Do you guys mess up with the any kind of adjustments of your

>>2971703
Most people post-process their images

My camera's dumb as shit I ain't posting some SOOC garbage what sort of an idiot does that?

Of course I'm also dumb as shit and will fuck up handling my PP and I'll come up with 5 better variants long after I've already posted. Whoops!

Yeah I mess up with all sorts of adjustments.

>>2971703
>Do you guys mess up with the any kind of adjustments of your pictures or prefer to keep it exactly how it was chosen by some unknown camera software developer?

File: B0167191-y720px.jpg (73KB, 480x720px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 480x720px

I process several hundred at a sitting, so prefer to avoid needing to mess with them individually. It's also an aesthetic preference - I've seen too many photos that have over the top saturation and contrast added, and some people will try to polish every single turd.
That said, some days I find myself wiggling the exposure on almost all of my shots. That comes with needing to shoot in even the worst light thought.
If you edit, shoot in raw.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.
Camera Model	PENTAX K-3
Camera Software	darktable 1.4
Photographer	Andrew Wade Eglington oh-hi.info
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	255 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2016:10:29 20:59:01
Exposure Time	1/500 sec
F-Number	f/6.3
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	800
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	170.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	480
Image Height	720
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Hard
Saturation	Low
Sharpness	Hard
Subject Distance Range	Distant View

Contrast only

I shoot jpegs with raw for archive (and should I decide to reprocess the raw into a jpeg in camera again in the future)

>>Do you guys mess up with the any kind of adjustments of your pictures or prefer to keep it exactly how it was chosen by some unknown camera software developer?
Unknown? You mean Fujifilm? Yeah, I think Fujifilm is better at color than most of you are.

>>2971719
>Unknown? You mean Fujifilm?

No, I mean some random person of Fujifilm.

>>2971721
>he thinks a lone individual is behind Fujifilm's color theorization
Even if they were, aren't *you* a lone, random person? Are you more experienced than this guy whose job it is to assemble pleasing color palettes?

Maybe it's an elevated opinion of yourself owing to an era of photography in which technical braggadocio is valued over artistic applicability.

I'm sure your colors are lovely, anyway.

>>2971725
>Are you more experienced than this guy whose job it is to assemble pleasing color palettes?

"Assembling colour palettes" (whatever it means i cannot even ) requires much more than experience. It requires context, every region of earth has it cultural context and preferred imaging style.

>Maybe it's an elevated opinion of yourself owing to an era of photography in which technical braggadocio is valued over artistic applicability.

May I instead be owing photos and camera to myself? Will you accept this undobtfully generous move?

How long has it been since you refrained to documentary?

>I'm sure your colors are lovely, anyway.

Thanks.

>>2971736
>"Assembling colour palettes" (whatever it means i cannot even )
Are you actually unironically retarded, or do you shoot Canon and not understand what a properly supported jpeg camera even entails?

>>2971736
>May I instead be owing photos and camera to myself? Will you accept this undobtfully generous move?
I'll never understand retards like you that choose to argue in languages you're not even fluent in.
Elevated opinions...that's one way to put it.

>>2971741
would you prefer if they argued in spanish

>>2971740
>properly supported jpeg camera

what is that faggot

> or do you shoot Canon

I am using Panasonic, Fujifilm, Pentax for 8 years. I did not use film I must confess.


>>2971741
>I'll never understand retards like you that choose to argue in languages you're not even fluent in.

Feel free to correct my grammar. Excuse me for trying to speak english, local anynymous photo boards are garbage.

>Elevated opinions...that's one way to put it.

Please rephrase it, I am confused. What is "elevated opinion"?

>>2971750
>what is that faggot
Jpeg modes that have more variable to choose from than "VIVID SATURATION" and "MONO" maybe

>Feel free to correct my grammar. Excuse me for trying to speak english,
It's more the fact that you're trying to have an argument while admitting to not understanding half of what the other party has to say.
I am not here to teach you basic English language skills so that you can argue with me about your belief in the superiority of your own post-processing choices in contrast to those of a professional color theorist working for Fujifilm.

>local anynymous photo boards are garbage.
Yeah, well, that's not really my problem.

