[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/p/ - Photography

[Advertise on 4chan]


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: 1603487296975.jpg (127 KB, 1280x720)
127 KB
127 KB JPG
why is this acceptable?
>>
Because heavy processing has been a thing in photography since it was invented.
>>
What's the issue? What's the problem? Why are people not allowed to like different things? Are you some sort of communist?
>>
Digital is horrible at faithful color reproduction and pleasing skin tones so people who aren’t really good at achieving those things are left with really aggressive color grades to hide the deficit.
>>
>>3747772
my only real issue with this is that doing this kind of one off boring shot and focusing solely on the editing is going to heavily date your photo to whatever flavor of the month was cool on instagram at that time.

if you're into this kind of vapid photography, more power to you. but that's not the type of photography that's going to give you any type of reconnaissance from the artistic community.

I honestly don't know who are these people a la Peter Mckinnon that seem to spend more time actually editing then shooting. Why are they doing this? what's the message here? and do they actually enjoy photography?
>>
acceptable as photo manipulation yeah
>>
>>3747768
Style over substance. Ever heard of film?
>>
>>3747770
ok then, make it not shit, unlike pic related

>>3747772
Because it is shit. It looks horribly artificial and on left looks much more pleasing.

Remember guy, you are allowed to like aaaanything you like. But other people are allowed to criticize it as well.
>>
>>3747780
>but that's not the type of photography that's going to give you any type of reconnaissance from the artistic community

I don't think the Peter Mckinnons of this world care about that, their shit is aimed squarely at advertising/lifestyle/vanity industries
>>
>>3747779
Film does the same bullshit. Kodak gold warms the shit out the image, and portra hues the greens into fantasy land of unrecognisability.
>>
>>3747826
>It looks horribly artificial and on left looks much more pleasing.

Says one idiot on the internets, while the guy with the right image banks on his edit.
>>
>>3747768
Because it appeals to an audience that appreciate this sort of aesthetic.
>>
>>3747768
To me it's not even the editing per-say, although that doesn't help (this type of editing is clearly pushing what looks like a phone shot, and the image can't handle it).

No, it's the random white van on the right, and the letters on the road sticking out her legs on the left. Little details like this that don't get noticed are what make it look sloppy and amateur. Like they just found a spot on a road 3 blocks away and had a girl sit down. It shows.
>>
I sometimes take pictures of trips with my friends and they really like it if I very strongly edit a few to make it look like stupidly overprocessed film.
>>
>>
>>3747935
>Criticism is not allowed
Why even have a photography board? If you don't want to talk about photography and just want people to upvote your photos then go to reddit.
>>
>>3747835
Ok smartass, so tell me, if McDonalds sells milion burgers each day, does it means it has best burgers in world?

If you say yes, you are tasteless in more than one meaning of the word.
>>
>>3747936
Yea that's the meme you fucking newfag.
>>
>>3747939
Umad.
>>
Because the general public is a whore for heavy edits and pretty colors
>>
>>3747954
The sooner you realize that different people enjoy different things, despite you wondering if something is "acceptable", the sooner you'll become a better photographer.
>>
??
>>
>>3747961
But I'm not OP, I explained why I didn't like it too, you sound mad that other people don't like things. It's a little strange.
>>
>>3747768
lightroom is so shit i dont understand why people use it except wedding photographers who need to process like 3000 photos for a client and call it a day
>>
>>3747982
What do you use, anon? Im looking for software but Abode shit is hard to pirate.
>>
>>3747982
>lightroom is so shit i dont understand why people use it except professionals
so you admit you're an amateur?
>>
>>3747768
Why is LR still acceptable?
>>
>>3747921
>No, it's the random white van on the right, and the letters on the road sticking out her legs on the left

