Thread 4476460

Long Portrait is Long Edition
Previously: >>4474514

>>4476466
What color info are you working with on this one ?what do we see if you lift everything up ? I'm very curious

>>4476467
idk what that means I dont edit pictures.

>>4476460 (OP)
Sweet cat. Looks right into my soul

>>4476464
Love the flames above the window

>>4476467
Please stop using Plenks. If there is one thing online that triggers me it's that shit.

>>4476468
Good for you. I suppose you don't save any raws then either?

>>4476502
What's a plenk ? sorry for triggering you

>>4476509
>What's a plenk ?
That's a plenk !

The space between the end of your sentence and the punctuation mark.
I want to consider that you are trolling, or just being very autistic

>>4476513
Yeah I am, and french on top of that

>>4476513
I meant autistic, not trolling. And you must have ocd

>>4476513
That's the resident instagram-filter-obsessed frenchoid, in french there are whitespaces before punctuation marks containing at least two elements

>>4476514
>>4476526
What a crazy world. And I thought I had hated the french more than enough, but no, they pull the obsessive plenks just like out of nowhere.

>>4476532
Not our fault if anglo "logic" has poisoned everyone's mind, the French standard is much more legible. But I digress.

>>4476535
>legible
Come to think of it , the french do lay a lot of purity in their language .
But even if they were right , it just looks wrong .

>>4476540
You didnt do it right
We, type like this !
We type like this.
We type like this ?

>>4476502
no I only do jpg cause it doesnt take up as much space on my memory card.

>>4476546
The added whitespaces before full stops and commas are quite nice actually, it's probably more legible. We should add it to French

Please don't mind me or my noisy birb, just arguing with some local schizo.

>>4476574
doesnt even look like a photo. looks like its made of wax or something stop polishing turds

Oh fuck, he followed me to this thread.
Sorry guys, if you want some context you can check the late /wildlife/ + /bpd/
That's it for me, I already spent way too much time talking to him.

>>4476582
Original looks much better with no fake feather definition, I'm glad he bullied you into posting it.

>>4476583
>fake feather definition
nta but I don't see any difference in the feathers, except maybe for a slight loss of detail.

>>4476587
The denoised one looks like someone slicked its feathers back with hair gel and a comb, it's very unnatural. It made the downy feathers on the breast way too thick and wiry. There's nothing wrong with a bit of noise. It's a photograph, it happens.

>>4476591
I also wouldn't have applied nr on the bird here either but you're being an autist of the wrong kind

>>4476595
Maybe you haven't seen enough birds for it to immediately jump out to you as wrong. It's uncanny valley territory and detracts from the photo. Also if there's not enough noticeable difference for someone to point out, why do it to begin with? Looking at images at or close to full resolution isn't pixel-peeping, it's literally looking at the photo. A photo from someone who clearly wants detail, killing that argument completely.

Those feathers have tiny ribbed structures that are too fine to see properly here and are nearly translucent. They have a misty appearance at this range... what you would call feathering in Photoshop, aptly named. When you make them this coarse you should be able to see the whole structure but you can't, and what you do see is unnaturally thick and well defined. The scale is completely off. The info wasn't there (which is totally fine since that's what happens over distance) and they have been turned to coarse hairs by AI. If you saw this difference IRL you would have found a new species, it's that big of a deal. AI is shit, keep your precious photos away from it.

>>4476598
PP is the #1 killer of ok photos on /p/
>install program
>move sliders
Probably the worst offender for newbs is Darktable but presets in programs of all kinds are bad too because inexperienced people just select some random thing that sounds right

>>4476603
I like your shit Burt, but I think this one's a bit too saturated with bad white balance. Could be my phone, idk.

newfag, first time trying to take a meaningful picture, how'd I do? I did some photo manipulation but I just added grain and I don' t know if that's a valid thing to do or not

