Lightroom before/after thread

>>2938471
It's garbage

>>2938471
Somehow you managed to lower the contrast while pushing saturation way too fucking high. It's a shit shot anyways, no amount of editing would save it. No composition, just a snapshit of your kids.

Which, while we're talking about it
>posting your kids on a Turkish Hookah Forum
why

>>2938476
not OP. I can agree with the lack of composition, buuut this photo is not exactly "posting your kids"

File: Screen Shot 2016-10-02 at 8.41.51 PM copy.jpg (1MB, 2762x786px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2762x786px

Ill bite.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015.5 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	144 dpi
Vertical Resolution	144 dpi
Image Created	2016:10:02 20:42:46
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	2762
Image Height	786

>>2938471
ugly kids

ugly blotched sun that shouldn't be in frame

green is fake and over-saturated, people know what leaves look like so don't lie on a reference color

shadows, the only even slight drama in the snapshit, were removed

tree trunks that weren't green were made green by your bad editing. The real way to make green pop is to only emphasize green in green areas and have the opposite areas either neutral or heavy in complimentary colors (orange-ish red)

that vertical crop serves to say "here's a bad snapshit of my children that I don't love enough to actually give any resolution, they're fucking insignificant, I'd rather see a blown out sun blob that hurts my eyes than those kids"

File: Unbenannt.jpg (195KB, 2505x846px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 2505x846px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Photographer	Sebastian
Image-Specific Properties:

>>2938664

total nope.

>>2938566
>that black point
why

>>2938666
Satanic Trips

>>2938717

>left
Sony

>right
Fujifilm

>>2938664
I like the field, but the blue i the sky doesn't really fit (fake & gay etc) given how overcast it is; try toning down the saturation a bit or sliding it more towards the gray end?

>>2938670
>why
>not

>>2938471
>4. Hit PrintScreen and paste into paint or use windows snipping tool (or Mac/Linux equivalent)
Did adobe release a linux client while I wasn't paying attention? I thought it was mac/win only.

File: angstyteen.jpg (116KB, 1371x449px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 1371x449px

Teach me.

>>2938813
Because it looks like diarrhea.

>>2939152
You look like diarrhea.

That's odd you say that Mr. Official /p/ro, since I've sold multiple prints of portraiture that has that style of color grading.

>>2938815
They didn't, but Wine is a real alternative. So far I only miss the clipboard on Photoshop CS2. Lightroom and Photoshop CC 2014/15 are reported to run with minor flaws too.

>>2938566
>>2938566
that a samurai half frame camera trip frienfd ?

why let that repulsive slut get black man jungle juice in it ?

File: Untitled.jpg (342KB, 1542x743px) Image search: [Google]

342KB, 1542x743px

>>2938471

>inb4 someone gets butthurt

>>2939158
to people who dont know anything about photography (your mom)

>>2938566
>dat one shadow under her jewess nose

File: before&after.jpg (1MB, 1869x650px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1869x650px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:10:03 16:03:35
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1869
Image Height	650

File: Eatshit.jpg (93KB, 1170x615px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 1170x615px

I have never used Lightroom before, and I had no idea what I was doing, so tell me to eat shit and die and where I went wrong.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Paint.NET v3.5.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	96 dpi
Vertical Resolution	96 dpi

>>2939254
kek

>>2939246
Aww, don't stay too angry.

>>2939251
>talk shit because no gf and insecure

>>2939228
No it's a full frame, shitlord.

>why let that repulsive slut get black man jungle juice in it ?
The fuck does this even mean? >>>/pol/

>>2939307
Dude how do you fuck up that badly?

>>2939336
Where did I fuck up? Teach me.

>>2939348
u didnt hes just angry. maybe a bit too much detail but not bad lad

>>2939327
>talk shit because no gf and insecure

im not insecurce & have a g.f

Q.E.D

>>>>/b/

>>2939348
I thought you were kidding about never using it before, so I wanted to join in the joke. Sorry, it looks good.

>>2939254
at least post the real SOOC shot you shitter

>>2939307

ease the clarity/contrast, dude.

>>2939408
Ah cool.
>>2939441
Cool, well I'm not offended or anything - I seriously haven't touched LR ever. It's my first year with a digital camera after moving from film for years.

