>>4517325
Curve go up brighter
Curve go down darker.

>>4517325
It's a tool that lets us map certain values, to other values. The line is the same thing as if you were to graph y = x, input matches output. By changing the curve, we change the output values of a given input.
In the bottom left, you have your darkest values, going up to your brightest values in the top left. The picker button lets you click on the image and add a corresponding point on the curve.

If you were move the bottom left point up, you are saying you want the darkest values to be brighter, and that's how you get that "matte" look. Same is true with lowering the top right point, gives a "matte" look to the highlights. As you move those points toward the center, instead you are saying you want a wider range of values to turn white/black.

Place points along the curve wherever you want to adjust. To add contrast, you make it look more like a slight S, lowering the bottom left quarter and raising the top right. Luma lets you adjust luminance without affecting saturation, and the individual RGB curves let you adjust color however you want. You can do basically all of your grading through just curves once you get comfortable with them.

Inverting a curve is also an easy way to turn an image negative.

Why are so many photographers retarded? Do you also need us to explain the exposure triangle for the 50th time?

>>4517325
a good photographer doesn't need to use curves

>>4517509
Yeah. A good photographers buys the newest sony for the incredibly accurate jpeg color and doesn’t need to shoot raw. Sorry you bought a panasonic/nikon/canon OP. Sony mirrorless is the future. Raw is for boomers.

>>4517509
Bullshit.

Even high end film photographers touch up their scans in photoshop. I hate all ths SOOC bullshit. Every peak photographer you have ever liked edited their shots or had them edited by an agency.

>>4517520
Skilled photographers correct everything on the camera. Selecting the correct jpeg settings before shooting is skill. Sony mirrorless has accurate colors and EVFs which allow photographic integrity and enable this skill, not touching up to match distorted memory. Touching up is dishonest and for DSLR users with no EVF. Stop being a boomer. Tiff, raw… boomer formats. Everyone smart and skilled shoots .jpg.

>>4517523
>Selecting the correct jpeg settings before shooting is skill.

ah so it is trolling

>>4517332
Interesting, thanks for the explanation. In terms of editing hierarchy, would you edit them near the beginning or the end?

>>4517528
Taking the correct jpeg on the spot is photographic integrity. Before sony mirrorless, everyone spent hours editing their photos just to have inaccurate colors and contrast.

Why is the jpegcel having a melty again? Anyone know if he's ever posted any of his pics?

File: canonr5.jpg (2.57 MB, 4000x2500)

2.57 MB JPG

>>4517523
>Skilled photographers correct everything on the camera. Selecting the correct jpeg settings before shooting is skill.
yes

>Sony mirrorless has accurate colors and EVFs which allow photographic integrity and enable this skill
no

>not touching up to match distorted memory. Touching up is dishonest and for DSLR users with no EVF
yes

post-processing is fake & gay.
getting it right in-camera is based and redpilled.
Shooting RAW+JPG might be necessary to work around the poor JPG engines of some cameras, but you need to record a decent image for reference, otherwise you are generating nonsense like pic related. You may as well be doing AI image generation if this fiction is your output goal.

Ken rockwell still posts on /p/? I guess p isn't dead afterall. Nice.

>>4517540
Just depends on how you use them, but I tend to towards the end for more granular tuning. I prefer other stuff to set basic exposure and contrast, and C1 has great color tools, but towards the end I'll always come back to tweak.

>>4517528
It's obvious bait, safe to ignore

>>4517551
Why do you lie? Sony has the best jpeg color. This was confirmed by tony northrup, and most journalists switching to sony for honesty and accuracy.

Sources:
https://www.photoxels.com/sony-strikes-another-5th-news-agency-win-reuters-decides-on-sony-a7s-iii-and-pxw-z280-as-their-journalists-main-shooting-kit/
https://www.photoxels.com/britains-pa-media-group-selects-sony-alpha-full-frame-mirrorless-cameras-and-cinema-line-camera-fx3-as-preferred-equipment/
https://www.photoxels.com/fourth-win-sony-strikes-deal-with-the-canadian-press-to-be-its-exclusive-image-products-provider/
https://www.photoxels.com/gannett-usa-today-selects-sony-as-exclusive-imaging-product-provider-for-their-photographers-and-journalists/
https://www.ap.org/media-center/press-releases/2020/ap-to-equip-all-visual-journalists-globally-with-sony-imaging-products/
https://petapixel.com/2024/09/18/sony-again-claims-the-1-spot-in-the-full-frame-mirrorless-camera-market/
https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/tony-northrup-color-science-test-sony-beats-nikon-canon-and-fuji/

Raw is over. The century of the sony jpeg has begun.

