Thread 4454223

Hi /p/.

I was attending anime con two weeks ago and I would like to dump some (primarily) stage photos and ask for suggestions on improvement. Somewhere around year ago I made similar thread and got many valuable suggestions so I figured out I could ask again. Despite trying to apply more of your advices, I feel like I did rather mediocre this year, compared to previous one, however. But I would like to hear your opinion too.

I remember that photo dump threads are generally welcome here but if not, just say so. Thanks in advance for any advice. If you want, I could upload RAW files for selected photos on temporary link like catbox or something.

Main problem I noticed that I consequently fails to catch focus on pictures made in poor light conditions (aka every single stage photo), like here. Since in most cases I had to shoot fast moving performances, I was using manual mode with 1/200 or 1/250 (sometimes 1/320 but rarely), f/2.8 and automatic ISO but I noticed that even when model was stationary, I would often get blurred face. This was also some sort of "baptism of fire" for new (used) lens I got, Tamron 24-70mm F/2.8 G2, which I got for greatly reduced price due to small scar on front glass - I didn't notice during testing if it would actually produce any flares or similar effects, even with strong backlight but just in case attached anti-reflective UV filter. Could it be that autofocus don't like those?

I had similar autofocus problems with 70-200 2.8 lens, also with similar UV filter so that was just my guess. Other than that, in both cases stage had constant "fog" effect produced and multicolored light.

I admit Im also not sure how to properly handle very intense, colorful lights. Many performances had very strong red or blue/violet light that would often produce pasteurization effects no matter which software I tried to use (old or new Darktable or NX Studio). Sometimes, like in this case, I would actually go full with it - red light here was making her (probably orange-red) hair literally burn.

Overall, how would you improve those stage photos? In this particular case, stage was rather high and available space limited and close to stage itself so many photos are done from angle. I could move a bit to the sides but only slightly and couldn't really stand up without obscuring view for audience gathered under the stage.

Now just regular dump.

>>4454225
>Could it be that autofocus don't like those?
You can be behind a solid object like a pole at high enough focal length and wide enough aperture and my camera will still autofocus on things behind that. A small nick in the objective lens shouldn't affect AF that much.

>>4454236
Then what tests would you suggest in order to find out the source of problem?

Also, any tips on interesting audience photos? Sometimes Im asked for those too.

Hope you don't mind such image dump.

And that would be all for now. Thank you for patience and thanks again for any sort of advice or opinion.

>>4454238
You'd need multiple bodies, lenses, and subjects, and to methodically go through and test combinations to see what's the odd performer out.
AF accuracy is generally down to the camera body, but speed is down to the lens, and low-light ability is a combination of camera sensor and how wide the lens aperture is. If your camera is giving AF lock but you're missing focus, DSLRs generally need to be fine tuned via menu settings. I'd probably run some tests in good light against stationary and moving targets just to narrow down where the problem can be replicated.

>>4454276
Thank for info. I only now noticed that /p/ no longer have exif info displayed. Odd. Anyway, camera in use was Nikon D750, always shot with viewfinder, never with live view, if that changes anything.

Are there no replies because the photos are not good or interesting?

>>4454839
The photos are fine, other than getting closer or heavy editing I don't think there's much you could do. They look a bit flat lighting wise, which you could try and fix with editing, but I think a lot of the problem is that conventions like these are lit by amateurs; that's sort of just what they look like. I think you could try and get some non-full body shots. The typical novice shooter will try and "get it all in" for documentary purposes, and that's how you end up with the touristy look. Try to focus more on capturing a moment or story, usually this is aided by getting closer. Try and get some close-ups or medium close-ups. Long exposures can be fun too.

Oh, okay. While you mention light, I recall another con from previous year that was made in private university combined with theatre, where contests and concerts were made on obviously professional stage and how much different it felt. This one was organized at exposition center and stage was "temporary" one so maybe thats why. Still better than previous year where I had several cases where light was hitting performances backs instead of front, leaving faces dark and heavily underexposed.

