/p/ - Photography » Thread #2633061

[67 / 11 / ?]

520KiB, 1400x1200, lightroom.jpg

Anonymous Sat 25 Jul 2015 01:19:57 No.2633061 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>2633090 >>2633193 >>2633200 >>2633280 >>2633612

We are so lucky to have digital image manipulation. Photo was seemingly destroyed by shitty low contrast £30 28mm f2.8 Vivitar, but +62 contrast and tweaks can redeem it.

Anyone got some miraculous saves with Lightroom / RawTherapee .etc?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 25 Jul 2015 01:49:54 No.2633090 Report

Quoted By: >>2633094 >>2633166 >>2633174 >>2634101 >>2635321

>>2633061

I kinda like the before a little better...

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 25 Jul 2015 01:54:26 No.2633094 Report

Quoted By:

>>2633090

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 25 Jul 2015 02:00:05 No.2633096 Report

Quoted By:

lightroom is an excellent tool. good save on that edit. I'm sure the vsco group will disagree

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 25 Jul 2015 05:03:33 No.2633166 Report

Quoted By:

>>2633090

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 25 Jul 2015 05:34:53 No.2633174 Report

Quoted By:

>>2633090
Agreed

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO photo dynamic range.jpg, 736KiB, 1332x1000

Anonymous Sat 25 Jul 2015 06:02:59 No.2633183 Report

Quoted By: >>2633199 >>2633272 >>2634068 >>2634303 >>2634607

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 25 Jul 2015 06:25:56 No.2633193 Report

Quoted By:

>>2633061

Careful with that contrast bro

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO R0001806.jpg, 470KiB, 1000x756

Anonymous Sat 25 Jul 2015 06:53:02 No.2633199 Report

Quoted By: >>2633272

>>2633183
reminds me of this

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 25 Jul 2015 07:16:58 No.2633200 Report

Quoted By:

>>2633061
op you fucking ruined the picture, the original is way nice the way it is

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 25 Jul 2015 11:46:23 No.2633272 Report

Quoted By: >>2633284

>>2633183
>>2633199
How?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 25 Jul 2015 12:14:01 No.2633280 Report

Quoted By: >>2633287

>>2633061
>he thinks high contrast is better
make sure to up the saturation to 100.
top lel

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 25 Jul 2015 12:26:58 No.2633282 Report

Quoted By:

cringing so hard at the sperglord wannabe photo masters saying the original is better, the original is garbage and the outcome makes it plausible

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 25 Jul 2015 12:30:50 No.2633284 Report

Quoted By: >>2633285

>>2633272
curves, b&w and loads of contrast. fucking with the curves for a while is the trick to this, light curves this is, not colour

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 25 Jul 2015 12:33:40 No.2633285 Report

Quoted By: >>2633286 >>2633288 >>2635282

>>2633284
lol you just spelled color wrong

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 25 Jul 2015 12:35:39 No.2633286 Report

Quoted By:

>>2633285
American English: Color
British English: Colour

Neither is wrong.

This should clear up any confusion.
http://grammarist.com/spelling/color-colour/

Have a good day.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 25 Jul 2015 12:37:43 No.2633287 Report

Quoted By:

>>2633280
you are a true retard

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 25 Jul 2015 12:39:56 No.2633288 Report

Quoted By: >>2634098

>>2633285
>color
>spelled

your country is corrupt

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Circus Steps B&A.jpg, 165KiB, 1366x728

Anonymous Sat 25 Jul 2015 19:58:15 No.2633521 Report

Quoted By: >>2633531

Shot back when I was very new to photography, trying to force myself to use Manual and not really having a clue what I was doing. Thought I'd fucked up the exposure, didn't realise how much could be recovered in post. Not exactly miraculous, but this was the point where the power of shooting Raw really dawned on me, and is at least vaguely related...

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 25 Jul 2015 20:12:08 No.2633531 Report

Quoted By:

>>2633521
>trying to force myself to use Manual and not really having a clue what I was doing

so basically /p/

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 88KK0200_RAW.jpg, 78KiB, 1000x750

Anonymous Sat 25 Jul 2015 20:23:13 No.2633535 Report

Quoted By:

before

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 88KK0200.jpg, 199KiB, 1000x714

Anonymous Sat 25 Jul 2015 20:24:21 No.2633536 Report

Quoted By: >>2633537

after

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 25 Jul 2015 20:27:49 No.2633537 Report

Quoted By:

>>2633536
Nice.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 04_C1_P2.jpg, 462KiB, 4000x601

Anonymous Sat 25 Jul 2015 20:48:56 No.2633549 Report

Quoted By: >>2633562

a panorama digitally assembled from photos shot over half a century ago

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 25 Jul 2015 21:00:31 No.2633562 Report

Quoted By: >>2633569 >>2633968

>>2633549
why would they think to do that before panorama techniques?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 25 Jul 2015 21:13:27 No.2633569 Report

Quoted By: >>2633968

>>2633562
People made physical panoramas before digital.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 25 Jul 2015 22:34:48 No.2633612 Report

Quoted By:

>>2633061

>>but +62 contrast and tweaks can redeem it.

