What's /pee/'s opinion on post processing? Is only

Good photographers can shoot jpegs and slide film.
Bad photographers need lots of post for every photo.
There's lots of overlap between.

Just do whatever you want with your picture. There is no such as thing as a "pure picture" anyways, processing is already applied when the image is created anyways

White balance: Auto

if you can't make good pictures using white balance and natural light, you're not really a photographer but a digital artist

>>3043444
It's art, there are no rules; daniel johnson still made money even though traditionally speaking he was musically retarded.

the only consensus is that you can polish a turd and enhance/salvage a boring, badly composed nothing-snapshit with cropping and excessive PP, so having bad snapshitters use it as a clutch for everything gives it a bad air. A good photo's content, timing and framing should be enough to make it stand on its own, without any enhancements, but again, you can pp a smartphone snap to 1mil gallery artpiece levels. Subjective, entirely irrelevant bs in a gigantic loosely defined visual genre. Opinions, sure, but no absolutes. /p/ hates clutches, is all. git gud etc

File: Magnum-Before-and-After-James-Dean-Fstoppers-710x409.jpg (82KB, 710x409px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 710x409px

Post processing is essential.

It has always been done even in film days.

You actually need to do post processing if you want your photograph to look like the scene you captured. So the whole "straight out of camera" thing is more laziness than proof of authenticity.

>>3043444
I'm one of the retards who believes in some kind of "fairness" where heavy post processing is fine for commercial photography, and it ain't right for artistic photography.

Some programmer, with an IQ well above yours, built the tools that you use in photoshop or lightroom. I think it's unreasonable to create anything vaguely artistic using those tools without conceding that the programmer is responsible for the result.

>>3043467
The guy had schizophrenia and was essentially tokenized for it. More tragic, less baffling if you look at it that way.

>>3043478
this was done because iso values were more set in stone when working with film. If you could easily expose single frames of 35mm film to different middling iso values, there'd be much less need for that style of dodging and burning.

You're able to achieve these results in camera now if you know what you're doing.

Jpegs aren't "straight out of camera" in the sense that a neutral blank raw file is.

>>3043480
>heavy processing is fine to sell a product, but not ok in the ultimate form of expressionism.

Capitalism sure worked on you eh?

>if you edit, it's as much adobes art as yours

As opposed to using the exact colours and contrast that canikonuji decided for you?

>but dj had mental health issues
So people enjoy his music because of his health? Do you like van gogh paintings because of his lack of ear?

I think you need to rethink this.

>>3043483
>you can d&b in camera
Wait, what, you're an idiot.

>>3043485
>Wait, what, you're an idiot.
if you actually understand what those marks on that piece of paper mean, he's just telling the intern to up the contrast- manually, through dodging and burning, because thats a 35mm shot and he couldn't simply develop the negative differently from the rest of the roll

why would you choose to be argumentative about stuff you dont understand? beyond me

>>3043497
you might want to read the greentext above the "Wait what you're an idiot" part

>>3043478
>>3043483
I understand both of your statements, that is why speakinf in absolutes almost never works in real life.

>>3043498
>you might want to read the greentext above the "Wait what you're an idiot" part
He didn't say you can D&B in camera, you did.
He said you can achieve the same results. Visually.

>>3043453

>implying film isn't the only real way to take pictures and photographers who don't conform to the elitism of /p/ aren't real artists

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>3043480
>conceding that the programmer is responsible for the result

Wow you're dumb and have taken a retarded idea and applied it as some kind of idiotic principle. The only type of person who could think this is someone who isn't good at anything except programming.

>>3043480
>Some programmer, with an IQ well above yours, built the tools that you use in photoshop or lightroom. I think it's unreasonable to create anything vaguely artistic using those tools without conceding that the programmer is responsible for the result.

So an author that wrote a book in Microsoft word should share credit with Microsoft? Have you ever done any critical thinking in your life? Fucking cancerous reddit liberal trash.

>>3043497
You can up the contrast using high contrast paper and developer, he's dodging and burning.

You're clearly talking about things you have no knowledge

>>3043509
>>3043511
samefag

>>3043513
Nope, the general consensus seems to be that you're fucking retarded. Kill yourself my man.

>>3043512
He's dodging and burning for the sake of contrast. There are usually multiple roads to any particular destination, anon.

Exposure triangle ring a bell?

You can't read the instructions if you think its anything more than contrast burning. He's explicitly burning for contrast. He's not bringing out a particular subject.

>>3043511
what does politics do with anything in this conversation LMAO, this age is completely fucked, whatever someone says is somehow a political statement ahahha.

>>3043501
>He said you can achieve the same results. Visually.

How can you achieve the same result in camera nowadays when you couldn't with a film camera? Sure you can change the ISO between the shots, but not on a single frame.

>>3043519
https://fujilove.com/fujifilm-x-pro-2-in-camera-raw-conversion/
maybe if you knew about something other than Canon 5Dinosaur era cameras

>>3043518
>programmer deserves credit, not the artist
This is a political statement. Any statement regarding the distribution of wealth or credit is a political statement as the only means of implementing such a view would be through force using the political system of your choice. Fuck off back plebbit you mongoloid leftist trash. This is the epitome of that Massachusetts tranny Elizabeth Warren's "(You) didn't build that."

>>3043523
>by shooting jpeg in a Fuji
Wew lad. I'd rather use a memecro four memes lolympus because at least the raws can be edited in Lightroom.

