameras but remove it for their top end cameras. WHY? Labels should be double shot so they don't rub off like the illuminated buttons on cheap electronics. If people want the dials and buttons to do something else, just make them interchangeable instead of these mystery custom function assignments. Also, I want a dial for flash exposure compensation/power. Dials and switches on external flashes too, none of this do everything through the LCD bullshit. Pentax had this emergency button which set everything to default automatic if you were handing the camera to someone which could be useful. Disagree that this should be standard for all cameras though, like the GR has a control scheme that allows for one handed operation and it works fine for that although even then, maybe they put a slider or two on the top and dump the PASM dial.

>>4520200
most full frame sony cameras have four on body dials that can be operated entirely with one hand and customized to your tasye and most sony lenses have declickable aperture rings

then theres fuji
their ergos suck
retro is bad. its old and disused for a reason. they had to cope and put real controls on the xts.

>>4520219
Nothing in the cow photo is very saturated at all

I wonder how eye searing actual saturated photos look to you

>>4520230
I did say Ken Rockwell one traumatized me.
it was also physical trauma.

what about >>4520025 do you think it's washed out?

>>4520220
the audio stuff still suckers me in because you have to buy the product to experience it unlike with photo and video where you can look at direct samples. When that fat fuck pretend physicist talks about 3D pop, I can look at images and see he's full of shit as far. As my vision is concerned anyway, maybe some people can see it clear as day. But when someone mentioned the superior bokeh of the Voigtlander 50mm f/1, I could see it. Checking both cost me nothing except the time to find samples.
There's no way I can experience electrostatics, or KEFs, or planars, or BA IEMS or whatever without actually trying them. So the reviews can get wild and I always wonder if I'm missing out. "The Changfeng Super Deluxe revealed details I've never heard before and I broke down crying." "When I did the Playdoh modification on my stock pads, the room disappeared and it was only me and the performers!" "Huge soundstage but muddy accuracy" or whatnot and I think, well maybe. I mean, all the headphones and speakers I've had did sound different and some were better. I also had a stage where I was doing FLACs from verified EACs that I made because I got paranoid when some based anon said he liked to reencode normal mp3s into FLAC and share them on torrent sites. If only my past self could realize that I usually listen to music through bluetooth in my car speakers streaming from Youtube Music lol.
ETTR does have benefits but I only think about doing that in controlled setups. Static subject, tripod or flash. For normal photography, I hate blown out highlights so I accept the noise tradeoff but I'll often use flash to avoid that. The A-mode method I talked about is less ideal for flash. on account of sync speed, HSS loss, and recycle times.
>>4520221
I've seen that option as well where they take a 45% NTSC panel, give it high refresh rates and brightness, and now the buyer will sometimes have to choose between a high refresh rate inaccurate monitor or an accurate but 60Hz one.

>>4520200
I personally like Fuji dials more than PASM, although they just had to replace the iso dial with "film simulation" in newer bodies.

>>4520025
>damn, thats the cheap end? i was thinking something around 100 bucks.
>ASUS ProArt PA248CRV is 250 eurodollars
>ASUS ProArt PA247CV is 180
Save your shekels and just download an ICC profile for your current monitor. Sperging over 100% sRGB accuracy is a fools errand as >>4520035 puts it. Anything that can be 95% accurate or above is sufficent, just avoid monitors like the old Acer Nitros that were getting like 70% (which is fucking terrible). If your monitor is indeed really really shit, then find some $100 monitors off amazon and read reviews to find one with at least 95% sRGB.

Photography can get expensive if you get autistic over things like this. It's a game of deminishing returns, and unless you're going to go the whole nine yards over it then don't go down that rabbit hole. Get something affordable and "good enough".

>>4520233
>I got paranoid when some based anon said he liked to reencode normal mp3s into FLAC and share them on torrent sites.
kek, I remember that. made me laugh but also check some files.
and yeah none of this stuff really matters when you're just enjoying the music. I too use bluetooth buds more often than not just cause it's convenient.