>>4517523
Can confirm. I shoot for vogue and vanity fair and we use SOOC Sony JPEG whenever we can’t use hasselblad’s natural color solution. Many hollywood films also use the sony venice cameras because they have more accurate color than arri. Sony is the color king, overall. If hasselblad made FF mirrorless or phase one pursued their trichromatic technology, only then would sony be #2.

Curves are dated tech. Modern cameras don’t need to shoot raw.

Is "honest photography" just gearfag cope in disguise now?
I've never heard a compelling argument against editing your photos outside of photojournalism/documentary style photography.

>>4517559
All I ever seem to hear on board is some combination of
>I'm lazy
>I don't know how
>I can't figure out darktable
>I can't afford Lightroom

>>4517562
To be fair, it takes seven years of computer science and a free month to figure out (read: fix) darktable.

>>4517564
Only if you're tech illiterate and have little experience with editing in general

>>4517565
Sure, thats why it needed forked into Ansel to fix its myriad problems. Go fix your spaghetti code breh.

>>4517562
I mean editing your images has been an inseparable part of photography for its entire existence. It just seems ridiculous to go on and say it's wrong or bad now because of some arbitrary nonsense.

>>4517567
>I mean artificial colors and flavors have been an inseparable part of food for its entire existence. It just seems ridiculous to go on and say it's wrong or bad now because of some arbitrary nonsense.

>>4517571
So every single painting that doesn't use 100% accurate colors should be discarded as dishonest and bad? What about black and white photography?

>>4517571
Your analogy is also kind of retarded. I think a better one would be like someone saying that adding salt or pepper to a steak is bad because the seasoning makes your steak taste different than it would be naturally. That the addition of seasoning to pure ingredients is dishonest.

>>4517573
>>4517574
Ignore the literally soulless snoyboy. They’re so autistic they think scientifically accurate wavelength discrimination is a replacement for soulful color science and magazine ads and news photos are equal to art photography. Lol. Just lol.

>>4517585
Dang. That's sad he needs to rely on objective metrics that scientists tell him are good when photography is an almost entirely subjective practice. I guess he is soulless.
I bet the poor guy can't even appreciate color stretching.

you guys sound like the autists that can answer this...
I have a Nikon and it confused me because I thought if I shot raw+joeg it would give me processed foto and an unprocessed Foto with all the information but it embeds the jpeg processing in the raw as well and I don't think there's a way to get the raw because every editing software either applies the embedded or its own processing so I don really even know what a raw looks like...

to wit, then can someone tell me if it's better to use Nikon standard or Nikon neutral or something else or does it all depend on what look you're going for but what if I don't know what look I'm going for and it confuses me and I get lost? post processing too... there is so much to change but I'm not sure what to do with it.
I was struggling to take pictures in the overcast cause my shadows were too dark and sky too bright, but if I switch to NL in Nikon NX studio it turns out better cause seems like SD makes thing have more contrast, and that's the default...

I guess it's a crisis of artistic nature or something? I don't know. when I look at people shooting film or even on phones they just shoot and whatever comes out whatever comes out, and it looks nice even with imperfections or grain. I like film grain even. but I got this DSLR and I feel like it's wrong that it's doing that and having grain makes me have a fit even though if I look at someone else's photo with the same camera and it has grain it can look pretty good and atmospheric/aesthetic. what the fuck is wrong with me? do I just not have any creativity and obsess over the technical side instead of just enjoying taking photos? what shuol I do?...

>>4518845
>so I don really even know what a raw looks like
raw doesnt look like anything, raw is literally just gain data that is meant to be processed.
just shoot vivid jpeg +4 saturation and be done with it

>>4518846
that would look horrible...

>>4518846
egregiously false

raws are actual images. there are right and wrong ways to display them relative to ground truth. raws arent pictures is what darktable, panasonic, and sony users say to excuse their terrible color.

>>4518845
there is a "right" way to display a raw, which is with a display matched gamma and a calibrated input profile. buy a colorchecker and learn to profile your camera+lens combos. the more color patches the better.
>i feel like its wrong
thats because you’re using nikon and most default profiles for nikon cameras look like nikon (rockwell) instead of reality because almost 100% of nikon users actually want vibrant acid trip colors

>>4518846
>raw doesnt look like anything
Wrong. Raw data still looks like something. All digital photos are "just" data. There's just zero to minimal processing done to RAW (you still need to demosaic).
>just shoot vivid jpeg +4 saturation and be done with it
Lay off the KenPills. Not even landscape shots deserve such a simple and overtuned look.