>>3043523
remember to report all advertisers that detract from the healthy funcioning of this board, kids.

File: NSA_8230_v1.jpg (1MB, 2000x1332px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2000x1332px

It CAN be great. Most people I've seen doing it tend to overdo the whole thing and it then becomes immensely obvious and glaring. That's when PP can be a failure, unless it's an intended part of the image, and even then it's a thin line.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D7100
Camera Software	Photo Ninja 1.2.5
Photographer	Alon Shechter
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/5.7
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	210 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:02:06 09:51:46
Exposure Time	1/100 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	141
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	140.00 mm
Image Width	6036
Image Height	4020
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>3043524

Did I write this in my sleep or something?

>>3043541
haha funny tripman! great stuff ;)

>>3043459
This, pretty much. I usually don't mind people who do heavy post processing because the camera is just a tool to achieve the kind of picture you have in your mind, but if all your pictures need heavy work in post then you're just a shitty photographer and need to work on the basics of photography.

>>3043524
jesus christ your life is gotta be a shitshow, poor little thing always scared of the commie taking your virginity away.

File: jason-lanier-photography-reviews-and-testimonials-1-of-1-12.jpg (414KB, 1500x998px) Image search: [Google]

414KB, 1500x998px

Yeah man

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D3
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4.3 (Macintosh)
Photographer	JASONLANIER
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	806
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	16 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	100 dpi
Vertical Resolution	100 dpi
Image Created	2013:04:21 02:23:02
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Subject Distance	Infinity
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	Flash, Compulsory, Return Detected
Focal Length	16.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

https://petapixel.com/2014/07/15/visually-sophisticated-visually-illiterate/

>>3043562
wtf i hate weddings now.

>>3043563
>petapixel
yeah no.

>>3043524
>If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business – you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet. The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don't do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.

I'm not a liberal, but you can't argue with that; it's historically accurate.

>>3043562
jesus christ

>>3043571
it's almost as if common cause and thrive for the benefit of everyone shouldn't be a political view

>>3043562
I envy my blind friend.

>>3043577
top kek

File: IMG_3348.jpg (1MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x2448px

>>3043562
>They probably paid a lot for these
>They probably like them

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Apple
Camera Model	iPhone 6
Camera Software	9.3.2
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	29 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Right-Hand, Top
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:06:30 12:36:32
Exposure Time	1/30 sec
F-Number	f/2.2
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	64
Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Brightness	3.9 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Spot
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	4.15 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3264
Image Height	2448
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3043573
common cause is a political view, the facts behind "you didn't build that" are true tho.

>>3043587
Welp, this is why we can't have nice things

>>3043571
Yeah senpai when the white man showed up from England to Massachusetts the red skins already built them cities and highways, truly historically accurate. Fuck yourself.

>>3043595
What do "red skins" and "white man" have to do with "you didn't built that"?

>>3043444

Post processing is fine to compensate for the camera's inability to capture exactly what you see.

>>3043597
Because a real white man builds shit on his own. The only people that want socialism are shit skins, genetic abominations, and homosexuals.

>>3043649
Plz to be showing the highway you built, fampai

And/or any of the following: driver's license pic in colour, doctor's certificate for conjoinedbux, boyfriend's balls on your chin

There's a fine line between adding a plane and manufacturing golden hour when it wasn't golden hour colors in the scene in the first place.

Where do people draw the line? Is it okay to shoop a car out of the frame because it was cut in half on the edge of the framing and sticking out like a sore thumb?

>>3043444
aesthetics are for hobbyists. a good photograph is anything you can sell.

>>3043451
"slide film". Sorry i'm new here what does that mean?

>>3043444
this one is way overdone, you need to hold back a bit, unless you just want likes on social media
>shooping the moon into a new place
absolutely haram

>>3043453
right, but your RAW file has a real, pretty scientific relationship with the physics/optics of what actually happened in reality. When you push the vibrance slider to the max you depart from the grounding in reality

Most halal and essential tools:
>gain
>white balance
>correcting the angle (ffs why isn't the angle stored in EXIF)
>crop
cropping is extremely underrated, I see some of you almost never use it when it's all it takes to salvage your shot
>b-but just compose well within the frame first
lel, no, as evidenced by most of the shots you see on /p/, you all need cropping in your life

permissible without excesses:
>denoising in moderation
>messing with highlights/shadows
>subtly pushing the vividness of colours to make it match what your eye saw
>sharpening if your image is more blurry than usual and it can help a bit

absolutely haram:
>cranking up contrast
>cranking up saturation as in OP's picture
>sharpening until it looks vomitive
>tonemapping aka HDR puke like this >>3043562
>actually ADDING grain in post

Basically PP should make the shot actually better yet not be obvious. You must always keep in mind when fucking with the sliders that your eye gets used to the changes and before you know it you can end up being happy with something that looks more like a bowl of skittles to a fresh eye

The more you do like in OP's picture the more you slide deep into pleb territory, and only rubes will think your shot is great.

File: 17361866_1423850831015493_4716006972816456061_n.jpg?oh=d9cf26516eba4ffcfc05e33ee7d0ced3&oe=595CE270.jpg (118KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 960x720px

>>3043693
shit I forgot this in haram:
>blurring some parts to create a fake DOF
most of the time it looks poorly done, not realistic at all, just stupid

>but I want to make my background less distraction to isolate my subject
it's about on the same level as shooping trees out, look at this shit, he actually used Gaussian blur when the kernel for bokeh is a sharp circle which conserves a lot of the high frequency components

>>3043524
Gotta agree, most of the halal tools you need to process digital photography is so obvious that you should be able to take it for granted anyway. Nothing genius about a gain slider or white balance, it's all just basic multiplications.