>>2939449
Cheers, yeah it does stab you in the eyes a bit. I didn't use clarity, I just abused the shit out of the "dehaze" function, then up the exposure a bit.

File: b4.jpg (472KB, 728x970px) Image search: [Google]

472KB, 728x970px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D800
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.4
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	15 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	7308
Image Height	4872
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:10:04 04:07:22
Exposure Time	1/25 sec
F-Number	f/16.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/16.0
Exposure Bias	-2 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Cloudy Weather
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	15.00 mm
Comment	kallis kamera ja niin huonoja kuvia
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	728
Image Height	970
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Soft
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: b4-2.jpg (332KB, 709x960px) Image search: [Google]

332KB, 709x960px

i like the original too, but couldn't resist dat sexy orange-blue contrast

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D800
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Photographer	janne
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.4
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	807
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	15 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	7370
Image Height	4916
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:10:04 04:13:10
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Fine Weather
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	15.00 mm
Comment	Kuva on huono vain ironisesti
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	709
Image Height	960
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Soft
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2938471
>>2938566
>>2939218
>>2939262
>>2939593
You made it worse.

>>2938751
Truu

>>2939742
no u

File: lightroom.jpg (365KB, 1897x703px) Image search: [Google]

365KB, 1897x703px

I'm not proud of this photo or anything , but I was amazed at how much difference an exposure change and a little vibrancy could make

File: Untitled.jpg (251KB, 1474x896px) Image search: [Google]

251KB, 1474x896px

>>2940267
nice
>>2939583
i like the bottom one
>>2939254
isi, what would you say about xpro2 or xt2? or omd1m2? also what xmount lens to get? i think id get the 16-55 or the 32? is it
>>2939189
noice
>>2938717
mmm

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

>>2939254
>being this bad

File: f6c0811a940eec43fe310610e77bd6aa.png (483KB, 1268x551px) Image search: [Google]

483KB, 1268x551px

>>2940306

>>2940330
>those unnaturally crushed foreground shadows
learn to look for the light instead of the "what can I do in post"

The clouds in the background directly conflict with the lighting your contrast implies, and not in a good way.

>>2939254
kek, well played, that does look very good
but what did the neutral profile settings look like?

>>2939413
Awe that's cute.

>I-its straight if my girlfriend has a p-penis right guys...?

>>2938483
>4chan pass user

GTFO HAHAHAHA

>>2940345
Woah that's the first one I've ever seen

>>2939262
nice

File: biek.jpg (641KB, 1567x556px) Image search: [Google]

641KB, 1567x556px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	paint.net 4.0.5
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	96 dpi
Vertical Resolution	96 dpi

>>2939742

:(

>>2940421

:)

>>2940267
Process?

>>2940442
I can't tell which one has worse colors.
>do you like vomit A or vomit B?

>>2941182
process what? it was just exposure and vibrancy, maybe clarity

>>2941620
Because the sky remains washed if I do exposure and vibrancy in photoshop, so was wondering if you masked too or something.

File: zzzz.jpg (329KB, 1482x781px) Image search: [Google]

329KB, 1482x781px

>>2941961
whoops, just checked it again and it was reducing highlights, then upping saturation that did it.

I was thinking of something else, which I'll post in a sec

File: zzzz.jpg (331KB, 1466x778px) Image search: [Google]

331KB, 1466x778px

>>2942405
>>2941961
This one is reducing exposure and fixed the sky, just checked and 99% of the change is done with the exposure. So I dunno

I never mask because I end up with glitchy artifacts around all the edges, haven't really learned how to mask without errors yet

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

File: Cat.jpg (638KB, 1920x794px) Image search: [Google]

638KB, 1920x794px

cat

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:10:08 16:42:19
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1920
Image Height	794

>>2942698
I like the unedited a little more

t.newfig

File: Untitled.png (1MB, 1588x748px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1588x748px

mmhm

File: Untitled-2.jpg (510KB, 1000x1519px) Image search: [Google]

510KB, 1000x1519px

ITT: slider rape

Have some creative thought and input behind your image, instead of using contrast as a crutch.

>>2942405
Okay cool, thanks man for clarifying!

>>2942958
>he thinks his photo of his moms basement is creative
Your mom would rather you clean it than shitpost.

