What is the point of using Adobe Lightroom to alter a photo to

>>2913113
>stop liking things I don't like, waaaaah

Expression extends beyond merely being there and pointing a camera.

Whats the point in using oil paint to alter a canvas to the point of being fake?

>>2913113
The photo was "fake" the moment it was made. As soon as you attempt to project a 3D object (actually 3D+time, because no picture is just the plank length of time) onto a 2D plane, it is in a form it cannot be. After that point, we've established she's a whore, we're just negotiating price.

>>2913113
The original isn't good either, nor is it necessarily a good representation of the scene as it was shot, it's just RAW data as it was captured by the sensor, and every sensor has a unique response to color and tonality.
Unless you're shooting photos for the sole purpose of empirical evidence, there is no reason to not edit a photo however you like, the only criteria you should really keep to is to make the image seem believable.

>>2913119

The cringe is real.

>>2913114
Nice defense

>>2913113
>What is the point
To make it look better.

>>2913113
the left is nothing like the original scene either, you dipshit retard.

Human eyes are not the same as Complementary metal–oxide–semiconductor sensors, nor the same as an individual camera lens.
The pupil is opening and closing and doing an HDR synthesizing hundreds of images into one perception.
The effect is a dynamic range more than twice as high as your CMOS sensor can provide, meaning no unedited RAW file is ever representative of the image seen by the human eye.

Perception is also multi-focal, the lens can constantly adjust to combine in-focus details from half a dozen different regions, while leaving uninteresting features like grass out of focus, quite unlike your left fake file that can only ever have 1 region in focus.

The human mind also does active white-balance adjustments and many other tricks that correct the received visual information to match the viewer's past experiences. This will let us experience the trees as a richer green and the sky as a more saturated blue than the values imagined by the sensor algorithms.

It is possible to over-correct the fake RAW file that was taken straight from your camera, and make it just as fake in the opposite direction, but it the RAW in itself is not correct or true at all to the human sensory/perceptual experience. (Which is what photography was created for.)

File: map_projections.png (241KB, 650x1990px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 650x1990px

>>2913125
He's pretty right though. Arguing from a point of authenticity implies that there's a level of authenticity to begin with while assuming that authenticity is needed or wanted generally. Any image you can point to and say "this is a not fake image" will necessarily be arbitrary because there are aspects which are on some level or another are fake when compared to the original scene. There is always some level of divergence, many of which can be interchangeable (think of the expansion/compression of various perspectives) all while being no less fake than any other option. Even a normals don't escape this the majority of cases.

Verisimilitude can be a goal of any given photographer; however, there's no reason to assume or think that it should be the goal of all photographers.

File: Untitled-2.jpg (2MB, 2267x1154px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2267x1154px

This is why

>>2913113
Enhancing reality because you don't have the eye or sense/talent to find noteworthy beautiful shots and need to do something to make your snapshits worth anything.

File: image.jpg (28KB, 263x395px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 263x395px

what did he mean by this?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	263
Image Height	395
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2913185
>the left is nothing like the original scene either, you dipshit retard.
>Human eyes are not the same as Complementary metal–oxide–semiconductor sensors, nor the same as an individual camera lens.
>The pupil is opening and closing and doing an HDR synthesizing hundreds of images into one perception.
>The effect is a dynamic range more than twice as high as your CMOS sensor can provide, meaning no unedited RAW file is ever representative of the image seen by the human eye.
>Perception is also multi-focal, the lens can constantly adjust to combine in-focus details from half a dozen different regions, while leaving uninteresting features like grass out of focus, quite unlike your left fake file that can only ever have 1 region in focus.
>The human mind also does active white-balance adjustments and many other tricks that correct the received visual information to match the viewer's past experiences. This will let us experience the trees as a richer green and the sky as a more saturated blue than the values imagined by the sensor algorithms.
>It is possible to over-correct the fake RAW file that was taken straight from your camera, and make it just as fake in the opposite direction, but it the RAW in itself is not correct or true at all to the human sensory/perceptual experience. (Which is what photography was created for.)

film does all that better.