>highlights
oh yeah, I try not to actually clip anything, unless I really don't care about that part.
on the first day of taking the camera out with super bright overcast I was struggling to figure out how to get the rich textured clouds but also anything else to not be super dark, more of exposure trouble I guess though.
I guess its a bit of a kneejerk reaction to seeing people talk about how bad the low light performance of d3200 is, but it rally shouldn't matter to me so I think I'll just try to expose properly.
i haven't even tried using the flash, other than accidentally popping it up cause the iso button is directly below the flash button... thinking of even putting some tiny protector on it so I don't trigger it accidentally.

was browsing youtube and saw these, seemed relevant to not seeing the forrest for the trees and this kind of autism
https://youtu.be/3tMriBV_oPk
https://youtu.be/vdMHJeuqiVI
https://youtu.be/sZAjI4AJ3BI
not sure if this guy's is like known or something, but feels like really on point talking about trying to actually take pictures that are speaking to you and not to overthink and be bogged down by rules and formulas and all that kind of stuff. I feel like I did better and enjoyed more just when I had a shitty point and shoot but I was walking around a lot and it was in my pocket, instead of taking the camera and going out specifically to look for photos to take. like actually enjoying what I'm looking at and then deciding that I'm gonna snap a pic. feel like you need to be both more and less mindful at the same time.

>>4520251
not sure anyone makes profiles for 45% NTSC ThinkPad panels and I'm going to chill out about it either way. maybe up the saturation a little in the driver and call it a day, since gamma shows good and I removed the red tint I had.
might just look into some used monitor but definitely after I cool down more.

always been a poorfag so I always use autism to maximize price to performance, can get pretty deep into that.
also speaking of audio again, last headphones I bought annoyed me with component hiss so I bought a 5$ soldering iron and soldered a couple resistors into it to bring the noise down. kind of autism.

as far as photo goes though I think I kinda overpaid cause I got body and lens in absolute pristine condition, could have saved like 50 bucks but it's alright. only thing I really want now is a longer range lens and a reverse adapter for macro.
though when I panicked from reading about noise on the body I was looking up ones that improved by maybe 15% but cost twice as much. all in all autism needs wrangling.

>>4520233
3d pop/tonality are real and measurable. Its just that communicating them objectively is higher up in a science degree than most people are comfortable with.

In laymens terms, a lens with more glass will reflect more light out or back and forth, usually of just one color. This is the effect that “3d pop” derived from. Without a good display you cant see it because your screen cant display that many shades or colors anyways.
Tonality is the max number of different shades of each hue the camera can record. Larger pixels with greater full well capacities can count more photon charges with fewer errors and, as long as you can display the image with as many shades as it contains, have richer and more realistic color.
An 85% jpeg wrecks most of this
And your 45% NTSC screen erases it further

Film actually excels in both metrics. You probably didn’t know though, because most film scanners are low res 8 bit shitters worse than your camera. Hence film is simultaneously worse than digital (common scans) and the primary medium for art photography (optical prints).

The end result of all this being hard to understand and even be able to see, with “empowered” (by basic reviews) consoomers at the helm, has been the complete and utter death of finer aspects of image quality and every modern mirrorless rendering super flat fake looking images with very very harsh edges down to the finest detail. Subjectively, “sterility”.

>>4520266
tldr
photography is not like audio
image reproduction is lightyears behind image capture for most people. in audio its the opposite. an $80 pair of headphones is way way better than an $80 microphone.
and yet people still think they know what they want, and continue spending money on making what little they can see “better”

>>4520266
what youre describing remind me of "soundstage" where people think they can tell where the instruments are coming from because some frequency of soundwaves is slightly slower than the other and theres absorption and reflection and whatever. but none of it really means anything when youre just actually listening to music cause fidelity is not the most important thing in art, or even the second or third.

not saying youre wrong but at what kind of crazy level would you even tell the difference with this 3d pop stuff? do you need like an expensive full frame and some real good lenses and real good monitor or something?
i am a noob but just feels like between the 1080 45% ntsc screen and a 2k 12bit DCI-P3 HDR10+ and whatever other buzzwords phone screen, all i can see is that makes things pop 3d is depth of field and contrast, maybe my eyes are fucked but if you need all these things to be perfect to even perceive any of this difference, is there even a point? does anyone even take photos where that matters more than any other, a lot simpler and plainer variables?

people in audio go into the depths of autism and start believing in frequency filtering crystals and thousand dollar super grounding cable raisers for their digital cables, but all it takes is a blind double test. these differences have to graph somehow, somewhere, thats not in some super accurate scientific spectrograph, and if they dont, are they even "real" or just placebo?