File: DSC05750-2.jpg (3MB, 6000x4000px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 6000x4000px

>>2942958
if you knew what was good for yah, you'd go see shy fx and roni size

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-6000
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	28 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:08:14 00:02:57
Exposure Time	1/4000 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	1250
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Brightness	5.1 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	19.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>2942958

Nice b8

>>2943680
>>2943681

resize u cunt.

File: Capture.jpg (49KB, 1377x418px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 1377x418px

>>2938471

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Photographer	Oliver Gaspar
Image-Specific Properties:

File: Capture1.jpg (132KB, 1400x609px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 1400x609px

>>2943701
2/4 from a recent edit of some pics from italy, greece and portugal

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Photographer	Oliver Gaspar
Image-Specific Properties:

>>2943701
raised black point looks stupid.

>>2943703
correct vignetting. ease on the clarity.

File: Capture2.jpg (123KB, 1403x542px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 1403x542px

>>2943701
3/4

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Photographer	Oliver Gaspar
Image-Specific Properties:

File: 3.jpg (131KB, 1389x464px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 1389x464px

>>2943711
4/4

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Photographer	Oliver Gaspar
Image-Specific Properties:

>>2943711
oops, just realised the horizon is crooked my god how did i miss that

>>2943703
>>2943711
>>2943712
Hey mate you seem to be confused, the After is supposed to look better than the Before

File: Before-after.jpg (374KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

374KB, 1920x1200px

after lightroom, before photoshop

>>2943701
>>2943703
>>2943711
>>2943712
Good work Ken.

File: goaway.png (1MB, 1832x618px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1832x618px

>>2938471

>>2942409
>fixed

File: Untitled.jpg (540KB, 2540x1059px) Image search: [Google]

540KB, 2540x1059px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>2944161
comfy

File: Skärmklipp.jpg (200KB, 1208x915px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 1208x915px

>>2944039
Thanks buddy

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Photographer	user
Image-Specific Properties:

File: Untitled.jpg (155KB, 1098x749px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 1098x749px

iso 250, 100mm, f/10. 1/30. D800.

My god are these ever terrible, just start shooting in jpeg you hopeless shitters. I only see about two in this thread that I can really consider "good."

File: 2.jpg (334KB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

334KB, 2560x1440px

>all these people who don't get it right in camera

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015.5 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:10:10 22:14:46
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	2560
Image Height	1440

File: 1.jpg (520KB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

520KB, 2560x1440px

>>2944430
The before photo is after stitching, obviously.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015.5 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:10:10 22:14:34
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	2560
Image Height	1440

>>2944424

Which ones do you consider good?

Do you mean the edits or photos in general too?

>>2944430
>>2944431
BTFO

File: original.jpg (72KB, 378x363px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 378x363px

>>2939583

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS3 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2011:02:21 22:47:20
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	378
Image Height	363

>>2939583
This is good. You should revisit this location under different lighting/weather conditions to see what else you can come up with.

>>2944038
so you're saying that before is if you used photoshop and after is lightroom?

you're more showing your lack of experience in photoshop than the merits of lightroom

>>2944500
No, I am saying that I'm using lightroom for basic corrections before proceeding to final edit in photoshop

>>2940330
clean that pube off your sensor

I didn't want to make a new thread for what is basically just a glorified google-type request so I'll just put this here.

Split toning can I get the names of a couple of artists who utilize it really well? I want to learn.

I always feel like I'm overdoing it, no matter how much I ease off the throttle.

>>2944811
Seriously, just forget split toning even exists. Leave it in the past of the year 2008.

>>2944813
I am tempted to do this.

>>2938717
You went a little too far.

>>2938817
Pretty good actually.

>>2939593
You overdid it. I'm not sure adding any blue will be good, but definitely try *less*.

>>2940760
A little too much vibrancy/way too much vingette

>>2940995
Nailed it buddy.

>>2942409
Blegh. No.

>>2942698
Split the difference between them and it'll be better.

>>2943680
The blue lighting at the middle-left is a little too much.

>>2943053
Rush album cover /10

>>2943053
>iso 1250
>1/4000
wtf mate

>>2939307
hey dont listen to those shitters, you made it way better, It's a very cool photo now

>>2945045
typical aperture priority user

File: 000364.png (2MB, 930x802px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 930x802px

For web tho, not for print
Come at me

File: spoopceptance.jpg (51KB, 480x410px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 480x410px

>>2945045
>>2945296
>be freshman at uni
>taking art requirement for major
>choose a photography class
>Professor: "Okay class, for this next assignment I want you to shoot in A mode only"
>Tortures us with S mode the week after

>>2945299
You made it worse. Highlights look blow out as fuck. Her skin looks unnatural.