File: 2016-08-29 17.53.38.jpg (368KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

368KB, 1024x768px

>>2913342

>>2913334
found another retarded hipster to filter.
You won't last a week as a professional photographer if you're such a potato retard that you think RAW files are real and beautiful.

>>2913333
pic on the left looks good, right is ugly af

Raw files aren't flat because it's realistic, they're flat because that gives you the most range to work with in creating your own look for the image. In fact, the image on the left ISN'T unedited, Lightroom deinterpolates, sharpens, removes noise, adds contrast and saturation and color adjustments before you even get the "neutral" image.

>>2913502
You must be retarded.

>>2913509
Not really, the one on the right is way too saturated.

>>2913515
Vibrance 0
Saturation 0

Are you blind?

>>2913113
right is a shit edit but its 10x better than original

>>2913516
>Vibrance 0
>Saturation 0
Just because the sliders haven't been touched, doesn't mean a photo can't look over saturated you fucking monogloid

>>2913516

>what is a camera profile

>>2913516
dude are you fucking retarded

I don't have a problem with that because as a digital photographer, I consider taking the photograph the process of gathering data, and post-processing the portion where I make sense out of the data.

Remember, it's only fake if you're shitty at it.

So, using ND filters together with red and other filters in film photography is also faking a photo. The same way you fake your photo in film by using others unnatural source of lights nor the natural to get the tones and shadows you want. Oh, and using films like Kodak Portra or Fuji Astia films, it's totally cheating!

If you can't shoot with a Lomo sooc you're not protog.

File: DSC_0433-2.jpg (616KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

616KB, 1200x800px

>>2913113
It's the creative part of photography

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D3300
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1.1 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/5.7
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	804
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	82 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:08:29 23:47:49
Exposure Time	1/320 sec
F-Number	f/9.0
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/9.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	55.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2913113

Personally I hate seeing random photos of some place before going there: because they are made digestable for people who will never do. When I arrive I do not see what I expected. Well, of course contrast and saturation may be bumped but there certain margin after which the difference between imposed feelings and reality grinds my gears.

I do not need to know that the things which I buy and places I go to are the best and prettiest, I just need to know what they are. Other people do not get it, they need something more than that.

>What is the point of using Adobe Lightroom to alter a photo to the point of being fake?

When most cameras sold are worth at least a little grand people expect them to be used for making money and popularity. The fit in the everything else what they see everywhere: making digestable images.

You cannot expect anything else now when every popular rating system existing has only one criterion: "like" and when almost every thing produced is produced in such way so that it is liked by the majority of customers, not to suite certan needs better.


>>2913329
>Arguing from a point of authenticity implies that there's a level of authenticity to begin with while assuming that authenticity is needed or wanted generally

Arguing can not imply anything because it is a deed, not a human. Only human may imply something and to know that you should ask that human if they did.

Bullshit argument.


>>2913516
>tonal contrast does not affect saturation
>whatever affects saturation it does not because I am retarded


>>2913867

Do you imply that everything should be saturated because some part of photos looks better that way?

photography is 30% composition 10% focus/sharpness and 60% post-processing

>>2913867
cool photo

>>2913333

>I'm 12 years old and can only perceive the brightest colors

Wub b better with the after pic over the original and opacity set to 20-30%

>>2913933

and 100% timing

>>2913113
Well the first mistake was shooting digshital

>>2913334
>Enhancing reality because you don't have the eye or sense/talent to find noteworthy beautiful shots and need to do something to make your snapshits worth anything.


Yup, pretty much this. Instead of learning about composition, lighting, etc., developing your skills, and shooting interesting material, people just shoot a shitty pic then over-saturate it and give it super high contrast, and wha-la, people think it's great....Well, you're not fooling any actual photographers.

>>2914490
>Yup, pretty much this. Instead of learning about composition, lighting, etc., developing your skills, and shooting interesting material, people just shoot a shitty pic then over-saturate it and give it super high contrast, and wha-la, people think it's great....Well, you're not fooling any actual photographers.
>projecting this hard

File: 0112572.png (3MB, 902x1202px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 902x1202px

>>2913113
I'm of the same opinion senpai. Too much colour and contrast just makes the image look plain fake. The point of editing for me has always been to accentuate a photo just enough to give it a quality that you'd otherwise miss out on. It's a fine balance between keeping that realistic look whilst giving it an 'atmospheric' feeling.