Now if we're talking about things like instagram filters they might not be brilliantly made but they very much are the reason why people like the shit that comes out of them. Crap in > colourful crap out.

>>3043557
why do people get so salty?

>>3043693
>absolutely haram
>some things you can do with your pictures, some you can't, that's what I decided

File: 2017-03-21_21-44-26.png (1MB, 1680x1050px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1680x1050px

>>3043693
I just grabbed that picture off Google, but I made this thread because I got thinking when I took some pictures of the night sky the other day, I'm using an old shitty Sony Nex-3 so I pretty much had to jam the blacks slider to the bottom in Lightroom to get something at least somewhat usable and it got me thinking about post processing.

Although, astrophotography might not be all that relevant to the discussion because that's only about the end product, there's not much photographic merit in just setting up a tripod, pointing the camera in the sky, pressing the shutter and waiting a few seconds.

>>3043693
Well written, friend.

Also
>>3043692
Would like to know.

>>3043704
You clearly don't know anything about shooting astrophotography. You don't even know where the fucking milkyway is, and your before might possibly look worse than your before. Taking photos of the stars isnt just "pressing the shutter and waiting a few seconds" the hard part is actually making a good photograph using the stars, which you clearly have no inkling of ability to do so

>>3043562

>D3

Jesus take the fucking wheel

>>3043444
I'm surprised nobody here is getting into *why* post processing would be required.

If you're shooting everything in RAW, which is what's recommended to most beginners, then you will almost always need to go back and edit the files even if the light and exposure was good because they will always come out flat and desaturated.

If you're shooting all in jpeg it could be an interesting exercise. You may find you don't need RAW, or you may find you're limiting yourself. You could go months or years shooting a lot of jpegs and then decide to try RAW, or vice versa. After like 5 years shooting RAW I'm considering whether I want to try doing jpeg more or not, but I just don't like having the camera decide what my final output is.

>>3043845

Interesting points. I shot JPEG since I started shooting (which was 9 years ago), and I'm only now getting into shooting RAW. For a long time I disliked the idea of editing my photos because I had the idea stuck in my head that most people who edited their photos just Ken Rockwell'd the shit out of everything or would be the ones to stack 9 HDR filters on something and call it a masterpiece.

I only do minimal editing now, adjusting highlights, shadows, exposure, contrast, etc. just for the sake of polishing the photo to my liking, but never overdoing it. I never cared for the over-dramatic look. I rely more on my composition and subject to make an interesting shot, and only use post-processing to adjust the levels to give the photo the right colors I'm aiming for so that it doesn't look bland.

>>3043703
well you can do everything that I said you shouldn't do, but odds are it's gonna be arse

>>3043866
m8, editing RAW is pretty essential for changing the gain, mostly if you don't shoot with anything in auto and don't analyse the histogram autistically before shooting, you might have to adjust by like 1 stop either way, can hardly to that with JPEG. Same for EV. And I can't imagine not editing either of those two afterwards.

>>3043845
>even if the light and exposure was good because they will always come out flat and desaturated.
>he fell for the camera's lookgoodizer set of filters

>>3043946
>m8, editing RAW is pretty essential for changing the gain, mostly if you don't shoot with anything in auto and don't analyse the histogram autistically before shooting, you might have to adjust by like 1 stop either way, can hardly to that with JPEG

Yeah, and it took me a long time to stop being close-minded and realize that RAW would actually help me achieve what I want

I edit to get what I believe I saw at the sight generally It's far more necessary in tricky light conditions like sunrises, sunsets, etc.

For example I don't feel like I've gone overboard on this image but some might feel it's a bit much.

File: lightroom_2017-03-22_00-01-39.png (1MB, 1347x611px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1347x611px

>>3043993

WTF said it was attached

>>3043459
>>3043551
interesting. Any white balance tuts u recommend?

>>3043562
holy fuck that is disgusting
it's like seeing my first jpeg pictures with HDR mode on and some high iso

File: DSC01775.jpg (210KB, 1000x666px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 1000x666px

>>3043444

I have a terrible, terrible memory. I take pictures to remember what it was I saw.

I also share them with my family who live across an ocean.

Because of this, I only do minor adjustments, too much and I am no longer showing what I actually see/saw.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7M2
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.8 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	90 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2017:02:11 08:54:57
Exposure Time	1/200 sec
F-Number	f/5.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/5.0
Brightness	8.4 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	90.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>3043571
>>3043573
Yeah, but you're missing the point. No one denied that you're using tools made by other people to create your own art. He's calling out the fucking idiot that claims the work you made isn't yours because you used tools made by someone else. Anyone who would believe that is a fucking imbecile.

>>3043777
Christ, where do I even begin

>You clearly don't know anything about shooting astrophotography.
Good thing I never claimed I did then, weird how you're not good at something when you're attempting to do it for like the second time.

>You don't even know where the fucking milkyway is
Which is relevant when I wasn't trying to shoot the milky way then... how?

>and your before might possibly look worse than your before.
The after pic is obviously on the left, the labels aren't matching up

>the hard part is actually making a good photograph using the stars, which you clearly have no inkling of ability to do so
Then please, oh great guru, tell me how you're supposed to get good pictures of the night sky without star trailing when using a 7 year old entry level camera and the kit lens that can barely push the ISO past 3200 without getting assloads of noise.

