Did you know that just because something is white doesn't

lol work on your white balance, colorblind faggot.

who are you posting this for

File: Untitled_Panorama1.jpg (430KB, 900x450px) Image search: [Google]

430KB, 900x450px

>>2987011
Here's the picture in question.

Can you color correct it for me?

If you're wrong, you agree to suck my dick for the rest of your life.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB

>>2987013
you really got butthurt enough about someone telling you that isn't fine to post a thread thinking everyone on /p/ thinks this way

how insecure can you be

>>2987014
>you really got butthurt enough about someone telling you that isn't fine to post a thread thinking everyone on /p/ thinks this way

Because I like talking about it?

>you don't have to respond if you don't agree.

>>2987016
do you think the colors are good?

File: Untitled_Panorama1-2.jpg (415KB, 900x450px) Image search: [Google]

415KB, 900x450px

>>2987022
No, I don't, but I also don't dislike them because the photo is "too blue".

For example, I prefer this edit over the last one.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB

File: Untitled_Panorama1-3.jpg (415KB, 900x450px) Image search: [Google]

415KB, 900x450px

>>2987024
Less green, still blue.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB

>>2987025

post the original, untouched one, you candyass.

File: Untitled_Panorama1-4.jpg (330KB, 900x440px) Image search: [Google]

330KB, 900x440px

>>2987027
ta-daaaa

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB

>>2987013
Everything is bright fucking green.

Learn to use your inspector tool, get a calibrated monitor + calibration device, otherwise all your photos will look this shit.

>>2987043
tru

didn't notice 'till I got a NEC PA272W and opened the photograph for the first time since I made the edit it two years ago.

File: 148232791702242.jpg (212KB, 900x1200px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 900x1200px

Yes! You get it! Although not a very interesting picture, but your corners and edges are safe. The eyes don't wander off the edges.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	900
Image Height	1200
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	2016:12:21 16:31:39
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	900
Image Height	1200

>>2987054
I love you

>>2987054

that reddit rule you made up about corners doesnt mean shit, specially if the image is irrelevant ugly looking garbage, which it is.

>>2987074
>that feel when 99% of photography is irrelevant
I love you too.

File: bresson.jpg (179KB, 572x383px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 572x383px

>>2987074
Yes, it says so.
>Although not a very interesting picture

It is important in scenes where there is a lot going on. Locks in the composition.

[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	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:12:21 17:05:50
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	572
Image Height	383

File: faggot.jpg (273KB, 900x439px) Image search: [Google]

273KB, 900x439px

>>2987031
>heres the untouched!
>posts ubersharpened pic for ants

youre an overcooking turbo faggot, OP.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:12:21 13:06:11
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	900
Image Height	439

File: dead-04.jpg (243KB, 1300x866px) Image search: [Google]

243KB, 1300x866px

>>2987080
>rekt

>>2987031
>>2987024

Who even cares? It's a monumentally boring pano and your shit editing is just blatantly trying to ape the other 9000 slav contempo photographers who are obsessed with pastels.

>he went to art school
Money well spent m8. People could take this exact photo on a phone.

>>2987087
hey whoa dont fuck with pastels

File: burning_bush_film_still_1.jpg (507KB, 1904x1181px) Image search: [Google]

507KB, 1904x1181px

>>2987087
>monumentally boring

You make me feel like I accomplished something.

[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	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2013:01:07 16:23:03
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1904
Image Height	1181

>>2987089
OP wants to ape pastels but creates instead radioactive eye piercing garbage. he got told of that 2 years ago, and did he improve? no he just felt insecure and cucked for years to then come and baw about it today. hes not gonna make it.

>>2987091

you write like kurwa. like a stupid faggot that rejoices on the idea of being a loser. are you him?

>>2987089
respect the pastels, they'll respect you back.

Overcook them by cranking slider bars like a faggot and have your echo chamber of equally delusional students tell you you're awesome, get treated as such.

>>2987092
Actually they said the white balance was off because the snow is blue, but you can keep projecting your self-resentment onto me if you want..