Pic related is an example of what I find to be a good balance. Bottom is edited.

File: 1438147518883.jpg (2KB, 122x125px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 122x125px

>>2913113

>2016
>people still complain about the use of altering a photo with software to make it look more appealing

you fucking dinosaur

>>2914499
how were the colours of the second one achieved? curves?

>>2914561

Looks to me like he bumped up clarity a lot and maybe some dehaze.

Laypeople in any discipline don't appreciate nuance because it is below their threshold for perception. They will also lack any appreciation for artistry because they are consuming a commodity.

>>2913113
yeah but it's still a photo of some fucking rocks lmao

>>2914567
lol no

>>2914573

It's just a guess. Bumping both those filters will tend to bump up contrast, decrease saturation and creates that sort of look. You could also play with alot of other sliders instead but you could probably achieve that look with just those two.

File: Quick LR.jpg (810KB, 902x599px) Image search: [Google]

810KB, 902x599px

Here quick and dirty in LR:

Clarity +60
Saturation -30

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.6.1 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:08:31 03:35:37
Color Space Information	sRGB

File: Quick LR2.jpg (830KB, 902x599px) Image search: [Google]

830KB, 902x599px

And here

Clarity +60
Saturation -30
Dehaze +60

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.6.1 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:08:31 03:39:01
Color Space Information	sRGB

File: 1472635122590.jpg (696KB, 902x595px) Image search: [Google]

696KB, 902x595px

>>2914577
>>2914582
>>2914583
Take a look at your two edits side by side next to his, they are nothing remotely the same.

All he's done is change the WB slightly, reduced exposure, added contrast and reduced saturation.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Ver.1.01
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016-09-01T00:06:51-14:00
Image Width	902
Image Height	595

>>2913113

Ansel adams would slap you for that.

>>2913113
>the camera has more dynamic range than my eyes
wahhhhh

>>2914682

I could beat the living shit out of Ansel Adams dude

>>2914593

It was a quick guess and change in Light Room, I would have been amazed if it turned out exactly the same.

Guess what bumping the Clarity and Dehaze sliders does? It changes the contrast in the midtones while tending to darken the image. The Dehaze slider can remove glare from the image and also tends to increase contrast with an emphasis on the dark.

So with the bump down on the Saturation slider the total effect was: reduced exposure, increased contrast and reduced saturation.

File: 1470501851005.jpg (23KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 300x300px

>>2914982

>>2915013

Yeah that's what I thought, you got nothing say Internet Tough Guy.

we don't all use our cameras as documentarians. we use photography as a medium to express stuff.

>>2915143
>Internet Tough Guy
lmao what

>you got nothing say
Okay, sorry that you were wrong and felt the need to upload two edits with a result completely different to OP's, proving how little you know about PP while refusing to admit your lack of knowledge by claiming "it was just a guess bro".

Then after being proved wrong, coming back with this >>2914982 sperg of a response trying to tell someone that clearly knows better than you, what certain sliders in lightroom do kek.

>So with the bump down on the Saturation slider the total effect was: reduced exposure, increased contrast and reduced saturation.
Oh you mean like what you did here >>2914583? You know, the edit that is miles apart from OP's? Thanks once again for clearing up the fact that you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about.

File: LR Comp.png (2MB, 1565x596px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1565x596px

>>2915163

Yeah, sure "miles apart". Unless you're comparing 2914499's unedited image to mine I have no idea what you are on about.

>>2915207

Well I dun goofed, I used wrong image as a reference so yeah the exposure is way off.

>>2913113
>why do bands manipulate their sound with recording equipment to the point of being fake?
>cell phone quality audio from a live show is more truthful to the song.

>>2913113
Because you're not a reality catcher but an artist. Whether you put a lot of work into the way you arrange things in front of your camera, the tools used to take the picture or into changing what comes out of your camera is up to you.

That being said OP look awful on the right according to my personal aesthetic sentiments.

>>2913113
Artistic expression

>>2913341
get with the times grandpa

>>2913867
>talks about being creative
>posts that pic