>>3043997
that is absolutely atrocious. it had great potential and you have destroyed the atmosphere.

>>3044099

Always gotta bump those shadows up to 100.

>>3043997
The bridge is too overexposed and makes it look unnatural, looks good otherwise

>>3044090
I've taken plenty of astro on the nex 3 sensor with kit lens, it's fine, 18mm, wide open, 30 seconds, bit of processing, done.

>>3044121
>Without star trailing

I'm going to go out tonight and see if I can find the milky way, though

>>3043693
>lel, no, as evidenced by most of the shots you see on /p/, you all need cropping in your life
Not to mention that everybody crops. Film shooters in the 60's cropped their shots too.

File: 1490106577832.jpg (79KB, 587x474px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 587x474px

>>3043562

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D3
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Photographer	JASONLANIER
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	910
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	16 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1500
Image Height	998
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	100 dpi
Vertical Resolution	100 dpi
Image Created	2017:03:22 21:56:11
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Subject Distance	Infinity
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	Flash, Compulsory, Return Detected
Focal Length	16.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	587
Image Height	474
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>3043693
your whole argument is based around the assumption that a photograph has to be an accurate representation of what you saw or what was there.

Personally, I see a raw file more like a canvas that you can apply your own artistic direction to, to make it look like whatever you want

>>3044127
You need to be in a dark sky area to see the milkyway, which rules out most of western europe.

>>3044134
I'm in the southwestern part of Sweden but I'm going to go further up north for hiking this summer, there's miles and miles of basically untouched land here when you go further up north past Stockholm.

>>3044146
Cuck. Take some pictures of Abdul and the family down in Malmö and then die in a grenade attack.

>>3044148
Hate to break your safe space bubble with facts but the US has a higher percentage of niggers than Sweden does and even the biggest shitholes in Malmö has less crime than your average town in the US

>>3044148
>430 times as likely to be a victim of gun violence in usa than sweden

>wuh-wuh-watch out for them muslims.

Statistically, I'm more likely to die from an american toddler shooting me than being a victim of middle east terror, and I'm not even in America.

>>3044167
Gee bill what's distribution vs geographic border
>toddler shootings talking point
Oh you're one of those heh

>>3044175
The US literally has more murders in total numbers than China, a country with a population 10 times the size of the US, but keep crying about those evil mooslims in Europe

>B-b-b-but the statistics doesn't count because something something black people!

>>3044178
Statistics arent well counted in China.
You're just autistic and over trust data.

>>3044178
The US is also the most ethnically diverse country which explains why there's more conflict but that counters your narrative

>>3044158
>>3044167
>tell you to die in a grenade attack
>you bring up guns for some reason.

Swedes really are so fucking in denial beyond belief. The only western nation with routine grenade attacks and they all happen in the same city and all correlate with cuckold policies.

Suck a Somali cock and calm down if your jimmies are that rustled.

>>3044179
>Over trust data
As opposed to trusting what? Muh feelings? Sounds like SJW talk to me

>>3044181
My narrative is that the US is a shithole, so no, it really doesn't.

>>3044184
>My narrative is that the US is a shithole, so no, it really doesn't.
The whole continent? No I don't think that's true. I think you're just edgy.
Edge yourself with a razor.

>>3044182
So if Sweden has "cuckold" politics, what does the US have when they have a hell of a lot more immigrants and a hell of a lot more crime per capita?

>routine grenade attacks
I know right, would be much better to have routine school shootings and murder sprees. Malmö had 1.0 deaths from shootings per 100 000 people in between 2011-2015, want to compare that with the most crime ridden citites in the US?

/pol/ pls go

>>3044186
Why would I give a fuck about the USA? I'm Ukrainian. Swedes really are fucking stupid, shit, I thought Russians were bad.

For what it's worth at the very least the USA kept subhumans as slaves for hundreds of years until faggot West Euro countries like yours complained.

>>3044185
When the richest country in the world has a murder rate per capita that's comparable with third world countires, then yes, that's quite the shithole.

>I think you're just edgy. Edge yourself with a razor.
Damn, you got me, I'm the edgelord and not the people who literally can't read the word Sweden without sperging out and going on an autistic rant about the mooslims and cucks and sucking Somali cocks

>>3044190
>Ukrainian talking about subhumans
Would be less embarassing to be American, desu senpai. It's kinda impressive that you can even utter the word cuck with Putins cock in your mouth.

File: Untitled-1.jpg (452KB, 1024x763px) Image search: [Google]

452KB, 1024x763px

>>3043693
i use the haram stuff when making meme abstract photos

[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	2017:03:20 23:03:45
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1024
Image Height	763

>>3044192
Russia invaded Ukraine with a larger military, better technology, and more money. They took 15% more causalities and failed to take more than two cities which now don't have electricity or heating.

Meanwhile Sweden can't even stop routine grenade attacks from its pet monkeys.

>>3044196
in what world do you live in? russia didnt invade ukraine, it merely aided the rebels a little bit

ukraine lost crimea just like that
that

>>3044205
>Russia didn't invade Ukraine
>Russia invaded Crimea and took it just like that

Pick one, little Swedish fuckboy.

>>3044175
It's pretty hard to argue with statistics man
in 2014, 26 toddlers killed people with firearms in america

in the same year only 6 people in all of western europe died to terror attacks, countries that back up onto the middle east.