>>2945014

is that an insult? I dig most of their cover artwork

>>2945391
>insult
Lel no. Jesus fuck though that shutterspeed and ISO is cranked way too high don't you think?

>>2944424
spotted the entry level DSLR boy :^)

>>2944424
>just start shooting in jpeg
what kind of sick fuck are you?

>>2945451

are you Ken Rockwell, bro?

>>2945453
>when you have no rebuttal so you reply with dank memes

yes I am ken rockwell

File: hg.png (717KB, 645x747px) Image search: [Google]

717KB, 645x747px

I felt like the child wasn't immediately noticed as the subject in the color version. Did I dun gud?

>>2944430
>>2944431
I liked them better before.

>>2944241
Is this dude stuffed? Whether or not he is the picture looks fake and lifeless.

File: Screen Shot 2016-10-12 at 4.51.50 PM.png (1MB, 1214x593px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1214x593px

>>2945331

another

>>2945331
This is BY FAR the worst in the thread, holy fuck you're terrible. The before is actually quite nice with the soft blue light, but instead you chose to slaughter it with cranked up contrast and saturation.

File: 2016-10-12 22_53_38-Lightroom.jpg (67KB, 1399x792px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 1399x792px

should I end it all or nah?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Greenshot
Image-Specific Properties:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCD-lnt3b4zO8lljJAFhXbYQ

File: Screen Shot 2016-10-12 at 8.30.42 PM.png (3MB, 1406x1002px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1406x1002px

>>2938471

Sure why not

1/3

File: Screen Shot 2016-10-12 at 8.34.00 PM.png (2MB, 1408x942px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1408x942px

>>2945618

2/3

File: Screen+Shot+2016-10-12+at+8.31.32+PM.png (2MB, 1408x940px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1408x940px

>>2945619

3/3

>>2945618

I think I overdid the blues on this one.

>>2945619

I'm at a loss on doing this one. I spent like 7 minutes on it.

>>2945620

I think I nailed this one though.

File: Screen Shot 2016-10-12 at 8.41.08 PM.png (3MB, 1426x1024px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1426x1024px

>>2945620

Bonus. 4/3

>>2945621
Overdid the blue by a long shot. Imo probably oversaturated in general, though I appreciate how you brought out the yellows, oranges, and reds pretty effectively.

I think your second photo may not actually be savable. Out of focus and the subject is kind of blown out.

Pretty good portrait. Feels a bit "stock". Maybe consider toning down the highlights though, his chin seems way, way too bright compared to the rest of his face.

>>2945624

>Overdid the blue by a long shot. Imo probably oversaturated in general, though I appreciate how you brought out the yellows, oranges, and reds pretty effectively.

Yeah I've noticed that after leaving it sit for a day or two. I've been so busy preparing to move countries that I've had zero time to shoot lately so I'm stressing out and grasping at anything I can shoot in the 15 minutes a day I get. The quality of my recent content has been garbage because of it. I'm going INSANE not being able to shoot.

>Pretty good portrait. Feels a bit "stock". Maybe consider toning down the highlights though, his chin seems way, way too bright compared to the rest of his face.

Thanksgiving family stuff. That was a quick snapshot during the 20 person family chaos of the day, not a studio setting. It's a miracle that it came out that good at all.

File: Screen Shot 2016-10-14 at 21.22.36.png (1MB, 1867x528px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1867x528px

I'll post a few.
Everything is shot with an XT1 OR x100s.

File: Screen Shot 2016-10-14 at 21.24.55.png (1MB, 1858x620px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1858x620px

>>2946513

File: Capture.png (2MB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1200px

Great idea for a thread.

File: b_a.jpg (198KB, 1996x967px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 1996x967px

Hmm. Interesting. I like this thread.

