why do stock photos always have this ugly neutral, super low contrast look? does it have a name? I call it the 'unsplash look', but I don't know why this is so popular. it looks cheap and it is not eye-catching at all.
>>4523808The HDR modern mirrorless camera lookThis is why the 5DII and D200 are the best cameras ever made (plus, they save your shekels)>inb4 skill issues
>>4523810why not 5DIII?
>>4523816Too many shekelsThe better question is why not d300? because ccd that’s why
>>4523808The female wedding photographer look.
>>4523808Aside from the fact that these are all thumbnail sized what's the issue. contrast looks fine to me.
>>4523825>Aside from the fact that these are all thumbnail sizedwhy would the size of a photo be an issue? you know you can click on them to see them larger, right?
>>4523825i mean this style. the blacks are basically grey and it just looks wrong. not sure how to explain it
>>4523808half of these are ai slop you dumb boomer
>>4523830none of those photos are ai, retard. you're actually worse than boomers who can't tell when something is ai. because you're so zoomer-brained, you think everything is ai, even when it's real.
>>4523833
>>4523830Which ones?
its probably ai type shit, idk but boomers just call it art nowadays.
It's called doing this.
>>4523830>>4523839none of those photos are likely to be AI. There is no AI-typical artifact, the style does not ressemble AI. The girl crouched over the dog in (3,3) looks a but weird but it could totally be just an awkward pose. Why don't you shut the fuck up when you have no idea what you're talking about.
>>4524068It's sad that /p/ is at such a level that something as simple as this is new information to people
>>4524071no one was asking how it was done, but why
>>4524073If they were true, OP would've been able to articulate what what they mean more precisely, instead of>ugly neutral, super low contrast look?They posted collage of entirely differently edited photos, where lifted blacks are about the only thing in common (different presets, different colors, different contrast)OP answered their own question if all they want to know is why>this is so popularUnless OP thinks stock photos should be edited in a way that wouldn't be popular among consumersIf OP is genuinely interested, they should post some examples of stock images that they do actually like the editing of, and then we can actually get down into the specific differences and why the "normal" shots might not be as popular for stockI don't think their examples look cheap, and several are eye catching from a stock perspective, so maybe it just all comes down to OP having poor taste, which is all the more reason for them to share "good" examples.
>>4524074>They posted collage of entirely differently edited photosits not a collage it's just a screenshot from some stock photo site as an example
>>4524070You are so out of touch it's painful. AI hasn't generated obvious artifacts like 6 fingers in YEARS at this point. Holy shit get with the times
>>4524084The photos in OP post are not AI retard, the stock site in question does not allow AI photos
>>4524089>They don't allow it therefore it doesn't happen.double digit iq we are dealing with here
>>4524096You're retarded if you think stock sites can't tell the difference between ai photos and real ones when uploaded
Is this dog not AI?
>>4524435Now it is :^)
>>4524096>It's AI because... it is ok? Retard!
>>4524096Which ones are fake? I already asked once a few days ago >>4523843. Don't run this time.
>>4523828>the blacks are basically grey and it just looks wrong. not sure how to explain itIt's called "the filmic look" because that's what film looks like.
Washed out? Afraid of showing contrast or the color black?
>>4523816The 5D mk III's tone curve much more closely resembles more modern cameras, even though it's dynamic range is no better than the mark II. Some even claim the mk II has a bettery dynamic range at low ISO compared to the mark III. Regardless, it doesn't have the same ready-to-use contrast as the mark II or the classic. The mark III is also usually double the price of well priced mark II, mostly because of how much better the autofocus is, and how much better the shadow pulls are. It also has auto ISO in manual mode, which the mark II does not have.
>>4523808You're seeing this in the photos where they are shooting into the sun. Not sure why they chose them to be backlit.
>>4524460That's what poorly exposed/developed film looks like. Mirrorlesscucks are basically ferrets, they have a tendency to collect trash.
>>4523808>Backlit>Obvious flare>Poor lightingThe photographers are shit. That's your common denominator.
>>4523808Because this>Bro my camera has uhhh dynamic range look at this chart it's 0.8 better at dynamic range>*drags shadow slider up*>full frame is for low light bro why even buy it if you're not gonna shoot at f2 iso 12800 or push shadows 6 stops>*e/c -2*
>>4523810>canon cock deep in the mouth
>>4523808You just know...