The point isn't that the photo is any good - I never asserted that, and it makes me laugh when anon's assume someone has something to prove about themselves just because they posted a photograph they took. The point is very specific: WHITE THINGS AREN'T ALWAYS WHITE.

>durr your photo is radioactive green
>hurr you're bad at photography
>durr these aren't interesting
>hurr these colors suck and your compositions suck
>durr I'm butthurt because you didn't post something that I liked
>hurr please don't post anymore because I don't like talking about anything besides camera facts
>durr you make money off photography and I might be a little jealous

Ok, but, still.. snow isn't always perfectly white. That's all I came here to say.

>>2987093
kurwa wouldn't shoot digital or get buttmad like this

>>2987093
>kurwa

Man, I miss Soldat. Are you Polish?

>>2987094
>Overcook them by cranking slider bars like a faggot and have your echo chamber of equally delusional students tell you you're awesome, get treated as such.

Speaking from personal experience - because I'm a human and make mistakes :) - this is very true.

>>2987097

aw man you were doing pretty well until that last greentext line. I mean, still pretty mad but at least you were deflecting it well. But then you try to shoehorn in that little humblebrag and everyone over the age of 25 starts laughing their ass off.

sage grows in all fields

>>2987106
:[ sorry

thanks for the pro tip tho, I'll avoid that next time.

>ITT OP gets mad in record time.

congrats guys, we did it!

>>2987111
But this is what I love /p/ for. Posting nearly anything ruffles feathers.

>>2987115
>I was just pretending to be retarded

and so it goes

time is a flat circle

>>2987119
Who said anything about pretending? I'm v. serious.

>>2987054
>>2987079
>>2987074
It's like any other rule. Nice to keep in mind and utilize, but I still believe firmly in following the old gut. After a while, you are able to just look at a scene and know that the light/composition is really good or at least really promising. It becomes second nature to balance out the composition without much effort before pressing the shutter.

>>2987079
>im sure breson was concerned about the hihghlighted corners
god damn youre fucking retarded

File: 1352693251734.gif (1MB, 448x336px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 448x336px

>>2987013
while i agree with you that wb can be used subjectively some of the time, your choice of color balance was pretty poor on this one and if you were looking for honest critique, i;d say you got it. subtract some yellow out of the image and you'll see.

>>2988054
Yeah, I know it looks like trash. Can we move on?

>>2988064
you made the thread m8. I just wanted to get a little introspective. Why if you think the photo is bad, did you decide to present it to anyone? Like when i take a bad landscape i figure out what doesnt work and then delete it. be your own critic i guess is what im saying.

>>2988088
Hey, go back and read a little bit if you want to know why I posted it.

I shot this two years ago and haven't edited it in two years. I'm not looking for crit on it, I don't like the shot, it's old and done poorly. I only posted it here because it's the image that got the comment "too blue" on another website two years ago. I would never put this on my personal website.

>>>/v/

>>2988094
idk man, i just dono why you'd even present it to someone though is all im saying. Whoever gave you that critique probably didn't know what else to say because of how little the photo had to offer. and harboring it for 2 years? on a photo you dont like?

>>2988102
because i had bad taste 2 years ago. not that hard to figure out. not saying my taste is much better now, but it is better enough to know it was bad back then. thanks for trying to hold my hand tho

File: ok.gif (982KB, 500x364px) Image search: [Google]

982KB, 500x364px

>>2988105

>>2987013
I wouldn't change anything

>>2987013
dog, im about to filter your salty ass

white balance can only do so much. You're supposed to color correct to what you remember being the lighting at the time, there's no way to know that and accurately get the correct colors based on a random photo.

>>2987013
What the fuck.

I remember this thread and I remember anons giving mixed reactions but there was some praise too.

>>2988802

i praised it. because i liked the bleak german-ey look, but now i can see that the pp was garbage.

>>2987009
Why not get the correct white balance and then set the colors you want in post?

>>2987080
This edit is perfect

>>2989501
Are you kidding? That edit is ugly as shit. Makes the OP look good.