Thread 4452088

>just shoot jpeg
>less time wasted infront of a computer and more time actually taking photos and being in the moment
It's that simple.

>>4452088 (OP)
she was always kinda piggy looking but holy fuckin grim

>>4452092
>she
HE WILL NEVER BE A WOMAN

>consoom for your photos to be less than stellar! consoom the specific soon to be $1000 ewaste camera! just so your photos can be only slightly worse than a $50 canon rebel+capture one!
Shooting jpeg is bugman behavior.

>>4452100
Some of them are already $1000. Just to avoid 20 min/week of editing throw "NO THATS PIXEL PEEPING! BAD!" copes directed at anyone with more than 1080p and a non-phone screen pointing out the smeary detail and color fog

>>4452100
>You have to hurry home and spend 5 hours editing atrocious snoy RAW files in front of your computer after every photo you take because... you just have to okay! Also im white and have an IQ of 150!!

>>4452088 (OP)
Yeah, it depends on the camera.
I tried using a profile on my Canon for a cinematic street photoshoot and the result was crap. Luckily I also shoot raw.

>>4452102
hyperbole is an admission of defeat.

>>4452101
pixel peeping is look at 1:1 view

>>4452088 (OP)
Recently i've began to realize this.
Almost all cameras today have jpg settings in the cameras also highlight, shadow, contrast, saturation settings.
Most shots i take don't need that extra 10% detail of DNG, carefully adjusting each components 1 to 50 level with viewed on my color graded 4k monitor.
>t. snapshitter.

>>4452137
Still i use capture one for landscapes and some photos to edit detail and color.

>>4452088 (OP)
>Just take shitty pictures.
>It's that simple.

>>4452088 (OP)
That's what your fukken sellphone is for you tard. They even make crappy fx to make your shitty jpgs look even shittier so you can pretend to be "authentic" like some sad bastard who has no place in this world.

>>4452119
1:1 view is basically just full screen on a first world computer.

>>4452119
Pixel peeping is more than 1:1

1:1 is just enjoying the whole photo.

>>4452163
>Just take shitty pictures and waste more hours editing them infront of a computer
ah, much better

>>4452186
>>4452118

>>4452088 (OP)

imagine small jpeg normal 5200Kelvin 1/100s f8 ISO100 28mm rangefocus taped to 3meters all day long

>>4452198
thanks for confirming jpeg is actually the end stage of gearfag cancer

i shoot raw so when i think of camera settings its like, "put it on A and toggle that thingy". i save my brain cells for the image, and looking at womens asses.

>Gearfags: raw makes every camera basically the same. how will people truly know what i used is an essential part of my identity?
>non gearfags: i found a free fuji lightroom preset pack
>gearfags: *hysterical hyperbole and being angry at sony*

>>4452095
She's a cis girl, strong like an ox, built like the ones in the Middle Ages.

>>4452455
if this is what cis women look like nowadays in America I understand why everyone is gay there

>>4452456
She's English.

>>4452457
It really does make you understand why they're all nonces when you see what their grown women look like

It's literally that simple

>>4452541
you can literally just make your own preset for raws and it's as fast as using jpegs but looks better and has more dynamic range

>>4452543
and you can always go back and adjust as taste and skillset changes

>>4452541
Shooting jpeg is a world of bullshit
>need to buy specific bodies for their SOOC jpeg rendering. Some suck at high ISOs, some don't, some smear more, some smear less, some have the good settings, some don't. This is why certain cameras have inflated in value from $50 to $500. Zoomers can't use computers and MUST shoot jpeg, and if they want ISO 3200 to not have colored dots all over they MUST buy a certain camera.
>need to fiddle with settings before taking a picture or accept camera-generated fuckups. white balance, "dynamic range optimizer/active d-lighting hdr###", color profile, etc.
>can never fix anything in post. must be on top of camera settings at all times.
>shoot more worthless photos, delete more worthless photos, all of a sudden the jpegger yearns for film
>lens magic is real again because camera lens correction support isn't always there or good, and lenses effect on color and detail is magnified by camera jpeg and minimized by typical raw processor defaults
Basically it turns photography into a gear-centric activity which is great if your real hobby is using a camera and looking like a photographer

With raw every camera is the same
>doesn't matter if it's a sony a6000 or a canon r6ii everything looks fine
>Don't overexpose, otherwise who cares
>white balance? lol
>no idea what half these settings do don't care
>click auto and spend 30 seconds moving stuff
>editing 500 photos would take forever, so shoot it like it's film

>>4452545
>editing 500 photos would take forever
nah you just go full rajeesh mode and use the AI integration to learn how you like photos edited and then let it grokify your raws

>>4452088 (OP)
I have a workflow that works for my camera, so I have no reason to shoot jpeg. You're kind of shooting yourself in the leg by refusing to learn how to edit. By shooting jpeg you're losing image quality and you're taking photos that you won't be able to adjust later should you learn how to edit. It also fucks you if your camera gets the WB wrong.