>>4520300
also like you cant really put reality into a photo regardless, because we just dont perceive reality objectively with our eyes and brains its all emotions and selective exclusion and sounds smells the whole awareness and area around us, memories, subconscious thoughts... so is there even a point in trying to have absolute accuracy in reproduction of just one aspect of a million of them that encompass being aware of a scene that youre trying to capture into a completely flat frozen slice of only a small part of one of those aspects?

>>4520300
It has jack shit to do with audiophilia and i can actually see, for instance, the reflectance related contrast/richness difference between a nikon 180-600 and nikon 600 on my display. It is very real. Basically the only normal people who CAN give a fuck are people with expensive macs.

It is optics. Pretty solid science. However, capture is so far ahead of reproduction that you could buy a $1000 display meant for photography and graphics design and just BARELY notice most things.

You will genuinely never ever appreciate your camera until you pick up a decent printer. Because printers are pretty far ahead of screens.

>>4520301
Any sort of good camera can put way more than typical perceived reality into a photo. Your eyes only exceed current tech when you consciously focus on fine detail. The human brain can composite a higher resolution image from small eye movements and eye to eye differences.

You do not normally see as much as a nikon d800e and never as obviously. It’s old cheap equipment, but once you print on good paper you will realize it’s better than your eyeball is most of the time.

>>4520310
>Because printers are pretty far ahead of screens.
huh, really? i thought print was always really hard to do cause youre trying to convert additive color into subtractive color and that requires some finesse.
and having a good color accurate print was also hard and expensive. maybe i just never seen any.

>Any sort of good camera can put way more than typical perceived reality into a photo
thats still only the visual slice. my point was about all the other stuff you cant put into a picture, not only just surrounding stimuli but all of the context and emotional background and all that stuff.
eyeballs and all the processing is crazy though. the actual sharp part of the eye, central fovea is what, 2 degrees? thats crazy. and things like autocompleting things from barely recognizable shapes that make you hallucinate monsters or people in your peripheral or night vision, because of pattern recognition? or selective delete of things you dont care about and are not paying attention to, to the point of feeling crazy when you actually become aware theyre there?
cameras capture an objective freeze frame of a slice of a reflection of the light spectrum, and that makes it hard to put in a humans experience into it because we dont actually experience objective reality objectively... i guess thats any creative thing, youre trying to put in what youre feeling in some way inside the brain into a medium that can never really encompass that, but through some black box patterns and familiarity you can project some of that so people that have some of the same circuitry can extrapolate some feeling our tingle in the brain out of it.
i mean its fucking crazy isnt it?
i feel like these things work better when less is more, like black and white photography has no color per se... but the way it interprets the light spectrum still makes sense to us and also makes us more aware of contrast and other things which can be used creatively.

>>4520266
I'm the one with the good screen. 100% calibrated sRGB and my vision is decent (100% on hue discrimination tests). For me, at least on this one Chinese guy's website (Khannick Yong) or something like that where he tried to demonstrate it, he had the low element normal glass Nikkor vs a super corrected many element with exotic glass Sigma. The comparison wasn't quite equal since the exposure and composition were slightly different. For the first image, the Nikon seemed to have it but overall I found the Sigma better for the most part. Maybe there's a night and day difference that some people can see, but I don't. He kind of switched from the 3D pop thing to "night vs day" lenses to now "artistic vs workman" lenses. Incidentally he shoots Olympus now lol.
The Camera Conspiracies guy had an arc where he was super into 3D pop but after a couple years he's not sure he can even see it or if it is real. On the other hand, I can see better tonality as a night and day difference whenever I shoot different formats. I kept my Nikkor G glass primes in case I get an "Aha!" moment though.
>>4520253
I can't remember what site would have ICC profiles for different laptops and displays. I guess it would get you closer. Maybe there's a cheap used colorimeter you could buy. Back when I had a bad monitor, I used the online calibration tools to get the gammas in the right ballpark (lagom.nl) I think it was.
>>4520301
For sure, reality has both a strong subjective and objective component. I have certain emotions when I see the Velvia color palette (cool National Geographic adventure "vibes") versus a Portra one (relaxed chill beach ones) which are also tied to my own experiences. People who didn't grow up with film probably don't view a grainy black and white photo the same way either although they probably get the idea.
>>4520310
I can see zoom vs prime quality pretty easily and I think most people can tell. From my experience, the quality of a lens tracks well with its MTF