This is getting funny.
>>4476583
>>4476598
I wouldn't call proving someone wrong as them bullying me, but sure.
Let's see if I can bully you into proving me wrong.
>A photo from someone who clearly wants detail, killing that argument completely.
I denoise images because I want them to have less noise, not additional details, in fact I'm fine losing a bit of detail if it means all of this disgusting-looking noise goes away with it.
And the reason I consider noise disgusting is because it's not a natural thing, it wasn't there, it adds nothing to the photo except making it look unnaturally coarse and doubles the file size in the process. The only reason I can think of why someone might want to keep it in is because they have some perverse nostalgia for "noisier days" when you had no options but to live with it.
And can you make up your mind, do all of the fake feathers "immediately jump at you" or is there not enough difference to even notice?
Here, since you are an expert ornithologist, and like to look at photos at full resolution (which totally isn't pixel peeping).
Can you point out those fake AI feathers that jumped at you? Or the ones that are so thicc they basically constitute a different species?
Lets measure them in pixels.
>>4476602
The only sliders moved here are WB (+200) Exposure (+0.5) and in one of the images - Denoise.
No presets applied.

Its that time of the month again

What nice long legs you have

Chemtrails expo

>>4476668
>Denoise
You did that to the left one, amirite?
Sweet kisses, where to find that button though?

I found an app "Foto mate" which is fairly nice to use, but tablets suck ass for editing.
LR I can't afford and I fear the virus.
... capture one is the open source one? Sucks ass of an interface. What to use, Anon. What to uuuuuuuse?

>>4476674
I'm fine with pirating, so I just get LR from one of the links monkrus posts on his website (monkrus.ws).
This dude's been at it for decades now and no one ever managed to prove that he does anything shady to his releases, unlike others who make repacks of his stuff.

That photo is denoised with DxO, which i get from rutracker, specifically from "Гидpoкypицa" author.
I find that LR's denoise is good enough for light/medium noise, and DXO PureRaw/PhotoLab works best for bad cases.
Duade Paton made a bunch of decent videos about denoising wildlife photos specifically.
The reason I consider that photo a "bad case" is because although the base ISO is only 1250, the noise looks terrible in low-light even if the number itself is low, especially on a cropped sensor. A 3600 or even 6400 would look better on a sunny day.
I already had to go down to 1/100 (shooting at 800mm equivalent) and still the end result was this dark, even with +0.5 stops in post.

>>4476681
One thing I forgot to mention about pirated LR, Photoshop and such - cloud-based AI generation doesn't work here. If you do anything that requires actual AI model to process your image (try to use their new remove tool in LR, for example), the program will complain about license.
So in a way, you have protection from evil ai tools destroying the genuinity of your pics, lol.

>>4476668
He likes smelling his own farts, you're wasting your time.
Never argue with namefags. There's a reason why they use names, they are thirsty for recognition. They don't care about the content of a post they simply seek e-fame

>>4476681
Thanks for the link and your explanation.

Did I understand you correctly, that a photo taken in daylight with high iso won't have the same noise as a photo taken in low light with lower iso? Given both were correctly exposed

>>4476464
the grain looks terrible, the yellow is too saturated and there is a blue cast in the top border for some reason
>>4476502
learn to protect your highlights
that's too bright
that's white
>>4476516
>>4476547
terrible framing
half of some wispy gray clouds along the top edge on the former and a tilted horizon and some chopped-up silhouettes along the bottom edge on the latter
>>4476603
truly awful colours
i mean maybe squirrels look like they glow blue idk, never saw one irl so I can't say if it's accurate colour but the saturation is too much

>>4476686
>too embarrassed of his photos to own them
>too insecure and inexperienced to own his words
>just safely casts both into the void like a pussy
Many such cases. I bet you're ugly too.

Sony a7ii & Sonnar T* 55mm f/1.8
f/9.5, 1/30s, ISO-100, AWB, IBIS on
I hate EVFs

>>4476704
Wrong on all accounts but whatever.

f/8, 1/15s, ISO-100, AWB, IBIS on
I love IBIS

>>4476708
>whatever
Exactly. This is the extent of your passion and it shows.