>>4518851
I don't have the budget for colorcheckers ... I assume it's very expensive.
also my computer is a p14s ThinkPad, I'm not sure how good the screen would even be for color.

>Nikon (Rockwell)
I don't really get what this means, but if I use NL profile in my camera it will be more true to life? I noticed that SD reduces the dynamic range with adding a lot of contrast. I took my camera out for the first time yesterday and it was very challenging cause it was bright overcast

>>4518854
is there anything that can view this raw? I think imgglass maybe does cause it looks a lot different than everything else but I'm not sure...
I've tried Lightroom, darktable, rawtherapee, NX studio, and light something(another foss).. and they all looked like they crank things up by themselves into their own visions, but I'd want to see what it actually was and decide if I want to change it.

>>4518856
If its the OLED display or the newer IPS (gen 4?) its fine but will likely need calibrated with a colorimeter and displaycall/i1display

The older/worse p14s 1920x1080 displays have insufficient srgb coverage to accurately display images

Capture one generally has more accurate profiles for displaying raws but it also costs $400 so a $100 colorchecker might be better if your screen even works
If you cant edit raws properly and dont want wonky unnatural bad looking colors, ditch nikon and buy a canon.

also it it possible to get good B&W out of a colored digital raw through post processing or in camera settings?
do I need to shoot differently or can I just not achieve the same things as BW film cause of underlying difference in physics?

>>4518856
>is there anything that can view this raw?
What is the point though? Seeing it one way doesn't change how it will be interpreted another way. The only thing that should matter is how it looks in the processor you want to use.

If you spent half as much time actually learning how to process as you did thinking about pointless stuff like this, you'd be much better off.

Just treat the camera profiles as base presets and use whichever makes sense for the scene and how you want to process.

If you are serious about processing, skip to LR or C1. If you don't know what to do, look at examples of edits you like for similar scenes and try to process similarly.

You are focusing on the wrong things.

>>4518858
Good bait

>>4518860
There’s no point in editing if you start with a wildly inaccurate vibrant image off kenrockwell.com or a flat gray linear image preferred by the soulless math nerd in charge of darktable (the equations dealing with it are more elegant you pleb)
Editing is for making photos better, not making photos up

>>4518862
>There’s no point in editing if you start with a wildly inaccurate vibrant image
Good thing I didn't say otherwise, I agree!
>Editing is for making photos better, not making photos up
Absolutely!

>>4518863
If he doesn’t have a good display (older thinkpads are as shit as <50% srgb) he’s working in the dark and if he starts with an inaccurate profile modeled after nikons terrible jpegs even a good display wouldn’t show what colors things actually were without making a more accurate profile first

>>4518857
no it's an IPS... it's a gen2 ThinkPad.
hwinfo tells me its... 47.7% NTSC 67.4% srgb... fuck. so I'm not even seeing full colors...
my phone has 100% DCI-P3 but I don't know if it's showing it correctly either way...

>eitch Nikon
I JUST got it two days ago...

>>4518860
I don't know... I guess I don't trust myself.
how do I learn how to process? I don't want to spend crazy amount of time in doing it vs being outside taking photos, I used to agonize over every slider for days when I had a shitty point and shoot a decade ago...
and I ended up with 15 different variants I couldn't pick which one I actually liked cause they were all just slightly different but I couldn't pick. I don't know what kind of autism I have

>>4518861
it's not bait... I just think some photos in bw look really nice but I only know one person and he uses film and says he hates digital bw...

>>4518864
Still missing the forest for the trees. We're talking about someone that still opts for NXStudio over Lightroom, and has to ask what profile he should be using for editing.
Assume OP gets the absolute best possible most accurate display, then what? He has to learn to edit. Having a better monitor will make things easier (and more accurate), but he still needs to learn how to edit.
Assume OP is able to see the "actual RAW", then what? He still has to load that RAW into his editing program and start from that point.

OP just doesn't want to take the time to learn how to edit, and is taking every opportunity to "tinker" and procrastinate so he doesn't have to actually do the learning how to edit part.