It is just a cheap social media ad for adopey intended to hawk their software to people who take photos with a telephone. They probably got the image from Shutterstock or somewhere of that ilk. It's not aimed you so getting your Y-fronts in a bunch is a waste f energy
>>
>>3747835
>using this trite and infantile argument
Fuck off m8
>>
>>3747833
Yes porta is sure known for unrealistic colors.
>>
>>3748006
Not that guy but hell yes I'm an amateur, thank god my hobby isn't my work.
>>
>>3748068
If it was known for accurate colors, middle class hipsters wearing beanies in california wouldn't shoot it
>>
>>3748068
Film wouldn't be popular at all if it had realistic colors.
>>
>>3748103
You say middle class in this disdainful way like it’s above the class your in.
>>
>>3748112
Here on 4chan we're all part of the proletariat sitting behind our computers waiting for our revolution to kick off.
>>
>>3748115
Lit. I wear a beanie and shoot portra.
>>
>>3748068
Right because real life looks airy, light and washed out.
>>
>>3748116
Hi Willem
>>
>>3747986
rawtherapee to process, photoshop to retouch
>>
>>3747780
>doing this kind of one off boring shot and focusing solely on the editing is going to heavily date your photo
I agree but that’s not always a bad thing.
A timeless image is great but it’s nice to look at something that screams 1950s for example.
>>
>>3748261
>A timeless image is great but it’s nice to look at something that screams 1950s for example.
Sure, but would you rather it screams 1950s because of the content of the photo or the post processing that was applied to it? there are plenty of ways of dating a photo, the editing shouldn't be the first thing that pops up.

Honestly, if the first thing someone says when they see your photo is "woah! nice editing!" you've failed as a photographer.
>>
>>3748267
>if the first thing someone says when they see your photo is "woah! nice editing!" you've failed as a photographer.
But you’ve succeeded as an editor.
I can’t edit for shit, and I don’t like OPs pic, but I’m not going to draw any hard limits on what is an acceptable amount of editing in the image making process.
>>
>>3747938
Left does not sell, at all. Not in a million years. It's generic picture with nothing going for it. Right, CAN sell. It's generic picture processed in a way that captures attention. It's better of the two by a mile.
>>
>>3747780
>Everything needs to be timeless
>You can't do something trendy just for fun
>Impressionist paintings suck now because that was just a trend in the 1800s
>>
It isn't.
>>
>>3747768
Because you might want to convey certain feelings in the viewer and point out details.
For example the leafs on the road.
>>
I've been shooting for two years and have filled up 600gb, and still have a while terabyte to file on my 4TB. Storage will keep getting cheaper in the future, as long as you can come storage HDDs once they're filled safely for a long time, you're fine.

In terms of methodology: if you shoot bursts, keep only one or two. Same for each composition or "idea," just keep the best. I rate every photo I take in Lightroom so it's really easy to prune through the ones I like least.

Learn to have an eye for what others will like or how well a certain photo accomplished the goal of what you were trying to do when you first thought "that will be a good photo."
>>
>>3748490
Fuck me wrong thread.
>>
>>3748308
you know very well that's not what I claimed anon.
>>
>>3747768
soul x soulless
>>
>>3747768
what are you some kind of goddamn fruitcake that shit looks boring as hell so it comes with its own punishment imo
>>
>>3747768
at some point in photos and videos you accept that its just dots of color you are seeing. if the dots of color are arranged in a way that your eyes like what they see then its a good picture. with your logic, models and actors wouldnt put on make up because "how is this acceptable?" a picture is a picture, quit bitching and concentrate on things that make you happy.
>>
>>3752922
that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. This is what someone with a caveman IQ would say.
>shiny colors
>me likey
>uga buga
>>
>>3747768
Might look better if they used a mask around the girl so her skintones didn't get fucked.
>>
What do you have against Lightroom, pee pants?
>>
>>3753078
It's a pair of hair clippers. It's good for doing a bunch of fades and working fast, but that's it. Photoshop is a full stylist's kit.
>>
>>3753083
I feel that, but I also shy away from it because I try to keep my pictures candid/journalistic, so I don't get much use out of anything PS offers.

Is PS really that much better, other than having more options?
>>
heavily edited photos look like shit. i can pick those types of photographers out easily from the ones just shooting photos. i skip over them. its boring as hell to look at and they spent way more time editing than i ever would. its not ruining photography because it's so goddamn obvious when its done badly and it doesn't affect me at all
>>
>>3752964
or the road markings. everyone knows that road markings aren't orange. what a shitty edit.
>>
File: 1554607054803.jpg (19 KB, 491x488)
19 KB
19 KB JPG
>>3753083
>faggot makes a comparison to hair styling
not surprising
>>
>>3747833
film gives photos SOUL
>>
>>3747768
>why is this acceptable?
Because artistic decisions lie with the artist, and not some priggish little teenager sat in his mothers house?
>>
>>3748303
As Lynch one said, "If you're in it for the money, I don't want to talk to you."
>>
>>3747835
>Says one idiot on the internets, while the guy with the right image banks on his edit.