>>4476710
See the problem is that I'm not a namefag, so you don't see the stuff I post. Meanwhile all you do is bitch around

>>4476502
really good but I would have done just a portrait shot of just the door area, maybe just the pillars either just fully barely framed, or cut them off at the frame and use them as the border, keep it a bit cleaner. the sky and other half cut off arches are distracting from the really cool framing you've done with the door and the path beyond the door with the trees that seem to follow the same lines as the archway.

not saying my work is any better or anything. just brain farting out loud. good shot.

No weird grading this time just snail eating flower

Had to touch it up to make the boat stand out

>>4476719
Thank you, Anon! I appreciate your feedback. I did it similiar to your suggestion when I was there. Which was exactly today, one year ago. I find this version to have too much foreground, but cropping in without the sky would be a good idea. I find it very difficult to decice which version to pick, when I did several shots of a subject.

>>4476712
everyone posts here for a reason you turd, nobody believes you don't like attention or feedback

>>4476700
I always have trouble getting a level horizon even with the lines on in the viewfinder. I thought the silhouettes filled in the pic a lil more. I tend to avoid taking pics of people but they walked in front of me after I was taking pics.
I wanted to get the boat and the sun but my camera couldnt handle the lighting and the boat is really dark in this one but the sky came out decent imo.

>>4476737
Your work can still gather attention by posting anonymously. Using a name means you want the attention to be directed at your person ie you are conceited

>>4476747
Man, you zoomers are so broken inside. You have no idea what it means to be human. You've been so demoralized by propaganda that you don't have kids and feel guilty for even existing.

Everyone here is a real person. The internet isn't some magical realm, it's just people. Thinking that having an identity is conceited is next level dead inside. Stop being so pathetic and dramatic. Grow up and grow a spine too.

>>4476700
>truly awful colours
I know, im just farting around with a rather boring photo

>>4476610
Yeah no its bad, I was just messing with cross processing filters for giggles

>>4476698
No problem, another thing in case you decide to pirate adobe/dxo stuff.
While monkrus is someone renowned in the community, the best I can give the other guy I mentioned is: "I grabbed a bunch of his releases over the past two years and nothing bad has happened to me yet".
So they are not equal, and the main reason I'm so nonchalant about the latter guy is because I run all of this on a spare machine that has nothing of value aside from RAWs I occasionally transfer from the camera for processing.

As for ISO, yeah, kinda. Dark areas = less photons to extrapolate information from = more prominent and disgusting-looking noise, as far as I understand.
So even in direct sunlight, if you crank up ISO(+shutter speed) and you have areas with some really dark shadows in your pic, the noise will look much worse there than in the rest of the scene.

>>4476686
I'm okay with people wanting internet fame.
When I came to that thread and checked out earlier posts, I liked stuff he posted a lot. An entire portfolio of good wildlife photos, assembled over many years, it seems.
Was kinda surprised that he caught this much rabid criticisms from some guy who basically tried to throw anything he can think of at him.
The only one that stuck was that he apparently doesn't post new stuff, only dumping his old best photos from years before.
So I decided to do the opposite of that, and spent my day off wandering some forest I've never been to looking for whatever I can find.
And I did find a bunch of birds, and took some decent enough shots, all things considered.
I post some of them and boom, some other (or maybe even the same) schizo starts going off on how this particular pic is AI generated and has nothing to do with the "actual one" I took.
And then the tripfag himself, joins in.
Man, I do hope the allegations of tripfags "losing" their codes to stir shit up aren't true. That would be really pathetic.

>>4476762
Newfag

There’s an entire internet tied to your identity (ie: reddit) and then there’s 4chan where your opinions don’t matter and the content you produce does.

>>4476774
And since I've said before that DxO denoise is better for bad cases, I want to bring a counterpoint to that, from the same very day.
Some subjects like this moorhen hiding in a really dark area, looks alright with old-fashioned manual denoise in LR.