>>2971708
>>Do you guys mess up with the any kind of adjustments of your pictures or prefer to keep it exactly how it was chosen by some unknown camera software developer?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHvCkRTK4_g
When the "unknown camera software developer" is Fujifilm, it's a lot less ridiculous than you want to make it out to be.

You know, the photographer "picking" the colors of his medium wasn't really a thing until digital, outside of picking entire palettes at once when choosing a film stock (comparable to picking Classic Chrome or Velvia on Fuji today). And the main early strength of it for digital was that early auto white balance was very ineffective, and usually in need of correction in post.

But that was over a decade ago now, and auto white balance is now quite accurate. If your interest in photography is the photography aspect of it itself, and you are proficient in the exposure triangle and capable of competently making decisions in the field about what set of colors best fits your subject, then there is little reason to process every file to every variable yourself. This is only going to keep you tied up indoors on a computer missing more and more photo opportunities.

Remove the posturing of "my own creative vision" and all the other buzzwords raw-and-raw-only fanboys will drop online and all you're really looking at is insecurity over one's own turd polishing.

>>2971772
>oh shit I might actually be wrong about my long held but simplistic and dichotomic belief system about image formats
>N-NO THATS WRONG, THIS IS BAIT, ITS ALL BAIT, IT WAS ALWAYS BAIT

Sad, from a sad family.

Thanks to this thread I bought a Pen F. Now I'll never have to post process again thanks to hardware curves controls. Thanks Fuji!

The day a part of /p/ went full Ken.

>>2971759
>more variable to choose from than "VIVID SATURATION" and "MONO"
Does any of cameras which you suggest have a calibrated/profiled screen and a custom tonal curve? Because, you know, you cannot do whatever you like with just that shit like "recovery", "contrast" and whatever they thought off, especially if it is never the same after you take images out of camera.
And you will need to convince me that a camera will always give ME everything I want, not just a specific thing which I tend to like right now, and that I have literally zero reasons to use RAW.
>your belief in the superiority of your own post-processing choices in contrast to those of a professional color theorist
Badass implication there. I never claimed that it is superior, I claimed that it is different and I said that using pretty basic english. Don't you have a problem with english yourself?
>that's not really my problem.
Now, it is.
>>2971766
>When the "unknown camera software developer" is Fujifilm
Yes, I should totally forget all my other criteria and switch to Fujifilm because of good enough JPEGs.
>But that was over a decade ago now, and auto white balance is now quite accurate.
I (almost) never use white balance. You do not have to argue that.
>then there is little reason to process every file to every variable yourself.
But well there are reasons for picking RAW instead of JPEG, isn't there any?
>This is only going to keep you tied up indoors
25000 photos in 8 years. I cannot really blame myself, can I?
>Remove the posturing of "my own creative vision" and all the other buzzwords raw-and-raw-only fanboys will drop online and all you're really looking at is insecurity over one's own turd polishing
... said a fujifag (?) who does not get that I won't buy Fuji with fine JPEGs.
You are stretching my words too much for me to believe that you are arguing something what I said.
>>2971773
You have hallucinations.

>>2971787
>The day a part of /p/ went full Ken.
And that's where we seal the deal on your incompetence.
Ken is a troll, not a retard. Ken's been around for a long time doing it, and somehow still manages to pull the wool over fools.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/about.htm#lefty
There's no deep ignorance to him, just playing with inexperienced photographers and their cognitive biases.

>Does any of cameras which you suggest have a calibrated/profiled screen and a custom tonal curve?
Yes
>a custom tonal curve
You don't even know what that means anon, but yes, that's what seperated contrast controls in jpegs are. Moving highlights and shadows individually as opposed to equilaterally is essentially Alex Burke's Luminosity Layers built into the camera.
Won't address the rest of your first few sentences as they all call back to your initial ignorance on the topic. Wrong path of reason.

>Badass implication there. I never claimed that it is superior, I claimed that it is different and I said that using pretty basic english. Don't you have a problem with english yourself?
How is it different, then? Oh yeah, the guy doing it for a career is just better at it than you are.

>Yes, I should totally forget all my other criteria and switch to Fujifilm because of good enough JPEGs.
This isn't about convincing a barely literate guy on 4chan to buy Fuji, it's just about showing that he's an idiot so that others don't make the same choices. I'm sure you have a large list of very, very objective reasons you need a full frame DSLR from current year. Everyone does.

