Judge my pic. Potato quality phone camera, potato editing skills.

>>2960909
rockwell/5

>>2960909
Too much sharpening but pretty nice colours and chill pic.

File: 20160910_105452-picsay48374.jpg (2MB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2048x1536px

Original for comparison.

I'll be sending you my medical bills soon OP. They say the damage to my eyes is irreversible

>>2960909
what phone. i think my nexus 5 takes great pics even tho it got meh reviews

>>2960909
>1.87 MB
>1.52 MB

resize and files under 1mb, little fagget.

>>2960926
Galaxy s7

>>2960930
Sorry, potato skills.

File: Slightly more subdued.jpg (575KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

575KB, 1000x750px

There's way too much sharpening and it's fairly uncomfortable to look at.

I'd go for less of everything, and I'm more a fan of the uncropped. This isn't the only way to do a photo, don't think I'm trying to tell you to make it look exactly like this, just trying to convey that slamming the saturation into overdrive isn't always the best move.

Shame about the blown out sky, I really do like the photo.

>>2960935
not op here. whats wrong with a blown out sky

>>2960938
It's solid white, no color or texture, and you can't get it back in post so it'll just be a sheet of grey if you try to lower it.

>>2960935
Thanks for the input, it was a pretty overcast day. It had rained all night. My feet were soaking wet, and I had just hiked 8 miles with another 6 to go that day. This small clearing was a really unique spot, and just grabbed a pic. I hope you get back there this winter, and take some more pics with my camera, and not phone.

>>2960958
also I come from /out/ so im not exactly a photographer

>>2960940
whats wrong with solid white? is there not enough shit going on throughout the photo that you need something there too?
>>2960504
white sky isnt inherently bad

>>2961012
It looks worse than having an actual texture or color taken from the scene.

It's nice to actually have a sky rather than solid glowing white.

File: gimpyken.jpg (348KB, 772x730px) Image search: [Google]

348KB, 772x730px

>>2960909

File: fakefactory.jpg (1MB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2048x1536px

>>2960909
Here you go OP, post this on your facebook saying you made it and pound some hipster Syracuse puss. (You were aware every photo you take has a GPS location embedded, yes?)

If you're looking for real critique on your editing methods, it's already been stated here (too much sharpening to the point where your photo actually looks grainy, blown out sky, too much green saturation when you should increase green, blue and yellow saturation just a tiny bit instead of green a whole lot, aggressive shadows for what should be a peaceful setting)

You're on your way though, it's competently framed and you have a clear focal point, just keep practicing.

>>2961222

I really do appreciate the advice, but the picture was taken a long ways away from Syracuse. It was taken in Central Pennsylvania along the Loyalsock Trail. About 150 miles away from Syracuse.

I guess I could still try next time I visit Syracuse right? My wife would probably not agree.

>>2961012
>whats wrong with solid white? is there not enough shit going on throughout the photo that you need something there too?
kill yourself holy shit

>>2961012
Well not him but our eyes tend to be drawn to areas of busting white or dead black right away, and highlights tend to advance on our eyes first. In other words, it's distracting.

If you're shooting digital it's usually better to underexpose the shot to preserve highlights and sky detail, then bring up shadow details in post. On film the opposite is usually true. Multi-shot HDR can work but only if the subject is pretty still.

>>2961887
Why don't you kill my dick faggot

>>2961895
Go blow your highlights.

>>2961871
Any reason why GPS tag would be off by several hundred miles?