>>4518866
You gotta quit being an indecisive bitch basically

>>4518866
>I guess I don't trust myself.
With what?
>how do I learn how to process?
If you have to ask, you'll never make it. Find images you like the grading of, and try to mimic them. Watch Youtube videos that show what tools do and how to get certain looks. For portrait retouching, check out old streams from our very own 5hoe
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/2588319396
If you have specifics, you can make a thread like >>4514728 and see what you get
> I don't want to spend crazy amount of time in doing it vs being outside taking photos
The neat part is, once you learn something, it takes less time. If you simply learned how to edit from the start, imagine how much time you would've saved on threads like this. You can even find or make your own presets and then it's just one click. C1 even generates it's own presets based on images you feed it. Are you the same NXStudio guy that's been here a while? How are you still struggling man?

It sounds mostly like you just have no vision in mind. No amount of correct monitor or accurately viewing a RAW will fix that.

>>4518867
I’m stating a simple fact

Without the ability to see what the colors are and were, no one should be monkeying around with raws, and for this reason most people should avoid “shoot raw” brands with meh colors like sony and nikon and instead opt for canon and fuji. Learning to edit without this is just learning to produce junk like the inexcusably dogshit husky, corgi, and german shepherd photos /p/ used to be plagued by.

>>4518867
I'm not opting for anything, I downloaded 5 different softwares Lightroom included to try figure things out..
I just feel like I it would been easier to make it look closer to reality if I started from blank instead of trying to twist every programs overblown Interpretation. but then I'm not even sure if I want to do that or what...
how do you decide what looks good? how do you choose what the end point of the edit to aim for?..

>>4518868
but hooow...

>>4518870
I don't know, with anything.
most "popular" images look fake and overly colorful or weird.
>how much time you would have saved
I mean I came to /p/ 4 days ago. I got a camera 2 days ago..
I used to use Lightroom to make photos out of my Coolpix 4600 be less crunchy with chromatic, aberration noise, bad pixels, shot wb and return some colors... and when I tried doing something creative I overwhelmed myself.
then I used my phone and just not bothered with editing. now I have DSLR and I'm getting overwhelmed again. but I love having control over aperture and shutter and having a proper viewfinder and being able to actually focus. but maybe I'm living less in the moment when I had to do with less.. maybe I'm just mentally ill and it has nothing to do with photography.

I never heard of C1, capture one? should I try that I mean I'm familiar with adobe stuff and I already pirated Lightroom and installed every foss editor I could find but Lightroom other than it's library shenanigans seems alright... I'd rather just drag a file into an editor.
>are you the same
no.

>>4518874
You dont need capture one if you already have pirated lightroom. You need a display that covers more of SRGB, has a low delta-E (calibrate it) and a colorchecker to calibrate your camera.

Total investment should be $200 or less and a couple of hours for calibrating everything, possibly less than $100 extra if you can find a decent OLED and hdmi cable for sale locally
Capture one is $276 a year or nearly $400 for just one version

File: 1000184600.jpg (3.85 MB, 6034x4012)

3.85 MB JPG

>>4518870
>no vision
maybe... I feel like I have vision of composition or freaking or something, on an intuitive level, cause some pictures I just feel something and some I feel nothing. and it's mostly from composition not from colors or brightness unless it's too colorful or too bright then it annoys or hurts me or looks super fake. or things like long exposure on water, it just doesn't feel real cause it isn't, cause I can never experience that for myself...
apparently I like underexposed and darker photos cause I showed them to someone and they said it was really underexposed. or I like sihluettes a where it looks kind of like a... I don't know .. etching? gravure? like something like where the background has some gradient or texture but foreground is mostly same time of picture, so it dries more attention to the lines pointing and flowing in the frame than detail of those lines, I don't know how this kind of style is called.. but it makes me feel something real even if maybe it's technically shit or is boring... I don't know.

something like this. it was my first day using the camera yesterday. I struggled figuring out metering and exposure, but I like the photo, though I think I'd like it even more if the branches were darker and less detail and maybe if leaves were also not green, and I thought maybe it would look better in BW but I don't know. is this retarded, does it make sense?..

>>4518875
I mean I can get a 100% srgb panel for 50 bucks I think or an external monitor... I used to calibrate my CRTs using those calibration images with moire patterns for gamma and color and stuff. but il not even sure that would help in any way for what I'm struggling with. I'm not even sure what I'm struggling with.
I'm not sure if im just shutting up the thread/board with this or if it's related and people go through this.