File: Untitled.png (2MB, 750x1000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 750x1000px

XE2 with a canon 300mm f/5.6fd

>>2946962
>>2946572
>>2946516
>>2946513
>>2945622
>>2945620
>>2945619
>>2945618
>>2945523
>>2945478
>>2945331
>>2945299
>>2944161
>>2943681
>>2943680
>>2943112
>>2942954
>>2941972
>>2940995
>>2940442
>>2940330
>>2939262
>>2938717
>>2938471
>.png

>>2946513
>>2946516
>>2946572
>>2946583

These are all great

I'm rarely happy enough with a shot to leave it alone, or be able to show it to people without any post. Is that normal?

File: BendingBig.jpg (243KB, 1662x749px) Image search: [Google]

243KB, 1662x749px

Biting because I'm new to photography and don't know how to critique my own shit. Also I'm bad at post.

File: Screenshot (17).png (2MB, 1539x905px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1539x905px

Did a little bit in Photoshop to average multiple pictures to reduce noise, hence why the clouds look more blurry on the right. I know /p/ really doesn't like vibrant landscapes, but this image sells really well.

File: Untitled-1.jpg (139KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 1920x1080px

LONDON
O
N
D
O
N

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:10:16 00:19:21
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1920
Image Height	1080

>>2947030

this is neat!!! how did you do? it's a nice milkway shot!

File: IMG_7950-Edit.jpg (715KB, 1777x1000px) Image search: [Google]

715KB, 1777x1000px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 70D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.0 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:10:16 00:35:44
Exposure Time	1/20 sec
F-Number	f/3.5
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	70.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2947047
Basic adjustments to white balance using adjustment brushes to get it looking a little less brown. I added a lot of clarity and whites to the milky way, then used the tone curve to add some more contrast. I applied those edits to 12 images captured back to back, and brought them into Photoshop. Then I aligned them all manually, converted the layers to a smart object, and set the stack mode to median. That removed a whole lot of noise. It's so clean that I was able to print this at 16inx24in,

>>2947048
you purged too much detail

>>2947048
Loda?

File: before after.png (967KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

967KB, 1920x1080px

>>2938471
0 experience here judge away

File: Screen Shot 2016-10-16 at 1.45.30 AM copy.jpg (161KB, 1734x884px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 1734x884px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	144 dpi
Vertical Resolution	144 dpi
Image Width	1734
Image Height	884

>>2947026
Good god, no. The only reason I'd show someone a raw image out of the camera is to get advice from someone who knew their shit.

>>2947207
This is awesome. What were your steps in post processing?

File: Sidebyside.jpg (850KB, 1995x791px) Image search: [Google]

850KB, 1995x791px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015.5 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:10:16 20:13:14
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1995
Image Height	791

>>2947059
that kind of comes with high-key pp, no?

>>2947092
sweden at least

>>2947030
Just a little too overdone imo, but I like it

>>2946994
snipping tool m8

>>2947026
Totally normal. My raws are a stop under almost all the time on my Fuji my sky is going to be iso 200 and my shadows will be iso 400-800 so not the best thing to show a pleb without post.

>>2945331
we told you in the other thread. you suck big time. stop fucking up your shots on post-processing

>>2940330
Nice. I usually dislike bw, but that works.

>>2940442
Where was it taken?

File: Screen Shot 2016-10-16 at 15.25.42.png (982KB, 1453x545px) Image search: [Google]

982KB, 1453x545px

>>2946516
Few more from me.

File: Screen Shot 2016-10-16 at 15.26.51.png (839KB, 1319x378px) Image search: [Google]

839KB, 1319x378px

>>2947463

File: Screen Shot 2016-10-16 at 15.27.58.png (2MB, 1860x623px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1860x623px

>>2947464

File: Screen Shot 2016-10-16 at 15.32.28.png (1MB, 1979x662px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1979x662px

>>2947468

File: Screen Shot 2016-10-16 at 15.33.36.png (1MB, 1854x527px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1854x527px

>>2947471

File: Screen Shot 2016-10-16 at 15.36.53.png (1MB, 1861x535px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1861x535px

>>2947474

File: Screen Shot 2016-10-16 at 15.39.01.png (2MB, 1856x612px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1856x612px

>>2947475

File: Screen Shot 2016-10-16 at 15.39.47.png (3MB, 1690x1118px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1690x1118px

>>2947478

>>2947463
you ruined the sky even further
>>2947464
here you just went too far
>>2947468
this one is nicely processed
>>2947471
you went too far again
>>2947474
ya done fuck up. original looks much nicer
>>2947475
kek
>>2947478
don't like that b&w so I'm a bit biased. I would say it's correct tho

File: Screen Shot 2016-10-16 at 15.44.00.png (1MB, 1851x614px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1851x614px

>>2947479
>>2947480
When you say "too far" I totally get what you mean, and amount other photogs that might be the case. But I'm creating work that viewed by people who are not photogs themselves. If you show them the image, I would guess 90% would say they like the "too far" image more. But again, I agree that it's a shame you have to do so much post nowadays to get work.