Thanks for suggestions.

>>4455012
Missed pointer, sorry, that was for >>4454886

>>4454256
>>4454258
>>4454259
Can you share RAWs for these?

>>4455073
Sure, here we go:

https://litter.catbox.moe/cp4bo5uute985vme.NEF
https://litter.catbox.moe/p8n1xms2bp9d4fzt.NEF
https://litter.catbox.moe/e2122tqickpnb2ou.NEF

Links are active for next 24h.

As for Frieren one - I couldn't figure out how to get rid of these intense effects in blue highlights until recently but literally few minutes ago, after following some link from DT thread, found out that solution was to use "chromatic aberration" module more aggressively and for specifically blue. Worked out. NX Studio had none of this but probably does it automatically and I simply didn't notice.

>>4455175
Which program did you use, by the way?

>>4455245

NX2 for crop colors sharpening
imagemagick for resize save

>>4454230
in lightroom there's a calibration panel that does wonders to salvage a photo assraped by monochromatic LEDs
>>4454245
this is rally good one. try looking for details in their apparel or items they carry (this is easy at anime cons, weebs are hoarders of pins and other bulllshit) (picrel is my humble attempt at this)
>>4454232
go wide, go really tight, experiment with negative space, take general shots form behind the audience, introducue more variety. in general, if pit under the stage is the only space you're allowed, there's not all that much you can do. you're lucky the stage has decent lights and it's not some local sports center with loverhead fluorescent bulbs

>>4455091
Wow the blue lighting for Frieren here is fucking ridiculous.
Idk what the real issue is but it seems fabricated in software.

Using the standard or enhanced matrix in the input profile severely clips the blue shit, doing a monochrome export (change demosaic to monochrome) shows it's not actually baked, and on the right is what I got from changing the input profile to just linear rec709 and some edits. I don't know how to deal with that blue clipping any other way than just opting out of the input profile and adding back saturation via other ways.

I ran into issues with pure blue light sources before and thought it might have been me or something (phone RAW, Panasonic MFT, Canon APS-C, Nikon Z5/6/7) but its definitely just pure colored overly bright light that seems to be raping darktable at least. I think rawtherapee has the same issues but it's been a while since I tried that.

This kind of shit is why a lot of people just do B&W. Sometimes the colors are all over the place and it's either hard or impossible to make them look right. Bayer and the interpolated color and digital just has its limits and film just didn't have these issues.

>>4455340
Should bring this up the darktable thread. I see the same as you.

>>4455340
Darktable isn't good software. It is flat out bad.

What darktable provides is an array of mutually incompatible modules and options in no set order, and then source code and docs to inform you of minor technical things that are totally irrelevant to photography but 100% relevant to developing a raw editor. There are even options for multiple demosaicing algorithms. This is because darktable developers are unpaid pajeets, and creating the correct defaults for each camera, each lens, each general class of settings and light sources, is so beyond them they decided to leave the users to compile their color science from source.

To use darktable is essentially to finish programming it for the lazy jeets. It's not worth the $0 saved over just using the manufacturer's editor or the $200 saved not buying capture one on sale.

>>4455340
it's not bayer, its darktable

film had these issues solved in chemistry and digital needs these issues solved in programming (and on film all of the colors were a little wrong)
FOSS editors are not well programmed

>>4455354
>it's not bayer, its darktable
What kind of copium is that?

Apparently lightroom has the same issues.
https://www.reddit.com/r/canon/comments/14r65m8/help_me_find_the_answer_led_lighting_ruining_my/

>>4455340
Yeah, Dorktable don't like strong blue light for some reason.

Like mentioned before, after some tips from Darktable thread, I started to adjust modules settings more aggresive and what definitively helped was adjusting chromatic aberration to max strength and blue as guide. And your idea of linear rec709 profile too, at least it does not make whole image goes dark like with other color profiles changing.