>>4520223
Sure, add an auto mode or four if you really want, that's fine. There's still no reason to not include manual controls for everything for when you DO want to use manual mode. The two can co-exist, they're not mutually exclusive. But people would shoot manual a lot more if the controls for it didn't suck.
>>4520234
I really, really wish Fuji would stop dicking around and make an Instax SLR with proper physical manual controls. I also wish they'd fix mid crush on Instax but I guess they figure looking distinctive is more important than looking good and apparently Polaroid thinks the same way so won't be lighting a fire under their ass any time soon.

>>4520316
Yeah, really. Can you buy a 300ppi 10 bit monitor that accepts a 16 bit signal and covers all of adobe rgb? No. You can not.

For reference a typical hobbyists camera outputs a 300ppi 20x13 with 14 bit color.

Compared to a typical computer screen, a good print is like being there. Sheet film contact prints are beyond that and have sub-micrometre details. Skillfully made medium and large format enlargements get close to contact prints.

You have no idea how good your camera actually is until you print.

>>4520318
I can see yannick’s demonstrated differences but using older, worse sensors really kneecaps them. What he’s actually looking at is effective bit depth, and older single gain stage sensors don’t do as well as mirrorless at recording the finest possible gradations down to the deepest shadows. Off an OCE LightJet 430 (36 bit precision, 300dpi) Z6II prints are definitely 10-20% more "dimensional" than D750 prints especially if a higher ISO is used or the image is a bit underexposed.

There is no equivalent display to the aforementioned printer. You have to find a local small business or service that offers lightjet prints.

>>4520310
A good screen has some advantages over a good print and vice versa. I agree that anyone into photography should do some prints and it's one of those hard to explain things but you "get" when you make a good print. For some images there is this great richness of color when printed kind of like when you use an OLED vs an LCD. Prints are very finicky about the viewing environment though. A print that looks good in sunlight will look bad under indoor lighting so for prints I make for indoor viewing, I have to brighten it quite a bit but it will loose the deep color when viewed in sunlight.

>>4520322
Screens are backlit, yeah, but prints surpass screens in perceptible quality and the objective quality gap between a nice print and an average laptop is bigger than the gulf between medium format and micro four thirds.

Camera image quality is just editing lattitude past a certain point, unless you can afford better display methods. It’s very real but it’s more limited in utility than you think.

>>4520321
Hmm, maybe I should try printing some of my photos from my Nikkor primes vs my modern lenses to see if I can see it there. I'm not going to do Lightjet though because I'm never going to regularly use that service because I like to proof at home and Lightjet is not economical for me. But maybe my Prograf-1100 might be enough.

>>4520318
>lagom.nl
yeah i use something similar and my gamma is on point out the box both on there too.
so thats at least something. i do see that the colors are a bit more dull than my phone though.

>I have certain emotions when I see the Velvia color palette (cool National Geographic adventure "vibes") versus a Portra one (relaxed chill beach ones) which are also tied to my own experiences.
speaking of that... is there an easy way to get those palettes to have a decent film like color emulation? or is it never going to be the same cause physics interactions are just different between film and digital?
>People who didn't grow up with film probably don't view a grainy black and white photo the same way either although they probably get the idea.
i didnt get to see much film, but i still really like the feel of black and white with grain or slightly washed out shadows. it makes me feel something and i dont know what and why.
also same question about making digital look like that.