I can't work out whether the average hamburger is wilfully ignorant or just fucking retarded.

>>3044213
Last year 86 people were killed by a moslem driving a truck in France. By your logic, this massive increase to last year means western Euros are Africa now. I agree.

>>3044212
there was a referundum and crimea was annexed without a shot fired

>>3044213
how many toddle died of falling down the stairs in the europe?

>>3044231
Good goyim trust the Russian government to conduct a referendum in a foreign country where they stationed troops. This is how your country is so fucking cucked, trust in governments.

File: 1.jpg (158KB, 752x960px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 752x960px

>>3043444

I think the only time you should never edit a photo is in regards to photojournalism.

Otherwise everyone else is editing their photos. Personally I don't like photos that are too processed, but that is coming from a photojournalism background.

I had a teacher talk about photoshopping birds into skies, or photoshopping signs out of pictures. If you're going for art or a pretty picture, then edit it. You have to.

If you're going for documentary or journalistic photography I'd avoid it at all costs.

>>3044233
Some of us don't live in third world countries with politicians that have Putins cock up their ass, friend

File: IMG_4351.jpg (2MB, 4874x1457px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4874x1457px

>>3043444
Whatever you want man, have an artistic vision.

If you want to reproduce what the scene looked like in real life, minor adjustments will be fine. If you want to create a pretty scene, that's fine too.

You do you I'll do me.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 700D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.6.1 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2017:03:03 00:24:20
Exposure Time	1/640 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	55.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: Screen Shot 2017-03-22 at 11.32.24 pm.png (2MB, 1200x802px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1200x802px

>>3043562
it says something when a photographers instagram is mainly iphone selfies

>>3044254
>Thousands of dead Russians
>Russians destroying Russian part of Ukraine
>Russians killing the faggot Russian settlers that came in after Holodomor that voted for Russian faggots in elections
>Russians killing more Russian civilians than Ukrainian soliders, many of which are Russian conscripts from the east because of the military battalion structures

Putin literally fucked all support for Russia in Ukraine. The Russian east will never have any support in government again and their economy is now in the stone age while the economy of the West grows faster than any West Euro country.

He lost his powerplay on the country in the most spectacular fashion and now only has an impoverished Crimea with muslim tartars, no electricity, and international sanctions to show for it.

We gave it to Putin in the ass. Your women literally take it up the ass from Africans and Moslems in your frozen third world shit hole, friendo.

>Euros and Americans ever shitting on Ukraine, Poland, and Hungary as backwards while their GDPs contract and muslims flood in to their communist countries

>>3044254
>>3044263
I've seen your routine before. Go away.

>>3044108

It looked more like the edited picture than the original in real life. If you've been there at sunrise you'd know.

It's just a matter of cameras not having dynamic range (especially my 60Ds) to deal with both a sunrise and shadows somewhat normally without an HDR or raising shadows.

It's just as unrealistic that an area where I'm standing is fully lit that a bridge would be dark as night in the original (it was not and never is if you've been there)

It's just for some reason in meme photography you get away with an underexposed image even if it's not realistic, while something that emphasizes color, contrast, shadows, etc is considered lying for some reason.

>>3044099

like this guy, have you ever been to a bridge?

>>3044263
Go away Putin

>>3044272
You're not emphasizing the color and contrast when the bridge just ends up looking washed out and it doesn't pop. At least bring up the reds a bit so the bridge actually becomes the focus of the picture.

>>3043704
Why does your after look worse?

>>3044362
It's not the after, the labels are flipped

There are two kinds of people.

>Those that know how to post-process

and

>Those that complain about post-processing

Outside of photo-journalism everything is allowed. Nobody cares what you do to your pictures. No one is forced to like your picture but having some sort of anti-post-processing attitude is simply retarded.

No photograph is true to life.
You manipulate the representation of reality by choosing your exposure, depth of field etc.
You manipulate the representation of reality by choosing your film type. Or your digital camera.
You manipulate the representation of reality how you develop your film and how you scan it and how you color correct the scan. The representation is further manipulated by the monitor anyone uses to look at your picture.

>>3044386
>There are two kinds of people.
>>Those that know how to post-process
>and
>>Those that complain about post-processing
There are two kinds of people:
Those that believe the above and
Those who seek out great light

/pol/ pls go

>>3044386
>No one is forced to like your picture but having some sort of anti-post-processing attitude is simply retarded.
It's the other way around. It's "you must post-process all images always to leave your artists mark" vs "I'm perfectly happy with the image quality modern jpeg engines can achieve and enjoy working within those constraints the same as I used to enjoy picking my emulsion"

The real "two kinds of people" are:
Those who have only ever used Canikon DSLRs
Those who have used mirrorless cameras with WYSIWYG viewfinders.

File: DUAL4473.jpg (459KB, 2400x799px) Image search: [Google]

459KB, 2400x799px

Without post processing you might have actually thought some of those neon signs were actually yellow IRL while they certainly were not.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 5D Mark II
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Photographer	Johan Robertsson
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2017:03:22 22:36:29
Exposure Time	1/50 sec
F-Number	f/2.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	35.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2400
Image Height	799
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3044404
false dichotomy, you could have achieved that result straight OOC if you actually knew how to use your camera.

Post processing is a gift sent from the heavens for subtle tweaks and corrections. If the whole look is based on post production it will 99% of the time look like fruit roll up crap.