As you can see here, using blue attenuation setting in sigmoid or lowering white relative exposure settings in filmic also works, at least partially. There is significant difference in saturation however.

>>4455353
I frequently see these posts advising capture one and always for 200$ price. Are you working for them or what?

>>4455290
Thank you!

>>4455340
>and film just didn't have these issues
*the colour red enters your frame*

>>4454230
>pasteurization
kek
Anon, sir, it's called posterization.
I don't know if that was a failed autocorrect mistake turning it into pasturizing but in case it isn't, just remember posters you hang on your wall. Makes poster-i-zation easy to remember.

>>4455432
Capture one is one of the few editors that works for bulk raw editing (most other ownables open each raw in a tab or have really bad multi-file/culling) and can be owned, and it goes on sale for about ~$200. It's just a common fact.

You are strongly discouraged from subscribing or paying full price because only an idiot would pay $400 for a computer program (AKA subscribing to adobe for 3 years)

>>4456420
Yeah, it was autocorrect. It's called "posteryzacja" in my native language too, I simply didn't notice. Sorry.

>>4456436
adobe is up to $336 for 2 years lmao

>>4456436
Anyone still paying Adoobie is a fucking retard. Their software is the most pirated shitware after Windows itself. If you are clever enough to know use Adobe's software, you are clever enough to figure out how to get Adobe 100% free. I say that as a retard with 2 months left to go til I can cancel this horrible fucking adobe contract without losing even more money on early termination fees, jesus fuckity jones. One moment of weakness and they sink their fuckin talons into ya. They're worse than a fucking gym membership.

Hey OP do you know who these cosplayers are?
I would imagine the ones on the stage shared their social media or might be well known, but I don't recognize any.

>>4454247
>>4454240
These and the Frieren are good.

>>4462375
Didnt notice somebody replied, sorry. Im not exactly sure if lone performancers have their dedicated social media but out of those presented here, two idol groups does:

https://www.instagram.com/trymirai/
https://www.instagram.com/hayazaki_idols/

First is for these "gothic lolita" styled ones and second for Guilty Kiss group.

Since my previous thread is still standing, Im going to use it again instead of making new one.

I was attending another (and last one in this year) anime con recently, again with approval and wanted to share some of the photos I did, asking for your honest opinion. As before, if you want, I can upload selected RAWs in temporary link too.

Stage was whole different this time, with higher quality light and no elevated section so I spent nearly whole time sitting along other photogs (and occasionally literally lying in front of jury table to make shoots from ground perspective) as to not obscure vision. But I felt like it was overall better position than right under elevated stage, even if restricted in movement.

Previously I had problem with focusing, this time I changed focus mode from single to continuous and 9 central points - while it would occasionally produce situations where, say, focus was made on microphone instead of face behind it, it worked much better. Or, like you pointed out before, too low light conditions might be too much for my camera focus system (D750).

I still had some problems with moving elements, especially clothes like on this pic. I couldn't reduce time further (in this particular case it was 1/320) but it still appears blurred. I wonder if this was my own movement or I would need even shorter times.

Similar case.

I admit that this one was a mistake, pressed at wrong moment and only got silhouette so I went ahead and made it almost fully dark instead. Is such photo still interesting, however?

I hoped that these bubbles will come out good but it looks odd instead. I wonder what exactly I did wrong here (1/200s exposure time here).

Tried making some audience photos too, mostly they were too dark but got couple with light sticks like this. Do you think they are still interesting like this, even if you barely see people here?

I think this one was a guy but dance routine was nice.

This one is easily my favorite performance. Great choreography and light.

This one was really cute too, performer obviously enjoyed this.

The Dutch Angle was not really intentional – I simply shot at angle while ling in front of jury table as to avoid obscuring their vision but still change angle a bit.