>>4520320
damn, alright

>>4520324
Some images look best backlit and some look best as prints. My tastes have changed over time to prefer prints but I think that's neural adaptation. When most of my photography was prints, looking at a scan on a screen was novel (although looking at slide film on a light table or a good projection was unbelievably superior) whereas now I'm in front of a screen so the novelty of a print has more wow for me.

>>4520327
The matches can never be perfect e.g. reproducing the interaction between the halation layer is only an ok approximation from the samples I've seen but they broadly get the character. That's based off my experience with DXO Filmpack and there might be better ones; cinematography forums would probably know. I go through periods of really liking washed out shadows too but once the photo/video space got inundated with "make your footage look cinematic" "buy my film preset bro" "this digicam looks like film" and it was all washed shadows I guess I got tired of that. I still like black and white though but only for my own photos and don't really care for anyone else's black and white for the same reason people have an emotional attachments to photos of their family but not others.

>>4520318
>Khannick Yong
Total lolcow
There's simply a difference in perspective between his examples, it you overlay them, it's easy to see. At one point I made a webm and posted it here.

>>4520339
>Total lolcow
My conclusion was the same. Those guys had a lot of plausible science to provide a mechanism for their theory so I was open to it but when they finally got around to actually trying to demonstrate it ... Pretty sure Theoria Apophasis/Ken Wheeler/Angry Photographer has invested too much in his theory to admit he's wrong unlike Yong so I'll give Yong credit for that. Someone had a webm of Wheeler actually going on a photoshoot and his shots were absolute shit which was enough for me.
Could you repost the webm you made? I hope your deboonking preserved someone's sanity.

>>4520341
3d pop and flat rendering are 100% real. It’s just a high mtf with minimal lens reflectance = more natural contrast and saturation. Like an early sigma art with piss yellow window glass might be kind of hazy = flat in most lighting conditions and a 30 element mirrorless zoom won’t be. Optical engineers can create complex lenses with higher mtfs and less reflectance than vintage lenses easily so his specific theories are bunk. But the effect is real.

I actually think vintage lenses mostly get assigned pop factor because they flare so badly or they don’t, so people automatically gravitate towards subdued light that would benefit any lens.

>>4520348
Lenses with high MTFs and good flare resistance were always considered good. Maybe the combination could be called 3d pop but the term is useless now that it's associated with Wheeler's "glass is evil" bullshit

>>4520348
>3d pop and flat rendering are 100% real.
But apparently impossible to reliably demonstrate or quantify

File: IMG_4610.jpg (995 KB, 2000x3455)

995 KB JPG

>>4520350
Glass is evil is the most primitive way to guess at the cause of lens contrast differences but coatings matter too and the landscape where nikkors were nicer than tamrons and sigma was bad has changed

>>4520373
>but you can't tell the difference on postage stamp size images
>if you want a real example look at these two different photos of different leaves
what other copes am I forgetting?

File: 1664911907423740.jpg (417 KB, 1052x861)

417 KB JPG

>>4520375
glad I saved this

>>4520375
>>4520377
>starts blabbering about random shit when given a clear example of the real thing
You just don’t like the idea that not all gear is equal.

Probably a fujislug.

>>4520373
can't you just add some contrast in post?..

>>4520383
>cant you add contrast!?
Adding contrast that was never there looks like fake overcooked boomer photography. Entire fucking gradients are missing. If your lens is low contrast do not fuck with it like ken rockwell slapping vibrant profile and saturation+5 on all plastic nikon zit zooms. Buy a better lens or embrace the flat washout.

>>4520378
Oh no, I'm on your side, just getting the usual p responses out of the way

File: fix it in post.jpg (3.48 MB, 2000x3455)

3.48 MB JPG

>>4520383
>shoulda bought a d3200 and shot in JPEG S VIVID SAT+5
>fix it in post
>yeah man that looks great
>every lens is sharp when you have a sharpening slider
>the colors really pop
>its even better than real life
>my flickr followers will love this
>donate to support my growing family

>>4520386
The irony here is the Canon gives you more pleasant skin and hair, but there's just no definintion in the rest of the face. You don't really need to see every hair follicle or vein in the eyeball.

Sorry Chuddy, looks like this one is subjective.

