leaf editionFormer thread: >>4523061
Best photo I took this week was of a rock. I liked the colors at least.
>>4525860
>>4525861
>>4525851What colors? It would work better in b&w
>>4525845some abstract plant shit
>>4525903mooo
>>4525872I liked the slightly rusty red/brown look to the session. I'll try a b&w conversion and see how it goes.
>>4525878I love this, how do achieve this softness?
There's a lot of photos I'd like to share here, but I'm always afraid of doxxing myself, and some of my best shots include people I know, and I don't want to be putting them on 4chan.I know the fears are not particularly well-founded, given there's like 10 people that come here and it's very unlikely any one of you will ever meet me or any one of my friends. Nor is it likely for a photo from here likely to go viral and be eventually seen by anyone from my circle in the context that it's from 4chan.But it's still something that feels like a rule that must be kept. Idk.Not a nophoto btw, I've posted some here before, when they were anonymous enough.Cheers bros, I like your photos.
Is this a good photo?
>>4526048use a fuji lens on a fuji xtrans sensor
>>4526079>xtranssorry I am straight
>>4526073Is that your mom?
>>4525982Interesting scene and nice colors. I wish there was a bit more foreground included.>>4525860Cursed background lady.
>>4526108>Cursed background lady.This is why I love photo threads
>>4525903Shouldn't you cover the license plates?
>>4526079any opinions on using a lens filter or adding it later in the edit?
>>4526048>>4526079>>4526112Lmao, he just dragged the clarity slider back a little. Maybe the dehaze slider too.
Took this one today at a national park. I hope my image processing isn't too bad.
>>4526140I took this at a national park a few days ago
>>4525903Hello, friend
>>4525851I took photos of rocks too
>>4526001Nature is amazing
>>4526158Your rock photo is a lot better than my rock photo kek. Beautiful place.
>>4526160Everyone should go to Yellowstone at least once, I thought it would be overrated but it genuinely blew me away
>>4526156So pretty! What lens is it?
>>4526164Ricoh GR III lmao
>>4526165Neat
>>4526073I like it, it's far more interesting than all the other dogshit in this thread except >>4525851which is quite nicely composed and focused
I need to bring a hard hat and a speedlight next time. The camera flash and a bucket hat (ouch!) are inadequate.
>>4525851>>4526073>>4526158>>4526165the most kino of the thread (so far)>>4526169looks like the introduction of chinless zombie in day of the dead but in VERY blurry quality
>>4526169>>4526183Ty brahs
>>4526299Neat. Was this along the Oregon coast?
>>4526267Learn to crop, nigga
>>4526324I have this in several crops, actually. Do you have any advice that you're capable of sharing?
>>4526326Better, but you can really get in there with this amount of detail, and get a lot more drama out of it
>>4525862
>>4526332This has been my first time editing photos and ending up happy with it, I do feel a little insecure that they are mostly saturated and warm which I assume it's quite a noob thing to do but I don't care much at the moment, I'm enjoying it and liking the result.
>>4526308It was!
>>4526361Nice, it's rather distinct topography. That photo reminds me of the jetty that's viewable from the Umpqua lighthouse.
>>4526381> rather distinct topographySure is! This one's about an hour north of Umpqua - Its the Heceta head lighthouse.
>>4525845another pic of the leaves in my backyard. it rained today so I got some nice water shots
>>4526436Nice. Not sure if you were just gunning through the window, but it gives the illusion of intention at first glance.
>>4526579> Threesome with ghost twins.Sorry, I should be ashamed of myself.
>>4526866Pictorial
>>4526866Comfy, but does look like a screenshot from sole 90s show on tape that was panning.
I've never tried long a exposure shot before. I wish I had stopped down slightly more and got better sunstars.
>>4526993I find it interesting how low light shots can produce emerald green and bunch of other saturated colors.I only have a crappy handheld shot, but there's a similar thing going on with colors.
>>4526996It does bring out a special quality in the lighting, doesn't it? It will make bright lights glow, and make dim lights fill the scene in a way you can't normally see. I've had a change in my work schedule, so I now have more time to experiment with these shots. Here's an alternate crop.
>>4526993>better sunstarsI really don't understand the general obsession with sunstars. Not knocking on you if that's the vision you had for this photo, but the rigid geometric pattern to me always feel unnatural, more of an unwanted quirk of the medium to be avoided than a desired effect. Feels similar to how people fuss about "bokeh balls".
