>>4520035yeah you're right, thank you anon.
I don't need it to be 100% super accurate just dont want things to be too out of wack. I'm not planning to print or work with it so it ultimately doesn't matter.
>The truth is there is a wide range of saturation and contrast that can look realistic because light environments change a lot and the human brain can rationalize many scenes as "this looks a plausible accurate representation".yeah, I want more or less to be around these parts, but just in case I decide to go over, I know how far I can actually push it.
>do not end up like thisI will give my best not to. I've already went through something like this with audio, thankfully I'm a poorfag so I didn't spend much, put a lot of time in though. always better to just say fuck it, pick up whatever IEMs or headphones you have and enjoy music, fuck.
and honestly, seeing Ken Rockwell's pictures kind of traumatized me.
as well as in his d3200 ""guide"" he says to "put on vivid profile, max sharpening, max saturation, JPEG BASIC (cause no one can tell the difference and they take 1/4 the size)"
and
"Small (6 MP or 3,008 x 2,000 pixels).
No one needs 24 Megapixels, or even the MEDIUM setting of 13.5 MP.
At the default of LARGE NORMAL you get 6 MB files, while at SMALL BASIC, I get pictures which look identical with only 700 kB of data."
and
"The D3200 looks swell at ISO 6,400 when it needs it. Set a higher value, like Hi 1, to let the D3200 use a higher ISO in dim light"
I get they were different times but GOD DAMN. I guess maybe if you resize down 4 times the noise becomes a lot less apparent but damn.