>>4452550
>I have a workflow that works for my camera, so I have no reason to shoot jpeg
the thing is, that workflow can easily be transferred to a different camera since there's not a big difference in raw processing despite what schizos here will screech
shooting raw is just more practical, if you care about space you can just shoot compressed raw

>>4452088 (OP)
why the fuck would I waste my time on JPEGs

>>4452088 (OP)
"Developing" the photo is half the fun. Its part of the process. If you are just letting the camera decide every aspect of the photo just use your phone.

>>4452564
Within a decade your phone will have AI connection that looks around and tells you where to put your phone to frame and composit your photo and then it will take a photo and 3d scan and use them to AI generate an infinite resolution replica of the photo designed to be maximally aesthetically pleasing, better than anything a human could ever produce
just cope and rope

>>4452566
you can ask AI today to make cartoons and paintings, but people still draw and paint. id be worried if i were a professional doing this but as a hobbyist, who cares? if you dont want to use skynet to take pictures then dont do it.

>>4452593
editing 50 photos (1-2 weeks of snapshits) takes 15 minutes
maybe 20-25 minutes if you have a lot of fuck ups/moire

learn to use a camera instead of spraying and praying

>>4452593
Do you have anything better than just hyperbolic mumbling directed at no one?

>>4452601
25 minutes of an actual task (ie: not social media) feels like 25 hours to the zoomers maldeveloped adhd digital dementia brain

>>4452566
How will it know? What data will it learn this godly aesthetic from?

>>4452604
Neuroaesthetics research

>>4452564
it's not knowing what you're doing, le fix it in post. Get better

>>4452652
The last thing I want to do is "know what I'm doing" with digital cameras jpeg settings. What a fucking waste of time.

You go ahead and toggle white balances, DROs, and stay on top of exposure while the world passes you by. I'll sit comfy with exp. comp -1 and not give a fuck. Which is basically what shooting film is like (but negative film is +1)

>>4452652
>I'm so skilled, I double check my white balance like ken rockwell said
you are also limited to a selection of overpriced meme cameras for their jpeg output

with raw, every camera has the same image quality and "color science". stop being a soulless techie bugman and learn to do things that actually matter.

>>4452658
BS, RAW fixes a lot but CFAs remain different.
Agreed that JPEG output is a bad criteria for cam picking.

>>4452665
If you actually knew more than brand wars you'd know most alleged CFA differences are actually lens coating differences and even those more dramatic changes calibrate out

>>4452656
use auto white balance, and ofc check that your exposure is ok before you burst
>>4452658
I don't use meme cameras,, I use previous generation or the cheapest new ones, True satisfaction comes from being able to know what the image is going to look like before pressing the shutter

>>4452545
No most people can just buy a camera and use it if thats what there interested in without all this bullshit

>>4452545
What autism is this?

>>4452604
It will understand your mind perfectly. It will be able to make your dick hard with a single setence, to drive you to murder your family with a paragraph. Kneel before the AI overlord

>>4452656
The fuck is a dro

>>4452870
Doing photography correctly, zoomer. Just use your phone if you don't.

>>4452186
Some fag here did a comparison at iso 25600 and the jpeg was unusable compared to the raw. You can buy cameras for their jpeg converter or you can buy cameras to do photography.

>>4452898
This one right here

Basically every camera's jpegs suck at high ISOs and jpeg doesn't let you fix white balance in fucky situations. The back screens aren't very accurate so it's not like you'd know if it was actually right or not. Raw is always a noticeable improvement in color and detail and makes it easier to protect highlights.

Shooting raw adds 20 minutes a week and costs an extra $200 tops. It's smarter than watching photo gear youtube for 20 hours and spending $700 on a 2010 digishit. But the kind of gearfag that vlogs and peruses camera youtube would probably buy a $200 "magic" lens as part of their latest attempt to make their photos better. Editing eats into valuable time that could be spent watching tom calton and snappiness videos.

>>4452929
Watch out cinefag is going to hallucinate some romantic context here

>>4452929
The eyes are desaturated and the fur has a weird blueish cast on the RAW. Overall if I had to define the RAW I'd say it's "less pleasant".

>>4453010
it's just an overexposed picture, every picture he takes has bad exposure

>>4453011
He uses an 8k screen or something and forgets to add the 1.5 stops of brightness needed for the standard new delhi home pc. Looks good on my iPhone!

>>4453010
>the eyes are desaturated
They are. Capture one won't do color noise reduction on layers and by then it desaturates almost as much as lightroom. Could mask and boost saturation in 5 seconds, but it's better off in black and white
>bluish cast
Not on my screen but it's really shitting lighting. White balance was something like 2300k +15 magenta tint. The lighting on that floor is due to be replaced.
>overall more pleasant
Pixel peeping it's a toss up, but zoomed out it had more bayer color blobs all over the background and the blur was noticeable.

>>4453011
Underexposed, but d750 so not so good at extreme ISOs

but sir how do i add grain to my rx100v
[spoiler]seriously, how? i don't want to pay the simulation recipes of youtubers[/spoiler]

> Anon, that's a cool photo can you send it to me
> No, it's not yet time for my weekly raw editing session
If you have friends, raw+jpeg is the way.

