>>4503444 trips of halation nice light but i have to question the composition. too much information to be specifically directing my eye at something. too narrow, not enough information to be a full survey of the space
>>4503543 ty. I crop sometimes, >>4503537 (which I realize now I also mega compressed for some reason) is a crop which I think better balances the scene but honestly neither are incredible images.
>>4503647 Does 4chan really manipulate uploaded images? Does it look correct if you open the local image in your browser? I think maybe your jpg is exported with adobe RGB instead of sRGB which is the only color space supported by browsers
>>4503647 >>4503771 4chan strips EXIF data and that can include things like color profiles or brightness data. /p/ actually used to be the exception to that rule but the hack a few years ago meant EXIF couldn't come back online for /p/, so it now it strips data as standard like other boards.
>>4503454 I like packing my photos full of information, makes it feel more naturalistic, at least to me. I don't try to make a photo much more than a simple scene or setting, almost like something you'd see in a painting. Though I'll keep it in mind in future, thanks anon.
>>4503897 >Lightroom was exporting in "ProPhoto RGB", whatever that is. Pretty much anything that isn't just sRGB is not something you'll use unless you do serious commercial work (as in you're putting your shit up on billboards or very serious printing). I'm a little surprised you hadn't experienced any issues anywhere else up to this point.
>>4503898 I'm entering a photo contest soon. I have the pictures printed and they look good. I might do a little digging to see if they'll look better if I send them to the printer in sRGB. Live and learn, I guess.
>>4503907 Seems like you spent some time setting this up, good on you for taking on something ambitious. The colors are fucked and its underexposed. The composition does not follow any of the basics with respect to rule-of-thirds and leading lines. Its unpleadant to look at and it doesnt speak
>>4503981 >>4504016 What settings are you using for night? I'm only just getting started with film and night has never been my best work even on digital. I like using Fuji 200 too, hence my asking.
I saw this pale blue 50s looking building and thought the pastel look was pretty cool.
>>4504035 I think it looks pretty well saved but maybe a little overcorrected, so it has a bit too much of a HDR look going on. I'd personally push the exposure back up just a little bit.
>>4504068 I personally like the colors in the first version more (especially the greens), so maybe just stay with the first version. The exposure on it is still fine but my personal preference was for a slight bump in brightness.
>>4504073 on the first pic you can only see the green, and on the second pic you can focus your attention on the beautiful mountains, they're dangerous and very big, like in Skyrim
>>4504068 Original photographer here, way too blue and the highlights in the clouds got blown out.
>>4504074 Closer to what I’ll probably end up with but still feels too blue.
>>4504077 I think the grass creates a visual path that leads you to the valley and helps you imagine exploring the mountains. That’s how I felt when I took the photo, the expectation of an adventure to follow.
>>4504081 Problem is the white building in the middle of grass field imidiately leads the eye away from the picture. The left 3rd of the picture also more or less just distraction.
>>4504135 thanks! ive been trying to make the saturation my bitch for a looong time, the slide film look is very much my goal (dont want to end up on the ken rockwell side of things lol)
>>4504274 Fuck, was considering upgrading my a33 i got for free but even flagships do this retarded alteration to photos. I was more happy with pixels than this unnatural looking pics
>>4504287 I’m only the last one you replied to. It’s actually a Fujifilm x20. I mostly shoot film now but the Fuji is small enough to throw in my bag without having to think.
>>4504287 cheers, i posted the first two shots linked - its x100v, camera raw denoise (it helps with the worms, raw detail on its own introduces weird artifacts), add some grain to get the texture back and sharpen after downscaling
>>4504246 thanks! i look at slide scans way too much so... glad someone likes it lol
>>4504287 btw, you would be surprised with how much detail you can get by using just a bit of sharpening when you resize for web - i know that its a touchy subject for some but... (overdid it on this one a bit, but sub-pixel smart sharpening set to lens blur can make the image pop. damn i sound like ken)
>>4504330 No. I m saying that there is no reason to buy a flagship samsung if photos turn out like this. I ll keep my phone until it dies then get another midrange one
>>4504292 i could never get on with my x100 but looks like it was worth learning >>4504296 ive never touched smart sharpening and i dont tend to spend long on edits but this is impressive, originally i was just messing around with a new lens and a 100% ish crop, appreciate it
>>4504348 >i could never get on with my x100 i totally understand. i am not the biggest fan of the camera either, but imo theres just nothing in the price range that compares for walks or this sort of "slow paced" street photos (pocketabilty, viewfinder, dust/wr)
>have a lot of shit photos >start croping them >suddenly they look good don't delete your photos bros, even if your original pic is shit maybe there's something else you can't see rn
>>4504416 portra 400. Got my second roll back today, had a much better exposure rate. All 36 were developed, but one came back burned and another accidentally became a double exposure. This is from the first roll though.
I'm coming from a background in digital so the adjustment hasn't been too rough. In some ways its easier.
>>4504431 >one came back burned and another accidentally became a double exposure. Probably overcocking it a little. The first being half burned is also pretty typical, I've had a few like that too and it was always the first photo on the roll, but double exposure means you went too far and it whipped back.
>portra 400 I'll get some at some point, for now I've got a lot of expired Ultramax 400 from COVID to get through and some new rolls of Fuji 200.
>I'm coming from a background in digital so the adjustment hasn't been too rough. In some ways its easier. Same. I think the issue for me isn't that I'm limited to 24 or 36 photos, but that in my mind I estimate how much each photo will cost me in dollars kek. I get the Fuji film pretty cheap but developing costs is where things get expensive, along with shipping my film since there are no film developers left in my city now.
>>4504432 Nice work, that's a pretty cool location. I really need to get out more and do some nature film photos.
>>4504621 Pretty bad, sorry anon. The perspective is warped, the shutter speed was way too slow and the ISO denoise is horrific. If you're going to use it for photos, only use it in daylight. They're just really not made for taking photos at all.
>>4504636 >make due never seen this spelling before. it seems more sensical to me than 'do' but upon reference, it appears that 'due' has been phased out
>>4504636 I think it's a good photo too, but it suffers from the noted issues. With a better camera, you would've had some true kino that you could print off for your collection.
>>4505074 >For some reason you can't make a great photo without a person in it, or animal, or stars/[planets]. Not entirely true. I distinctly remember the photo that Dutch guy (no, nobody gives a fuck about the guy who took the photo, EVER) of a road and treeline where he made it look like two seperate photos. Pure landscape photo, but because he did something interesting it sticks with me.
Nobody ever EVER gives a single flying fuck about the person who took the photo. Without looking it up there is a 0.05% chance any anon here knows the name of the guy who took the Bliss photo.
>>4505074 >I meant to ask what are some non-portrait photos that are famous because they're great Hindenburg maybe? Or the Lochness Monster? The thing that makes pretty much every photo great or famous is the story they tell and that always involves people or some event unfolding (such as the first photo of the moon in space because it's the very first).