>>4520393
>how people actually look is unpleasant
>cel shaded comic book character? gimme!
You like the photo thats closer to a cartoon because you are an autistic child at heart

It unironically makes her face look flat and featureless as a pancake. All the depth cues are missing. It looks like anime.

>>4520393
>noooo the brown girl cant look like a brown girl its better if she looks like a poorly rendered white girl
just use the sigma and take photos of white women instead of taking terrible rockwellian photos of latinas then?

>>4520393
>You don't really need to see every hair follicle or vein in the eyeball.
You can edit that in lightroom too.

File: 1783974417999515.jpg (41 KB, 557x550)

41 KB JPG

>>4520395
>Portraits MUST be photorealistic otherwise you're a child!
Strawman, ad hominem, and general purpose retardation in a concise package. Well done anon.

>It unironically makes her face look flat and featureless as a pancake
Why do you want to see every wrinkle and pimple in a portrait? The only outstanding thing I can point out that I don't like about the Canon is the purple fringing. Otherwise it looks good.
I would not use this lens for anything where I want definition and sharpness, but you're just being a gearfag by stroking your cock off to the Sigma while attacking anyone who doesn't agree with you.

Ergo, you are brown.

>>4520398
That shitty $2000 canon lenses photo looks ok when NOT EDITED

The contrast/saturation boost looks bad and fake. Horrible. And now you’re writing le brown seethe novels. Hilarious.
Fuentes’ law: he who calls brown, is brown

>>4520403
>edit them
>put the chromatic abberations and softness back in already in the canon lens

>>4520408
Can we get that in english, senyor?

>>4520386
canon one just looks like it has black/white mist 1/8 on it or something... and like... missed focus. on the left one its on the tits, on the right one its on the face. you can see it when you look at the shirt

>>4520318
>(lagom.nl)
just went through it and calibrated, looks great now, thanks anon.

>>4512846
You do realise that the "P" in P mode stands for "Peak", right? And the "S" in S mode stands for "Shitty".

>>4520446
Glad to help!

File: 1000185531.png (191 KB, 1080x607)

191 KB PNG

>>4520448
A for ASS

File: M stand for men.png (745 KB, 793x706)

745 KB PNG

>>4520448
M Stands for MEN

File: 1comfybald.jpg (29 KB, 352x429)

29 KB JPG

>>4520455
>>4520466
what does the flower stand for anon

>>4520373
Sigma looks much better

File: 1785492132280.jpg (23 KB, 268x268)

23 KB JPG

>>4520467
me, I'm the flower

>>4520373
>Glass is evil is the most primitive way to guess at the cause of lens contrast differences but coatings matter too
It was a valid way of guessing at lens contrast before multicoating and MTFs became widespread in the 70s. Advocating for the use of low element count lenses as a way to get "3d pop" in this millennium is retarded.

>>4520525
It was semi valid even after that and semi invalid before that (nicer high el ct lenses would get better everything).

Glass quality has always been able to more than make up for the effects of glass quantity. Just not always. A good lens is a good lens, that’s it.

>>4520544
Not semi-valid these days when you can actually look at MTF data, image comparisons and flare tests. Someone could pick up the new 8 element Viltrox 26mm 2.8 lens and think it would resist flare well, it doesn't. Prior to the 70s, multicoating was not common so the idea that a high element count lens would have worse flare made sense. Lens reviewer flare tests is what I use to determine flare resistance, not element counts.

>>4520547
Reflectance is related to flare but isn’t flare. There are plenty of lenses that are flare resistant but have a slight reflectance haze/contrast loss in normally lit scenes even when they don’t flare. Mostly tamron zooms but also a few sony GMs and kit lens tier glass.

>>4520562
Again, element counts aren't any kind of substitute for actual tests for determining contrast.

>>4520565
Unless its window glass shit like tamron
Or non-S nikkors
Or older shittier sony gear
Or zoom vs prime comparisons
Then it works more better

>>4520568
not even then

You slowly graduate from using Aperture and Shutter speed priorities and end up shooting Manual.

A handy way to remember your set up is I AM SHOOTING (I.A.S.)

