>>2634671Read them thanks,
They taught me about correct exposure and the sunny 16 rule. If you had also done some reading you would be as cool and clever as me.
>>2634681So, what's shitty about my advice?
I've said what's wrong, why it's wrong and how it can be fixed, what more are you looking for? Because if it's baseless praise you've asked the wrong guy. If you don't like my opinion, go find yourself an echo chamber faggot.
>>2634687That's not how this works, that's not how any of this works. If OP was going off the meter he has it on the shaded area of the crowd, which is why the background and colour channels are blown and everything looks like shit. Or is this the image quality you expect from literally the best image quality camera on the market. Of course not, because he exposed incorrectly and tried to fix it in post, if OP posts up the raw's I'll show you exactly what he did wrong.
>>2634688Not him, but,
"You seem aggravated over this issue"
and
"The advice was not given in a professional manner, however it was still valid advice and I will be using it to improve my own work"
>>2634691wonky > uneven horizon/central vertical
distorted > parallax and barrel distortion caused by the optics & and angle used.
An image not being level has precisely fuck all to do with distortion. I didn't use overly technical terms, your own vocab is just lacking friend.
>>2634696Yes,
My eyes are telling me "Look at that sky and these fucked up colours, looks like OP fucked up the exposure", then I looked at the EXIF and it was exactly what I expected, by using the exif and sunny 16 I can calculate how wrong OP was and be pretty damned confident in my guess, because it's photo 101 and if you don't know it you should fuck off and read a book. ;)
>>2634703Where is the image coming from? you mean the blown out sky and ruined colours (look at the red shawl on the woman in the centre, gross)?
From "fixing" in post.
