Can post-processing fix this?

>>2917733
You've identified one of the biggest differences in the pictures...how about instead of asking, you load them up in an image editing program and see if you can make them look the same?

You'll get an answer to your question, maybe even find some more important questions (e.g. just how important is white balance), and you'll get some practice in basic post processing that'll help deepen your understanding of the processes.

you're trying too hard

The bottom one was obviously taken at golden hour. You can see the rich golden light on the left side of the building. Just enjoy it. There's nothing wrong with either picture.

>>2917751
Are you retarded? From the shadows on the building it is clear that both are shot at nearly the same time.

>>2917733
>Can the 950xl picture be made to look like the 1020?
Yes, I think adding more blue, and removing more yellow will give you somewhat what you need.

>>2917755
One can be shot at golden hour and the other not even if the shadows are almost identical. As soon as the clock ticks over to golden hour BAM beautiful lighting. It's like a literal light switch.

>>2917733
1020 WB seems overly cool for me. 950 looks more balanced.

>>2917733
post original picture pls

File: dl24.png (184KB, 532x444px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 532x444px

>>2918494
Not sure what you mean

On another note, I'm going to derail my thread a bit, but what is the image quality divide between high end phone cameras and compact cameras? Even mirrorless cameras? Obviously the larger sensors in the purpose-built cameras will perform better at night, but in good lighting, it seems to be that phones are producing quality that is identical to high end compact or mirrorless cameras. Can anyone comment on this from experience? Am I just a dummy?

>>2920267
A point and shoot at wide angle would theoretically have the same image quality as a camera phone. However the point and shoot will have optical zoom which degrades image quality way less than digital zoom. And the more you zoom, the bigger the difference. And you'll have a way better experience photographing because you'll have manual and/or semi-manual controls, (maybe) raw shooting, and way better ergonomics. You might have other things like real image stabilization, a hot shoe, and fast burst rates depending on the model. Almost all can use a lens hood to fight flare.

Smart phones have one other weakness: The lens they put on them never stays clean. New in box, the image quality might be identical, but after the phone lens has been rubbing in your pocket for a year or two the lens (or the glass cover over it) is going to be damaged and worn, causing your pictures to be foggy, full of flare or just generally soft.

Any mirrorless camera (Sans Pentax Q and Nikon 1) can and will crush any point and shoot or smart phone in image quality. Maybe not out of the box, because they will have a higher learning curve, but in the hands of a photographer there will be no competition to speak of.

>>2920279
I'll give you the point about the garbage quality of digital zoom, but high end phones have manual camera controls as well as RAW support

>>2920293
Raw support on phones is mostly just a paper feature. On most phones the implementation is unusable, not just poor. And even when you can use it, the quality is hardly better than JPEG because they have so many corrections built in. Manual controls may exist for phones, but I have never seen a phone where using them didn't mean menu diving on a touchscreen vs simple mechanical dials which even point and shoots usually have at least one of

>>2920313
Windows Phone camera is basically just a set of onscreen concentric rings as dials. Very easy to use and I use the manual controls all the time. Especially useful for shooting video as I can manual focus and avoid terrible hunting all the time.

don't be a perfectionist

>>2920348
>Overlaying the image you're currently trying to compose with on screen graphics and your fingers