File: Untitled.jpg (198KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 1366x768px

Just made my friend for 6 years my gf, feels good man

>>2947570
Took him 6 years to get some second hand pussy. Next you're going to tell me she has a kid.

>>2940302
garbage in, garbage out

File: before-after-19.jpg (766KB, 1366x912px) Image search: [Google]

766KB, 1366x912px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:10:17 00:04:18
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1366
Image Height	912

File: before-after-20.jpg (608KB, 764x856px) Image search: [Google]

608KB, 764x856px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:10:17 00:05:48
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	764
Image Height	856

>>2947640
>>2947642
Lain i've always thought you were a god at editing

is the look mostly just split toning and pushing the far end of the highlights curve way up?

File: before-after-16.jpg (423KB, 1175x655px) Image search: [Google]

423KB, 1175x655px

>>2947649
it's about 30 Photoshop layers and 5 years of editing experience.

Most of my pics are just my one click presets with some slight adjustments in Photoshop if needed. I mainly set the main color mood with the RGB colorcurves and than work around that. I rarely do split toning. Mostly when I fuck up and I'm to lazy to fix it otherwise.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2014:06:08 13:43:56
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1175
Image Height	655

>>2947640
>>2947642

do you mind sharing your workflow? these are great.

>>2947642
I think this shot is at least 1 stop underexposed

File: Screen Shot 2016-10-16 at 6.08.25 PM.png (758KB, 1446x768px) Image search: [Google]

758KB, 1446x768px

I generally keep everything pretty simple for lack of talent.

>>2947654
>>2947642
great job,
ruining everything you touch.

>>2947654
>5 years of editing experience.
>still produces shit
That's just sad

>>2947705
r u vsco

>>2939307
I actually like it

>>2947790

Nope, just my own blend of split toning and spot masks.

>>2947863
Nice green skin tones

File: ag.jpg (3MB, 3840x1280px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3840x1280px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1920
Image Height	1280
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:10:17 12:32:20
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3840
Image Height	1280

File: 249rj.jpg (72KB, 910x846px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 910x846px

>>2947890
fuck off.

>>2947863
You missed focus on that one

>>2948015
I get what you're saying, but there's a perceptual component, too. Just because they're accurate by the number doesn't mean they look good next to the other stuff in the shot. Maybe not green, but the face definitely seems off to me.

>>2938473
First comment, best comment.

>>2948052
calibrate your monitor

File: beforeafter.jpg (197KB, 1366x595px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 1366x595px

super moon, I fixed the moon but I'm too busy too do this 'lights out" again...

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:10:17 16:11:12
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1366
Image Height	595

>>2943112
this probably would've worked better as a vertical composition, the negative space isn't really doing anything for me

>>2948084
not even that guy but she looks green as shit

>>2947863
what you tried to do? It's look like she's dead...

>>2947863
Nice orc

>>2948084
My monitor is calibrated.

>>2939232
Left: just any day
Right: segregation in the south

>>2947863
I guess you were going for the sickness look. I mean, you succeeded in that.
>>2939232
how 2 exposure

>>2948418
toooooooooooo much clarity

>>2947479
>>2947640
>>2947048
>>2945620
>>2947207

Dope

>>2939232
Lol this works really when in B&W

File: Butts.jpg (245KB, 1172x767px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 1172x767px

C&C Me

File: Screen Shot 2016-10-19 at 2.36.38 PM.png (1MB, 1000x656px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1000x656px

I just posted this in recent photo, so apologies if I'm doubling up for some of you.
Looking at it now, I think I've gone too far with warmth...