I mentioned that light was much better this time but some performers had really awful light. Burnice cosplayer was really rocking nicely on stage but for most time she had very strong light directly above her, resulting in very dark shoots or overexposed hair. Is there anything I could do here?

This one would be much better if composed differently but they moved so fast forward that I couldn't move back in time (was already at 24mm focal length too) and got "cut" shot.

And I think that would be all. Overall did a lot of photos but no point in spamming them.

Thanks in advance for any critique. It really helps me improve.

>>4454223 (OP)
Not terrible shots, but you need to learn to edit to make them actually good.

>>4454223 (OP)
>>4466781
Upload a couple of RAWs and I'll show you

>>4466782
Which ones you want?

>>4466782
>>4466781
Okay, uploaded semi-random 3 from latest post and 1 from OP, links are active for next 24h:

https://litter.catbox.moe/54aeam2iy7li9s3n.NEF
https://litter.catbox.moe/v4s8baaa66am2rv7.NEF
https://litter.catbox.moe/cdxu7ivppk6eg7nm.NEF
https://litter.catbox.moe/89gmy0v9ppqbiigo.NEF

these are all pretty good for being right at the stage

>>4466769
>>4466784
Quick attempt.
Bit hammy with the spotlights, but you get the idea - Just make the subject pop

>>4466806
Okay, sort of recognize what you did. What software did you use?

>>4466812
>>4466761
Lightroom

>>4466725
you'd need to go very fast with ss to truly freeze dance motion. I'd say in this case to try going slower and embrace the slight motion blur. what settings exactly is trial and error to make it look natural as it depends on situation, movement speed and lighting conditions

>>4466730
yes, silhouette photos fuck hard

>>4466745
>>4466747
>>4466749
these are nice but framing is akward, make it symmetrical or go full out of balance

most of them need contrast/levels adjustments, some white balance and colors fixing and some masking to clean up distracting elements due to uncontrolllable background

a lot of your shots are "fill the frame with subject" compositions, you'll hopefully grow out of it. leave out some of the content in your framing, get close up portraits, clothing, hands, shoes details. leave more space around the main subject if you can zoom out/walk back. in all of the pictures you posted there's some really good ones. in general take less "safe" photos and get experimental with framing

>>4466829
Okay. I use Darktable personally.

>>4466842
Thank you. Could you point out which ones you considered better than others? It would help me figure out direction to take. About space - some of these shots actually had a lot of space around originally (since in previous events had situations where I missed shots because subject moved faster than I could safely recompose so I left some "safety space") but I cropped it since said space was mostly empty. But do you suggest that it can still add value to photo itself?

>>4466910
If you're not getting the results you want, you should just pirate Lightroom

>>4466968
I honestly don't know how to and I doubt I could just enter "how to pirate Lightroom" in search engine. I don't want to risk either. I guess if I would want to change software, I would do so at next Capture One sale but still - all Lightroom can do is surely doable in Darktable as well, only in different way, its surely just problem of my missing of necessary knowledge.

>>4466991
darktable is basically a harder to use lightroom.
Take a practice shot snd use it to absolutely mess with every tool on dark

>>4466991
You can get most graphics software through cgpeers. They have signups on the 15th of every month.
You still have to exercise caution, but it's generally okay.

>>4466991
Darktable is basically half finished lightroom

Every possible feature is laid out as if the developers are still testing it
The order of operations is arbitrary and can actually crash the program or cause rendering bugs
Basic technical shit like the ideal demosaicing pipeline for a camera at that particular ISO and color mapping is manually configured in darktable (in professionally made programs, they already figured this shit out with resolution charts and huge color swatch cards)

Basically you are downloading a "build your own raw editor" kit and because it's commie shit software if you have a problem with retarded non-standard behavior the answer you will get from the devs is "this is MY project MY vision and MY autistic logic says this is the purest and most elegant solution. go fork it yourself, the entirely non-annotated spaghetti source code is right there"

>>4467037
>cause rendering bugs
yes, im still using 4.6.1 and have found myself having to delete the xmp file because ill click to original to start over and suddenly the image is fucking orange

>I fucked up this photo
>this wasn't intentional
>the lighting was shit
these are all your good photos

>>4467638
You mean that others I consider okay are actually worse? Im sorry, Im a bit confused.