>>3043946
>he fell for the camera's lookgoodizier set of filters
?

I'm not sure how that relates to my post. I'm only pointing out that shooting in RAW essentially mandates post production, by design. You're given greater latitude, but you're left developing the shot "from scratch", sort of like how a lot of films come out low contrasty and usually need some kinda work in the darkroom (from experience, Tmax 100 did this a lot)

>>3044406
Please.

This is a common problem with all digital cameras, up to the expensive arri alexas used in motion pictures and it's evident by looking at any night shot from a modern movie where you can see car taillights. Invariably they appear as bright white.
Sometimes the contrast is even too large for certain film stocks to handle and what happens is that the pure red light starts shifting towards yellow and then finally to white, because it's over exposed.
Sure if i wanted to retain the color accuracy of these bright colored highlights i could underexpose by 4 stops more compared to what i already did and it would be completely impossible for me to recover any meaningful data in the shadows, especially not inside any cameras raw developer.

Digital cameras fall pretty badly behind compared to film when you compare highlight retention, especially when colored highlights are concerned.

If you claim otherwise then prove me wrong, take your camera out at night find a bright red neon sign take a picture of it where details in other parts of the image are also visible (without flash) where the neon sign retains its true color (or as close to it as possible in the sRGB color gamut).

>>3044415
>Digital cameras fall pretty badly behind compared to film when you compare highlight retention, especially when colored highlights are concerned.

But it excels in shadow recovery, at least on sensors that aren't older Canon tech. You can't say the same for film. You notice film people NEVER say "watch me underexpose this shot by 5 stops and recover it in post". There's a reason for that.

File: IMG_0706_2.jpg (919KB, 1200x983px) Image search: [Google]

919KB, 1200x983px

>>3044422
Even so Digital still falls behind color negative film in highlights. I could underexpose for like 10 stops and still not be able to retain color and detail around the sun in a wide angle scenic shot on digital. While on color neg you'll have perfect gradation all the way and the scene will be perfectly exposed. It's completely crazy.
Here's a pretty bad example i managed to find in my archives.

Even the Pentax 645z blows out the sun and surroundings from examples i've seen.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>3044431
>I could underexpose for like 10 stops and still not be able to retain color and detail around the sun in a wide angle scenic shot on digital.

Yes you can, unless you're trying to shoot into the sun in the middle of the day, in which case you're likely not going to get a well lit shot at all.

You sound like you never gave digital a real try, you just made an attempt so you could confirm your own biases.

>>3044431
Try a Fuji and skill.

>>3044438
Eh, i shoot digital 99% of the time. I'm too lazy to shoot film exclusively but I'm not stupid enough to deny the superiority of film when it comes to dynamic range and color reproduction.

>>3044439
Take your fuji out and take a shot of the midday sun similar to my example, and well see if you have detail in the corona of the sun and in a dark shadow. Although i'll admit the example i posted isn't the best since there is massive flare on the image.

And don't try and HDR trickery if you're such a SOOC purist.

>>3044440
>superiority of film when it comes to dynamic range
The people who say this are almost always referring to highlight retention, so it's a bit odd. It's just a talking point to puff up film in these debates. Again, nobody ever says "look guys I underexposed this film by 5 stops now watch how clean it is when I bring it out in post". Why exactly do you think that is?

>color reproduction
Film stocks of past and present are notorious for color shifts and casts.

>>3044446
You do realize there's effectively no difference between

>Digital, let me underexpose this by 5 stops to retain highlights.

compared to

>Color negative, Let me overexpose by 7 to retain shadow detail And highlight detail.

Even so it's a moot point to argue since there would never be a need to underexpose film to retain highlights since they're retained naturally. All you need to do is make sure you don't underexpose film, same as you try to make sure you don't overexpose digital.

>>3044449
I know there's no difference but people act like digital just cannot into highlights at all when all you have to do is pay attention not to blow highlights when you're exposing. That's it. Sometimes that means you have to bring up shadows in post, but on a digital camera that's no big deal at all.

>>3044449
Digital isoless shadows push better than film pulls.

>>3044442
Isi does it all the time.

>>3044453
>isoless
haha oh wow. the things digicucks will swallow.

>>3044446
>>3044449
You'd be surprised at how well some digicams can handle highlights, actually. One thing I've found that works is creating a separate curves layer for the sky with a layer mask and bringing it back in. It can be time consuming and tedious, which sort of negates one of the biggest reasons a lot of people shoot digital (convenience), but point being, it can be done. It works well in scenes where the sky comes out a lot brighter after you exposed for the foreground/subject, and obviously it becomes less effective the more you overexpose the sky.

>>3044453

Not true, "Isoless" A7II shadows still look "noisy" when pushed to the max (ie, looks like normally exposed ISO1600 on a 5DmarkIII). So if you constantly underexpose to the max to retain highlights all you're doing is effectively making your shots look overall grainy in the main subject portions of the image. Compared to film where you expose for the subject and is least grainy where it counts.

>>3044463
You think i don't know the limits of digital? I've shot it for 7 years and earn a large portion of my income doing it. I've pushed digital raw files from multiple cameras to the limit and I'm still impressed anytime i go out shooting with my Mamiya RB67.

>>3044472
I never said you didn't. I said digital can fair better with highlights than people in this thread seem to think.

I'm not even sure what this argument is anymore besides a circlejerk. You're not going to get a good shot shooting into the sun in the middle of the day anyways, more likely than not. So it doesn't really matter how well your format handles that kind of thing, does it?

