|
Beeftweeter posted:ahhh noooo lmao echinopsis posted:these are my methods. they are not good, but they are mine
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 23:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 18:39 |
|
|
echinopsis posted:what do you mean by this? and if it limits something then.. well I like the effect and that's the cost.. you get a value range of 0-254 on a tone curve. change the lowest value to, idk, 20? that's 235 potential points you can use now, not 255
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 23:24
|
|
|
very true, and if it works for you disregard lol
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 23:24
|
|
|
Beeftweeter posted:you get a value range of 0-254 on a tone curve. change the lowest value to, idk, 20? that's 235 potential points you can use now, not 255 oh yeah for sure, but that is also just describing the effect, it's not a limitation of the effect, it's just what the effect does. we don't want values 0-19 either way I am pleased with what i am getting Beeftweeter posted:very true, and if it works for you disregard lol hope you realise I put the saturation back down after lol, it's just to make the color tone choices more obvious when I make them
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 23:28
|
|
|
I don't personally like the reduced contrast squash everything into the middle look but it's super popular right now. that said a lot of my pictures are contre jour or using tons of black to make highlights pop more as my whole thing   e: I could probably crop out the bottom third of that last one
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 23:31
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:oh yeah for sure, but that is also just describing the effect, it's not a limitation of the effect, it's just what the effect does. we don't want values 0-19 well sure, but you can also use 0-254 with point like 18 way up wherever you want it to be. you can't use the other points to roll off the highlights as effectively that way. also no lol i didn't realize that, that's why i said "oh nooo" qirex posted:I don't personally like the reduced contrast squash everything into the middle look but it's super popular right now. that said a lot of my pictures are contre jour or using tons of black to make highlights pop more as my whole thing nice, and yeah i think having a oled seriously spoiled my eyes lol also i'd personally go with a crop, but it's not bad as is
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2022 00:13
|
|
|
I think crushed blacks are neat, but they’re kinda “trendy” looking in my opinion. nothing wrong with trendy, but I feel like I’m trying on other people’s clothes sometimes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2022 17:00
|
|
|
eh but you also don’t want to avoid something you like just coz it’s popular either I’ve realised that I simply prefer the look, and it doesn’t have anything to do with trendy. in fact I’ve had to come to a place of acceptance where I just do what I want without worrying that someone else will think i’m only doing it coz it’s trendy
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2022 03:54
|
|
|
I need to inform you that there's nothing wrong with being trendy
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2022 16:25
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2022 20:18
|
|
|
MrQueasy posted:I think crushed blacks are neat, camera talk is unfortunate
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2022 20:30
|
|
|
PokeJoe posted:I need to inform you that there's nothing wrong with being trendy Yeah, I know, but I’m busy trying to go my own way.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2022 20:42
|
|
|
Improbable Lobster posted:camera talk is unfortunate lmao
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2022 20:42
|
|
|
MrQueasy posted:Yeah, I know, but I’m busy trying to go my own way. without trying to be too pedantic about things, I think the very nature of photography means working in a crushed dynamic range and it’s not necessary realistic looking to have the blacks down at 0. it might be, depending on the photo, but maximising dynamic range by making sure we do have data all the way down to 0 is also an artistic choice, albeit the default one I think the reason it’s “trendy” is because it’s pleasing to the eye for a lot of people and probably represents closer to what people really see. even though we see a large dynamic range, it doesn’t feel contrasty like a photo with deep blacks can this is all just my opinion and conjecture of course so lol if you read it
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2022 22:35
|
|
|
what’s “interesting” about the specific method I shared earlier is that I’d tried it heaps of times before and never liked it compared to the harsher version where I just hard clip the blacks upwards, and then all of a sudden I love it
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2022 22:36
|
|
|
Cardinal in Crape Myrtle… now I wish I’d sprung for the 70-200, ah well. The 85mm continues to punch above its weight.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2022 15:34
|
|
|
love how it pops out there
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2022 22:45
|
|
|
PokeJoe posted:I need to inform you that there's nothing wrong with being trendy someone doesn't remember the overdone HDR era. that poo poo was HIDEOUS
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2022 23:36
|
|
|
CMYK BLYAT! posted:someone doesn't remember the overdone HDR era. that poo poo was HIDEOUS yeah. it’s not so much the trendyness as it is my own sensitivity to using techniques that call attention to themselves.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2022 02:01
|
|
|
MrQueasy posted:Cardinal in Crape Myrtle… now I wish I’d sprung for the 70-200, ah well. The 85mm continues to punch above its weight. obviously this is subjective but i felt like this was a good example of contrast being pushed too high, so i hosed with the tone curves a bit. i'm not calling you out specifically here, it's a nice shot and everyone has their own interpretation of what looks good  hope you don't mind 
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2022 02:40
|
|
|
Check my crow out
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2022 02:47
|
|
|
that’s your pet huh
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2022 02:54
|
|
|
he visits me every day so kinda
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2022 02:57
|
|
|
Beeftweeter posted:obviously this is subjective but i felt like this was a good example of contrast being pushed too high, so i hosed with the tone curves a bit. i'm not calling you out specifically here, it's a nice shot and everyone has their own interpretation of what looks good It looks good! I just like tend to default to the high contrast velvia look with the reddish tone throughout and the pumped shadows. I think the high heat also made me try to convey that feeling through the harsher lighting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2022 04:00
|
|
|