>>4527000I saw it more as a missed opportunity since I already went home and then came back after the fog cleared.Picrel is a rough render of the sunstar version. Your milage may vary, but I think they would've looked pretty cool in the fog.
manual focus'd a bee mid flight at f/2 (aps-c).
>>4525956Nice. Is that film?
Posted this in the previous thread. Thoughts?
>>4527141Can I suggest a crop?
bought a 24 year old used digicam because i got bored of my flagship phone taking perfectly ai processed photos all the timetrying to get the hang of shooting with it, took this in the garden right after it arrived
>>4527141Looks like shit senpai.>>4526638This is really cool.>>4526435Dios mío. I even recognize the cripple on the right.>>4526267Really crisp. What lens?Don't bother with the crop faggot.
>>4527150>looks like shitCan you elaborate? Is the composition bad or is just because it's blurry?
>>4527161Not him, but I share a similar opinion. It's not about it looking like shit, it just is not interesting in any way. Looks like a photo taken by someone that was on a walk and at a random point in time they took out their phone and snapped a snapshit. Yeah, there's a bit of framing with the tree trunks and the branch and the shoreline. But it's not interesting in any way.>Is the composition badYes, basically that. No subject, no visual interest, no story, no questions asked.>or is just because it's blurry?If you're still jumping to this as a possible reason for a photo not being appreciated, you gotta reevaluate why you're even taking photos in the first place. Look at Leiter, look at Moriyama. Compare to >>4526866. Very similar subject matter. It's blurry, it's soft, details lost in the dark. I'm not saying it's a stellar picture either, but it's doing something nice visually. There's more intention in the lines. There's a mood created.
>>4527141>thoughtsplease never post your phone "photos" here again. you can get a DSLR + good lens for under $200, there is no excuse.
>>4527172why would I spend a bunch of money on equipment when I'm just starting out and >>4527167 pointed out my composition isn't good? Shouldn't I get better at that first rather than focus on gear? The same shot with better gear would have had better fidelity and colors but the composition would have been as bad. It seems like you're just seething that someone would DARE try to take a photo with their phone. Keep trying to gatekeep, I'm not listening. One day I'll surpass you.
>>4527174Because better equipment than a shitty fucking 28mm phone lens is more inspiring, results in something worth looking at when you finally get it right, and most importantly, no matter how artistic you think you are, a phone photo is a phone photo. At their best they're just that but AI enhanced. Go buy an $80 DSLR with an f1.something lens.>gatekeep reeeeeGatekeeping is good. It's better known as quality control.
>>4527174If you enjoy taking pictures on your phone that's fine. If you want to improve the end result one way to do that is to improve the quality of your photo taking device. Of course improvements to other aspects like composition matter (arguably more), but it's kinda like saying you shouldn't fix your car's flat tire because right now you're focused on learning to parallel park. Ultimately good technique and establishing a minimum level of quality will lead to the best results, even if eventually you end up moving towards a style they doesn't really need a high end camera. Plus, taking photos in raw let's you do more editing which according to some is of equal importance to the actual clicking of the button on the camera
>>4527150>What lens?Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 Macro G2 for the EF mount. It's been pretty good to me.
A lot of the time shooting in low light on my Fuji actually produces vomit inducing green tint. Classing Negative simulation improves it somewhat (by allowing to move tint slider further into magenta), but it makes it seem like I'm trying too hard to get "le nostalgic" look. Fuck, I'm just trying to fix shitty colors.
>>4527282So use manual WB then? Using auto at night is a gamble on most cameras because of the combinations of warm and cold light from various sources in the scene.
>>4527284>the combinations of warm and cold light from various sources in the sceneI guess you're right, but I'm shooting raw and still cannot find the right combination of temperature and tint when editing. If I move tint towards magenta too far, things turn magenta (duh), except in some film sims like this Classic Negative. I guess if I actually pay for C1 it will give me color equalizer or something.
>>4527185
>>4526608Could have waited for her next stride.>>4527187Nice one. I like the grain and backlight.
>>4527187Holy vignette batman!
>>4527185Victoria, AU? Looks a bit like the forest roads near Marysville.
>>4527302Eh check your gamma, anon
>>4527309No, it's pretty strong homie
>>4527307Cali, near Fort Bragg
>>4527309It's actually quite noticeable.