>>3044472
7 years is nothing boy

>>3044472
Hate to say this but from what I've seen, x number of years shooting or money being made does not equate to quality. For all I know you "pushed raws to the limit" by moving the sliders all the way to the right.

>>3044701
Believe what you want. I don't need your approval.

>>3043444

The answer is fully dependent on the photographer's objectives: it is increasingly optimal to apply increasing amount of processing as photographer targets commercial sphere and self promotion.

There are not many reasons to apply that much post processing other than you are targeting idiots and those who are selling goods to them.

>>3044260
>evenly lit everything
Bizzare world of HDR.
___________

Dayum! Russia shitstorm!

>>3044190
>I'm Ukrainian. Swedes really are fucking stupid, shit, I thought Russians were bad.
I am Russian. I though russians were much more stupid than ukranians until I read ebanoe.it
>>3044196
True.
>>3044231
>there was a referundum and crimea was annexed without a shot fired
Let me recap it for you.
1) There is a shitstorm in Kiev in the Q1 2014.
2) Putin catches the moment and sends military to Crimea, they block ukranian military bases, does not admit they are russian.
3) Top russian official threatens Turchinov that military plane going to Crimea would be shut down (boasts about it in 2015 on government owned channel NTV).
4) Superfast referendum, no 3rd parties, no ukranian representatives.
5) Putin admits the masketta men were russian military.

Of course it means that Putin sent a load of cocks down Ukraine ass. Does it says anything ad about Ukraine? Not really. There are many countries which would be equally fucked if Putin decided to invade them.

>>3043451

>the state of /p/

You realize the best photographers in the world do not shoot jpeg?

>>3044760
Yes they do. Real photo agencies don't accept raw files in the wire.

>>3044766
shooting jpg and delivering jpg are two different things.

>>3044716
Even still 7 years is nothing

I could understand how a kid in his mid 20s would think 7 years is a big deal, but I've been doing this for about 13 now but I still feel like the young kid considering most pros I shoot with on a regular basis have been doing this since the 70s

>>3044716
What's the matter, did you think working x years as a photography made your opinion more legitimate somehow?

>>3044766

kek

>>3043451
>Good photographers can shoot jpegs
Okay Ken.
I used to shoot mostly slide, so yeah that does require getting the exposure as correct as possible, but you do have some latitude in stops as well to work with.
To the OP I find nothing about the treatment desirable. Just my opinion, but to me it does not look that great.
Yes most photos do require some adjustment. But the idea is to try and get it as right as possible when you trip the shutter. I know that is blasphemy to many in here, but it is the truth.

>>3044826
Think you are confusing facts with opinions.

>>3044884
But that is blatantly false. If you shoot landscapes and are painfully aware of the limitations of your camera, you do not try and get it to look the best in camera. You firstly underexpose enough to retain all highlight data. And depending on how wide th DR in the scene is you do a couple of exposures to get it all and to get clean shadows. How you combine it all after that is a matter of work flow and taste.

>>3044911
So bracket jpegs

>>3044766

Oh ffs, if you're going to troll, go to /b/ or /pol/.

File: DSC01614.jpg (1MB, 2048x1365px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2048x1365px

>>3044911
Or you use, like, a grad filter...

Plus you're only hitting dr limits shooting into the light. A 1" sensor has more than enough range to deal with any scene if the light's behind you.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	DSC-RX100M2
Camera Software	Capture One 9 Macintosh
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	28 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Exposure Time	1/800 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	160
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Brightness	11.2 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	10.40 mm
Image Width	2048
Image Height	1365
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Soft
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>3044963
Read Reuters or AP rules

>>3044911
The limitations have become very moot at this point on the game, in regards to digital.
>>3044937
Correct. Or shoot several shots and HDR them. But you do get the exposures correct. Also what I was referring to was that far too many people shoot with the attitude that they can fix it in post.
>>3044966
Also correct. Despite the fact that the technocrats keep claiming the need for filters to be a thing of the past.

File: kekcat.gif (1MB, 330x312px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 330x312px

>>3044766
That is why there is RAW+Jpeg.

>>3045014

So if you shoot 300 photos in a day... you purposely want a copy of each one, in lower quality that you probably won't even use since you'll be transforming your selected RAWs to JPEGs anyway?

I gave RAW + JPEG a shot for about a day and realized how inconvenient and pointless it was.

>>3045021

I almost feel bad for guys who don't shoot fuji, and then i realize they could if they just put in a little effort.

>>3045021
But it isn't if you screw the pooch too much on the Jpeg is it? The point is if you have acceptable photos from the Jpegs you can just submit them immediately, and those that need too much work then tweak them in RAW. It really is not all that hard.

>>3045032

I guess to each their own. I'm not judging, I just never found it rational to have double files of everything. If I'm gonna be shooting RAW, I prefer to just shoot everything in RAW and leave it at that.

>>3045035
It's a lot easier to check you nailed focus or avoided camera shake with a full size jpeg.

Also good for reality checks while you're going buckwild in post.

>>3044907
"I know the limits of all digital photography because I've shot on the same Canon D-SLR for 7 years" is not a "fact", buddy.

>>3045021
I use it on the go when I don't have access to a laptop and want an image for social media (since my phone can't process raw files). But I still like the Raw if I decide to do more heavy post when I get home

>>3044937

JPEGs are not linear, unknown tone curve is applied to them. Of course you can try bracketing with JPEGS but result won't be optimal.