>>4467037
As much as I hate to admit it, either I still cannot grasp Darktable enough or, like you said, the software itself is a bit messy. I was using 2.6 so far until it stopped recognizing half of my lenses (they were still in database and could be manually selected for lens correction but doing this every single time was annoying at best, it must be some bug) so I made separate installation/cache folder for 5.2 and basically had to re-learn the program and still encountered odd situations. To list some examples, it have now two modules for white balance, "white balance" proper (value + tint) and "color correction" which is the one user is supposed to modify as touching white balance module instead makes everything go bonkers. Unfortunately, I had to disable "color correction" module at few situations to safely modify white balance since it apparently assume that user selected proper value at the moment of shooting since if that value is too much off, "color correction" seems to behave oddly. Likewise, "filmic" module expects user to "expose to the right" during shooting but it still, at least in my opinion, leads to pretty much same results as sigmoid module (which is now on by default) - only less saturated as on pic attached and require more work (since you need to correct white balance first for neutral colors, adjust exposure for midtones, set relative white/black exposure). Unless I got something wrong but manual is still at 4.6 while software version got past 5.2 already (with developers encouraging community to write manual themselves).

Even at discount, Capture One might be costly but Im afraid that I cannot run on free software all the time anyway.

I come to this thread to look at the nipple in the OP.

>>4467966
...what?

>>4467963
>You mean that others I consider okay are actually worse?
that's a very glass-half-empty way of looking at it but sure?
>>4467966
lol just saw that

>>4467966
Based

>>4454223 (OP)
technically those are ok. but man, your framing and composition leaves a lot to be desired. next time leave your cam at home and try roofies if you want to fuck those cosplay chicks

>>4471204
Sorry, it's just that English is not my native and sometimes I can get little confused.

>>4471274
I'm not at con for sex. And what exactly is wrong with framing here? Except what >>4466842 says. In general I try to follow diagonal symmetry in most cases.

>>4471295
>n general I try to follow diagonal symmetry in most cases.
how about following what looks good and not some autistic rule you learned somewhere. people on the spectrum should do camera and lens comparison charts and keep away from actually taking photos

>>4471403
I assumed I need to follow SOME rule after all, like mentioned diagonal, thirds or golden triangles, depending on what I try to show. In theory, I could attempt to copy compositions from photos I like but then again, they already follow these mentioned rules, more or the less.

>>4462473
OP, you should do a nude photo set with the girl from the OP and post it here for critique.

>>4471295
>Sorry, it's just that English is not my native and sometimes I can get little confused.
ah okay
I didn't mean most of you photos are bad, given the conditions
I meant all of your photos you have been most critical of in this thread have also been your most interesting photos in this thread
>>4471408
just like try shit
play around with angles, focal lengths, shutter speeds, etc.
no one has any expectations from you, they're not paying you to shoot the event, no one's going to be upset if you miss a certain shot (well maybe you will)
now I'm not saying you should like do an event entirely in 1/10s, you want at least something usable out of it
just if you find yourself taking several similar shots in a row, stop and break one "rule" for a few shots
or idk just keep doing whatever, not like I know what I'm doing either

>>4471408
>could attempt to copy compositions from photos I like
or something completely readical:
1.put eye to viewfinder
2.move around until it looks good
3.press shutter
4.repeat

>>4471448
Alright, I think I get it.

>no one has any expectations
Not exactly, if I would make poor material, I wouldn't be able to repeat that next year and I must admit - I really enjoy shooting stage events or anime cons like this. And without "official approval", getting under or close to the stage is usually not possible.