>>4527310>>4527346Well I guess I have to check MY gamma lol
>>4527301>Could have waited for her next stride.Why do you say that?Granted, the exact positioning wasn't 100% intentional on my end, I just took a few shots as she was walking. This positioning was the best of the few shots I took. I have another one where she's level with the trash, but that's too busy imo. In this shot she's against a fairly plain background. Another step or two she'd be on the rust spot which would melt with her hair.Thanks for taking a look!
>>4527376>Another step or two she'd be on the rust spot which would melt with her hair.Show this one - that's what I had in mind. The back-light should have added separation between the hair and rust. I know you were machine-gunning it and you have this frame.
>>4526608> Street photo in America: niggers, fast food.> Street photo in Europe: trash, anti-car posts.Sorry, not picking on you personally. I'm just tired of living in a city.
>>4527383Nope, don't have that one. Not much of a machine gunner, me. But I get what you had in mind. Not sure the light was good enough for that in this particularl situation, if the separation would be stark enough. Cool idea though, I'll keep this technique for the future.
I dont really know how to take good pictures, but I sometimes get the urge to take a pic of a nice landscape
>>4527448also I appreciate tips/feedback of any kinda
there are two bugs on this picture (scary)
>>4527448>>4527449i like itnot sure about enabling the date stamp thoughi'm kind of a beginner too, but I would've tried to focus either on the towers between the foliage, or focus on the plants to get a blurry backdrop>>4527431dog>>4527369i like the colors
>>4527479>not sure about enabling the date stamp thoughI forgot I had the time stamp on when I took these pictures sadly.>I would've tried to focus either on the towers between the foliage, or focus on the plants to get a blurry backdropI really liked the idea of the skyscrapers being shown through the foliage and thought maybe blurring one of the two would take away from that, but on retrospective I think less wouldve been more.also another pic I took trying the same idea, im not sure which one I prefer though
>>4527484another pic I took around the same time, I really dont know why I had the time stamp on all the time lmao
>>4527484hmmm yeah I understand, that's certainly a valid point and a good directionI prefer this photo thoughnow that I see it, I think the sun on the first one is kinda too 'intrusive', I prefer this one>>4527486ooooh that seems like a mockingird, cutenice shot
>>4527486The bird is judging you.
>>4527489>now that I see it, I think the sun on the first one is kinda too 'intrusive', I prefer this oneAgreed, i think it sells the point better, thanks for the tips btw.>>4527486The thing I liked about this photo is that it almost seems that the birds feathers have evolved to camouflage in that space of urban decay idk looks kinda cool to meHeres another picture I took of some birds resting on a floating branch, I really like these little guys
>>4527491cute!
>>4527516Thanks. I just wish I managed to focus on the cat.
>>4527512A side profile with just the fence and car in a wide format would have been killer here
>>4527567
>>4527479> dogIt does have that pitbull look to it
some from today
is black and white cope?
>>4527607if film, noif digital, yes
>>4527431This one is very nice
>>4527316comfy
>>4527633Thank you!
>>4527635Crooked horizon, light pole clashing with background elements, and you could have stood more in the middle of Lombard.
>>4527635Very fortunate overlook. Do you plan these positions or are you just hopping around until you find something?>>4527645Eat a bag of sand covered dicks, nobody cares.
>>4527635> No stopping any time> Stops to take photo
>>4527607Yes if you use it to fix shitty cmos colors.
>>4527648>nobody caresYou should care. These are basics that any photographer should be aware of. Take your emotion out of it.
>>4527689> Rockwellian green with a touch of chromatic aberrationHaha, why not.
>>4527697That's nowhere near Big Ken's colors
>>4527697Good try
>>4527645>>4527635In my defense, I did politely ask the gentleman controlling the cable car if he could move it back a couple feet so I could get a better framing for my photo, but he refused to acquiesce to my request.
>>4527697>Rockwellian greenGo out and touch grass>chromatic aberrationSoulful
>>4527743I won't argue with cranking saturation on purpose, but you cannot deny that these photos are oversaturated.
>>4527752According to you. A bit oversaturated compared to real life perhaps, but cloudy and rainy weather makes greenery look noticeably more saturated, deeper, and richer on its own. Diffuse lighting makes colors look deeper, atmospheric humidity makes the air clearer of dust and fine particles, increasing contrast. Darkened soil, trunks and branches provide a stronger contrast against foliage, making the green stand out even more, and perceptually, greens are perceived as more intense when they're surrounded by relatively subdued highlights and shadows rather than brilliant sunlight.