>I (almost) never use white balance. You do not have to argue that.
Yes you do, you're just an idiot. You cannot take photos and not "use" white balance. Fucking imbecile.

>>2971787
>But well there are reasons for picking RAW instead of JPEG, isn't there any?
Sure, raw is very valuable for archival purposes or if you want to reprocess to a different film simulation.
Or in your case, if you make a lot of exposure and white balance errors that you need to fix in post. Or maybe you like poor-taste tonemapping and need to go further than the jpegs dynamic range is capable of.
Then again if you're shooting for Reuters you have a very good reason to shoot high quality jpegs; you're not allowed to touch raw.

>25000 photos in 8 years. I cannot really blame myself, can I?
3000 photos a year is not a lot of photos, particularly since you're obviously counting them all and not just your "keepers"

>... said a fujifag (?) who does not get that I won't buy Fuji with fine JPEGs.
I don't care what someone whose photos are likely complete detritus buys on the internet. I'm just having fun contradicting your preconceptions that you learned from internet photography discussion in the early 2000s, and your apparent inability to wrap your mind around technology evolving.

>You are stretching my words too much for me to believe that you are arguing something what I said.
Says the guy that thinks I'm trying to convince him to buy Fuji to shoot Fine Jpegs because I said he was an idiot for describing a FILM company making FILM simulations as "a random guys decisions"

That's all. The language barrier just contributes to your idiocy.

The duck expression predicted the directions of this thread

"I only shoot raw because jpegs suck" is a bigger meme than shooting only jpegs.
At least one can be interpreted as a personal challenge and not just autism.

What a beautiful neck, sir.

>>2971788
>You don't even know what that means anon
Pardon me for occasionally using a secret part of rocket science, I will never try again.
>that's what seperated contrast controls in jpegs are.
Cannot see this in my camera, will you fund me to get same camera with that buzzword included in the menus?

>How is it different, then?
Lets forget that you are funding me to buy a Fujifilm (you are probably not). I have Pentax K-5 II and it's making literal rice out of saturated sharp details, it's making magenta out of red colour, it is putting bands where smooth gradients should be, the tonal picture controls are limited to "contrast", "tonal key adjustment", and some separate shadow and highlight contrast adjusters which make no substantial difference. I also cannot adjust the tonal curve to suppress the noise if "tonal key adjustment" reveals too much of it.
What exactly is the definitive reason to use JPEG in my case?


___________________

Now, this bullshit you badly failed at:

>Oh yeah, the guy doing it for a career is just better at it than you are.
>if I emphasize that my talker is not paid a grand by the economically successive hi-tech company I get extra points

>Won't address the rest of your first few sentences as they all call back to your initial ignorance on the topic. Wrong path of reason.
>if I call ignorance first I am not ignorant

> I'm sure you have a large list of very, very objective reasons you need a full frame DSLR from current year.
>if I imply that my talker wants modern fullframe I get a whole lot of appreciation from oldfriends

This one is gold:
>Yes you do, you're just an idiot. You cannot take photos and not "use" white balance. Fucking imbecile.

I would like to know how setting one WB for all photos is called using WB. Would you also claim that I use integral circuits because this is what camera is made from?

>>2971801
You should stop while you're behind, dude.

>>2971801
>Pardon me for occasionally using a secret part of rocket science, I will never try again.
You are not pardoned. Stick to turns of speech in your native language.

>Cannot see this in my camera, will you fund me to get same camera with that buzzword included in the menus?
No, I will not buy you a Fujifilm camera so you can learn how their jpeg sliders work. You can educate yourself with the internet.

>What exactly is the definitive reason to use JPEG in my case?
I never told you to, retard. I'm defending the concept, after you've made negative remarks on the concept based in your own ignorance, individual technical limitations, and (presumably) your own inability to learn the intended functions of the (admittedly probably poor) jpegs you do have.

Red being rendered as magenta isn't the sign of a bad jpeg necessarily. It might be the sign that the user of the camera is a retard and is using a jpeg mode intended to have an inherent mood to it as a standard.
Like if someone shot Classic Chrome on a Fujifilm and complained their jpegs had a desaturated look. It's a failure to use the device properly and with taste. The most common failings of all in photography, really.