The only thing you've redeemed are the words of what I'm sure were numerous teachers, guidance counselors, relatives and employers who told you you'd never amount to anything.

No just kidding, but seriously, the photo wasn't really that bad to begin with, and while the pp job you've done is a way to go, you need to ease back at least a little on the contrast there my friend.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 02_A9_P1.jpg, 528KiB, 3000x627

Anonymous Sun 26 Jul 2015 11:50:40 No.2633968 Report

Quoted By:

>>2633562
Because they wanted to show the entire wide view, but suitably wide lenses were pretty much nonexistent in the 1950s.

>>2633569
I believe it was intended for sequential display, not a panorama (the original negs were shot handheld - aligning them for a non-digital panorama would've been a massive PITA)

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Untitled.png, 2MiB, 1920x1080

Anonymous Sun 26 Jul 2015 13:27:17 No.2634015 Report

Quoted By: >>2634016 >>2634042 >>2634100 >>2635548 >>2635579

Forgot to turn my flash on...

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 26 Jul 2015 13:28:25 No.2634016 Report

Quoted By:

>>2634015
oops 2MB... sorry about that

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 26 Jul 2015 13:42:09 No.2634042 Report

Quoted By: >>2634051 >>2634054 >>2634061

>>2634015
What camera give you this much dynamic range please? Impressive.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 26 Jul 2015 13:49:03 No.2634051 Report

Quoted By: >>2634067

>>2634042
Nikon D5100, second cheapest Nikon DSLR 4 years ago

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 26 Jul 2015 13:51:51 No.2634054 Report

Quoted By: >>2634067

>>2634042
EXIF

1/200
f1.8
ISO 800

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 26 Jul 2015 13:58:17 No.2634061 Report

Quoted By: >>2634067

>>2634042
Any Nikon, Pentax, or Sony camera can do this. Shoot in RAW format and use Lightroom to develop.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 26 Jul 2015 14:00:13 No.2634067 Report

Quoted By: >>2634303 >>2634332

>>2634051
>>2634054
Fuck me with a rake...
>>2634061
I'm shooting Canon, that's why. But atleast I can dual-iso, through a painful post-processing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 26 Jul 2015 14:01:26 No.2634068 Report

Quoted By:

>>2633183
Holy shit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 26 Jul 2015 14:49:13 No.2634098 Report

Quoted By:

>>2633288
Shouldn't you be turning a blind eye while your politicians rape children?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 26 Jul 2015 14:51:37 No.2634100 Report

Quoted By: >>2634106 >>2634303

>>2634015
the original is far better, aftermath here is shit

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 26 Jul 2015 14:52:28 No.2634101 Report

Quoted By:

>>2633090

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 26 Jul 2015 14:57:49 No.2634106 Report

Quoted By: >>2634369

>>2634100
show us some of your work

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 26 Jul 2015 19:48:28 No.2634303 Report

Quoted By: >>2634335

>>2634100
I can see liking the original color set but the original was WAY too dark.

>>2633183
You might have overdone it there a little bit, mate. Beautiful though

>>2634067
Canon shouldn't be too much different. I have Nikon myself but I've used Canons before. Shoot RAW and process it yourself it'll look the same

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 26 Jul 2015 20:29:53 No.2634332 Report

Quoted By:

>>2634067
you can do it with canon. you'll just get more grain and sometimes straight lines called bands will appear

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 26 Jul 2015 20:35:59 No.2634335 Report

Quoted By:

>>2634303
>Canon shouldn't be too much different. I have Nikon myself but I've used Canons before. Shoot RAW and process it yourself it'll look the same
Not accurate. When a shot is exposed well on the scene, there is little to no difference. When it comes time to push or pull an image, the Canon is left far behind.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 26 Jul 2015 21:54:28 No.2634369 Report

Quoted By: >>2634371

>>2634106
So people can't have an opinion on a photo unless they pass your judgement? Irony. Anyone is going to judge your work, now piss off you troll

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 26 Jul 2015 21:58:58 No.2634371 Report