>>4476779
but DxO does something really bad to it and the surroundings.
This, unlike the thrush I posted before, does look uncanny and there is plenty of objectively bad artifacts around.
So maybe in really bad cases, LR loops to being the best again.
Or it's water/wet surfaces that DxO algorithms have most problems with.

nope, this looks incomplete without the sky
>>4476767
squirrels deserve better

>>4476762
>malding this hard for being called out for namefagging
>he namefags without even a tripcode
go back
pool’s closed cunt

>>4476762
>muh zoomers
wrong again. You seem to have a hard time with the concept of anonymity

I've been coming back here intermittently for over a decade. Damn, maybe 15 years. I've never dropped my trip because, at one time, a guy threatened to kill me if I left it turned on. Several times. I reported him. His comments stayed up. He gave me shit for about 6 months. He even triangulated where I was. I told him that I will never drop it now. I never have. Not sure if anyone is still here from then who remembers it. I don't care if there is or isn't anything wrong with tripping. I do it to make that guy angry. Because fuck anyone who gets that mad over some pixels.

probably the only interesting picture ive taken in awhile and its still shit :/ ill get around to editing it someday

>>4476805
what does dropping your trip mean and why can it be turned off and on, whats tripping

I think I'll sell the K10D. I'll definitely sell this DA* 50-135 f/2.8 lens, not because it's a bad lens but because the FOV is too narrow for "normal" photos and the telephoto end isn't close enough. I think it'd be great for portraits doe.
>>4476820
>what's tripping
lurk moar newfag

I think I'll sell the K10D. I'll definitely sell this DA* 50-135 f/2.8 lens, not because it's a bad lens but because the FOV is too narrow for "normal" photos and the telephoto end isn't close enough. I think it'd be great for portraits doe. I'd rather have a really good 16-50mm zoom, or 24-70mm full frame, and a supertelephoto prime for playing around in the bush.
>>4476820
>what's tripping
lurk moar newfag

>>4476768
Ah, gotcha.

>>4476776
Total cop-out, you distance yourself from your snapshits because you have low self-esteem and are afraid of anons.

>>4476803
Kek, I thought to myself earlier "he's just gonna deny being a zoomer and nothing else" and that's what you did. Your words are meaningless however, because you are just another anon snapshitter who doesn't stand out from the crowd in any way. I'll just assume you took this: >>4476570

>>4476805
Your biggest problem is posting good photos. Combine it with a trip and it makes the jealous lunatics seethe.

>>4476825

Does it matter which one he took? Every photo itt is terrible....

>>4476824
wow grok seems to know all about 4chan, now i know what tripping is

>>4476668
You have so little respect for your photos that you let some program replace every single pixel in post to stamp out a bit of noise. You'll quit taking them before long, photography requires passion.

>>4476825
What is wrong with my pumpkin picture?

I think I'll sell the K10D. I'll definitely sell this DA* 50-135 f/2.8 lens, not because it's a bad lens but because the FOV is too narrow for "normal" photos and the telephoto end isn't close enough. I think it'd be great for portraits doe. I'd rather have a really good 16-50mm zoom, or 24-70mm full frame, and a supertelephoto prime for playing around in the bush.
>>4476820
>what's tripping
lurk moar newfag
>>4476827
We lost something with the advent of AI: JPEG newfag guides.

soz meant to delete this earlier and repost with a photo, repostan to confuse everyone

I feel like frankenstein when i bully my photos into looking like this

>falling for fake ambush namefags
Almost as sad as being a fake ambush namefag. How does he stretch their assholes so effectively?

>>4476836
walk softly and carry a big dick

>>4476828
>You'll quit taking them before long, photography requires passion.
Been a casual shooter i.e snapshitter for almost a decade now, so both your points are moot.
Passion comes and goes, what I have is lingering interest.
>you let some program replace every single pixel in post
This is an argument against any processing as adding 0.1 stops of exposure does the same thing, that is - it replaces every pixel of the image with a brighter one, according to some program's internal algorithms you've never heard of.
Same thing happens when a RAW is converted to JPG, or when you post an aRGB photo and it gets converted to sRGB by most online resources that strip color information.
Same argument can even be made against film photography, as you let some bozos transform your entire picture with some weird preset they cooked up.
So unless you do everything by hand in some truly antique way - you have no respect for your photos?