>>4471295
>I'm not at con for sex
Sounds pretty gay brother

>>4454223 (OP)
cosplay is strippers for anime nerds

>>4471718
Everyone keep joking about sex at cons but I never, ever ran into one. Either urban legend or my country's cons are simply very tame and family friendly (this year some cons had separate 18+ sections, which also meant ban on everything related outside of it).

>>4454232
Beautiful, saved. Consider BW.

You're a good photog OP. I loved all your shots, you have a good eye for moments.

>>4471794
That's really heartwarming to hear.

>>4471793
That's nice but isn't it like B&W photos require high quality from the start? Or I got it wrong.

>>4454223 (OP)
I'm a darktable nerd and I'd like to see what I can do with your RAWs.

I'll upload the XMPs afterwards so you can see what I did.

>>4472277
Say which ones you want and I will upload them to some temporary 24h link.

>>4472301
these ones please, they have challenging light and I want to practice that

DSC_6715
DSC_6435
DSC_7505
DSC_9308
DSC_4043

>>4472360
Here we go, each link is active for 24h:
https://litter.catbox.moe/0jhcrpzcpkkck6ht.NEF
https://litter.catbox.moe/erarwt9dtnn1etgl.NEF
https://litter.catbox.moe/0hck962592c3fagb.NEF
https://litter.catbox.moe/g005x93ct73ntkxn.NEF
https://litter.catbox.moe/78n0p8rx2zbkyhgi.NEF

>>4472373
neat, I'll edit them tomorrow

>>4472373
I could not resist and started with Frieren.

The main fix for the nasty blue light is turning down "colorfulness" of the blue channel in the color calibration module.

>>4472373
Blade Runner music started playing in my head when I edited this one.

This photo was way easier because the lighting was okay. Only issue here is the focus, should be on the center character imo but it's on the left, so the right one is too blurry because she's furthest away.

>>4472399
XMP: https://litter.catbox.moe/tpt0dvqcmbmsexcy.xmp

>>4472405
XMP: https://litter.catbox.moe/lk9paeq5a77nern1.xmp

>>4472405
>Blade Runner music started playing in my head when I edited this one.
For me, it's Skepta - Disguise

>>4472373
XMP: https://litter.catbox.moe/h1fqdi2i5sue638t.xmp

This is a really cool photo with the diagonal spot.

Her hair is a bit blown out, you could try shooting with -1 EV in such situations where there's a hard highlight or high contrast between light and dark.

>>4472373
XMP: https://litter.catbox.moe/75hhx314zisfwxjq.xmp

Cute photo, I really like the look of the face being lit by the glowsticks.

The phone on the left ruins it a bit, I tried to hide it with a strong vignette effect lol

>>4472373
XMP: https://litter.catbox.moe/oedbmo8ofk8zgthp.xmp

This one was the worst to edit, I was not a fan of the harsh magenta lighting so I tried to get rid of it to see the cosplayers in natural colors.

I reduced red and blue input channels in color calibration (red + blue = magenta)

OP if you don't mind I'd like to try these ones too

>>4454241 (another one with strong blue light)

>>4455012 (because the scene looks kino)

>>4466736
try to raise overall brightness in exposure module and then balance lighting levels with tone equalizer

>>4466730
I'd make the midtones brighter (the orange parts that aren't the lights or the silhouette), so the contrast is stronger

>>4472405
second version because I found it a bit too yellow, also forgot to enable lens correction

XMP: https://litter.catbox.moe/lvq64pqmw2jf45q5.xmp

>>4472487
Sure, not a problem, its always interesting to see how somebody else would tackle same photo:

https://litter.catbox.moe/odxa39wf12girxcp.NEF
https://litter.catbox.moe/ypfougobjfg7ne59.NEF

If you want to train dealing with strong blue light - both of them are HEAVILY affected by it, as you will see.