>I would like to know how setting one WB for all photos is called using WB. Would you also claim that I use integral circuits because this is what camera is made from?
Because white balance is an integral part of what makes an image what it is, regardless of if you've moved the slider or not, you absolute retard. Even if every photo you take is black and white, white balance is a factor.

Or do you mean to tell me that you're biased against jpegs, shoot raw, and never correct your white balance off from a single setting? Because I struggle to believe even you could be this retarded.

File: 1460872891930.png (2MB, 2837x3131px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2837x3131px

>>2971719
>>2971788
Your lord and saviour approves this message

File: index.jpg (11KB, 271x186px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 271x186px

imma eat some raw popcorns

Oh wait, there's more.
>>2971792
>Then again if you're shooting for Reuters you have a very good reason to shoot high quality jpegs; you're not allowed to touch raw.
That changes everything. Fuck Reuters, I am staying at Magnum now.
>Or in your case, if you make a lot of exposure and white balance errors that you need to fix in post. Or maybe you like poor-taste tonemapping and need to go further than the jpegs dynamic range is capable of.
Absolutely valid reasons which surely is all what my choice is about, it cannot be anything else, you won.
>3000 photos a year is not a lot of photos, particularly since you're obviously counting them all and not just your "keepers"
They survived several removals already.
3000 of photos is not a lot of photos only for Instagram-level phtographer or for somebody for whom photography is much more than a part-time hobby. Who are you?
>I don't care what someone whose photos are likely complete detritus buys on the internet. I'm just having fun contradicting your preconceptions that you learned from internet photography discussion in the early 2000s, and your apparent inability to wrap your mind around technology evolving.
>says somebody who now does not even have the mechanical focus ring now
Such improvement.

>Says the guy that thinks I'm trying to convince him to buy Fuji to shoot Fine Jpegs because I said he was an idiot for describing a FILM company making FILM simulations as "a random guys decisions"
You (?) are literally first to say "Fuji" in this thread. As I said, you have hallucinations.

cont.

>>2971807
>You are not pardoned. Stick to turns of speech in your native language.
You must have learned about the tonal curve from some secret school.
>No, I will not buy you a Fujifilm camera so you can learn how their jpeg sliders work. You can educate yourself with the internet.
Will that give me Fujifilm camera or just an abstract knowledge?
>I never told you to, retard. I'm defending the concept, after you've made negative remarks on the concept based in your own ignorance, individual technical limitations, and (presumably) your own inability to learn the intended functions of the (admittedly probably poor) jpegs you do have.
Totally, the positive qualities of Fujifilm which you artificially made the pivot of your speach is everything what I'd like to speak. You won.
>Red being rendered as magenta isn't the sign of a bad jpeg necessarily. It might be the sign that the user of the camera is a retard and is using a jpeg mode intended to have an inherent mood to it as a standard. Like if someone shot Classic Chrome on a Fujifilm and complained their jpegs had a desaturated look. It's a failure to use the device properly and with taste. The most common failings of all in photography, really.
Yes, sure, the camera having not a single menu to adjust transformation matrix is my fault.
Except that I never bought it to use JPEG.
>Because white balance is an integral part of what makes an image what it is, regardless of if you've moved the slider or not, you absolute retard. Even if every photo you take is black and white, white balance is a factor.
A load of semiconductors is an integral part of what makes an image what it is, regardless of if you soldered them together or not.

cont.

File: Untitled.png (257KB, 537x385px) Image search: [Google]

257KB, 537x385px

So, let me recap this.
>the JPEG is bad because there are numerous bad qualities of camera processing which I cannot control
>>Hey, did someone say that Fujifilm is bad
[not shit]
>no, just discussing our processing options here and whatever
>>Assembling colour palettes needs some good skills, did you try to oppress Fujifilm employers
>no, sorry, did not mean that
>>You are shitty photographer, you did not read the manual, you made a mistake using your camera, you do not earm as much as Fujifilm employer.

I am ok with that because you did not argue yourself well and managed to unload a thousands of chars without clear reason on me.

>>2971821
>[not shit]

Meant to say "not this shit again".

>>2971819
>That changes everything. Fuck Reuters, I am staying at Magnum now.
You don't even seem to understand what Magnum is, compared to Reuters.