>>4518875
And if you dont want to put in the work…
Shoot jpeg in standard with saturation, contrast, and sharpening all lowered a click or two, set your white balance manually or use one shot wb off a sheet of solid gray paper, leave active d lighting on normal or high, noise reduction low or normal, and eventually trade your nikon for a canon since canon’s jpeg color is just a lot better and closer to what things actually look like vs nikon

>>4518876
freaking - framing
though I'm often noticing after the fact when looking at photos back home that I missed something and should have framed better

>>4518877
You’re confused because you are effectively blind nigga

Your camera isn’t ever gonna show you reality on the back screen, and your laptop literally cant, and you want to edit starting with a realistic photo so you know if it actually needs edited in the first place or if you just rendered it with the wrong colors out of the gate

>>4518880
I don't know what I want is the problem. I'm just a blind dick in space thrusting in all directions trying to hit paydirt. sometimes it makes me feel something but I don't know what, why, or how to get to it with a conscious effort
I'm not even sure if I want realism or if that's just something I'm trying to grab into cause maybe it seems reasonable.
if photography is art, why does it even need to be realistic? if it isn't art, and it's just trying to take snapshots of reality, what is even the point of doing it instead of just *living* in it, in those moments?
if I only go up the mountain at sunset because I want to take a shot, what is that even worth? why not go up the mountain to just be at the mountain looks at the sunset because it's pretty or makes you feel like you're melting into the world and not being a meat puppet on a ball?

>>4518873
>Without the ability to see what the colors are and were
True, good thing he can see them!

>>4518874
> I downloaded 5 different softwares Lightroom included
You downloaded, gave minimal effort, gave up, and tried something else, repeat. Why do you think others are successful in just using Lightroom, but you are not?

> to make it look closer to reality
Photos are inheritably not reality.
>if I started from blank instead
There is no blank, this is especially true for film.
>instead of trying to twist every programs overblown Interpretation
That's only your perspective because you don't know what you're doing in those programs. Again, why do you think others are successful in just using Lightroom, but you are not?
>how do you decide what looks good?
That's the hard part, but trying to tinker around with side stuff wont help you. It takes time and experience to acquire personal taste.
>how do you choose what the end point of the edit to aim for?..
When you think it looks good and don't see anything you'd want to change to improve it.
>I mean I came to /p/ 4 days ago
Fair, we had another NXStudio guy that basically went through the same complaining you are.
If you have Lightroom, just stick with that.

>>4518882
Never fall into the realism trap.

>>4518883
He can see 67.4% of them, to be exact. With an unknown error.

Or however many nikon wants him to (so probably not that much better)

No 90%ish srgb?
No <1 delta-e?
Not calibrating your camera with a color checker?

Please turn off RAW and stick to canon/fuji

>>4518876
All this writing is just an irrelevant distraction for yourself to procrastinate. Just take more pictures, and practice more editing. Everything else just sounds like whiny teenage beginning philosophy metaphysical garbage.
> I struggled figuring out metering and exposure
You should learn this first. This is like basic addition for using a camera, and should be just as 2 + 3. Learn how to use your camera first, then worry about editing later.

>>4518877
>more distracting myself with anything other than actually learning how to edit
You absolutely don't need a calibrated monitor or color checker if you're still learning the basics to such an extent. They are for optimizing at the higher end. Get them if you want if for no other reason to have one less excuse.

>>4518885
Good bait, got me earlier

File: shitskysnap.jpg (3.39 MB, 3000x1996)

3.39 MB JPG

>>4518886
>seeing more than 2/3s of the colors and seeing them correctly is “optimizing”
Yeah if you want to be like the shitter that found capture one and began torturing us with weirdly colored masterpieces like this… eggshell dog over grayish purple snow. And there are worse on the archives.

Either learn to do color properly or stick to jpeg. Standard. Lower saturation, contrast, and sharpening. Get your white balance right. Don’t shoot raw if you’re not going to shoot raw properly.

>>4518883
it's not that I gave minimal effort, I just got lost at the loading step because everything shoes something different and I assumed raws meant everything would show it the same because it's raw data, but turns out it's all just different flavors of interpreters instead, I guess that breaks my brain a little.
maybe that's the issue. I will stick to Lightroom either way cause others have weird interface.
>photos are not reality
I guess that's true...
>especially true for film
somehow having it be a physical characteristic of the medium makes it feel like thats okay. even the faults.
>but you are not
I'm assuming because they know what they want to do and why
>it takes time and experience to acquire personal taste
that makes sense... though it feels like I have some taste, I just don't know how to put it in words or even feelings other than "this is different and does something to me"
>when you think it looks good
I guess I just have to keep at it and try to keep autism limited cause I get lost very deeply in it. maybe I should meditate about what actually makes me feel and why.
>same complaining
about the camera profiles?
I don't think I hate NX studio, I just got confused.
and Lightroom also has those "camera standard/neutral" but also adobe neutral and all that, feels like that looks... maybe better... maybe I'll just switch my camera to NL and use adobe neutral and just keep it at that.
also I got Lightroom classic 15 something and I wish they didn't add all the ai shit cause i clicked on the remove noise to just see how much it will do and it took 5 minutes cause it was doing some ai shenanigans.
what's the last version if without ai stuff?