Let's get to the point - where do (you) draw the line?
Cause my "line" I already demonstrated with thrush/moorhen example.

>>4476836
Well, doesn't help that the "real" one dumps his photos without a trip.
And then starts posting with it attached, and then drops it again.
I'll just assume I'm talking to the "real" one, as I don't want to engage in this childish drama anymore.

>>4476913
Ambush hasn't posted here since November 2024. His trip is !!zJbpV0948+w

>>4476979
Quick rundown on who “ambush” is?

>>4476979
Things are this bad, huh? Fake namefags arguing with each other, dumping other people's photos?
Okay, maybe anyone else wants to voice their opinion on post-processing, algorithms and all?
>where do (you) draw the line?

enjoying my zf!11!

>>4476988
>draw the line

Anything you do to your image is legit. It's your photo, you made it and it's your ever given right to work out details, crank up the noise, oversharpen it or mutilate it any way possible. It never was any different either. Post processing is a part of photography.

And after all photography should be about bringing your vision of a scene, or moment, or a human being or a morhen or whatever into a frozen state.
The photo should be an excerpt of what you have seen and experienced in this particular moment. That is the reason why everyone can "feel" a good photo, whether he knows two shits about composition or colours, and so on, in the first place.

>>4476995
It's very important to enjoy the gear we use. Good for you, Anon!

>>4476960

Love it

>>4476996
The second you give your photo to AI it's gone and you're just looking at a reconstruction of it.

>>4477011
If you only give it to Ai, nothing would actually happen. Just uploading it doesn't trigger anything. I could imagine, that an Ai is capable of lifting shadows, denoising,...
If it does the same things with a prompt that you would do with the controllers in LR, what's the difference?

Or go one step futher: if you can articulate a prompt so precisely that an extraordinary photo is the result, did you still make the photo?

>>4477016
>npc standards
I can tell you're vaxxed.

>>4476460 (OP)
Survivor from 89. Old school BMW. Maybe I'll paint it soon. Maybe I like how rough & raw she looks.

>>4476547
lovely photo mate

sony full frame cameras are fun

>>4476996
Reasonable.
My view is similarly utilitarian, when applying any tool I just ask myself if I think this made the photo better/closer to how I perceived the stuff being depicted. If so, I'll use it.
Sometimes I doubt myself and ask for second opinion, but not this time.
So when some schizo told me my thrush is ruined by evil AI tools and looks nothing like the "actual" photo I took, this caught me by surprise, and I decided to get to the bottom of this.
Probably should have just ignored those ramblings instead.

To be clear, I don't consider any of the photos I took that day to be particularly good "photos".
Although the thrush one has redeeming qualities, the pose is nice, the intense stare, the face is well-framed and all the surroundings add context.

But really, they are just sightings, which is good enough for me, as I love meeting animals.
And they are good enough for my friends, who always get surprised when they realize our city has wildlife that's not pigeons and crows.

>>4477082
you'll stop liking how rough it looks when some bit of road debris ruins your radiator

>>4477152
>literally just pointing your camera at a boring bird in your parents' yard and pressing the shutter release to fart out a boring photo and then denoising it
This is your masterpiece

>>4477227
Did you ever stop to think that perhaps he's not a professional photographer. Welcome to /p/, have you received your first day gift bag.

>>4477227
>This is your masterpiece
Which one is yours?

>>4477227
your critique is ass

>>4476961
>>4476929
spookey

>>4476695
lelel

>>4477152
I hear you. It's not easy to block the negativity right away or even better just ignore it. Some Anons here really take a sport on shitting at others, be it their gear or their photos. It's best not to react at all to these comments. They are narcissistic and sad creatures and feed on any form of attention.

We do this as a hobby and I guess most of us want to get better. So consequently we all value feedback, but feedback must give room to develop and therefore point in a direction.