>>3045220
Film wasn't optimal either
Nor your eating habits fat fuck

literally no one cares if you edited your image or not. no one expects naturalism to it, the act of framing, editing and even where you choose to share the image are manipulations of how it is viewed and therefore understood.

you guys can argue against manipulations all day but the truth is that no one really cares as long as it doesn't look like garbage. also, not editing your images just looks lazy most of the time anyway.

>>3045240
Why do you mention film?

>>3045004

kek, you're talking about photojournalism. First off, you can't submit RAWs. Doesn't mean you don't shoot RAW.

Second, it's photojournalism. Composition is 90% of the equation there. They're not looking for art...

>>3045297
wait wait wait wait wait

you're telling me

in all seriousness

that giving someone a jpg doesn't mean you shot jpg?

mind blown

>>3045297
If your composition can't carry a jpeg you're just polishing turds and should find a different hobby

This argument is akin to thinking all pro film shooters developed their own film. Nope, a significant portion of them were using Kodak dropoff points.

Fuji jpegs to a skilled user are true digital film.

>>3045297
>kek, you're talking about photojournalism. First off, you can't submit RAWs. Doesn't mean you don't shoot RAW.
No actually it means you can't shoot raw. Or you can, but you must process it in camera. They want SOOC jpegs these days.

If you were a real pro you'd know.

>>3045307
>If you were a real pro you'd know.

>the only true professional photographers are photojournalists
>which is why most news agencies are firing their photographers and just using reporters with cellphones

>>3045311
>he doesn't know how Reuters and AP deliver content to third parties
Heh teenagers

>>3045307
>No actually it means you can't shoot raw. Or you can,

That was the quickest backpedal of all time.

>>3045307
Only reuters has that policy. Anyone else you're fine to convert. And even if you shoot under reuters, they don't have a problem with raw+jpg

>>3045361
And in fact, some photojournalism awards actually require submission of raw images only, to prevent edits entirely. It's totally false to suggest photojournalists don't shoot raw. That's like saying chefs don't cook.

It's a tough question. I try to do as much as I can when I'm taking the picture but PP is necessary, because cameras see things differently than humans. Our brains actually do a lot of processing and what we see is in photography terms a multi-exposure-panorama-HDR-mess. Also photography is art and there shouldn't be much restrictions but on the other hand I'm sure that there's a line between photography and other visual arts, so I don't like the idea composing your pictures in post processing, i.e. you take the background from on photo, model from another, etc.

I only have two rules:
1. It doesn't have to look natural but it has to look believable.
2. Be honest about the processing you've done.

>>3045363
>And in fact, some photojournalism awards actually require submission of raw images only,
Nope. Check again.
They ask for raws to verify the jpeg.

>>3045307
You do know about this setting on your camera called RAW+JPEG, right?

>>3043562
Two watermarks? What an arrogant cunt, I can't believe I used to watch his YouTube for basic tutorials when he slaps two fucking water marks on this extreme contrast shit. Did he max the clarity to 100 in post process? The fringing is insane, they don't even look like they're part of this picture.

>>3043444
How did this happen ?
How to go from blue to purple?
Lightroom ? Photoshop ?
Still learning my way through PP

>>3043562
Is this before or after post-processing?

>>3045528
its a fuji jpeg.

>>3045446
It's implied by his words he does anon

>>3045496
White balance, saturation and color grading.

>>3045573
>color grading
You're not a videographer. Stop using that word.

>>3044033
It's literally a 1-dimensional slider, go play with it

>>3043444
Slightly different than what other polarised opinions here say, but not far off.

If you go in with a brush and crank the green/magenta slider all the way to the left in light room, then it's less photography and more digital art/painting. You still had to get the composition right, but it's just a base. I would just call it photomanipulation, since that's an official name for it isn't it.

At the same time, some post work is necessary. This is because the camera has a fixed dynamic range that at times seems wider or narrower than our eyes. So you have to go into levels/curves and clip it sometimes.
The rest can be done inside your camera.

But that's small details.

In the end it will come down to what you value in photography. To me it's about "truth". So in the OP pic, what you showed isn't truth. It's a completely different feeling and statement. So whatever you portray, an emotional portrait, a crazy landscape, whatever, there is an unstated promise there that this happened in real life. This is an aspect of photography that makes it uniquely valuable.

Don't get me wrong, it's still a valid art form if you do a lot of photobashing or whatever. But then the camera is just a stepping stone for your final art. In photography the camera is your main brush and canvas.

File: 5l7ecely.png (131KB, 420x420px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 420x420px

Lel.
99% of meaningful art lies in taste, not skill.
Art as opposed to craft. And nowhere is it as relevant as in photography, where you rely on a tool invented and built by someone else to express yourself.
The art lies not in the camera or the ability to use it, but in the fact that you recognized the scene before you as meaningful and worth capturing.
Same applies to painting. Yes, it requires skill, but skill is only a tool, a necessity for you to be able to express your taste, which is the important part.

I'd wager the programmer who implemented the post processing algorithms wouldn't be able to use them to produce good work. So he deserves no credit for the art.

He deserves credit for the craft that went into making the art, but he got that when you paid him.

>>3045586
It's interchangeable you fucking retard

>>3044185
>U.S.
>continent

u wot
I seriously hope you are not that retarded, anon.

>>3043451
Wait...Ken Rockwell visits /p/???

>>3043475

this