ISO
Aperture
Shutter

Set your ISO first. Approximate the conditions in your head - sunny? Low ISO, overcast 400, Dark? High ISO, capturing movement? Raised ISO etc..
Aperture second. Again, approximate what you are trying to achieve in your head. Bokeh - wide, Sharpness across the shot - f/11-16 etc.
This leaves you with your shutter, which is the most sensitive part of the shot - and you can slightly adjust this up and down to the desired effect.

Soon you start to automatically approximate settings in your head and you can even abandon this system - but its a a useful go-between.

>>4520581
why would you set it first instead of last?..
shutter is needed for capturing motion or not going below handheld limit or artism
aperture is for depth of field which is important for artism
iso is the only one that doesn't matter and rather take noise than compromising the vision of the photo with the other two, plus you can ai denoise after

>>4521108
Correct. This way of thinking comes from film where changing ISO means switching film entirely so most people just pick their ISO ahead of time and work with it.
For digital, whether you should think about aperture or shutter speed first really depends on what exactly you're shooting, and how you're shooting it. If you're shooting static shots, like portraits or landscapes, cars, buildings, etc. then you should probably pick your aperture first. For action photography, wildlife, macros, etc., shutter speed. If you're shooting hand-held, you should always establish an upper bound on shutter speed first in order to suppress camera shake. Motion blur can be kino, camera shake isn't.
Namefags as usual are incapable of providing good advice. C'est la vie.

>>4521108
ISO is proxy for exposure, and having a good exposure is the most important thing when it comes to image quality. It is just gain after all, SS/Aperture is what actually controls the light, ISO just changes the sensor amplification.
For most of what I shoot, SS could be 1/125 to 1/8000 and there's no difference on the image visually.
Aperture can have a big impact on the image visually, and should be priority in terms of how the image actually looks.
>iso is the only one that doesn't matter
They all "don't matter" in varying ways.

As you get more experienced, you'll likely drop auto ISO in favor of sticking at specific ISO values based on your camera. In some cases, for example, going from ISO 320 to ISO 400 has you gain a full stop of dynamic range, but I guess that's "nothing".

>>4521158
>>4521136
I use auto ISO because I want a specific DoF and motion blur in the vast majority of my shots. Only alternative is Av mode in good light where it stays on either 100 or 400. I have never seen a problem with this method. No amount of reading anons here over the years gripe over auto ISO has changed my mind. I still fail to see the big deal. I want the photo exposed reasonably correctly, and I can adjust exposure comp to manipulate the ISO with ease.

>going from ISO 320 to ISO 400 has you gain a full stop of dynamic range
This is literally the only hump in my camera's ISO chart and it's a whopping 0.65 of a stop of DR. I could not point out the difference of total DR between those two ISOs if you paid me to do it.

>>4521160
>I still fail to see the big deal
That's okay, we all engage with this hobby at different levels. I was on A + Auto ISO for 90% of my shooting for many years.
The real problem with auto ISO (and other auto modes) is the lack of consistent exposure. Totally fine for one-off snapshots, but when you're actually doing any kind of photo work, shooting fully M will save you lots of time in post.
>0.65 stops of DR is nothing
Sure, to the same extent the difference between FF and aps-c is often "nothing" too

>>4521163
>If 1/2 is nothing, then 1 is also nothing
Smartasses like you are why greek civilization collapsed

>>4521160
maybe it depends on the camera but as soon as there is sky or contrast in the shot auto iso fucks up spectacularly. less of a auto iso issue more metering.
I don't like autoiso for the same reason I don't like any modes other than manual. they change things based in metering and metering is dumb.
in no situations ever have I though "ah yes, middle gray, my focus point!"
no bitch I don't want my highlights gray or shadows gray.
maybe it works well when you're shooting portraits and point meter in the face or something.

>>4521171
Lemme guess, snoy, olympus, panasonic?

The metering on my 5dIV is magic. It never missed.

>>4521172
nikon

>>4520319
>I really, really wish Fuji would stop dicking around and make an Instax SLR with proper physical manual controls.
This and it should print 10x15cm/4x6inch straight out of camera.

>>4512846
>He doesnt use the 'street' scene mode