I like your birdie. It has a kinky look on its face and the branches frame it nicely. Also it's very sharp, which I find to be a must have for a wildlife shots (especially the eyes).

There are also many nice bird shots in the bird thread. I noticed that they are almost all in the center of the frame. When I used my dslr the center focus point was always the strongest. Reframing sometimes didn't work, or I was in too much of a rush.

Did you try framing your birds in the rule of thirds or somewhere on the, maybe for this one, left border? I don't mean to sound cynical. English isn't my first language. I am asking in respectful interest and because I think it could make it look better.

>couldn't get an angle where sign was centered in the tree and trunk hidden

reee

It's been a while since last time I've went out to photograph. Tried a couple of shots in my last trip to Osaka.

found in an abandoned saw mill

>>4477290
vill slita av dig strumporna och gräva ner ansiktet i dina fuktiga och möra fotsulor jag vill dofta på din vidriga andedräkt dina pruttar är guld värd din blöja läcker

need better camera so i still have quality when cropping

It's what's on the inside that counts

>>4476961
thought it was a spider n got happy but its just a hand, oh well :p

>>4477318
Very nice lightning and colours

swimmers

Water Sparks

Need feedback on this one pls

boat

Criticism encouraged.

>>4477427
Is that a GM or a Chevy?

>>4477363
Dds(döda dig själv)

>>4477417
needs spot removal
color grade is too intense
not sure if it’s too blue, too green, or too teal in general, or possibly too saturated? play around with it
>>4477419
it’s a shame it’s so noisy in the shadows (the majority of the photo) but a good composition
also I get the water is reflecting the canopy but that green tint on the water looks gross
>>4477412
The net? I don’t think it adds much except a distraction
could be brighter
feels too ominous (unless you’re going for stalker vacay vibes)
>>4477413
Effective use of shutter speed, I can hear this photo
but the black bars on the long edge are questionable

>>4477369
this much softness could be nice in B&W
surprising amount of what looks like chromatic aberrations on basically everything, although it could also be noise
>need better gear to crop
try jumping in the water and taking a snap midair

>>4477314
>>4477316
>>4477318
quite pleasing bokeh
lens?

>>4477493
thianks broski, will redo threm

>>4477446
jeep

>>4477494
b&w version

>>4477495
I’m using the RF 70-200 f4

>>4477493
i lowered the shadows to fix some of the noise/green reflection issues

>>4477493
is this better

>>4477517
Austria?

>>4477518
absolutely an improvement
>>4477513
shadows spent a bit too long in the oven but definitely a step in the right direction
>>4477511
I think this could be improved by increasing the contrast in the midtones to make the swimmers stand out as white against the blackness of the water
I think the B&W could really work here, idk what you think

>>4477526
Phone posting retard

>>4477624
nice

>>4476955
>put your arm down

these fags are annoying

>>4477284
>I like your birdie.
Thanks, I guess it is reasonably sharp as I was able to keep ISO below 1000 by lowering shutter speed to something like 1/60th but for true sharpness, with my camera I think you would need to go <400, which means good weather, plenty of sunlight and all.
I do tend to focus on sharpness a lot, maybe this is due to PTSD from using a very old canon rebel with a dark zoom lens for almost a decade, now that I finally have something decent I try to get all the IQ I can from it in any given situation.
But sharpness isn't all, take this black (actually red)squirrel for example.
It's sharp, but boring compared to the one just posted above. Lightning is flat (we've yet to see a single sunny weekend this fall here) and the pose/angle are not interesting.
But hey, it's freaking black.

>>4477284
>Did you try framing your birds in the rule of thirds or somewhere on the, maybe for this one, left border?
I do try off-center compositions with my subjects, but very rarely.
Many reasons as to why, aforementioned PTSD aside - when I said I'm a snapshiiter I wasn't joking.
The "right", "professional" way to do wildlife photography is to scout a location, wait for good weather, go there at a certain time of day, organize a watching spot, maybe even set up feeders/place bait, etc. This is what usually results in great photos we see online, and being able to think carefully about your composition is one of the perks this approach gives.