Dude, if you do not at least develop a bit your photo, exept if it's a perfect shot, it is not polish or express exacly waht the artist want to. and some time photo is more a technical chalenge then artistic demostration. just think about the F uge amount of prossess need for astro photographer to turn a blury pixel mess into a visible nebula.
>>
>>3747961
>different things, despite you wondering if something is "acceptable", the sooner you'll become a better photographer.
AMEN!!
>>
>>3747982
>is so shit i dont understand why people use it except wedding photographers who need to process like 3000 photos for a client and call it a day

maybe you do not like Lightroom because you are to LAZY to learn How to use it and why it's usefull!!
>>
Do you have any idea the amount of manipulation anyone who was any good used to do in the darkroom back in the day?
>>
>>3747768
I always make my greens more orange/yellow. I just don't like strong greens.
>>
>>3757108
>Do you have any idea the amount of manipulation anyone who was any good used to do in the darkroom back in the day?
>anyone who was good
Nice No True Scotsman Fallacy, retard.
Most 20th century photographers did not do their own processing or printing, and the vast majority of color film work from the 20th century has only received global adjustments.

Excessive dodge and burn is a hallmark of the B&W world, not photography as a whole.
>>
>>3757113
>Most 20th century photographers [too vague, whom?] did not do their own processing or printing, and the vast majority of color film work from the 20th century has only received global adjustments. [citation needed]
>>
File: download (3).jpg (10 KB, 194x260)
10 KB
10 KB JPG
>>3757118
>>3757118
>>
>>3757126
Grass is green is what we would call a prima facie argument. It’s self-evident upon first inspection. Anyone can look at grass and tell that it’s green.

What you’re contending needs considerably more evidence.
>>
>>3747768
Because they need to make Trump orange so they can scream ORANGE MAN BAD. If they show his natural looking skin color, people will start questioning things and lose faith in the media.
>>
>>3757393
>Anyone can look at grass and tell that it’s green.

Nature and you don't go together. Am I right, or am I right.
>>
>>3747768
Tritanopia outreach
>>
anyone installed pirated presets on legit LR?
>>
>>3757502
presets are literally just metadata my man. There's no DRM or anything like that.
>>
>>3757530
aight thanks anon
>>
>>3757113
I was talking about fine art photographers not part time scrubs like yourself
>>
I think is the same logic of painting, some people like the realism of William-Adolphe Bouguereau others love the surrealism of Pablo Picasso, and both is art.
>>
>>3747768
Why put that effort in without shopping the van and street text out? Low effort shot.
>>
>>3758463
It's half a minute edit... You should abstain from smartarsing when you're dumb as a brick.
>>
>>3758127
Name some fine art photographers who did dodge and burn on color work themselves, then.
>>
>>3758167
People can do whatever they want with their craft? how could they, somebody stop them
>>
>>3758493
Shiet... I personally know few. You must be blind not to see it.
>>
>>3758483
But the left picture literally is better in every objective way.
>>
>>3758493
Can name a shit load who used cross process to give unnatural colors like OP.
>>
>>3758493
What about all the alternative processes that exploded 1960-2000 such a gum bichromate etc that used unnatural colors? You Know fuck all about the darkroom or photographic history son. And as the other guy said, everyone damn commercial and wedding photographer in the 80s and 90s were shooting cross process.
>>
>>3758493
>>3758606
As well as toning, bleaching, pushing, pulling, polaroid transfer, gum oil, the list goes on and on.
>>
>>3747938
why can you make money and also good pictures? why does it have to be one or the other, make some for money and others for the art of it.
>>
>>3758623
Cause WHAAAA people keep liking things I don't!
>>
File: soyboy-trio.png (282 KB, 800x687)
282 KB
282 KB PNG
>>3758619
>As well as toning, bleaching, pushing, pulling, polaroid transfer, gum oil, the list goes on and on.
no wayyyy
wowwww
you know so much about alternative processesssss
have you shot lomochrome purpleeee?
>>
>>3758662
No, but I have shown my platinum/palladium prints all over the world, which I bet you haven't.
>>
>>3758702
Show us some

What’s that?

