File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
I snapped this with my 35mm Canon Rebel K2, its scanned. I also lightly photoshopped it.

Comments please
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2007:07:05 12:04:49Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1762Image Height1195
>> Anonymous
bump

comments please
>> Macheath
The rocks have a blue tint too them, so you might have a white balance problem. The picture seems too flat to me and I don't like the contrast and lack of sharpness.
>> Anonymous
>>60520
Well its scanned, let me adjust the blue and i'll subtract contrast while adding sharpness. Hold on.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Auto lvled it, re-did: Contrast, Sharpness, Brightness and added more red and yellow

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2007:07:05 14:59:47Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1762Image Height1195
>> Anonymous
more comments please
>> Anonymous
comment please
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>60536
No.

Quit bumping your thread.

Quit posting links to your thread in every other goddamn thread.

/p/ is a slow moving board. Give it time.
>> It sucks BallsFreely
Why do you watermark your name into a photo that sucks? Surely this can't do good things for your reputation.

The rocks have a hilarious tinge to them. They don't look natural at all. Were you using a polarizer oriented in the wrong direction? Additionally, this photo is far too underexposed. I would have personally preferred to see a slower shutter speed used.

Bottom line, this picture is completely uninteresting and devoid of any real merit. Gah, this looks so much better in the thumbnail than it does in the high-res version. The HR version looks HORRIBLE.
>> Atrum
>>60548
did u click the second picture instead, i fixed it. I do not have a polorizer, btw i scanned them i cant afford a digital SLR
>> Anonymous
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
We, the true /b/tards, are flooding all boards, and ruining the whole of 4chan until our demands are met.
We want /b/ to have mods again, we want random bans, arbitrariety, and to see moot and the rest of the 4chan team getting involved with the site again, as it used to be in the past.
Either you listen to our demans, restore /b/ to its all glory, with no empty "re/b/oot" promises, or we shall keep spamming every single board of this site until it is compeletely shut down.
WE WANT AUTHORITARISM IN /b/. WE WANT GAIAFAGS TO GET B&. AND WE WON'T STOP UNTIL WE HAVE REACHED THIS GOAL.

THIS IS A SHOWDOWN.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
>> Anonymous
The 2nd shot is really washed-out and grainy. This has sucked what life/depth was in the image right out.
>> Anonymous
The colors on the second are more accurate, but I like the first better.

OP just has a bum scanner and the silly idea that he needs to watermark his photographs.

Oh, and OP, get a DSLR or a good point and shoot. Your film costs will eat you up more than those will, if you're doing a typical amount of shooting for a serious photographer.

(Interesting fact: during a three-year period Cartier-Bresson spent in India, he only used 300 rolls of film. Strange.)
>> Anonymous
SEARCH YOUTUBE FOR:
freemasons
or
skull and bones
or
illuminati
>> Anonymous
>>60574
Ya i am going to get a nikon DSLR i lack the funds to do so though, maybe next year i can get a job