>>2938566

THESE ARE THE TRIPFAGS WE LIVE WITH TODAY

>>2939327

HAHAHAHA DID YOU FORGET SOMETHING

MAYBE YOU "TRIPPED" OVER IT

>>2943712
>>2943711
I want to support your growing family

>>2945331
how do you ruin something so beautiful
pls post RAW of before

>>2945618
went overboard with contrast, only a small amount of saturation was needed if any. before is comfy tier

>>2946513
bridge is a little cooked but the sky is fucking fantastic. Brought out the lens flare 2 tho : (

>>2946583
desktop tier, post flickr

>>2947654
something about this is "off" but I don't know why, could just be the sun/ swan positioning.

>>2947863
looks like meat's back on the menu boys

File: 1.jpg (1MB, 2074x1499px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2074x1499px

polished turd

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	144 dpi
Vertical Resolution	144 dpi
Image Created	2016:10:20 00:01:26
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2074
Image Height	1499

File: Screen Shot 2016-10-19 at 23.32.34.png (811KB, 1280x800px) Image search: [Google]

811KB, 1280x800px

Just for fun

>>2947267
yeah nice, you didn't over do it but still made it better

>>2947338
very little difference, I prefer it before it was edited. very nice shot nonetheless

>>2947664
nah man I like this a lot

>>2949528
polished well

>>2952765
lol it got worse

File: cc.jpg (203KB, 1240x441px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 1240x441px

crop it
bop it
sat it

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	paint.net 4.0.5
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	37 dpcm
Vertical Resolution	37 dpcm

>>2952894

D:

>>2952342
>[raises shadows 100%]
>yeah, that's finished

File: Screen Shot 2016-10-25 at 13.24.48.png (861KB, 1077x684px) Image search: [Google]

861KB, 1077x684px

ive been practicing face retouching lately

>>2953097
The only retouching this faggots face needs is with a fist

>>2953100
:^)

>>2944295
are those short longs or long shorts?

>>2947267
nice!
Only thing i would say is those trees on the left closest to the camera, try get some yellow out of them if you can

>>2947338
S.S. Bogania

>>2941226
constructive

>>2947481
i love this

>>2947669
how are the taxis ruined?

>>2947890
r u colourblind?

>>2947863
This is awesome

>>2952765
The sky just alienates itself from everything else in the picture man.Pull the saturation way way back.
Bring the colour of the house 90% back to what it was.

>>2953090
not quite but I suppose basically yeah. What should I add?

File: Before and after.png (3MB, 1808x740px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1808x740px

Normally these creatures are easily scared and runs away before you can get a decent shot.

>>2954463
Very cool. Shit looked like an animation character from bugs life at first

File: board.jpg (421KB, 1703x571px) Image search: [Google]

421KB, 1703x571px

Bump.

How did I do? I can never tell if and when I overcook shit, especially when the lighting is dull.

>>2956183
You have overcooked this.

My go to is: however much editing you think you need, you need half or less than that.

>>2949406
https://www.flickr.com/photos/zencaptures

>>2956183
Not necessarily overcooked, but the recipe is bad

>>2956209
Thanks, I'll try to sleep on it another night and see how far I can dial down without feeling I hardly made any difference.

>>2956279
What's wrong with it? Asking honestly.

>>2956183
if you cropped out nap man to center on distant people it could convey feeling distant from other people combined with the depressing palette and enhanced overcast clouds, right now it doesn't seem to mean anything.

i don't think it's particularly overcooked, just looks like magenta-tinted kodachrome to me, maybe a little less clarity slider.

>>2956312
i get that the subject isn't something people come across often, but i'd delete this one in review due to the out of focus plants in the way and the odd blurred quality everything seems to have, but if it absolutely had to be used i would crop in the right into the dog since the left dog's out of frame and it would help center the middle dog more, and then i would go black and white and to focus on the contrast of the light on their forms, rather than trying to bring out all the details from the shadows.

give me a few minutes to start up photoshop and let it do whatever and i'll see if i can create what i'm imagining to better convey my idea and you can riff on it if you like.

>>2956316
sure thing i'd love to see it.

File: rushed-trash.jpg (154KB, 792x528px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 792x528px

>>2956320
it's a good thing we're all anonymous, especially me after having this big idea and just wow

really flubbing that whole deal

File: Screen Shot 2016-10-30 at 9.41.50 PM.png (2MB, 1602x1026px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1602x1026px

Let me know what you guys think!