You can’t?
>>
>>3758702
No you haven't and yes I have
>>
>>3758711
Yeah like I'm gonna show shit that is immediately traceable to my identity on this fuckin site kid. Just face it you don't know shit.
>>
>>3758714
then show us bigshot
>>
>>3758715
you're not old enough to know how young you sound, zoomer-larping-as-boomer chud
sorry your brain got infected by 20XX politics
>>
>>3758719
I'm not the one showing ignorance that image manipulation didn't happen predigital, kid.
>>
>>3758715
lmao
>>
>>3758720
Wow that must mean every professional did it I never thought of it this way
>>
>>3758723
Most fine art photographers did and commercial photographers were sending it to labs who did it for them.
>>
>>3758735
>Most fine art photographers did
...toning, bleaching, pushing, pulling, polaroid transfer, gum oil, the list goes on and on?

No they didn't. They just pushed and pulled, which are global adjustments and typically given to the lab developing the film as notes.
>>
>>3758739
Name any decent photographer in the 20th century that didn't at lest selenium tone their prints.
>>
>>3758741
>any decent
no true scotsman fallacies typically are a sign of mental deficiency and an inability to comprehend the very existence of minds that do not adhere to your own perceptions and insecurities

The majority of 20th century photographers did not selenium tone their prints, especially themselves.
>>
>>3758739
I'm not talking run of the mill commercial hacks. The best photographers were using folks like Martin Axon to manipulate and print their stuff. He printed for Robert Maplethorpe, Patrick Demarchelier, Greg Gorman, Denis Piel, Kurt Markus etc.
>>
>>3758746
>The best
This isn't sports, zoomer. There is no best of list, there is no top sports team, there is no hierarchy, there are only your opinions that you think are factual because you lack full theory of mind due to being young, dumb, and raised by social media to think that strongly worded opinions are inherently legitimate.

In all sincerity, I do believe a suicide attempt (not successful suicide, mind you) would improve your life a great deal. Try it out, king.
>>
>>3758747
nice cop out
>>
>>3758747
If you think the art world isn't competitive and doesn't create a hierarchy of artists then I don't know what to tell you.
>>
>>3758750
The high level of competition is why there is no hierarchy

I am confident you have never exhibited a single piece.

>>3758748
seethe and pretend you've had exhibitions again, that was a laugh
>>
>>3758760
Definitely is a hierarchy of influence for sure
>>
>>3758761
and prices
>>
>>3758761
>>3758763
>ART IS ABOUT INFLUENCE AND AND AND PRICES
Are you sure you're talking about art and not commerce and money laundering?
Get your talking points straight you inebriate zoomer loser.
>>
>>3758747
>>3758760
Of course there is a hierarchy. A hierarchy of who gets shown and who doesn't, who gets published who doesn't, who gets reviewed, who gets shown in biennales, who gets paid.......
>>
>>3758766
communist or have never sold anything and projecting?
>>
>>3758775
That's not a hierarchy, that's just various metrics of success, metrics which don't necessarily have to be met to be considered artistic or successful.

I think the concept of art is genuinely over your head. Defunding the arts in the US was a mistake. Now your generation thinks art is about income and status.

Luckily you won't need critical thinking skills for your future in an Amazon wage-cage labour solution (tm)
>>
>>3758779
my generation? 50 year olds?
>>
>>3758782
I can imagine some old fag shitposting on /p/ mocking other peoples shots while being too scared to go outside and die from a cough.

Get rekt.

Not even gonna read your response. Hah.
>>
>>3758784
you have to sling personal attacks because you have no logical arguments
>>
>>3758782
You're not 50. You're between 17 and 22 and didn't know 4chan existed until the 2016 election (when you were still underage b&)
>>
>>3758787
believe what you want, no skin off my back
>>
>>3758788
I would be truly ashamed to be posting here at 50
>>
>>3758788
Post timestamp with your hand, write the words "fuck trump" as well so we can verify you didn't just talk your father (an actual boomer) into holding a note for you

