'this is the same mentality that made plebs believe they become photographers when buying a sony.
ever wondered why professional photographers (not those youtuber wannabes, the real ones) dont do vids like this?';

'>>4298607
>nowadays
It's always been like this, my man.

It's why Ansel Adams split up his books on photography into the Camera, The Negative, and The Print.

Your negative is not your print. It never has been. If you had taken even one photography class in your life you would have understood this.';

'>nowadays
It was the exact same way with film, except you were literally letting the color grading be done by Kodak or Fuji or whoever you got the film from.';

'>>4298607
>>Just like this dude, you can take any shitty picture and turn them in to master pieces.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpwMlDtqbK4

Let's not exaggerate, but thanks for the link.';

'>>4298607
Photos have been edited for much longer than you think. You thinking this just shows how much of your own bubble your in.

And no, if the photo is horrible it can't be saved. Probably improved but not saved and transformed into an actually good picture.

The more correct you get the shot right in camera, the more you can edit it how planned. The better you are at editing, the more you recognize what you can actually do to a picture and what can't be done to it.

All this being said, a lot of times it is the editing the kills the shot.';

'>>4298607
“Color grading” has never been applied to significant photographs, only instagram “bangers” that are forgotten a week later

Color is irrelevant to fine art. It’s purely a historical curiosity.

>>4298633
Adams shot black and white and was talking about doing HDR before sliders on a medium with less DR than micro four thirds.';

'>>4298667
Nowadays most actual good photographers still arent “color grading”
They’re using capture one or phocus default colors lol

They only change things when women complain (durrr my skin is too pale no too red i dont like that blush edit out my zit durrr)

Color grading as they call it is distinctly a lightroomer/film simmer amateur instagram thing';

'>>4298700
NTA but what would you consider color grading?';

'>>4298698
Not true at all. Color has always been important. Colors have meanings behind them and many painters used those to convey a message in their work. Art doesn't have to have Color is what you are mistaking.';

'Its three things.

Technique, Decent gear, and Editing skills.

Dont believe the bullshit about straight-out-of-camera shots.
Theres no such thing as a photographic purist.
Almost all named photographers edited their shots.';

'> SISO
Shit in, shit out.

Editing can save a bad photo, but it will never be a "good" photo, just a good thumbnail or cool instagram glimpse feed. Now editing a good photo will make it go that extra mile that (weirdly) not too many people do. Anyone who says that editing is unnecessary is retarded beyond saving and are coping.

picrel, saved a shitty airplane window shot from 2016. Perfect instagram spam posts.

If you are struggling with colors, look up "split toning", does 90% of the work assuming you got the contrast right.';

'>>4299397
How do you know when and what to edit? I've watched plenty of tutorials for different editing software and I still can't open up and image and think "Oh, I need to do x y and z here". I understand, to some extent, what these sliders do, but not when to use them.

Like you said, when I have a good image up, it'll still look good no matter combination of edits I apply, but it also looks good as a flat default RAW. I just don't know my purpose once I'm in the software other than just playing around.';

'>>4299417
if the camera does something stupid and you want it to look different you edit';

'>>4299417
> How do you know when and what to edit? I've watched plenty of tutorials for different editing software and I still can't open up and image and think "Oh, I need to do x y and z here"

Well, it's taste.

For me personally I usually go for "bumping up details" (In lightroom: more highlights, contrast, more clarity/texture) on parts that look cool, and lower the highlights on areas I don't like on an image.

For color, I just go with "spli toning" to enhance a temperature, warm places/photos I go with the orange teal (inb4 instagram faggot), colder places I have blue shadows. I want to enhance what the image already got and push it. Saturation/vibrance I just go with gut feeling.

It really is just to practice, use "professional" referneces (I used movie screen shots) if you don't know if it is good enough.';

'>>4299420
>if the camera does something stupid

The camera always does something stupid, you eyes are organic, camera sensors are made out of metals. The translation from IRL to an image is not fully automatic, auto color balance, apertures, focus lenghts etc are something only you can decide what is needed.';

'>>4299417
Here is good tip: Only shoot in manual mode, try to correct it to what the camera would do in "auto" mode. That is how I taught myself the fastest, eventually you will know better than the camera what setting is needed for a shot.

> long exposure on a tripod (down a street with lights and cars, use a timer, not the button to shot!)
> clouds or fire (try extreme contrasts in post edit)
> self portrait (use the interval shooting/timelaps camera function, pick the best afterwards, delete the ugly ones XD )

There, 3 very different photo types that have very different camera settings and post edit processes. Do these 3 and you will learn you cameras limit and what to do in Lightroom.';

'>>4299589
I shoot manual ISO aperture priority with an AEL button handy and exposure compensation rather than shutter speed as the third control. It's like shooting all manual, but for people with better shit to do.';

'>>4298698
>Color is irrelevant to fine art. It’s purely a historical curiosity.
You don't know art at all.

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

'>>4298607
Both examples are tasteless in my opinion.
>take any shitty picture and turn them in to master pieces
He is just a tacky copycat of what we've seen in 2000s and 2010s World Press Photo, which is pure trickery
>her portraits are amazing
Tacky and overdone as well. If you like tacky contrasty portraits, Annie Leibovitz is the master of the genre. Enjoy.
...
If you are interested in the real thing, picrel is a good starting point.';

'>>4306020
*picrel';

'>>4306020
>>4306022
>Barthes
>a book about a blurry snapshot of his mother
lol too deep for /p/. We just talk about gear and pixels here';