I just open a map, select some large green area that I can reach in under 90 minutes using public transport, and go there to snap photos of whatever I can find. Hell, sometimes I just go there without a camera, as I like to explore forests and swamps. Provides nice contrast to my sedentary office worker lifestyle.
Doing things this way means that my subjects are almost always surrounded by distractions that are not worth including in the shot, and usually I don't have the luxury of composing for longer than 2-5 seconds.
So I only really do off-center composition out of necessity, when one of the sides is less ugly than the other.
Today's squirrel to illustrate, and to provide contrast to the black squirrel above.

Yesterday's thrush
Another example where one side is less ugly than the other.

Some really fat tit.

Look at this cutie

In some thick riverside bushes, so nothing you can do to remove distractions really.
But still, what an adorable little guy.

All wet and shivering.

Anyway, enough of my snapshits.
Have a nice week.

>>4477707
birb

sorry to ppl who hate these

opinion on phonetography?

>>4477724
Very nice.

>>4477744
It depends on the photograph.

>>4477744
A good photographer can take a good picture with a bad camera. Like a phone. A poor photographer usually takes a poor picture, even with a good camera.

the horrors

>>4477803
Rule of thirds is your friend.

>>4477417
Got a piss green filter on it. Are you on a snoy? My a73 has this problem. Either dial tint a tick or two to pink or reduce green saturation. Probably the former. Or green Hue slider toward yellow and then white to blue?

>>4477948
print it
frame it
give it to gramma

>>4478019
love the grading

>>4478019
Well done, I love this; colours on point

>>4477958
I'm not sure what to make of the grandma remark, but ill take it as a compliment.

Took my m43 on a hike; I just have a 45mm prime (my favorite but too narrow for many applications) and a much shittier panasonic kit zoom that was like $85. I'm saving for a nicer wide prime, and trying to improve composition as you can probably tell I suck.

>>4478218
Composition/editing tips would be appreciated

>>4478220
Cropped quite a bit, but I like the blurred appearance of the water. My power level isn't yet high enough to bring a tripod on hikes

>>4478221
Again the 45mm feels a bit cramped on top of a mountain sometimes, but I like some things about this shot

>>4478222
The last one needed some more denoise for sure. And this one is my shittier kit zoom. Not 100% loving this batch but I am having fun taking photos; it's definitely getting better! :D

>>4478210
I only print my best for nanny

>>4478218
What were you trying to achieve with this photo series? Perhaps we can give you better advice then. I’m just gonna assume you wanted to take “good” photos of the area and go from there.

Is this a “good” photo of the area? Well it shows a rocky outcrop, but not much of it, and a partly cloudy sky with the silhouette of a far-off bird. I think it fails as a “good” photo of the area because it simply is not wide enough nor is the detail of the rock high-resolution enough to be itself interesting to look at.
VERDICT: step back or carry a wide angle lens
>>4478220
Is this a “good” photo of the area? I think it is. It’s correctly exposed and there is plenty to see here: the red barn, white truck and stack of logs are all interesting to see together like this. My only gripe is the cut-off window. Windows should either be all in or all out, IMO, and never cut through the middle.

Might look at the rest later idk.

>>4478300
Thanks for the feedback anon, I’m new to this so I’m just trying to capture memories and feelings and get better at it! I just kind of take a photo when I feel like it would be cool to see later.

With the first one I wanted to convey how high it felt in the alpine zone, but we agree I am a bit limited by my available focal length. It would work better with a wider lens that can show more context. I’m not sure about the clarity, I had low iso and f/8, maybe shutter speed?

I have a 90mm equivalent prime, and a 24-64mm equivalent kit zoom that I’m very reluctant to pull out as it often looks worse than my phone camera. I do my best to zoom with my feet but in these cases I was backed up as far as I could be without falling off the mountain, or going over my neighbor’s fence. Wide prime incoming this winter! I’m super excited to have more flexibility.