MrQueasy posted:It looks good! I just like tend to default to the high contrast velvia look with the reddish tone throughout and the pumped shadows. I think the high heat also made me try to convey that feeling through the harsher lighting. lol thanks, but it's your shot man! i get what you were going for, but idk, the highlights washing out the purple kinda stuck out to me. i didn't intentionally white balance it, btw, it's just sort of what inevitably happens after i'm done modding each channel's curve. obviously i don't always nail it though this made me think it'd actually be pretty neat if we all interpreted each other's work. i think this would probably bring cool and unexpected results; i'll go through my old raw archives to see what i can dig up that might be neat. obviously from personal experience working with similar sets i know there is a lot of detail to be pulled out, so i think i'll do one normal exposure and one of each clearly over/underexposed i guess i'll also have to find a way of either sharing the raw file itself or possibly a 16-bit png maybe
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2022 00:17
|
|
|
I like the idea. I usually use mega.co.nz to share
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2022 01:10
|
|
|
 idk why but I like this burned log https://mega.nz/file/CNJ2wDLb#Wqgx12S40FEi1O8yyXaOYx9uDQuxXO3jgfwflkvKomw
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2022 04:13
|
|
|
here's two obviously under/over exposures: https://archive.org/download/20220619_20220619_1509 they're sony ARW format. if needed i can convert to tiff or something because archive.org owns gonna go poke around my much, much larger mft library in a bit
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2022 16:12
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:
i don't think your edit is bad at all, but i approached this as if it were just a random shot (had to reset everything because DNG preserves your edits, lol) and came up with this 
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2022 17:59
|
|
|
Beeftweeter posted:i don't think your edit is bad at all, but i approached this as if it were just a random shot (had to reset everything because DNG preserves your edits, lol) and came up with this yeah I exported as dng on purpose for that reason, perhaps I should export it without any edits for the sake of this process. perhaps hold back what I did with it myself until I see what you did. interesting take on my photo, ngl it's amazing to me how differently you've done it. anyway, this is from your raw. I've never had to use the dehaze thing in lightroom before but that poo poo is like magic 
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2022 18:27
|
|
|
here are some more I didn't want to lose my edits so I made virtual copies, reset them, and exported them. I hope this has the effect of being as close to out-of-camera as possible https://mega.nz/file/fVRFWAiR#OJIy2MK20hUEQusL1nn1HhPzrKM--J8IJ8qgdSi5oZk https://mega.nz/file/WFhmCALb#50hLBdgVEvVNl8sGKNWMT5_yMZ0BTIo2SVy258rejmk https://mega.nz/file/mNwFEAbT#cn-Ik5QsK2ikVMuEiWXLOX0SpYLa_fsn61gy33JoFuc this one wouldn't export so I just copied the .dng from disk, rather than export it, so it prolly has the settings on: https://mega.nz/file/DIARzKwB#vrGZ-GjsAjdvy5xg_e0MoDHnIwr3NF7Na2_7fWmcOaU
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2022 19:49
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:interesting take on my photo, ngl it's amazing to me how differently you've done it. neat! yeah, that was the general idea lol echinopsis posted:here are some more i'll check these out next. i started from the bottom of my raw pile so here's some olympus stuff https://archive.org/download/b-201043
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2022 20:28
|
|
|
i did this one first because i really like the composition, great job dude. i'll see what i can do with the others later
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2022 21:30
|
|
|
that website is so drat slow here in nz lol how’d you like the city pic? both of your photos were fine, I mean very over and under exposed respectively but neither clipped that dehaze works like a really effective contrast slider
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2022 21:32
|
|
|
Beeftweeter posted:i did this one first because i really like the composition, great job dude. i'll see what i can do with the others later this is what I had done (largely posting so I can compare easily as much as anything) 
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2022 21:35
|
|
|
drat I like the purple in yours. I like mine for maintaining a milky quality but I also like yours too for bringing out some contrast and more colours
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2022 21:36
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:that website is so drat slow here in nz lol it's basically what i had done myself, lol. the main reason i can't really post more sony poo poo is because it pretty much nails it regardless of ev value (in case it's not obvious i almost always shoot burst with bracketed ev if i'm doing artsy work), so i realize there's not much to be done there besides taking out the water marks from the window dehaze is pretty cool. it's no panacea but it's definitely made some poo poo more usable than it otherwise would be. you might wanna check out rawtherapee, it's some pretty powerful poo poo too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2022 21:39
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:drat I like the purple in yours. I like mine for maintaining a milky quality but I also like yours too for bringing out some contrast and more colours yep, try manipulating the color channel curves individually, it's surprising how much you can bring out really!
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2022 21:42
|
|
|
Beeftweeter posted:it's basically what i had done myself, lol. the main reason i can't really post more sony poo poo is because it pretty much nails it regardless of ev value (in case it's not obvious i almost always shoot burst with bracketed ev if i'm doing artsy work), so i realize there's not much to be done there besides taking out the water marks from the window yeah my canon doesn’t recover that nicely from being overexposed, and tbh I hate it’s tendency to overexpose on auto settings (like auto iso) because blown highlights on a person loving ruin everything and I let the camera do it to me yesterday with a nice photo of my kids. should have known better than to let the camera choose the iso i wonder if that raw therapee is like the topaz one, which what you should do is do it on a photo of yourself. I did, and was quite grossed out. maybe that one is different but the topaz one is a neural net trained on people and what it did was redraw the skin on my face (can’t think of a better way to describe it) and it was quite disturbing, and Id hate to think I handed over a photo to someone who I had used that with and that’s what they got, because it didn’t look unnatural, and to someone else maybe it looked normal, but I could tell it wasn’t my skin. very weird. and similarly I just can’t stand the look of denoised images. in the same way they jpeg artifacts stand out once you know them, denoising jumps out to me and I’d rather have noise. I’ll check the link though because I am curious about the technology and what it can do and maybe it’s not like i’ve what i’ve just described
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2022 00:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 18:39 |
|
|
oh rawtherape isn't like that topaz stuff at all
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2022 00:48
|
|