I noticed that you barely use noise reduction, is there a reason for that?

>>4472399
Interesting take. Im not familiar yet with all those new modules added lately to DT (I was using 2.6 for long time, until recently switched to 5.2 because my current installation started to fail to recognize most of my lenses) but I was trying to deal with it how >>4455340 suggested (changing input profile to linear rec709), using chromatic abberation module or adjusting attenuation in sigmoid module. Trying to counter that in filmic was less succesful, at least in case of other photos but maybe there is a solution for it, too.

>>4472483
To be honest, I was using Nikon's "highlight weighted" mode here. But at the other hand, due to dynamic light, I was using manual mode with f/2.8 and 1/200-320 exposition time and left ISO on auto (with upper limit of 6400) and didn't want to spot metering to suddenly screw things up.

Her performance was one of my favourite and I hope nobody wil zoom all way in to discover that some of her better shots are not exactly in focus (no idea why my autofocus was behaving strange that day, maybe it was too dark for it).

>>4472486
This makes me wonder - if performancers leave strong colored light on purpose, maybe they actually want to appear in unnatural light later on photo or video?

>>4472484
There was a small searchlight illuminating audience at random, this was really lucky shot. But I remember that people organising con like to get some audience photos (likely for promo purposes) so tried to take those as well.

>>4472489
Got it, normally I use tone equalizer solely to adjust contrast but I will try.

>>4472559
>I noticed that you barely use noise reduction, is there a reason for that?
I did actually denoise all your photos with the profiled denoiser plugin, but then I added back grain.

The reason for that is that I think photos without any grain look wrong and smartphoney, and a grain effect looks much better than CMOS noise.

I realize that many people don't share my taste though so if I had to deliver photos to a client, I'd tone it way down.

>I was using 2.6 for long time, until recently switched to 5.2 because my current installation started to fail to recognize most of my lenses
When it comes to FOSS I can only recommend upgrading early and often. The people behind it usually just want to make the best software possible, there's no incentive to extract as much money as possible from you like with commercial software.
Also, in eNterPriSE SoftWarE you can get away with using 10 year old stuff, in FOSS the devs will just tell you to upgrade to latest first if you have an issue., and they'd be right to do so.
No point in users reporting an issue that has been fixed in 2018 already.

>Error: Field too long.
what the hell, we really live in the 3 second attention span smartphone age

continuing in second post lol

>>4472559
>>4472719
continuing...

>>4455340
>changing input profile to linear rec709, using chromatic abberation module
rec709 is a hack, your photo is not a movie still and setting the wrong color profile is guaranteed to fuck up your colors

>chromatic aberraction module
same here, it's designed to remove color fringe from sharp edges, not fix color saturation

idk if my approach with reducing colorfulness in color calibration is the best one, but it makes much more sense to me technically

>I was using Nikon's "highlight weighted" mode here. But at the other hand, due to dynamic light, I was using manual mode with f/2.8 and 1/200-320 exposition time and left ISO on auto
In my opinion there's no reason to use manual mode in 99% of situations. Just shoot in Aperture Priority or Shutter Priority with auto ISO depending on the situation, and protect highlights with the EV dial.

>if performancers leave strong colored light on purpose, maybe they actually want to appear in unnatural light later on photo or video?
They probably do, and if I had to deliver the photos somewhere I'd keep them magenta. All my edits here are just to suit my personal taste.

>small searchlight illuminating audience at random, this was really lucky shot
very lucky indeed, if you have a social media or website to advertise your photos, this would be a top pick

>normally I use tone equalizer solely to adjust contrast
Keep in mind that you should adjust the mask in "masking" tab first to fit the tone range in "advanced" for optimal results. This could probably be done automatically if someone from darktable put in the work, but once you got the hang of it it's quick and effective.

>>4472727
nobody cares, go away + rent free

>>4455012
>>4472559

<Captain Bryant voice> This is a bad one, the worst yet.