>>4518884
maybe this feeling for "realism" I have is urge to encompass the moment that's a lot more than just visual or momentary which can't be contained in a medium that not human brain living a whole life with specific circumstances. I guess that itself is like an interpreting layer of physical reality like all the visual profiles that interpret the raw data from light bouncing off objects.

>>4518886
yeah I guess you're right...
I should just go out and not think about this. I'm hitting reply character limits a lot too.
>learn first
yeah I was doing it whole day yesterday and then I got stuck thinking about this stuff.. it was fun to learn how things work.

File: 1000184602.jpg (913 KB, 3072x2048)

913 KB JPG

>>4518888
isn't that more a problem with background framing than editing? other than masking the dog and making the background darker and blurrier what is there to do?
or maybe he liked that only the black parts were much contrast.

>>4518893
The snow is purple. The dog is piss yellow. The harness is pink. Its also a bad photo all around. He had a z7 or some shit. Lol.

I don’t think he had a clue and was working without any color calibration, as par for the course for the “i have the best gear and capture one, fuck you if you think yours is better, and therefore i am good at photography” dog snap trio that ruined /p/ 2024-2025

Dont be like that guy
Shoot jpegs in natural or black and white until you are ready to do color properly

>>4518894
maybe it was evening
and white fur is not white

>>4518895
Yeah I dont see the hyperbole. Looks totally natural on my calibrared monitor.

>>4518888
Where can we see some of your color work? I didn't see you contribute in the last few edit threads

File: Lol.jpg (4.38 MB, 5838x4371)

4.38 MB JPG

>>4518895
Good point. Perhaps the dog just rolled in piss, and they overcorrected a guess at the white balance instead of shooting in good light and getting it right in camera.

Or perhaps there’a really no gearing up that can save someone if they aren’t willing to approach raws and color properly, with calibrated equipment and a correct starting white balance, and most people who shoot raw should just tweak their jpeg settings to not be excessively punchy/shoot in black and white and save raw for salvaging high ISO snapshots.

Here’s another raw travesty from a member of the same gang. He did get good later. By shooting in black and white. Funny that.

>>4518890
you're just still overthinking things instead of doing
>what's the last version if without ai stuff?
this is just more autism

>>4518893
>>4518895
They will never link to or post a photo of their own because they genuinely don't know what they are doing and are just engagement baiting you guys, notice how they also offer 0 advice beyond buy more stuff?

>>4518910
My advice is, if you aren’t willing to learn to work with color and see what you are doing, tweak your jpegs natural look to actually be natural (saturation, contrast, and sharpening are always boosted by default even in natural, and active d lighting or its equivalent should always be on unless you want more contrast) and get white balance right in camera. Or shoot bw.

Most people already have a monitor that can display at least 90% of the colors in the photo. It’s just a matter of knowledge. It’s also the cheapest gear in photography. $100 monitor, $100 colorchecker, $100 colorimeter (used). Or less. A kit lens costs more. You don’t need TOTL studio gear to be close enough.

>>4518908
There's much worse examples than that one lol. I was still figuring out how to convert the weird raw files the mfdb was producing. Converting with the sinar software and then editing in capture one seemed to fix the problem.
All digital cameras are just snapshitting rigs for me so it's okay. I have never put any sort of longterm concerted effort into color photography, film or digital.

>>4518913
You’re the one with the MFDB? Please learn to use a colorimeter on your monitor, a gray card to ensure white balance is right, and a colorchecker in concert with your editor and don’t let that thing go to waste. Color isn’t actually hard. You just have to make sure you can SEE it and open a file with the right colors to begin with, ensuring that what you’re doing is necessary and will display the way you expected it to. Everything after that is personal taste.

Color in photography is especially easy. The world runs on SRGB. Some printers do ARGB. Be glad you aren’t grading video that might be displayed 3 different ways including native HDR.