About the barn window, I kind of wish I either cropped it out or had a wide enough lens to include the full window and balancing context on the other side.

>>4477717
borb*

>>4478019
Another one

>>4478127
>>4478193

Thanks for the compliment! It’s been a while since last time I’ve took the camera with me, so I’m really into experimenting different styles

>>4478406
Very nice. They all have a very sculptural, vivid tone to it. What's your gear and workflow, approximitly?

I'm great at taking pictures out of focus, ffs

>>4478419
Thank you! I’m shooting with Canon R8 - 70-200 f4

I’m pretty noob so my workflow is kind of random, I use the LRC and I pull the sliders and see if I like it.

But in general, I increase the shadows and lower a lot the highlights. Increase a little the blacks and increase the white if I think it’s lacking contrast.

In the curves I try to create a faded mood in the black and white channel, and increase a little the contrast in the RGB channels.

The color grading I like using the blue in the shadows most of time and teal on highlights (sometimes green or orange).

And try to do most of tone in then color calibration, normally using the blue to the left.

I guess it’s something like this most of time.

really recent like 20 minutes ago

>>4478581
oh and any advice n editing tips would be nice :3

>>4478584
You’re lucky to have some light where you are! At my place the sun set at 5:15 :((( harder to take photos in the dark.
The structure looks very cool! I’d like to see more of it, like where it begins or ends at the bottom for context. Also, the sky is bright in comparison to the structure, which makes it a bit hard to make out the subject. I use a module in Darktable called “tone equalizer” to help balance out bright skies. Good stuff my friend, thanks for sharing

>>4478600
next time im over there ill try to get shots of the whole building, tried to implement bit of advice and also actually edited the pic although maybe i went a bit to hard with them

>>4478531
nta but I tried out some of these tips in Darktable and was very impressed. I haven’t done any color grading on my photos before but this was a huge help for me. Thanks!

>>4478460
i think it looks good anon !!

heres a boring tarp that i tried to make look cool

>>4478531
Thanks for sharing! I have been photographing for many years but never came up with anything even remotely to how you do it. I have been neglecting editing/post processing most of the time, but I am motivated to get better. Will try it a bit like you next chance given.
You are doing really well. All the best for your journey and keep up the good spirit. Especially in this place, but I guess you've figured that out by now.

gay photo

>>4478727
>>4478612

Thank you, I really appreciate your words and I’m glad someone enjoys my photos.

I usually shoot alone and I don’t really have friends who share this hobby, so I like using /p/ to share experiences and opinions. Photography is just a hobby for me, but discussing and sharing it with strangers helps me grow and understand this world better. And despite the bad side of 4chan, people here have always been kind to me, and the feedback I’ve received over time truly helped me improve.

>>4478726
Amazing contrast and silhouette

>>4478726
awesome sauce

>>4478460
saaame

>>4478460
>I'm great at taking pictures out of focus, ffs

>>4478810
I like it very much. 1000 stories at once

>>4478810
more vibrance, the leafy greens are begging for it
maybe a small shadow lift too
but nice composition and you protected your highlights well

Adding to that, if you lift the shadows also pull the blacks down to avoid a washed-out, low-contrast look to the lifted shadows.

>>4478841
>>4478847
Glad you guys like it
I'll give the raw another spin, let's try to bring more colour to it

>>4478831
>>4478840
My brethren

>>4478733
>>4478735
Thank you!

test

New thread
>>4476460 (OP)
>>4476460 (OP)

Oops
>>4479021
>>4479021

>>4476550
>>4476672
>>4476691
>>4476809

these photos are the best i think

>>4479863
thank you ...

>>4479863
WHY DO YOU LIKE THE NAME ZACH SO MUCH

>>4479863
>>4480046
I can't tell which autist is which anymore

>>4480134
Zach doesn't speak like this >>4480046
Real Zach has always been a generally calm autist

>>4480244
Zach has also never been a tripfag, so I don't think thats the real one.