>>4527752They're like... 10-15% too saturated. It's not that bad.Decent lighting and a CPL would get you an almost exact "organic" look except for the noticable deep blue ocean.
>>4527752Did you forget to link to your photo itt that shows better green saturation?
>>4527757The simpler explanation is that DxO and C1 have crappy color profiles for most cameras and turn all foliage into this St. Patrick's Green even if the author himself only adjusted saturation a bit. You can see other signs like blue bricks on the aqueduct (or whatever it is), where they should more likely be grey.>>4527762Half of the photos in this thread have foliage in them. Have a look.
>>4527766>I don't take photos myself>There's so many good examples here, but I can't just pick out any specific onesSad
>>4527766This sounds like poorfag cope>Get recommended C1 and DxO (industry standard btw)>See price tag>$300-150>[hava nagila plays ominously in the background]>Fast forward to the next 500 shitposts of your life>WELL ACTUALLY THE JPEGS ON MY $150 DSLR ARE BETTER>ALL YOUR PHOTOS SUCK BECAUSE YOU USE C1 AND DXO!Many such cases on this shit board. The sony guy, for example, is still going.
>>4527766>You can see other signs like blue bricks on the aqueduct (or whatever it is), where they should more likely be grey.What are you talking about? Where do you see blue? Unless you know which kind of stone this aqueduct was made with, you can't say for sure that it should be "grey". And it's not really blue, more like bluish-grey at best which is to be expected from most rocks. Is your monitor properly calibrated? We're not in minecraft, many common rocks contain minerals that produce a genuinely cool grey appearance or even slate-blue from a distance. And yet again, overcast weather particularly emphasizes blue-grey tones. Maybe you should try to go out and shoot in different weathers, you'll see that your perception of the same scene can change dramatically based on this parameter alone.I'm not denying that saturation and vibrance were boosted in those pictures, but your arguments are not convincing and it seems you don't understand how color perception works outside of editing softwares.Ken Rockwell pushes colors hard in the midday sun and raises shadows like he shoots on an iphone. Most of the vibrance in these pictures can be explained by the lighting alone, then the color composition, and finally post-processing, all in order.
>>4527766>Half of the photos in this thread have foliage in them. Have a look.And they all look extremely different. Some are very flat, some even have yellowish-foliage, most use filters and were shot in the sun. Glad you're figuring out that there's no single answer to what foliage should look like.
>>4527774>>4527776Regardless of how you want to present the argument, foliage does not look uniformly fluorescent green. Neither these 100 year old aqueducts or bridges whatever they are were built from a mix of yellow and blue stone. I live in this cursed country and I know pretty well how it looks (yes, according to me) on overcast days.
Spent the night on lightroom to rework my pic. What could be improved?
>>4527804Better subject and better light?
>>4527801>I live in this cursed country and I know pretty well how it looksAre we supposed to know which country and specific aqueduct you're talking about? Do you live near this specific one?
>>4527801Too bad you don't take any photos, otherwise you could just show us how it's supposed to look
>>4527819What phone?>>4527832kek
>>4525845>>4525851Rocks and leaves, never change /p/
>>4527804Ça pue sa mère, c'est quand que tu rembourses l'argent fils de pute ?
>>4527838Now this is accurate greens
>>4527832Actually 5 out of 5 photos I posted here have plants in them. But god forbid I make an ambiguous comment on a photo that caught my attention (no one else gave any fucks) and we have a discussion instead of throwing snaps into the void.
>>4527855Neat, which 5 again? Did you forget to link them?
>>4527857Oh fuck off armchair janny. Imagine getting all worked up because someone didn't praise your photo.
>>4527852>>4527838It's the one color in which Sony outclasses the competition
I haven't posted in a while. An IP ban has prevented me.
>>4527912QRD?
>>4527858Imagine bragging about how good the greens are in your photo but being too embarrassed to link them
>>4527992Holy fuck, nobody sane actually cares if there's an identity verified photo attached to every fucking response otb.People are allowed to have opinions without providing you with bait oppertunities.
>>4527993>claims to know what accurate greens are>no you cant see them
>>4527999I'm not that anon you schizoid. You're just actually that insufferable an outside observer needed to point it out.