>>4518908
and what's wrong with that one? other than saturation

>>4518915
when everything is the wrong color, nothing is

>>4518910
>autism
I just don't want to accidentally click on it and have to wait 10 minutes while it computes without a cancel button

File: 3088-2.jpg (3.92 MB, 4992x6668)

3.92 MB JPG

>>4518914
Yeah. I think I got a bit better once I started using it as a studio queen, got one of those color cards with like 70+ color swatches, and started using capture one instead of lightroom. The leaf aptus mfdb is natively supported by C1 also, so no conversion issues. Lightroom actually fucked all of my mfdb colors. Extremely annoying trying to fix a problem that was seemingly built into the software.

A few months back I was able to get the film back adapter after 15 months of waiting. The system works so much better with a filmback. I doubt I'll be using the mfdbs aside from special occasions at this point. They're safely stored in my humidity controlled lens cabinet now.

>>4518918
When flecks of purple and green give your dog’s fur a sheen

That’sa moire

When you spend hours with masks and and want to mail your camera back

That’sa moire

>>4518914
Oh yeah and I got a spyderchecker to calibrate my monitor. I later learned about the color space adobe 1998 thing that makes your pics look closer to what you post on 4chan as well.

Personally I've been enjoying shooting 8x10 slide film. Very rewarding when you get a perfect exposure, develop it perfectly and you just get a beautiful sheet of film to look at.

>>4518920
digisisters, the filmchuds are reminding us that kodak already figured everything out 100 years ago again

>>4518919
Yeah film is better for doghair we all know this.
I forgot to use the slider thingy in c1 to remove that lol. The color overall is pretty good tho right?

>>4518922
It’s a significant improvement
Never use that slider globally. It does literal color stretching.
Canon DSLR AA filters are the best for dog hair/dyed asian/hispanic hair, followed by using a 40mp fuji or a softer lens and halving the metapickles.

>>4518923
Film is the best because no moire, ackshually.
Someone told me to mask the eyes out then use the slider so it just gets the hair. Seemed to work fairly well.

>>4518925
You can still get colors stretched into the background that way. Mask the dog, refine the mask so the usual dog fuzz halo isn’t covered, unmask the eyes and teeth/tongue/lips, and then erase the mask wherever there’s still noticeable color bleed (toggle the mask layer on and off to see it).

>>4518928
That sounds like a lot of work. Maybe one day I'll find it in me to not just shoot film.

>>4518912
you might have something here... at least made me look at what d-lighting does at least in NX studio.
both switching to NL from SD and using d-lighting on low do similar thing of reducing contrast and pulling up shadows a little.
maybe it's why I had so much trouble figuring out which shutter and aperture to set because the camera would increase contrast a lot so I'd have to underexpose a lot.
from low to normal d-lighting it also adds a bit of exposure..
NL with low D-L is also a lot closer to what I expected raws to look...
so maybe I'll just do NL D-L raw+jpeg and just keep the raws for when I have any idea about editing or color.
>tweak jpeg to actually be natural
how do I do this, exactly? I know there are sliders but most of them are 0 with every picture control profile, not sure why they did it like that.
only sharpening is 2-3 on most but I've seen that explained as the compensation for blurriness from the optical low pass filter on the sensor.

either way I think I'll take a chill pill and try to take more photos to figure out the basics of proper exposure and use the histogram.

I appreciate all the replies and I'm sorry if I derailed the thread with my autism.

>>4518930
On every nikon ever made, saturation etc are unnaturally high. Turn saturation down a click or two at least.
>sharpening
Every bayer camera ever should look a little soft zoomed in. If not, people look ghoulish and landscapes look harsh. The sort of heavy handed sharpening cameras do looks almost as bad as what phones do. It depends on your camera and what the settings correspond to but in standard sharpening terms, you want as small of a radius as it takes to have a noticeable effect instead of none (too much looks chunky and digital), a medium amount just to deblur it a bit (also as little as possible), and a threshhold set just where it stops emphasizing ISO noise at 400-800. 1600+ ISO noise will always be obvious.

>>4518930
is there really a nikon where saturation cant be turned down? it should be at 0 and then be able to go + or -
-1 or -2 saturation is pretty normal.

iirc most nikons sharpening should be
Sharpening 1 to 3 (depends on your lens, 0 might even be ideal)
Mid range -1
Clarity -1

>>4518934
I see. between 2 and 0 sharpened it's pretty hard to tell the difference for me. and between 1 and 0 I can't tell even at 200% so I'm thinking it's maybe not as bad on mine. I don't remember if I said it itt but I have a d3200. and it has a low pass filter on the sensor as well which blurs things a little but I guess it's also not visible unless zooming in far. trying not to let my autism dwell on it because people say that that's bad and makes detail worse.
turning saturation by one seems also to be okay.