>>4452566
Without AI, that's where Capture One, DxO, etc are heading - auto exposure, auto color profiles, auto denoise, auto crop, and so on for statistically most psychologically engaging result.

>>4458100
DXO is full on AI and makes every photo that isnt of a car or an office building look like ken rockwell edited it. Capture one just has AI for copying edits more accurately and generating masks instead of making you spend 1.5hrs drawing them by hand and is so embedded in pro portraiture and so tied to P1's high end medium format cameras that I doubt it will ever be generative.

Capture one has not even updated their noise reduction in a decade because P1 MFDBs literally do not need noise reduction. If they add generative anything, which they could have easily done 2 years ago, that will be the day they finally officially support a hasselblad. It's an inherently snobbish program.

>If you have friends, raw+jpeg is the way.
My friends aren't big on instant gratification and neither am I. We're all white, you see. There is something inherently aryan about waiting for a print.

>>4458153
By the time you finished cullng and started color grading, Chad has alteady sent her the three jpegs he took and asked her out (he'll bring the prints with him).

>>4458163
>he lives in fear of an imaginary man
>he projects imaginary scenarios onto others
here king you dropped this

>>4458166
The point is not the imaginary man himself, but whether or not you did what the imaginary man would. I didn't think this needed clarification.

>>4458153
In defense of DxO, it's a proper raw editor with overblown default settings. At which point the value of a SOOC (separate or embedded in the raw) is to remind you how the scene actually looked, as opposed to relying on raw editors, their color profiles, etc, to tell you how scenes tend to look in general.

>>4458163
lol are you like 12 years old. Photography is inherently feminine. Chad doesn't even own a camera. Stacy his girlfriend does and it's probably an old olympus with a vintage filter.

>>4458173
It's also a lot better for lower end cameras which is why it has all the AI noise reduction. The raws from my "disposable" cheapo m43 camera turn out much better from DXO editing than capture one. The raws from my Z8 turn out better from capture one and kind of look like shit from DXO.

>>4453010
Just combine the low frequency detail of the jpg with high frequency detail of the raw for the best of both worlds.

>>4458829
What program does this? Looks useful for fuji raws

Or maybe capture one should fix their noise reduction

>>4458837
I used photoshop. Look up a frequency separation tutorial. Separate the frequencies of the raw. You'll have a low frequency layer with a high frequency layer above it set to linear light, then do the same to the jpg and paste the low frequency layer from the jpg in place of the raw's low frequency layer.

>>4458837
>>4458843
Repostin for the oldfags

>>4458829
or maybe stop expecting a photo 7 stops underexposed at 12,800 ISO which is just capturing 0.78125% of the light you would need for a nice photo to look good?

ISO 200 = 50%
ISO 400 = 25%
ISO 800 = 12.5%
ISO 1600 = 6.25%
ISO 3200 = 3.125%
ISO 6400 = 1.5625%
ISO 12800 = 0.78125%
ISO 25600 = 0.390625%
ISO 51200 = 0.1953125%

people will do anything but accept that photography needs a lot of light and insist they need new gear or new software when what they really need are just some brighter fucking light bulbs kek

>>4459888
hol up lemme call the wedding venue and tell them to upgrade to 10000000000lumen bulbs

>>4459890
see this shit?
this is how I know you're never going to make it
you're supposed to bring your own fucking lights and set up strobes for events like weddings

for indoor pet photography you open windows to let the sun in, or you buy bright bulbs
the average person's living room could be at least 16x to 64x brighter without it being noticeably bright to the occupants (actually, not perceptually) and that's enough to bring indoor photography into f/2.8 or f/5.6 being well exposed at 1/125 which covers 99% of shots you might take inside without using a flash

Instead you have people with 200 sqft trying to light shit with two lamps at 800lumens each with their pupils dilated to the max just to see their own hands

>>4459897
>set up strobes for candids
face it
your entire philosophy is ass backwards

the entire fucking world is running their canon r6ii's at iso 1600-12800 without issue because flash is bad mmkay

>>4459898
>everything wedding has to be candids
>moving the goalposts
kek
never change little comically high ISO copelet
lights are expensive I know but hahahaa you kinda need some, or you pay for shitpaz AI denoising and get AI smearing

>>4459901
Professionals: running their r6iis to 12800 and beyond
Internet commentators: pfff REAL photography is ISO 25. noise reduction is fake and hylic, NPC goicattle!

>>4459902
maybe for bords, not weddings you giant retard
this is like the 41rd time you mentioned the r6ii is that the camera you own? lmao

light is what separates professionals from consoooooming gear faggots who constantly look for new camera bodies and denoising algorithms

>>4459903
>professionals: buy cameras with better high ISO performance
>internet commentators: thothe arent real profethunels. if i did it i would use a phathe one and strobeth.

Since this thread went to shit anyway, I'll mention that she does NOT owe me sex.

>>4459904
>actual pros
>use lights with people in position and remote controlled strobes or continuous lights
>photos come out better than your smartphone
>customers satisfied
>10 year old camera works fine for this
just admit it, you're a faggot sponsored by Canon shilling that camera

>>4459909
>no true professional photographer t. 4chan loser
my dad works at phase one and he says flashes suck