>3000 of photos is not a lot of photos only
lol no true scotsman

>says somebody who now does not even have the mechanical focus ring now
My most used lens has a mechanical focus ring.

>>2971819
>>2971820
>>2971821
Please keep this trip forever so my filter remains effective. ESL shitposters are the absolute worst.

>>2971820
>A load of semiconductors is an integral part of what makes an image what it is, regardless of if you soldered them together or not.
No, it is part of what makes the hardware that captures the image. The image itself has no direct tie to those semiconductors. But the image cannot exist with an undefined judgement towards white balance values.

Trying to argue like an autist in a language in which you speak like a toddler is not a sound strategy.

>>2971829
>You don't even seem to understand what Magnum is, compared to Reuters.
You did not need to bring Reuters-related sarcasm into discussion to prove that you are an scumbag.
>lol no true scotsman
I still owe you after all that shit you unloaded here.


>>2971832
>No, it is part of what makes the hardware that captures the image. The image itself has no direct tie to those semiconductors. But the image cannot exist with an undefined judgement towards white balance values.

>>No, it is part of what makes the basic processing that makes the image to not have strongly green tint. The image itself has no direct tie to white balance. But the image cannot be recorded with unsoldered batch of semiconductors.

>>2971835
>>>No, it is part of what makes the basic processing that makes the image to not have strongly green tint. The image itself has no direct tie to white balance. But the image cannot be recorded with unsoldered batch of semiconductors.
You're retarded, dude. White balance has one of the most prominent effects of all on an image.
If your white balance is 10 degrees off it makes a bigger difference than if you've underexposed one stop and recovered it in post, or even left it underexposed (humans can perceive shadows, you know, half the day is dark)

There's a reason we assign "warm" and "cool" to white balance. Because it affects our perceptions, it creates atmosphere and mood to a tremendous degree.

Your semiconductors just makes it possible. Like crediting the photos from a Leica to the brass the camera is machined from.

Stop trying to sound edgy and have a comeback for everything and instead try just applying a little bit of the scientific process to your thoughts.

>>2971841
>There's a reason we assign "warm" and "cool" to white balance. Because it affects our perceptions, it creates atmosphere and mood to a tremendous degree.

After all those thousands of chars I will easily accept the denial of my right to create my own atmoshere by not using automatic or unique white balance for my photos.

>Your semiconductors just makes it possible.

My white balance just makes photos not green, it is constantly set to daylight. Is that difficult?

>Stop trying to sound edgy

Was it me who started it?

>>2971847
>My white balance just makes photos not green, it is constantly set to daylight. Is that difficult?
It's not difficult to deduce that you are quite the fucking idiot.

>>2971849
>It's not difficult to deduce that you are quite the fucking idiot.
Intriguing.

>>2971847
>it is constantly set to daylight.
So you never shoot on cloudy or rainy days? or indoors?

>>2971852
Not him but i use daylight balance and then edit by other means without adjusting white balance.

>>2971852

I prefer to keep the tint which I saw on the scene. I photograph under clouds, sun, sodium lamps, tungsten lamps with daylight WB.

I found that I like reducing contrast (and reducing saturation) much more than whitebalancing in extreme conditions. Whitebalancing against sodium lamps leaves distilled photograph with muted colours, i'd better keep it yellowish.

>>2971855
Yeah, that's okay
but he's an idiot:
>>2971856

>>2971857

Still intrigued, please move one to your other cconvincingly hot opinions.

>>2971860
Can I try?
!!hKQs1+Gu/4w only uses a single white balance setting, rofl, he doesn't even know what light temperature is

>>2971860
>>2971850
>>2971847
>>2971835
>>2971824
>>2971821
>>2971820
Is your first language Russian? Your syntax looks Russian. Your attitude vs your actual knowledge is very Eastern as well.

>>2971863

Wow fagtron this is an improvement. Lets see if you can finally issue a statement without projections after ten iterations.

>>2971865

Accurate enough.

>>2971866
>Wow fagtron this is an improvement. Lets see if you can finally issue a statement without projections after ten iterations.
>projections
No one is projecting anything in this thread except for you trying to seem like you know something about anything.

>>2971871

Did not mean to hurt you, sorry.