File: file.png (17 KB, 232x508)

17 KB PNG

>>4518936
oh no, you can. i just mean that its like this, so theres no way to tell the difference between profiles other than looking at them.
every single profile starts with everything set to 0, other than sharpness, which is 2-4.

>>4518936
also i have a kit 18-55mm G II VR
not sure if that matters for me specifically.
i might just have some weird autism that makes me super focused on all the details for no reason, but counterproductive to everything.

>>4518940
Kit zooms are a bit blurry ngl

If you had like the 35mm f1.8 dx or a macro lens you wouldn’t need much sharpening (you should get the 35mm f1.8 dx and 85mm f3.5 dx macro lens because they make the camera exponentially more useful for taking photos of small details/shit for sale and general stuff and people when light might be lacking)

>>4518941
i was thinking about 35mm f1.8 dx but since i dont know what im doing i decided ill wait to get lenses for later if i ever need them...
though i was only thinking about it because i only then learned about aperture and how lower number means more light and nicer background blur and i was thinking "what if i want to take night sky photos" except i dont even have a tripod. its just more of my autism.
i do like that its a 50mm in equivalent, though... which i used for my phone "photography", but on the kit i like 82mm even more most of the time.

why the 85? it would turn into 128 right? though im also getting a Telear-N f3.5 200mm from a friend that uses film and doesnt have a Nikon F camera so he doesnt need it.

also to ask about something at least somehow on topic... where can i learn the basics for proper exposure through manual settings? and editing with histograms and rgb histograms and clipping so things look okay? i mostly just played around with the camera and googled things i didnt get. like handheld shutter speeds and how many stops of leeway VR gives me and things like that. and i learned that wide aperture isnt actually always better cause trying to take a close up of a flower barely half of it was in focus even at f5.6 with the kit lens.
the detail and sharpness looked good to me though... im not used to being able to zoom in so much. of course i only have an ancient point and shoot and my phone to compare to.

>>4518945
>why the 85?
Because you can take close up photos without being right up against shit
And also do flattering headshots
> where can i learn the basics for proper exposure through manual settings
By trying it and seeing what it does

>>4518946
makes sense.
i guess i was on the right track before i got derailed.

>>4518948
Use the spot meter function and see what happens when different areas are exposed to the midtone.

>>4518951
that was sort of my next idea... i couldnt figure out metering it felt random. and things were under or overexposed when i got home.
since theres no live histogram (and i use the viewfinder anyway) i thought that maybe i could spot meter the brightest spot in the sky, then overexpose to it by +2 (or see where the clipping starts) and that would at least let me have proper highlights and darks wouldnt be too crushed either.

is this logical?

>>4518954
Read about the zone system if you want to understand exposure better. It's technically for film and making prints, but the basic concept is very useful if you want to visualize what exposure actually is.

From 1 second of research it says digital usually has 2.5-4 stops of range past midtone, so depending on your shadows you could push the highlights a bit further to help maintain good shadow detail if needed. That would depend on your camera tho. Maybe yours only has 2 stops.

>>4517325
It is a measuring of light waves.

The wave function of light when measured, and there are many ways to read it. It's trigonometry with cosine and sine with light's wave function.

>>4518959
thanks, will do.

I just thought 2 stops because that's where the metering gauge ends on mine. i checked the highlight clipping as well but I'm not sure I correlated those.

>>4518967
You really dont need to care about clipping in jpeg unless the clipping looks bad (ie: white highlight turns purple with jagged edges)

>>4518968
I want to expose properly so I don't want to lose information unless it's inevitable. and with raw I think it's easy to recover the dark end at least

>>4518912
>>4518959
do you guys have an opinion on which adobe lightroom profile looks decent and not overblown saturation and contrast?

>>4519272
go neutral if possible. or get a linear profile from here
>https://goodlight.us/linear-profiles.html

>>4519272
Watch LR editing videos and see what profiles they use, and what their photos look like.

>>4519272
In my opinion all lightroom profiles look bad and the standard cope is
>brooooo raws are meant to be flat bro its a blank canvas bro make up a totally new scene broooooo
So most people just buy preset packs and feel a little sad about not having an easy way to get the colors they saw in real life

>>4519272
Pick any profile and use any of the many controls in LR to get the look you want.