>>4472734
Holy fuck schizo. Nobody cares. ---> ROPE

>>4472737
>/p/: A board dedicated to photography and photography-adjacent topics
>Your post: A multi-paragraph ramble about trannies or some shit
I read the first sentence and infered that the rest of your bandwidth was dedicated to sperging out (which is now confirmed). Nigga go complain on /bant/ or some shit.

>>4455012
>>4472559
>>4472732

it's over... it's done...

XMP: https://litter.catbox.moe/iv1h8pfn37p8z73t.xmp

>>4472741
>writes wall of text whinging about something
>"Cry more man"

>>4454241
>>4472559
oh and this one too ofc

XMP: https://litter.catbox.moe/vmxl5ywfq0mxy0j7.xmp

>>4472746
Here I turned blue colorfulness and level way down in color calibration.

Also, the default "inpaint opposed" highlight reconstruction just didn't work and always had blue artifacts, so I used the "clip highlights" method instead and turned down the threshold.

>>4472749
for the performer I used a contrast equalizer with a mask around him, so he's easier to make out

contrast equalizer (and sometimes local contrast) with a mask around the subject is a good trick to make it pop

if the background is smooth, you can halfass the mask too because increasing contrast in high frequency areas won't affect it anyway

Boris Hajdukovic on YouTube has a channel with darktable tips, here is one about difficult lighting like in your pics:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYyHaGRaoQg

>>4472720
>>4472719
>>4472746
>>4472749
Thanks a lot. Like I said, its always interesting to see different take, it helps me expand my own methods. I will definietly need to play more with masks, so far I was only using parametric ones to adjust exposition with curves module.

>Just shoot in Aperture Priority or Shutter Priority with auto ISO depending on the situation, and protect highlights with the EV dial.

Problem is, I noticed that my camera (D750) was often get "stuck" when I tried to use Shutter Priority, as if it tried to open aperture wider but couldn't due to its value already at limit. Meanwhile with Aperture Priority, I had to keep monitoring exposition time and adjust ISO on the fly, sometimes missing shots because of it. Hence manual mode. But I definietly won't assume its optimal solution.

>if you have a social media or website to advertise your photos, this would be a top pick

Actually made IG account month or something ago, the girls performing at >>4472746 and other photogs I met at cons strongly suggested me to do so, yeah I think I should add this one separately because its one of my favourite ones from that con.

>>4472727
If that makes you feel better, these are all actual women. But you should take your /v/-tier shitposting elsewhere.

>>4472759
drop your IG, I'll follow you

I used to shoot a few cosplayers at cons too, you made me want to do it again

>>4472764
Here it is: https://www.instagram.com/sabi.sif.photostuff

Its just starting, however. Im not very used to this whole social network stuff, I normally upload my photos to my own private site (sabi-sif.mb4.pl) and polish cons have only polish descriptions.

>I used to shoot a few cosplayers at cons too, you made me want to do it again

Good to hear. Personally, I really like this feeling when I photograph beginners or amateurs and the joy that it makes them.

>>4472720
>This could probably be done automatically if someone from darktable put in the work
the little magic wand icons next to the mask exposure & contrast compensation sliders
minor UI issue, tone equalizer has to be active first otherwise clicking one of the two will only activate the module and not auto-detect
>you're using these modules wrong
I was going to point it out too but I'm not confident enough to offer alternate suggestions, so I figured let people use what works for them

>>4472757
not OP, but I don't really care for how he edited any of those photos
not the process, not the end results either
but hey no accounting for taste

>>4472770
>the little magic wand icons next to the mask exposure & contrast compensation sliders
I love you nona

>>4472759
>these are all actual women
The two on the left fool no one
>5 o'clock shadow
If you're so blind you can't spot a tranny, how can you expect to produce good photography? Photography first and foremost is about seeing.

>>4472747
>tranime
What's the problem, Man? To each their own I guess