>seething cuz no photo
Damn I didn't know my pics would shake up the tree-loving community of /p/ee>>4527697The garden itself is very green this time of year. It's a private garden that's very well taken care of.I mostly played with the yellows and contrast, the latter is likely responsible for the increased saturation.Pic related is the SOOC JPEG from a canon body.>chromatic aberrationTrue, forgot to correct that in LR>>4527766>You can see other signs like blue bricks on the aqueduct (or whatever it is), where they should more likely be grey.It's a railroad bridge built in the second half of the 19th century with local rocks, which include dark and light blue-gray granite extracted from the region, it's not expected to look pure gray. It doesn't look straight up blue however so I don't know what you're referring to exactly.
>>4528023Well, thanks for posting the SOOC because it's hard to talk about an edit without any frame of reference.
>>4528033What else do you want to talk about, dough?
>>4528050
>>4527974>fucking rangebans, how do they work?
>>4526167Cont.
>>4528169I like this one.
I tried.
>>4528169Comfy
>>4528192
>>4528001If this board required a photo (you) had taken to be posted alongside every post it would be a better board, guaranteed. At least then people would put their money where their mouth is.
>>4528277Okay, but they are fingerprinted and you cannot post the same one twice.
>>4528291>Aims at random wall at MFD with zero defining features>hold shutter at 40fps for a few seconds>enough snapshits to last a year of posting on /p/
>>4528299> posts a cartoon and gets permabanned
>>4528302>oh no there's anime on my anime website>better derail the topic because I have no actual counter argument
>>4528302Fucking retard.
>>4528247>>4528204>>4528172>>4528050Noice
any advice?
>>4528356
>>4528359
>>4528360last one
>>4528356>any advice?On what?You've got nice tidy compositions, and the technicalities are all good enough. To me, the subject matter is not particularly interesting on its own. You're no longer at snapshit-tier, congrats. Now go out and make images that matter something to you.
>>4528367Thank you.As for the subject matter, I do find it to be one of the things I struggle with the most. Especially in the small town I live in I mostly just walk around and try to take photos of whatever, but there is rarely anything super interesting.I spend a lot more time trying to make a random subject look good than looking for a good subject, I guess.
>>4528361>>4528360For stuff like this, you really want to be precise with your lines. Make sure they are straight, distances to the edge are even so it looks placed intentionally. A brick wall should be absolutely tack sharp too.If you go vertical, it has an almost abstract product look to it. I would either lean into the colors more, or stick to monochrome to focus on the form.
FD 200
Opening night for the Buffalo Bills, outside Highmark Stadium. Apparently, he's preaching the Word of the Bills to his flock.Canon R6 Mark III, ISO 25600, 400mm, 1/400, f/6.3
FD 83
>>4528431I really like that second edit. Thank you>>4528496I'm driving up to Buffalo (with my previous photos in this thread being from a town a bit south of the city) this weekend to try to get some photos.Nice shot anon, go Bills
>>4528511cade
sun goes down way sooner now that summer is over
>>4528550That's a lot of CA
>>4528567yeah exploding light coming from the upper corners combined with an overall darker scene produces stuff like that on this camera, sadly
>>4528538>I'm driving up to Buffalo (with my previous photos in this thread being from a town a bit south of the city) this weekend to try to get some photos.Nice. I recommend Reinstein Woods and Knox Farm State Park. Maybe not Knox Farm this weekend since there's some hippie fest going on.
Not really recent, but I thought I only kept a few from the time I shot and randomly came accross this one.
>>4527840What's wrong with capturing nature's beauty? Nothing human made is as beautiful as rocks, flowers and leaves.
New thread!>>4529005>>4529005>>4529005
>>4528940Did you go to the tram races?
>>4528277Is this film? What lens? This pics gave me feels
>>4528852This is great.
>>4529379lmao thanks
>>4529161Ty. Unless I'm misremembering it was shot on an OM-2N with a 50mm f1.4 on portra 800.
>>4526327You cut off the subjects ass you retard
>>4529689You're right but why so rude?
>>4527282Set white balance to K and dial in your color temperature manually so it looks as close to real life as possible. I don''t think playing with hues will be productive here. Auto WB makes warm lights cold and cold lights warm to even everything out to middle gray and that's often not desirable.Set your exposure manually so it looks as close to the real life as possible. At night this could mean underexposing by 1 to 2 stops. At night cameras will boost exposure and by extension ISO as high as possible to make dark areas not dark but gray. This should cut down the noise significantly.Play with DR settings in your camera (DR200 and DR400). They can help protect the highlights at the cost of extra noise in the shadows. Decide if you like the results yourself. Those settings can be a hit or miss.
>>4530009And use a fucking tripod.
>>4526169Well your pic is real dog shit