bet you won't :3
>>
>>3758789
Plenty of oldfags here newfag
>>
>>3758793
Ok boomer
>>
>>3758793
Most of us genuine oldfags are between 30 (young end) and 45 and have no trouble recognizing people who came to 4chan after the 2016 election cycle (you are here)
>>
>>3758792
>2020
>has to take 20 viagra to jack himself off to Isi's hand in frame of a picture
>to edge himself, looks at fuji shill threads to kill the orgasm.
>>
File: IMG_0395 - Copy.jpg (2.59 MB, 4032x3024)
2.59 MB
2.59 MB JPG
Good enough? I delivered now you deliver and show me your incredible artwork that is beyond hierarchy. Ha ha.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationRight-Hand, Top
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2020:11:12 12:23:40
Exposure Time1/32 sec
F-Numberf/1.8
Lens Aperturef/1.8
Brightness-0.4 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Focal Length4.25 mm
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width4032
Image Height3024
Exposure ModeAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>3758805
Awesome, you proved you're old!
Now post a photo you're proud of
We're making some important progress today, Anon!
>>
>>3758805
>bites nails
>cheap laminated wood desk
>bad handwriting, seldom engages in adult activities like signing checks
>literally too stupid to spell "fuck" correctly, wrote "fuch" then had to correct it into a K
This...this is the demographic that came flooding into 4chan when reddit cracked down on racism.

Congratulations on being closer to death than birth, now post a photo thread.
>>
>>3758805
That flap of skin on your thumb indicates you used to be obese and lost weight
Proud of you for making healthy dietary changes :)
>>
>>3758811
thanks lost 20 in a year
>>
>>3758814
That's sick bro, you look like you still need to lose about 100 though.
>>
>>3758815
nah down to 80kg which is about right for me
>>
>>3758816
I don't care about your weight loss journey, boomer. I'm making fun of you for having ever gotten fat in the first place.

It shows a lack of self-awareness and constraint, which explains how you became a 4chan boomer after reddit banned you.

>BUT I NEVER CAME FROM REDDIT I SWEAR
suuuure buddy suuuuure
>>
>>3758818
again with the personal attacks but no showing of this great artwork that is so unhierarchally brilliant without manipulation of yours
>>
>>3758819
>again with the personal attacks but no showing of this great artwork that is so unhierarchally brilliant without manipulation of yours
why didn't you respond to
>>3758808
is it because you're unwilling to show your own work? Do you even have any of your own work? Are you a photographer or just a disabled Australian dole recipient that hateposts on 4chan to feel?
>>
File: waterfalljpg - Copy.jpg (1.3 MB, 1200x1470)
1.3 MB
1.3 MB JPG
>>3758822
here is something I did the other day that can't be traced to me.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width4815
Image Height5902
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Pixel CompositionUnknown
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2020:11:10 18:19:30
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width1200
Image Height1470
>>
>>3758819
>again with the personal attacks but no showing of this great artwork that is so unhierarchally brilliant without manipulation of yours

Here's my last thread: >>3758611

Now it's your turn, hehehe!
>>
>>3758824
>boomer babby's first long exposure water snapshit
you have blown highlights and tried to mask them with a bad B&W conversion that completely lacks midtones.
As suspected, you are at the bottom of the Dunning-Kruger bell curve.
>>
>>3758826
actually if you knew the fuck what you were talking about you would know it is black and white Bergger Pancro 400 black and white film not a B+W conversion.
>>
>>3758825
ha ha ha, fuck why am I even arguing with you, you are beyond help
>>
>>3758824
>this is the boomer retard hating on isi
my sides, why do they always out themselves? is it controlled opposition to make her look better?
>>
>>3758829
>actually if you knew the fuck what you were talking about you would know it is black and white Bergger Pancro 400 black and white film not a B+W conversion.

Kinda missing the point of B&W film if your film results look this bad, sir.
>>
The trannies have gotten particularly annoying lately. 4 years of Trump really did a number on them.
>>
>>3758824
Fucking dying you know he spent time in this too. Is that film? Did you blow the highlights shooting film? lmao
>>
>>3758830
But that thread's way better than your gay little boomer waterfall
Are you an absolute beginner completely unaware of the level of cope you're on?
>>
>>3747936
OP didn't ask for criticism. He clearly asked "why is this acceptable?" Which should have been in the "stupid questions" thread, because anything whatsoever that a person wants to do with their camera or their image is entirely their prerogative. Stop asking stupid questions that knock worthwhile threads off the board.
>>
>>3758789
Then I should be totally blown off the globe with embarrassment to be posting here at 66?
>kids these days! Think they invented every fucking thing!
>>
>>3758792
Why the fuck do you think anyone with common sense would give a shit about what you believe or don't?
>>
>>3758924
>fuck shit common sense REEEEEE
I don't know but you clearly do care so there's something to that
>>
>>3758805
hey whats up Jason from austscapes.com
>>
>>3757108
The difference then is that photo manipulation had tangible skill and technique attached to it.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.