Quoted By: >>2634428 >>2634655

>>2634369
No, you can have an opinion. just don't expect anyone to give a single shit unless you show that you have any credibility.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 27 Jul 2015 00:19:00 No.2634428 Report

Quoted By: >>2634655

>>2634371
So when you display your photo to normal people and they say it shit do you still demand they show you their work also? Lol read the fucking sticky

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 27 Jul 2015 09:34:01 No.2634607 Report

Quoted By:

>>2633183
>this was done before the LR CC dehaze update

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 27 Jul 2015 12:48:39 No.2634655 Report

Quoted By:

>>2634428
this reaction
>>2634371
was not from me (the photo poster), so deal with it. you can have an opinion ofcourse, but I don't see how you would prefer the underexposed way too warm (white balance) image than the processed one.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO harleycolorgrade.jpg, 392KiB, 854x964

Anonymous Tue 28 Jul 2015 06:26:37 No.2635230 Report

Quoted By: >>2635237

Agreed. Curving alone is just magnificent. Yeah yeah I get it, blah blah there's nothing artistic about software who fucking cares, people are scared of taking advantage of the technological advancement put in front of us so that we can achieve something greater than before, that's how art progresses.

anywaay, pic related, was playing around with curves on some Suicide Squad shots.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Jul 2015 07:00:05 No.2635237 Report

Quoted By: >>2635242

>>2635230
I don't really understand why so many films these days do such heavy colour editing like that. Like the original shoot was probably closer to how your correction is, but they destroy it to make it dark and moody. It's a real shame imo.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Jul 2015 07:13:53 No.2635242 Report

Quoted By:

>>2635237

the color grade on the trailer isn't always the final grade, suicide squad is set to be released in 2016 and that gives plenty of time for the colorists to paint and grade for the final theater cut.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Jul 2015 07:36:53 No.2635254 Report

Quoted By: >>2635279

any tips with sony mirrorless? when I try to shoot at low light and try to process it in LR all I get are grainy shit.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMG_1163.jpg, 173KiB, 1200x1600

Anonymous Tue 28 Jul 2015 08:38:26 No.2635275 Report

Quoted By: >>2635283

Posted this before.
Film rules, digi drools.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Jul 2015 09:06:24 No.2635279 Report

Quoted By:

>>2635254
depends on your iso level...how much did you shoot with?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Jul 2015 09:20:02 No.2635282 Report

Quoted By:

>>2633285
only americunts are dumb enough not to realize there are two plausible ways to spell color

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Jul 2015 09:21:08 No.2635283 Report

Quoted By: >>2635286

>>2635275
are you fucking retarded?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Jul 2015 09:26:12 No.2635286 Report

Quoted By: >>2635292 >>2635295

>>2635283
, see, what digiplebs always forget, is that while they can show you dpreviewxomark tests out there ass showing there superior IQ, beutiful anaolog has what's known as EQ(emotional quality), they are autists

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Jul 2015 09:49:03 No.2635292 Report

Quoted By: >>2635713

>>2635286
you could literally achieve the same thing with a wide open missed focus shot on an equivalent digital body. hurrrr

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Jul 2015 09:54:48 No.2635295 Report

Quoted By: >>2635539 >>2635713

>>2635286
>EQ(emotional quality)
I literally cringed.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Jul 2015 10:53:08 No.2635321 Report

Quoted By:

>>2633090
Le hipstr look faggit

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Jul 2015 19:14:05 No.2635539 Report

Quoted By: >>2635652 >>2635713

>>2635295
I literally killed myself after reading that post

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Jul 2015 19:27:06 No.2635548 Report

Quoted By: >>2635563

>>2634015
Left - nice cinematic Fincher look
Right - overdone facebook le bae tbh smh shit

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Jul 2015 19:48:11 No.2635563 Report

Quoted By: >>2635753

>>2635548
Were it in video I'd agree, but what makes for a nice shot in film doesn't always make for a nice shot in photography

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Jul 2015 20:37:46 No.2635579 Report

Quoted By:

>>2634015
nothing wrong with the photo on the left concerning colour, a flash would have ruined the photo anyway. the only thing that would have made this better is some mild curve increases and a bit of vibrance with lowered contrast - always a good combination

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Jul 2015 22:09:54 No.2635652 Report

Quoted By: >>2635713

>>2635539

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Jul 2015 23:25:56 No.2635713 Report

Quoted By:

>>2635292
>>2635295
>>2635539
>>2635652
:^)

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Jul 2015 01:11:08 No.2635753 Report

Quoted By:

>>2635563
This

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these archives

Your latest searches